Monday, June 18, 2007

Just a quick post, I work at 7:00 AM (!!!) tomorrow

Work, work, work...this is all I do. Being busy all the time was okay for a little while, in that it took my mind off of all my miseries. But now it's just leaving me tired and unhappy. Sort of like I was before. I dreaded going in at first, then I didn't mind it so much for a while and now the pendulum is swinging back the other way. I'd try and take some time off, but then I'd just be even worse off, alone with my miserable thoughts. Besides, I need the money. Bobo's surgery, car repairs and insurance, school, Police tickets (the band, not any legal trouble), food etc. I should start taking bets on how long it will take until I have a nervous breakdown! Or wait, have I already? I'm not too sure.

It was Father's Day yesterday. I was really debating over whether or not to get my dad anything. I always do for Christmas, his birthday and Father's Day. My sister couldn't care less about doing so and I just put her name on the gift as well. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to get him anything either, I guess I just always feel I have to. Even though he didn't get either of us a thing for Christmas. Or our birthdays. This year he didn't even wish me a happy birthday. Nothing. Not a card, not a kind wish or a handshake, nothing. I don't want or expect anything, but even a card would be appreciated and just to hear 'happy birthday'. But I didn't even so much as get that. And yet I was still going to get him something. My mother would have been furious with me had I done so. He wouldn't have appreciated it nor would he have deserved it. I'm proud of myself. I wished him a happy father's day and left it at that. I truly would have been a sap if I'd have gotten him anything.

Glad that this asshole was disbarred and I hope he does time. What a total douche he is. There's no need for me to elaborate any further.

Yeah, we'll see Fidel, we'll see.

Salman Rushdie has been knighted. The response has been incredibly predictable. Instead of "we respectfully disagree with the decision to grant Mr. Rushdie this honor" it's more like "unless they apologize and submit to our every demanded we'll blow him up and any innocent in his path and it's our right to do so!". I'm saddened but not altogether surprised.

It's sort of nice to know that according to Sir Isaac Newton the apocalypse won't happen any sooner than 2060. By then I'll be 79 (or dead) and it won't much matter to me what happens. Sweet deal!

And the fact that according to some people Toronto is "as gay as it gets" doesn't fill me with much confidence. In fact it rather scares the living hell out of me. I mean we all know there's is a gay agenda out there, but this is ridiculous. I actually have the upcoming weekend off and will be staying way the hell away from downtown. Not like I'm really downtown very often (outside of school in the non-summer months) but at least I have a good reason to stay away from where the uh, action or whatever, is.



















On a closing note, I wouldn't have minded being there last night...if only to catch a glimpse of the radiant and super-sexy Hilary Duff (above)...plus Avril Lavigne and Fergie were also in town. Not bad at all! But I was too busy having drinks with my old pal Beer. That was my one night out a month. Maybe I'll run into them in July when I next leave the house on a social outing. And the three of them will all fall madly in love with me, fighting it out to the death.

10 Comments:

Blogger Andrea said...

Yeah dude, I feel you on work sucking. It really does. And I don't buy that saying that if you love what you do it won't feel like work. WRONG! Unless someone wants to pay me to watch TV, go to the bar and smoke a fatty.

The whole Salman Rushdie thing is ridiculous. It's a fucking work of fiction! Kind of like the Qur'an and the Bible, upon which Sir Isaac Newton's apocalyptic calculations were based... Anyhow, giving any credence to these ridiculous threats made by enraged Muslims is out of the question and would only further set back free speech in the western world. I too am disappointed.

And finally, on the topic of "gay as it gets", I really have a hard time understanding how a young man as intelligent as yourself could be so homophobic. Just because Toronto is a gay city doesn't mean that you're in danger of being fucked up the ass everywhere you go. They don't all want you, I know it's shocking, but it's true. As for the "gay agenda", OF COURSE THERE'S A FUCKING GAY AGENDA!! Just like there's an agenda for every other different grouping of people in the world. I don't know, to say, ensure that the rights of every citizen under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms are upheld under law. And maybe that's because there's a whole whack of really stupid/really smart motherfuckers in office who play off the fears of the uneducated masses for political gain, leaving minorities (in every sense) out in the cold.

Anyhow, this isn't a gay rights issue, it's a tourism promotion issue - gay couples typically have a higher than average expendable income. I'm not suggesting that you try out being gay, or going to the gay bar or pride or whatever, but maybe you could grow up for 10 seconds and realize that you really shouldn't concern your pretty little head with who other people fuck/love/etc. You're simply far too intelligent.

Well, at least we agreed on a few points this time...

June 19, 2007 3:23 PM  
Blogger Kid Icarus said...

Just a couple of things points.

