W_L

@Graeme, We basically agree on the nature of free will and choice with influence as there is enough choice to influence the future. We both agree that "Absolute free will" cannot exist unless, there's only one factor or entity, i.e. the omniscient in a vacuum. It's a first for both of us to agree, but I have to be the negative nance and point to one area we disagree. On the concept of free will and change through choice, we only disagree on the concept of change. I hold that despite how one tries to change their emotions, deny their sexuality, and attractions, they are still the person they are. My thinking is that free will and choice does not change the character of person, only their appearance. Those who seek to change themselves in their most basic level are only changing the appearance and perception of themselves, but they will never be able to alter their true natures. You could remove an addict from drugs, but can you cure the addiction in their character? It doesn't mean we are doomed to fate, far from it, but it does mean there are something that remain beyond choice as your nature is who you are.

I take a completely different interpretation of free will and choice: Everyone is given both choice and no-choice, because the world is not a vacuum. Absolute free-will would hold that choice is always possible, which is not the case if there is more than one entity or factor in the universe. Let's say, I am a doctor. I want to stop someone from dying due to a failing heart by giving him a transplant. However, I cannot as there are none available and the person dies as a result. Choice exists on many levels in this scenario, the hospital administrator could have been quicker on the transplant list information the month before, the bureaucrat in the donor bank could have skipped his extended lunch, and the patient could have said no to the keg parties in his youth. The doctor wants to make a choice to save the patient, but the end result was already there due to the combination of events preceding it. There was no choice at all except death. Now we could argue about the choice of a painful death or a painless death, but the patient also has a choice in that regard. If the patient's beliefs were against medication before death and would rather suffer, the doctor could violate the patient will and secretly give him/her the drugs. The patient's choice was violated, but the doctor's choice was validated. We also might have other parties involved like family members, people on their wills, and others with an opinion other than the doctor or the patient. Choice is not an illusion, but it is not a personal issue. All choices comes with it factors upon factors; free will ends when choice is universal. As for homosexuality, the choice is not all your own; whether you have an inherent attribution that allows homosexual attraction, an environment, a hormonal increase, or any of the million factors that led to who you are today. That is not to say that you don't have a measure of control, some choices on your part could affect the one's you will make in the future. You might be gay, bisexual, or heterosexual, but you could make a personal choice to deny it. The choice will create ripple effects in the future, but denial of choice is still a choice. Then the question is, Would such a person be Gay, Bi, or Straight? To all truths comes the simplest and easiest concept, you are what you are. Despite your denial as a choice, who you are and what you are cannot be reduced. On that note, I also believe in the concept of non-malleable being or the "eternal you", you can't change the essence of a person, even death does not change a person. Their actions may change perceptions of them, but they remain the same person despite their observable change. You can choose to change behavior, but not the source for the behavior, nor the underlying reason to it.

I didn't plan on it, but I think this song really works with the Exodus prequel mini-series, Genesis. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnjjkR14rHY It works on a lot of levels for what I want to explore with the prequel and how point A became the genocidal history of Point B. The relationships, the complex interaction, the unspoken compulsions, the subtle and overt forces beyond human understanding, and revealing of secrets are all part of the Genesis miniseries. The song is about forbidden love, but why was love forbidden? What type of love is it? A love for a partner, love for a friend, love for strangers, or maybe simply the love of hope? Why do we keep secrets in our hearts? Why do we feel compelled to move forward by it? I know most of you guys probably won't be reading my Sci-fi epic in the making, but the song seems to cover the meaning of Genesis very well. Story link

The lover and the fool for the most part. The dreamer has been kept out of the conversation. The fool might believe in false dreams and the lover might desire him. However, as long as I maintain the knowledge of reality; I can be responsible for my feelings despite how I feel. I am an odd man, because my nature is to be optimist and dreamer, but I hold them back to be practical.

Love is hard to deal with; it isn't something you can just turn off or throw aside. I thought that I had left those feelings, but I guess I was lying to myself. I still talk to my old friend, he's still as arrogant and fiery as I remember. The oddest thing is that I am not attracted to him, but I know I still love him. Does that actually make sense though? When I dream about a guy that I'd be in bed with; it hasn't been him for years. Yet, when I dream of living a life with a guy; it's usually him. I am already in a relationship and should be happy, but the more I fight it, the more those old feeling resurface. There are three sides of me in this mess: The lover, the dreamer, and the fool.

