Monks Teach Maleness To Thai 'Ladyboys'

[endure]

Research the the Rainbow coalition. Many minorities combine thus creating a powerful force that attempts to shape the thoughts of others, and condemns those who disagree with their policy of social engineering.

Sounds remarkable like most religions to me or is it ok for religions to indulge in social engineering whereas non-religious organisations aren't supposed to?

Edited July 22, 2011 by endure

[animatic]

Research the the Rainbow coalition. Many minorities combine thus creating a powerful force that attempts to shape the thoughts of others, and condemns those who disagree with their policy of social engineering. According to this doctrine, if you disagree with Obama's policies - then you must be racist; if you are pro life - you must be against women's equality, so you are anti woman;if you think that civil unions for gays and lesbians will suffice, and that marriage is just for heterosexuals, then you are homophobic; etc. Thus one not only hears from gay groups when their positions are questioned, one hears from the coalition. This effective form of behavioral modification grew, due to the fear of being shamed on the personal level, and of not being elected on the political level, to infiltrate the schools where the thoughts of are children are being shaped. The values of our children should be instilled by the parents and religious and/or spiritual beliefs. If a child were to say in class that gay people should not marry, then there is a high probability that his home would be classed as being homophobic. Note that the hypothetical child has not referred to gays as queers or fags, but merely echoed the opinions of his family.

Consider the following. When I was attending university, a gal in our class was very disturbed by the fact that she had to write an essay on her feelings about gay and lesbian families, and her feelings about homosexual activity, in order to be considered for entry in to the social worker program She stated that the woman who headed the intake was openly gay,and she perceived a strong inference that to write a traditional heterosexually oriented essay would not bode well for her entry.

Children sometimes decide to follow parents directions

and often on reaching adulthood pick their own path.

Ultimately parents can only guide, but not rule their children's adult choices.

Those that attempt to rule them often lose them for some time or forever.

Each generation ultimately decides it's own values.

One of those values is tolerance of the lives of others.

Over time most cultures grow more tolerant.

Some don't, but previous generations rarely agree

with following generations as to what is "proper behavior" 100%.

Not to mention different regions see this things in quite different lights.

What is SOP in Oshkosh is not SOP in White Plains.

I doubt that girl was being judged on whether she preferred heterosexual unions,

but more on whether she would be INTOLERANT of NON-heterosexual unions.

To be so would limit her usefulness to social services,

since she might not be able to deal with effectively non-traditional families.

Which is not the same as preferring to have a hetero lifestyle.

All thew 'Rainbow People' I have ever met are more than happy to consider all opinions,

including those that think they are immoral, but will disagree with that narrow assessment.

Edited July 22, 2011 by animatic

[hanuman1]

Administering to ladyboys is a job for some, a pleasure for others. Maybe some monks are getting the best of both worlds.

[Shotime]

"There's no question that peope often too easily and far too gratuitously toss around words like "racist, "anti-semite","sexist", "antiAmerican", "warmonger" (by many, not only you Nisa) and "homophobe" among others, in lieu of an argument."

I couldn't agree more. Stereotyping saves a lot of time.

[Nisa]

I maintain that the superego of a child should be developed within the family, not from external sources other than religious/spiritual bodies. The child can make their own choices upon reaching early adulthood.

I personally believe the more sources a child is exposed to the better. I've noted (nothing scientific - just personal observations) that children from large families and/or close extended families seem to grow up the most healthy. Children from small families without extended exposure have limited sources to help them identify with who they are or are capable of being. Kind of like the notion that a son who watches his father mistreat his wife will also grow up to do the same. So, being familiar with other husband/wife relationships allow the son to see there is no one way to be when it comes to treating your wife.

However, the exposure to others needs to be significant. I think part of the problem with kids is they see others, especially in the media, that they want to be like but don't understand the whole of the person. So, they may want to be like a rock star and hear the rock start does drugs making the kid believe that is the path to being like the rock star.

Having only a mother and father to relate to that sends a kid off to a temple that is intolerant is generally only going to get a child to rebel and go the opposite way or adapt to those same views. Being exposed to many different peoples allows a child to truly reach their own identity by understanding there are many different types of people, views and personalities out there.

[Nisa]

Research the the Rainbow coalition. Many minorities combine thus creating a powerful force that attempts to shape the thoughts of others, and condemns those who disagree with their policy of social engineering.

Sounds remarkable like most religions to me or is it ok for religions to indulge in social engineering whereas non-religious organisations aren't supposed to?

not to mention political views ... worse yet is political and -religious views combined as one.