Firstly, I'm curious as to why not being accepting of homosexuals correlates to level of intelligence. Thanks for thinking that I'm smart, don't get me wrong. But there are many intelligent people out there who object to the gay lifestyle and agenda. I do so on a few different levels, of which I'm not going to get into in depth, seeing as I'm struggling to keep my eyes open at the moment.

Secondly I object to Toronto being called a 'gay city' or whatever. One or MAYBE two percent of the population does not make a majority. I'm not discounting the fact that there are gay people in Toronto or that they have some rights, but this isn't a gay city or 'as gay as it gets'.

Yes I'm aware that they're not going to sodomize me or anything, I'm not afraid of that. And what they do in their own homes is none of my business. I tolerate it. Acceptance is another matter.

I'd go into the gay agenda thing as well but I don't want you to hate me, especially after we've made so much progress in understanding where each other comes from.

June 20, 2007 10:50 PM  
Blogger Andrea said...

The reason I bring up intelligence is because you exhibit this fearful/threatened reaction to homosexuality, and for someone who likes to debate and discuss openly, you have never given a rational argument for your distaste, which leads me to believe it can only be rooted in superstitious, religious nonsense. Which is what I find kind of shocking, given that I know the power of your rational mind. I mean, if you want to give a social or political argument for why you have a problem accepting gays, I'm sure I could debunk it, but at least I'd respect that you'd put some thought into it instead of writing off a whole group of people based on some knee-jerk reaction. Hell, even if it's a religious thing, that's fine, but I think you'd agree with me that religious concerns shouldn't be of much weight in the sphere of public rights and freedoms, among which the right to homosexuality falls.

I guess what I'm saying is that everyone has an agenda, and that in itself is no justification for lack of acceptance of a certain group or paradigm.

The fact that you don't want to get into your reasons seems like the usual cop out that all homophobes give (at least the smart ones) because they know they don't have a leg to stand on. Anyhow, I wouldn't hate you. And you know you're better off being honest about your beliefs and people can take that as they will.

June 21, 2007 11:05 AM  
Blogger Kid Icarus said...

No, I just didn't feel like getting into it because I've been working very hard lately and am hella tired, thus not able to really think coherently. Today was even worse than yesterday, but I'll give it a go nonetheless.

My 'distaste' is not so much for homosexuality so much as it is the mainstream acceptance it now seems to enjoy. If you want to go to brown town with your male gay lover in the privacy of your own home every night, that is none of my concern. While I hardly find such an image to be particularly appealing, I also respect one's private rights.

Be gay. Fine, I don't care. The Christian in me will probably say that you're going to hell, but that's neither here nor there.

No, my strongest objections lie with the fact that men can somehow now 'marry' other men and that there are week long festivals culmination in a major parade essentially celebrating people who are very mentally ill.

There, I said it. Being gay is not a choice or even something you're necessarily born with. It's a sickness. There is something wrong with you. I am very much aware that I am hardly the picture of mental health, but at least I acknowledge that. In the early 70s the American Psychological Association, bowing to political correctness, declassified it as such. Other similar bodies followed suit. That really is a shame, because now people who should be getting help are being celebrated for their courage, diversity etc.

I just think it's so sad that we now live in a world which is too scared to confront things like this for fear of being labeled as intolerant or what have you. Wanting to help people who need it and helping them adjust to normal society is a good thing people.

I'd talk about just how mean spirited and vindictive the gay mafia is towards pretty much any and all heterosexuals, but this comment has already gone on too long.

June 22, 2007 10:34 PM  
Blogger Andrea said...

Wow.

Well, that's an argument all right, complete hogwash if you ask me and certainly not backed up with any legitimate clinical data, but whatever it takes to disguise your bigotry as concern for public health and let you sleep at night...

The declassification of homosexuality as mental illness came as the result of a number of studies demonstrating no specific psychopathology in homosexuals, and that in fact there was as much psychological diversity in the homosexual psychology as in the heterosexual. If that became a "political" issue, its only because people finally had the science to back it up.

In fact, homosexuals who deny or are forced to deny their physiological sexual orientation are often the ones who experience depression, anxiety, disconnection, suicidal thoughts and other emotional distress. Given that you're someone who has experienced some of these types of hopeless feelings (and who hasn't), I cannot believe you would really wish to force them on another human being just for the sake of being able to call yourself a good Christian.

And what is "mental illness" anyway? How does one define that? I mean, there's all kind of variability in the psychological behaviour of human beings, so how does one of those "mental differences" get defined as a "mental illness"? I'm sure you're aware of the long history of using mental illness as a guise to prevent independent women from seeking education and fulfillment beyond their "traditional" roles taking care of, looking after and cleaning up after men. This was pure hysteria, fuelled by a fear of intellectual women during the Victorian era, and which persisted right through the mid-20th century. Its also a great example of the definition of mental illness being conveniently manipulated by those in power who were afraid of their position of comfort and influence within society being compromised.