Let's see, nonpolitical topic on my life: My current boyfriend is a great guy, I love the way we connect and talk with one another. He's extremely supportive, fun loving, and entertaining. Yet, there's something that seems to strain us from moving anywhere in our relationship. We're both workaholics, we place career first, but for different reasons. He wants to work hard to eventually settle down and live life peacefully. I seek to work hard in order to create something and constantly trying to reach new goals and new heights. That alone does not end a relationship, though. I figured out that I still love another, who I should stop caring for. Ever since college, I have always felt an attraction to some one. He is arrogant, argumentative, and extremely liberal that we usually have long diatribes on everything. Yet, we share a lot of things alike, we both have been underestimated in our lives and seek to prove something to the world. I also feel like he has a lot of unspoken pain in his life, which I wish I could help him with. When we compete against each other, it is like magic almost. We bring out the best and worst in each other. I had once thought that I could love my old friend, but I dared not try it. He never dated in college, but he also never made any indication of sexual attraction nor interest even after I told him I was gay. I thought I had shoved those old desires away. Yet, I feel like he's the guy that I truly wish to be with. Someone once said that all love is unrequited, but I wish I could move away from it. I really want a guy that is willing to fight me, challenges me, and competes with me. I love the arrogant asshole, who can open himself up and show that he's actually caring too. I am a fool; I have good boyfriend, why I do I think of someone, who I will never and should never be with.

The difference between the two political ideologies is one of core truths. Conservatism is supposed to be a hard foundation to support the society. Liberalism is the material to build the society. Material should be flexible and easily changed, foundations should not. What we have in the United States is a group of individuals, who outright seeks revolution in the guise of conservative foundation. Society is not bound by rights and rules, for every action you take, there is a rule behind it. Movement beyond the old to the new is common, but movement from openness to protective defense is another concept that is known without much exploration unless you have traveled the road. I was more libertarian, when I was in colllege. I wanted to believe that people can reach mutually good outcomes on their own. However, I forgot that mankind is irrational and excessive. We hold our selves far too high and our ability far too great. Conservatism is not a personal belief, it is an ideology founded at the heart of civilization. Anarchist ideology are not the same, but some have foolishly tried to combine them in order to win a stalemate between liberalism and conservatism. Anarchism abandons the need for obligation or rules in order to further the individual. Conservatism holds the rules and obligations to maintain order and create greater peace. As for the point that I am attacking only the few. I fear that the few are growing too strong now. Imagine each political figure like Donald Trump and Sarah Palin as the prions of Mad Cow disease. It does not take many bad protein combination to destroy the brain, all the process needs is merely one bad molecule. The copying process would just keep going and going, then the holes will begin to form from the thin material lining their ideas, ending in brain death and mortal death as well for the political Body of the United States.

Here's a couple: Creepy Macabre:

I am really glad that this thread opened so many thought provoking conversations on sexuality and attraction. If you really love someone, sexual orientation or no sexual orientation, you will love that person despite what physical limitations both of you might hold. Although, I do subscribe to the idea of something innate that drives attraction and motivates attraction toward one sex over another; I also feel that love has no boundaries.