Problem is that we all have views and some people and views are more strong and leave little doubt in some minds that they are right. Be it abortion or views on race or sexuality. The problem often is that whatever popular views are at any given moment in society often allows for the discrimination and attempts to re-educate those whose views differ. Problem with that is that we tend to make ourselves ignorant to many facts because it becomes wrong to question the current views.

Personally I believe people of sound mind should have the ability to do what they want as long as they are not hurting others. I believe, with few exceptions, this has to be right but how can I really know for sure? Nobody can say for sure why we are even here or exist. Maybe aliens put us here to learn to be aggressive for some future fight against some different race or maybe there is a God who only believes sex is for reproduction. What is right or wrong is so relevant to so many things including what time period we live. Not that long ago in history, if you defended a black person as being equal, you were labeled a N---er Lover. One would hope we are moving forward in terms of social behaviors and views but who knows what the popular belief will be in 100 years let alone a decade ... maybe being a Muslim will become illegal or maybe some events will happen that cause it to be the norm to disavow Christianity. The same could happen to any group. In fact, Aids probably had a great impact (both good and bad) )on equality for homosexuals and initially has the potential to radically turn the vast majority against homosexuals ... especially if the disease became widely known a few decades sooner.

Bottom line is i believe people have the right to their own views even if they are well against mine or radical. They also have the right to voice these views and people have a right to question them as long as it is all done in a way that doesn't harm others ... beyond a few hurt feelings.

[animatic]

Children sometimes decide to follow parents directions

and often on reaching adulthood pick their own path.

Ultimately parents can only guide, but not rule their children's adult choices.

Those that attempt to rule them often lose them for some time or forever.

Each generation ultimately decides it's own values.

One of those values is tolerance of the lives of others.

Over time most cultures grow more tolerant.

Some don't, but previous generations rarely agree

with following generations as to what is "proper behavior" 100%.

Not to mention different regions see this things in quite different lights.

What is SOP in Oshkosh is not SOP in White Plains.

I doubt that girl was being judged on whether she preferred heterosexual unions,

but more on whether she would be INTOLERANT of NON-heterosexual unions.

To be so would limit her usefulness to social services,

since she might not be able to deal with effectively non-traditional families.

Which is not the same as preferring to have a hetero lifestyle.

All thew 'Rainbow People' I have ever met are more than happy to consider all opinions,upon reaching early

including those that think they are immoral, but will disagree with that narrow assessment.

I maintain that the superego of a child should be developed within the family, not from external sources other than religious/spiritual bodies. The child can make their own choices upon reaching early adulthood.

It is long past the time when family isolation, such as living on the farm, home schooling and only getting to town periodically, has allowed parents to control the input into their child's minds. Those days are well and truly passed unless you are shutting out the media in all forms and living like Amish. Even then it is not a 100% insular world. Other sources such as "religious/spiritual bodies" may also have input, but it is not possible to filter out all other input.

Sorry we must deal with our children hearing competing messages. And only our loving good advice, delivered kindly and consistently, will direct them to the best sources versus the others. But if we are absolutist martinets, and not considering the individual natures of EACH child, we run the risk of losing the 'different' ones.

In this case we have some form of religious entity trying to take control from the family to retrain the child's mind, to more SOCIALLY acceptable ways. Once a child has become internally directed from 'one or two aspects family core values', how can we expect some external entity to redirect that internal drive?

Clearly the children from the OP are feeling old enough to differentiate themselves from parts of the superego basis derived from each's family life on some points. At this age it is wishful thinking to imagine ecclesiastical retraining of fundamental attitudes and 'feelings of self' will create a substantive change. More likely just create guilt driven dichotomy and pain.

"Superego; that part of the unconscious mind that acts as a conscience for the ego, developing mainly from the relationship between a child and his parent"

Of course the basic building blocks of a child's mind and moral structures will be inculcated by those closest to the child. I don't for a minute think the Rainbow coalition is going to change my child's core beliefs if I have given her proper council and role models to learn from.

But as noted many times above, some children are not wired the same as others, and if you don't deal with the child as an 'individual' then you risk losing that child to forces that may be more agenda driven, than best interests driven.

I am raising a child myself, and understand what you are trying to say,

but realize I can't filter out the world, only give the best guidance to move through it all to her best long term advantage. Most people except the amoral are primarily driven by their id, and with no self-moderation.

Edited July 23, 2011 by animatic

[cdnvic]

The conversation is no longer about the topic so time to close it.