Homosexuals are just as functional and productive within society as heterosexuals: their sexual orientation in no way inhibits their ability to function and prosper in day-to-day life unless you include the influence of bigots and idiots who intentionally make life hard for them for no good reason. These people are not sick Mike, they're just different from you, and they should be able to be different from you, and it should be absolutely none of your concern. Kind of like how black people are different from white people: superficially and in a way that doesn't prevent them from productively participating in this grand old game of life.

Much like many cultural/"racial" groups have throughout history, homosexuals should be allowed to celebrate the fact that different is OK after years of being forced to hide away behind closed doors by frightened, dogmatic people like you. But I'm sure you have a huge problem with the Million Man March, Martin Luther King Jr. Day and Black History Month too, because why should anyone different from you be allowed to celebrate that. I mean, otherwise, you'd kind of be a bit of a hypocrite, right?

Anyhow, I get the feeling we could go on forever on this and get nowhere. But honestly, you really shouldn't be surprised or offended that your homosexual friends decide never to associate with you again when they find out you actually consider them to be mentally deficient human beings. That's not a political statement, as much as you'd like to segment it that way. It amounts to a personal attack, and it would be insane to expect anyone to react otherwise.

June 23, 2007 3:45 PM  
Blogger Kid Icarus said...

Whoa whoa whoa...hang on here.

I was being a little facetious with the 'going to hell' thing first off. It was only a silly throwaway comment, one which I don't actually believe (I'm not as religious as you think).

Secondly, I very much object to being labeled as a 'bigot'. I never said that I hated gay people or even so much as insinuated it. Quite the opposite. I have nothing against them as doing whatever it is they wish to do in their personal lives. My concerns are far more societal, yes. That I do admit. However, it's not to the point where I'm losing any sleep over it.

Let's make something else clear. I'm also not saying that anyone who is gay is a complete waste as a person or that they have no redeeming qualities or whatever other nasty things. Yes, I still do believe that there's something wrong with them, but there's something wrong with pretty much everyone and I know that there is plenty wrong with me. It also doesn't make them bad people. If any bigotry came across in anything I said, it was never my intention.

As for the homosexuality specifically as an illness, many people seem to miss the point with it. The fact that a man is biologically or otherwise drawn sexually to another man is the illness in itself. Any other psychoses are irrelevant.

And I'm not suggesting that gay people are Clockwork Oranged into becoming straight or anything crazy like that. Indeed I never, ever suggested that they deny anything. Rather the opposite. I clearly stated that admission and a desire to get better is the key. Also I never said anything about closed doors. So please don't put words in my mouth. And to suggest that I have a problem with Martin Luther King et al. really hurts my feelings. That's just a low blow and completely unfounded. For the record, I consider Dr. King to be one of the greatest people to have ever lived. The reason I do support something like Black History Month isn't because I think it's important to celebrate difference, rather the importance to celebrate a particular heritage. I for one don't think that black people are any different from white people, other that the fact that they look a little different and have a different origin and history.

Homosexuals on the other hand are not some sort of previously oppressed cultural or racial group. Now I'd be naive to suggest that there wasn't hatred towards gays in the past (and still is). I don't condone that in the slightest and find it rather disturbing. But this isn't 50% of the population as with women or a whole race of people here. Like I said, it's perhaps 1% of the population that just happens to have the same disorder.

Intolerance is not something that I ever espoused. Of course I tolerate gay people. They are a fact of society. My own person view is that they are misguided people who need help and in fact should respected for their difference, but celebrating it as some sort of 'culture' is just ridiculous. It all sort of reminds me of a South Park episode called "The Death Camp of Tolerance". Just because you're tolerant of something it doesn't mean you have to like it or accept it as being good or even natural.

Anyways, I regret that I expressed my opinion on this, as I'm now some sort of bigot and people now hate me.

June 23, 2007 4:58 PM  
Blogger Kid Icarus said...

One other thing I forgot to clarify.

It the over-the-top, drag show queen, leather wearing, super effeminate, huge rainbow flag 'Gay Pride' stuff that I was initially objecting to. While I still stand by my previous comments regarding the homosexual state of mind, it's really these folks that I oppose. There's gay people who are just regular folks and while I'm still far from condoning their 'lifestyle' I can live with it. But those who go out of their way to be 'as gay as possible' and all that...come on. If you like football and beer and cars and just happen to like other dudes, whatever. I still think there's something wrong with you, but it's not that big of a deal. It a certain brand of gay people that that I have trouble dealing with. Again, sort of like that South Park episode. You're gay. Fine. Now get over yourselves.

June 23, 2007 7:30 PM  
Blogger Andrea said...