<br><br>What you wrote in your last paragraph is what I used to believe, but not anymore.<br><br>Call it an end to my old naivete in conservative ideology and my realization on the issue surrounding it.<br><br>I value the nation as a concept that ties us together and hold us to certain principles. A nation is an entity as well as a concept though, it lives and it dies by the sum of its parts. <br><br>While a collective interest in common goals like wealth, quality services, and improvements on outcomes may lead to a convergence, what we have today are not common goals, nor common ideals in the United States. The breaks in commonality between individuals and a lack of focus on national goals offer a dark future.<br><br>Think of the Tea Party groups and people like Donald Trump and Koch Brothers as the prions of mad cow disease. Once infected, the other proteins breakdown and deform in a chain reaction, ultimately ending the death of the Brain and the person. I know some liberal will hate me for making a comparison that "conservatives" are the brain (which gives you guys as the heart ), but the analogy works out quite well.<br><br>It's a tragedy that the old conservatives have either been dismissed as elitists or have died out completely, but they were onto an interesting notion on the roots of Anarchy. Human civilization is fragile, because we work together for common interests up to only a certain point as the results may offer rewards. This process has offered us several thousand years of relative integrity, until the advent of new, or old depending on your view, thought. <br><br>The freedom, which many of these people are asking for with or without understanding it, is not "freedom" in the respect of what we understand in terms of rights and obligations; it is a freedom to abandon both in order to make your own way and leave all human society behind. <br><br>I think I am moving more towards the social conservative way of thought, because what this "freedom" ideal is asking for is nothing short of anarchy, a return to the natural system and an end to humanity. <br><br>It is in such a world that thieves are heroes, killers are idols, and the law is silent. I am a strong believer in justice as well as honor and integrity. Some might have abandoned those principles, but they are still here. <br><br>In essence in terms of economics, I think the reason why Adam Smith's invisible hand hasn't worked out as well as it should is this form of human arrogance and self love. The hand has basically been jerking it's own cock every now and then. If enough hands in the society do that, then we no longer have any hands at work as an analogy of course.<br><br>What I am defending, the concepts of civilization and national unity, the notion of rights and obligations, and the rule of law. Those things are all classic conservative points. <br><br>What I would like to see, a nation that is united together seeking to improve itself. Yes, I hate liberals, but only ideologically as I value their input and enjoy the arguments with them. In such a nation, we can't have lawmakers performing like it's the "must watch TV" fiction world that reality television has created. When a politician must be an orator, he had better have a strong point to defend and not a sound bit for 7 PM news. People must be willing to make sacrifices and I do mean all people, rich and poor. <br><br>As I said earlier, a nation is the sum of its parts, at it's basic unit is people joined together in common goals. <br>

I don't know, some people might find me condescending, argumentative, and probably a little strange for my views. I will defend and oppose points for both liberal and conservative as I see the merits. I just retook the Left-Right Compass again, but this time I am actually going more social conservative (Don't worry, I won't join Phelps just yet ). I am still a conservative, but I am less inclined to support what might be considered libertarian principles now as I am getting older and probably grumpier due to my job. It goes with the territory, you can't throw old grandma (to another hospital ) after she goes nuts about not paying anymore medical bills. I am a tougher man now, less sympathetic and less idealistic. The Health care industry is not a place of heroes or villains as politicians like to paint; we're just people trying to do the best we can. There's no way to change the truth that not everyone can be saved and death is coming for us all. Perhaps, there's another reason why I have been so Anti-Tea Party as well. I don't believe in the American People anymore; I don't believe in their ability to make an informed choice as my profession shows me that the idea of an informed choice is a dream. I am cynical, but I still want to believe in something. I still volunteer and still help out the less fortunate, but there's no feeling in it anymore as I see people slip through the cracks never to return or growing worse. There are success stories, I have saved someone from losing their house a few weeks ago, but even that does not outweigh the guys that go down the route of drug abuse to get out of this horrible cycle: Working a dead end job, paying bills they can't afford, and seeing no future for their children other than the same path or worse. Perhaps, it's why I am growing more socially conservative and I am understanding why it happens. When I was a kid, I actually was much more liberal; I believe in everything and wanted to help everyone. Later on, I lost faith in those beliefs, because I caught someone I trusted stealing money. Afterward, I became much more conservative and I took a hard line against people that would steal. Now, I see another thief in the midst of my own political party being touted as a hero. Yes, it's Donald Trump. Where is the logic in these people, who support this man? His ethics is as bankrupt as the companies that he have controlled. Why has no one mentioned the millions his investors lost? Why has no one mentioned the excessive lifestyle of luxury he waste? Why has no one mentioned his extreme use of tax codes to avoid and even profit from the average man's money? All of those issues are drowned out in a wave of noise. Sinclair once wrote in his ubuqitous novel "It Can't Happen Here": Conservatism is much more than Jesus lovers, Screamers, Saber rattlers, and spend cutters. It is an ideal; an ideal of true freedom, seeking the truth, and protecting the future. Yet, the American people is letting it die, because they want to be loud and angry before they see to their nation first. I've met few like minded souls, who share my principle that whatever happens; you must put your nation above all needs, whether they are needs of anger, vengeance, or exultation. Sad, I have met few conservatives that can stand by me with that vision of honoring their home. Perhaps, I am fool for wanting to put the United States first; heck, I wasn't even born here to begin with. Yet, I see my debt to the United States as something that binds me without contract or acknowledgment of debt. Even the most "freedom loving" conservatives cannot claim as much. Yet, I must press on, as an old philosopher once said: True evil stands before me, not of opposition political philosophy, but the innate nature of man to place themselves ahead of all things including the thing that is most dear. I pray a man like Donald Trump will never be President of the United States, and I pray for all the lost souls in the United States.

