[extropy-chat] Re:

Fri Nov 5 05:12:53 UTC 2004

We each have a profound ability to change the world...if even only for 
one person...ourselves. Don't underestimate the power and usefulness of 
radically changing your worldview. After all, that's all the world 
really is.

Ever read JDBernal's: the World the Flesh and Devil?

On Nov 5, 2004, at 12:03 AM, Kevin Freels wrote:

lol!
I used to think that way. Then I realized that on my own, I could do 
very
little to change the world. This is especially because I didn;t even 
realize
it needed changing until I was already in my late 20s. I have an agenda 
to
do away with irrational decision making about my future based on a book 
that
is thousands of years old. Then I realized just how important children 
were
to the equation.

First of all, if I can get all three to think similar to me, then I have
increased the odds of accomplishing my goals. Also, they will be able to
accomplish more since they are already exposed to my mindset.

Also, if Christians and the uneducated are having lots of children, and 
the
number of children continues to go down with increased education, then 
we
will be overrun before we ever reach the singularity. I figured I would 
do
my part and raise a total of three. These three increase my chances of
accomplishing my goals, and also will have an incentive to bring me back
should the technology to do so come about in their lifetimes.

All I am teaching them is to be open minded, to question everything, to
never stop learning, and that they can live forever without the hocus 
pocus
of the bible. I encourage any kind of learning they take on. My house is
like a freaking kids laboratory/library with unrestricted Google access 
for
all. I carefully guide them though the tough questions, but I answer 
them.
Above all, I teach them to think for themselves. All I can do is hope 
that
they think like me, but as long as they think doe themselves, I will 
have
accomplished a great deal for the future.

When I am done with these three, I will probably adopt 1 or 2 just for
kicks. Then at least I know I did my part to keep them out of a 
Christian
household. :-)

Kevin Freels

----- Original Message -----
From: "Al Brooks" <kerry_prez at yahoo.com>
To: "Kevin Freels" <cmcmortgage at sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 10:21 PM
Subject: Re:

> I like women better, but don't want to have any
> children at all. My friend is 50 with a kid, he's a
> professor but he's got three on-off freelance jobs
> plus his wife is swamped, she's making snide remarks
> about their 'love child', they hardly have time to
> smile. Frankly I'd rather live in a boring trailer
> park in the sticks watching TV than take care of
> anyone's children.
>
>
>
>
> --- Kevin Freels <cmcmortgage at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> Well as I said, I can;t speak for Mike. I have
>> custody of two children from
>> a previous marriage and have a girlfriend that I
>> have lived with for several
>> years. They are both girls and they are being
>> brought up in the most
>> untraditional way. They are taught to respect
>> everyone, but to question
>> everything. They are taught that the very worst
>> thing a person could be is a
>> non-thinking hater and a hypocrite. I don't
>> personally see how one's sexual
>> orientation has any bearing on family except for in
>> a few cases. One such
>> case is mine. I have two girls and I have custody. I
>> would have a very tough
>> time teaching them all that girl stuff myself. A
>> male mate wouldn;t be much
>> of a help either. BUT, all that means is that I
>> would have to find a way to
>> make sure a woman was in their lives. That woman
>> could be my mother, sister,
>> a friend, or someone I hired to be their "woman
>> tutor".
>>
>> I will say that I think it is important that
>> children be brought up to know
>> how to function  in a hetero society. Hetero must be
>> the norm, or the
>> population would crash and our species would become
>> extinct. Since the
>> majority then must be hetero, they need to learn to
>> live in a hetero
>> society. They need to understand gender roles. They
>> do not, however, need to
>> be brainwashed into those roles. In fact, I think
>> their awareness of these
>> roles will make them always conscious of what they
>> are doing rather than
>> reacting with the masses. They need to understand
>> all of the options
>> available to them, then be treated with respect
>> regardless of what they
>> choose....
>>
>> So what of the traditional family? There is nothing
>> wrong with it. It is a
>> good thing. It only becomes a problem when people
>> become narrow minded and
>> think that their way is right. It becomes a problem
>> when parents teach their
>> children to hate. It is not a bad thing and Mike is
>> right to protect it. But
>> I don;t see how he could perceive gay marriage as a
>> threat to that. It has
>> no bearing on his family.
>> People who are closed minded come from all different
>> ways of life. There are
>> close minded gays who want to rub homosexuality in
>> people's faces. There are
>> Christians who do the same with their religion.
>> There are blacks who rub
>> their blackness in people's faces. I could go on and
>> on. None of these
>> people are being productive.
>>
>> I think Mike has a difefrent agenda. He wants to
>> protect your rights..but
>> not at the expense of everyone elses. To him, and to
>> me, an American isn;t a
>> Gay American, or African American, or Islamic
>> American. Everyone is just a
>> plain old boring American...and if you are on the
>> public dole, he is after
>> you.
>>
>> In short, Mike is an equal-opportunity hater.
>>
>>
>> Gay families are not a threat to hetero families. It
>> is either the excuse
>> that anti-gay people use to justify their behavior,
>> or
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Al Brooks" <kerry_prez at yahoo.com>
>> To: "Kevin Freels" <cmcmortgage at sbcglobal.net>
>> Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 9:16 PM
>>
>>
>>> Okay, nevertheless we're not objective in these
>>> matters, perhaps it's me projecting on you, yet as
>> far
>>> as I know from everything I've observed, most
>> everyone
>>> is grinding an axe concerning the family
>> institution:
>>> "my family right or wrong".
>>> Now of course the things have to be done slowly,
>> if
>>> straights dominate until, say, the 2070s or '80s
>>> that's fine w/ me, but to change you've got to
>> have
>>> those who push to get the ball rolling. If we
>> listened
>>> to Mike heteros would rule until after 2100.
>>>
>>>
>>> --- Kevin Freels <cmcmortgage at sbcglobal.net>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Not anarchists. Government has many necessary
>>>> functions. Handing out other
>>>> people's money isn;t one of them. It doesn;t
>> matter
>>>> if you give it to a str8
>>>> guy or a gay woman; it is still wrong.
>>>>
>>>> You said, "For me there's no reason to think
>> those
>>>> who say they want
>>>> government out of marriage actually do,"
>>>> Don;t be so paranoid. There are a lot of bad
>> people
>>>> out there, but that is
>>>> no way to live. We're not all bad. Any time you
>> push
>>>> against the norm, you
>>>> get a lot of resistance. Most of us here push
>> those
>>>> envelopes regularly.
>>>> Being gay is no different. I didn;t choose to be
>> an
>>>> atheist....God made me
>>>> that way. :-)
>>>>
>>>> The only reason gays have gotten so much
>> resistance
>>>> is because they are
>>>> normalizing homosexuality. Us cryo, AI, MNT,
>>>> transhumanism people simply
>>>> haven;t become a large enough target yet. Give
>> it
>>>> time. Eventually there
>>>> will be a group out there called "Gays Against
>>>> Artificial Intelligrnce" and
>>>> they will be working right alongside the church.
>>>>
>>>> Parity is a worthy goal. Personally I would be
>> happy
>>>> if all people were
>>>> treated equally by the state. That is what I am
>>>> after. I want to see the
>>>> government put back to something that makes
>> sense
>>>> and is consistent.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers!
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "Al Brooks" <kerry_prez at yahoo.com>
>>>> To: "Kevin Freels" <cmcmortgage at sbcglobal.net>;
>> "ExI
>>>> chat list"
>>>> <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
>>>> Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 8:42 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Gay Marriage
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Right-- as far as you are concerned. For me
>>>> there's no
>>>>> reason to think those who say they want
>> government
>>>> out
>>>>> of marriage actually do, so I reject religious
>>>>> ceremony contract marriage.
>>>>> I want parity for any alternatives to hetero
>>>> marriage
>>>>> based on what the benefits are for heteros at
>> the
>>>>> time. If on January 1st 2015 straights have x,
>>>> then I
>>>>> want gays and polys to be granted x as well.
>>>>>
>>>>>> As far as I am concerned, marriage should be
>> an
>>>>>> entirely religious ceremony.
>>>>>> It should have nothing to do with
>> government. It
>>>>>> should not be regulated by
>>>>>> the state. If a certain church wants to keep
>> a
>>>>>> certain type of people out of
>>>>>> their group, then so be it. Groups with like
>>>> beliefs
>>>>>> should be allowed to
>>>>>> congregate with like minded people. I don't
>>
> === message truncated ===
>
> =====
> Nixon in '08 - he's tanned rested and ready
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com

_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat

Cheers,
Nigel.
---
"Hey, hey, hey. Don't be mean. We don't have to be mean because, 
remember, no matter where you go, there you are. "

-Buckaroo Banzai

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 10332 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20041105/e491b620/attachment.bin>