Hey, my comments were in no way intended to hurt your feelings, and as promised I certainly don't hate you. I only brought up the racial stuff to make you see the parallel - the point being that I know you're not actually opposed to Black History Month, and I want you to consider what the reasons are for that and why homosexuality should be treated any differently.

I don't think you've adequately argued for why homosexuality as an inborn genetically-determined difference is actually in any way to be treated as a different scenario then skin colour as a genetically-detremined difference. You define one as an illness, but with no justification for the reason why this is so, apart from using pervasive social biases to back yourself up. I mean, there was a certainly a time when Western society treated being "coloured" almost as an illness in that it was an inborn sign of inferiority among humans.

However, just as darker skin serves the physiological purpose of protecting one against the harsh sun and UV exposure of the African climate, homosexuality serves the physiological purpose as a biological control for overpopulation. It has been observed to occur in overpopulated animal populations, including reptiles and amphibians. The only reason it's defined as an illness within our society is because the people in charge want to define it that way so they can maintain the status quo. And you're latching on to that definition to excuse your fear and reprehension of the unknown, a classic move that's played out time after time in a variety of different cases throughout history. I also find it telling that you never mention lesbians, and only seem to take exception to male homosexuality in your comments. It appears to me as another indicator that the reason for your distaste is that the legitimacy of the male role and archetype within society is threatened by homosexuality, as you don't seem too concerned about the girl-on-girl side of things.

I took the hard line to make a point, but I don't really believe you're a horrible bigot, because if I did, we wouldn't even be having this e-conversation. I honestly wouldn't even bother trying to reason with you if that was what I thought. I just wanted to play devil's advocate and give you some food for thought, and the intention was to draw some parallels between homophobia, sexism and racism that would make you think twice.

You haven't made any convincing arguments for why homophobia is different from sexism or racism at all. I mean, homosexuality is a trait that results from genetic recombination, and people are born with it, much like their sex and skin colour. There is no reason to define it as a sickness, because it doesn't affect one's ability to think, act, function and prosper within society. Above all that, there is no "cure", and most people don't want to be cured because they live perfectly normal and happy lives and are no different from heterosexuals except in the ways in which they seek sexual fulfillment.

I think part of the confusion springs from the Western world's long running hang-ups when it comes to sexuality, as sex has always been associated with evil, right back to Adam and Eve. Now, there is a logical reasons why this kind of attitude was built into sexuality in the olden days: as a way to use fear to prevent people from getting pregnant at inconvenient times, and also ultimately as a means of population control, especially among the poor and uneducated. However, it doesn't make any sense for that association to persist into modern times when everyone should instead be taught exactly how sex works, what the results are, and how to prevent pregnancy using scientifically proven birth control methods, abstinence included. Education on the real facts is the best way to elicit appropriate behaviour, and sex need not be treated as some black box of evil. A lot of people don't like the missionary position, but that doesn't make them evil or sick.

As far as certain people "playing it up" too much, I have to agree that there is some degree of poseurs who emphasize their gayness in order to feel a sense of belonging within the gay "scene". But that scene is not unlike heterosexual scenes, like the music and art scenes where people tend to lose a bit of their authenticity and behave in specifically sanctioned ways in order to fit in. Do I have beef with poseurs and try-hards? Yup. But I wouldn't define that specifically against homosexuals. Anyhow, gay or not, I love a good drag show. It's just amusing and entertaining, and that's all its meant to be. Men have been dressing in drag for centuries as a form of entertainment, so you shouldn't be too shocked.

Anyhow, let's just leave it at that, no hard feelings I hope. Feel free to respond, but I'm spent on this topic for the time being. I mean, I think we could both go on at great length, but maybe we should save it for a chat over coffee some time.

June 24, 2007 11:14 AM  
Blogger Kid Icarus said...

Comparing homosexuals with 'coloured' people (for lack of a better term) is like comparing apples and oranges. Nor is it comparable with different sexes.

Women make up 50% of the population and while there certainly are differences between the sexes, to say that women are inferior (other than the fact they're physically weaker) is insane. To discriminate against half of all humanity is nuts. And no I'm not justifying discrimination against any one group simply because of their size. And no, don't read anything into the lack of mention of lesbians. I object to it just as much (except for when they're really hot).

People with darker skin make up pretty much the entire populace of a given area for example. Like you said, there is a very good reason why their skin colour is different. But saying that the reason behind homosexuality is some sort of birth control? That's sheer insanity. One or two percent of the population is not a check against population growth. There is no useful biological reason for 'gayness' to exist. And NO that isn't me saying that homosexuals aren't useful members of society.

I could go on with this point, but I will agree with you that this has gone on enough. I could certainly go on much further, as could you I'm sure. We shall save it for another time.

June 25, 2007 9:52 PM  
Blogger Andrea said...

*Bites e-tongue...*

June 26, 2007 5:16 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

eXTReMe Tracker