I'd love to see Mark tangle with the classics (I know he's more than familiar with classic french from old conversation). Despite my conservative outlook, I always enjoyed Victor Hugo and Alexander Dumas (I read them both as a kid and have collected as much of their work as I could). They were grand authors, who could incorporate the mystery/thriller/suspense genre along with epic romanticism into a powerful genre. (I will never forget the suffering of Jean Valjean or comradeship of the Musketeers.) If Mark ever seeks to write in that type of story, I will without hesitation take on the role of beta reader with the utmost speed.

Genesis: The Consequences Part 1 of 9 By WL For everyone following the miniseries, you are in for another wild ride. This time I am moving the story to several years into the future from 2015-2020. At this point, Benjamin Cross with the help of Jeff Alan has released several new discoveries and technologies that have changed the world as we know it. We now have the beginnings of a nanotechnology revolution, acting as direct raw material, manufacturing, and engineering component in m

You can always have some hot young teen bopper provide vocal aurias to the classical composition That is only half a jest as the American fascination with the new young thing coming out is in polar opposition to the Classical style. You'd think with the aging population of the US that there'd be more support.

I thought native belief systems usually were more egalitarian, which would not posit superiority or inferiority on individuals, unless your co-workers were part of the Christianize groups. One of the things I learned while doing some background study for my western story was the role of Christian missionaries on native tribes. For example, Mormons and native tribes were at times enemies, but they were also allies at certain points due to shared territorial defense. Many native tribes had encountered the older Catholic missionaries of the Spanish, Portuguese, and French, but the new protestant missionaries were different. I know we're going off topic, but I think there's a tie in on the case of religion and culture as well. If we consider religious beliefs to be the normative setting in many cultures, then would it be reasonable that religion probably help form the modern concept of homosexuality as well? Even in polar opposition, as certain Judeo-Christian sects operate, the polarization has shaped the concept of sexual orientation and identity.

You guys could be great horror writers. Ghosts, haunting sounds, and what falls into the category of demons. I love what you guys have on here; I want to read more.

I read that stuff too, while thinking about the potential for homosexuality in the past. I kind of agree that the idea of third sex is very different from homosexuality as we have it today. Based on native American folk-lore and traditions, It sounds more like a three person relationship in some respects, you might have two biological males and a female or two biological females and a male in some kind of family unit. Wouldn't that open the idea that universally we should all have the potential for non-exclusive bisexuality or multiple partner groupings, but we've only developed heterosexuality and homosexuality later on as a fact of identity with concepts. Also, the caveman was found near two other traditional burial sites, which makes me wonder if joint burial might have been a possible idea. Same sex relationships I don't think should be doubted, but homosexuality is an interesting issue. Also, I'd like to point out that the same logic one would discount homosexuality in the past can apply to heterosexuality as well. Even though opposite relationships are the majority in most animal groups and human beings, the concept of "heterosexuality" is also quite modern. Wouldn't it be theoretically possible that heterosexuality was invented only as a means of reproductive efficiency, while realistically people have variation for their sexual desires.

http://www.cnn.com/2...dex.html?hpt=T2 It's kind of funny and interesting to think about homosexuality and the "third sex" phenomenon in culture from prehistory. Some have argued that homosexuality did not come about until the beginnings of organized civilization, but third sex relationships were around far earlier. Here's a weird dilemma, how can you on one hand deny the existence of homosexuality in mankind's distant past, while accepting that there were third gender roles? Are we implying that these people never had sex in a type of male/female capacity with the same sex counterparts. I can see where it could come in, if we interpret homosexuality in terms of bonding on the level of heterosexual relationships, then structurally, we have not had homosexual relationships before even the 19th century. However, what about the structured relationship? Whether it is by age, class, or social construction, there were sexual interaction between same sex pairings. I also wonder about the third sex relationships and acceptance from before the age of civilizations, who were they and what role did they play in the society of that era?How did their same sex counterparts live with them? Were they involved sexually with one another?

Genesis The Truth Part 4 of 4 By WL (Research Outpost, North Atlantic, December 25th 2010, 0445 hours) Jeff Alan should be extremely tired. He had been in two cars, two planes, and a strange kind of submarine all within the last 12 hours. The long ride has shown him wonders and gave him new depth into his boyfriend, Benjamin Cross. Twelve hours ago, Jeff had contemplated leaving his boyfriend due to his lack of openness, but now he can’t wait to see what else Ben has to reveal

Genesis: The Truth Part 3 of 4 By W.L (Approximately 50 Nautical miles from Olafsvik, Iceland, December 25th 02:00 hours) Ben and Jeff had been busy chatting about the ship and how certain things worked onboard. The ship operated with a nanites assisted hull structure; basically, the ship’s structure can change from a hardened silicone synthetic structure to a thin silicon structure. By having the ability to manipulate the density of the hull, there was no need for buoyancy fr

Genesis: The Truth Part 2 of 4 By WL (Off the Coast of Greenland, December 24rd 2010, Friday, 2200 hours) Jeff had fallen asleep after Ben revealed his reason for secrecy; though not the exact nature of the secret. The strange instruments around the plane began reacting to something. Flashing lights flickered, strange sounds buzzed, and the weird orbs began orbiting each other in an elliptical path. Jeff was awakened from his short slumber by these weird occurences.

Finally uploaded the first part of my prequel: Genesis: The Truth 2-4 of 4 Next will be Genesis: The Consequences a 9-part mini-series. Finally, I will finish with Genesis: Judgment a 25-part mini-series. On a side note, I am starting to read the Nightrunner series and I don't know, there's something attractive about the fantasy genre. However, I am pressing to finish the edits of my own stories in the science fiction area as well. It is taking a lot longer to finish the edits than I thought. I am finally understanding why hard sci-fi is difficult to write and research. My writing fluctuates between the sub-genres of military sci-fi, space opera sci-fi, and speculative sci-fi, but I try to ground some of my ideas into developments coming out of current science. As for LGBT themes, I've been thinking about how it works in terms of my writing. I am seeing something different in terms of my Exodus Universe and other stories. I also feel like there needs to be more characterization within the stories, which is one reason why I have developed so many unique characters. Take for example, John Anderson, my African American gay character from Exodus, who I am establishing background material with Genesis. If you read into his background and what follows, you will see a subtle stoic genius. He might not be as thrilling or excitable as his partner Andy Carlson, who is one of my favorite characters to write. Part Trekkie and part eccentric, Andy exemplifies why Sci-fi is my favorite genre. The awe and wonder of exploring the potential in science and humanity is his driving thought. Science is at the heart of my story, but it is also a driving force for some of the bigger issues that come out of development.

I just came upon this story series and am wondering if anyone would recommend it: The Nightrunner Series Also, for some reason, I get the feeling a few of our fantasy writers might enjoy this story as they hone their stories and craft. Being more a science fiction and history fiction fan, I don't write fantasy much, but still enjoy the genre.

A very good book for the national strategist of the early 20th century. Another one that few forget is Carl von Clausewitz: "On War", which highlighted the use of mobility in land warfare and philosophy of Western Warfare. It basically outlined the later strategies of Germany in the opening moves of World War I and World War II along with mobilization of nations like the US later for World War II.

Confirmed by other news outlets: $32K to Snooki http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/article/968391--snooki-s-hefty-fee-angers-rutgers-university-parents-students I kind of agree that this is a reflection of bad judgment on the University part and society in general for promoting pop culture to the point of deification. I can't remember who said this about modern pop culture; but it seems right Basically, mankind has given their beliefs in Gods and Goddesses, but we have replaced them with the hit of the year. Pop fiction characters are our new pantheon of larger than life Gods, the entertainment outlets are their altars, and the media are their high priests. Our fan-fiction takes the part of plays and fanboy/girls take the place of worshipers. ----- Oh well, we can only hope that whatever takes her place is better next year.