Emerald

In the context of your non-evidence-based theories regarding same sex attraction, how do you suppose one actively decides to change the hormones in their body to 'choose' to be attracted to the same sex? What do you assume the mechanism to be behind changing the hormones? How do you assume that I changed the hormones in my body to be attracted to both men and women? What actions do you believe that I took to develop that attraction? Though I know you're incorrect, I'm asking in earnest because I genuinely want to understand your assumptions about how human sexuality works to come to this conclusion. Also, since this isn't a viewpoint shared by most people who don't like gay people, I'll be straightforward with you about what this makes me think of. Though I'm aware that this may be interpreted as a "gay person trying to turn you gay". But this anti-LGBT rationale and the intensity of the fixation/paranoia about LGBT people forcing you to "participate", genuinely makes me suspicious that you might be a closeted gay person who's ashamed and in denial of being gay. It's somewhat common that, when someone is gay but is raised in context where being gay is taboo, the gay person might feel more comfortable thinking of same sex attraction as a conscious choice that they (and others) can decide upon at will. And this person can often see the LGBT community as tempters trying to get them to stray from the path, as it is easier to scapegoat LGBT people and blame them for the gay feelings. So, as long as they keep fighting the good fight of 'choosing to be straight', and don't choose to give into the same sex attractions... that they're straight and therefore 'normal' and acceptable in the eyes of their friends, family, and community. Another common rationale with repressed gay people is the thought process that same-sex attraction is something that everyone struggles with. And that, if it's normalized or accepted, there would be nothing stopping themselves or anyone else from giving into the same sex urges. But of course, the reality is that most people are straight and don't have same sex attractions. It's not something that most people "struggle" with. Like 10-20% of people have some degree of same sex attraction and the other 80-90% of people don't. And it's just comforting for the gay person in denial to think of same-sex attraction as a normal and ubiquitous 'sin' that everyone struggle with but must fight off. This is what your behavior on this post makes me think.

Boo! That's no fun. Start another debate thread about me. Anyway, back to Trump and the election... I guess.

Yes, it isn't like dishonesty suddenly becomes honesty when someone shifts from blue to orange... or from green to yellow. That lies are happening is true on all levels of the spiral.

What do you mean? Me and several others were having a conversation about Elon Musk and Donald Trump biases and dishonesty... and he got onto us about it. All of my replies came after that.

Teach me your ways, oh exasperated wise one. As your humble student, I apologize for my recalcitrance.

That's my issue with it too. I'd be fine if he were actually taking specific swings at what I'm saying, as I like to be challenged and to spar it out. It's just unearned when there's nothing there but vague grandstanding and claims that his view is higher consciousness and that I'm the closed minded lower consciousness one. There's nothing there to learn or work with.

Like overlooking basic truths and realities because of having your paradigm wrapped up too much in the intellectual model of Spiral Dynamics. For example, if you point out objective instances of things like racism, for example. And the person who is wrapped up in the Spiral Dynamics model sees that only as stage green delusion and blots that reality out of their awareness because it doesn't fit with their understanding of the model. Or if a Stage Blue person points out the importance of traditions as a method of group cohesion. And the Spiral Dynamics model bypasser views that only as Stage Blue delusion because of their understanding of the model. It's basically where the model overtakes your ability to see things for what they are.

Definitely true.

He's the same as I remember him. If he's supposedly trying to help me, he needs to be specific and be more intellectually honest in his tactics... without grandstanding and throwing out all sorts of judgments and assumptions about me and my paradigm. But it's pretty condescending in the first place for him to assume he needs to teach me how to be 'higher consciousness like him' because I rightly pointed out instances of Elon Musk's dishonesty on a thread comparing and contrasting Musk with Trump. He's basically saying, "Get on my level... ya' dum dum." And he's counting that as a mic drop moment.

That was what the previous conversation was about. And you burst into it saying we were in an Elon trash-talking circle jerk or something. So, it was you that side-tracked the original discussion with things that are off-topic. And mentioning his instances of dishonesty was on topic for the original response The fact of the matter is that I was just stating facts about Elon Musk in that context... facts that you just now conceded that you agree with. And you keep grandstanding with all these assumptions about my perspective because I (rightly) pointed out instances of Musk's dishonesty. The fact of the matter is that don't know what my perspective on reality is. You just didn't like that I said something true and negative about Elon and you're projecting your ideas about stage green unconsciousness onto me.

First off, no he didn't because he said nothing specific. And he's treating it like a slam dunk. And secondly, yes he is interested in debates and winning. That's why he argues so much. And it's clear that one of his things is being the one who's right and who knows better. And as a fellow lover of arguments, debates, and winning... game recognizes game. But I don't like this below the belt sparring. I like to keep it honest. And I will call out a dishonest debate tactic every time because it is one of my biggest pet peeves. Like playing chess with someone... and they flip the board over when they're about to lose. And then they claim that they win anyway and that playing chess is low consciousness behavior and that we were actually playing hopscotch. And his statement that he's not interested in debates and winning is just another tactic to try to flip the board and move the goal posts and wiggle out of losing the debate.

I wasn't talking about his politics. I was talking about him lying.

It's more of the ability to shift perspectives from absolute to relative. Consider a video game... and the perspective of the game designer versus the perspective of the person playing the game. If you're designing a video game... you want there to be obstacles for the playable characters to face. Otherwise, the game isn't interesting and it's too easy. So, in that sense, the duality of good and bad is necessary for interesting game play. So... both "good guys" and "bad guys" are necessary to play a good game. And the goodness of the game transcends the goodness of the good guys and the badness of the bad guys and included both. But if you are playing the game... you want to defeat the bad guys and for good to win and justice to prevail. The same is true also from the perspective of the author versus the perspective of the reader. Stage Green (like all other previous phases) tends to focus on the good guys and bad guys in the game as an absolute. And they want to ban or eliminate the "bad" guys in the way their stage on the Spiral defines it. They get wrapped up in the perspective of the reader without thinking about why the author wrote the book that way in the first place. But Stage Yellow and Turquoise is thinking like a video game designer in the sense that they recognize moral grayness and imperfections are an important part of the game play. So, Leo is correct in saying that my stated perspective is stage green regarding Elon Musk because I am focused on his level of honesty. But that's because I'm deciding to play the game as I am looking from the perspective of the human player and not the creator... as I see that as far wiser than sitting the game out and being "above it". From the perspective as the creator... Elon Musk is an important part of the game play. And while his actions are neither good nor bad in the absolute, his contributions to the system of reality create a ripple effect that is part and parcel to the gameplay. From the perspective of the player however... he's a character in the gameplay that you can't always trust to be honest but can provide you with some resources. And I have to admit, as the player, he's not my favorite character in the game.

You "merely suggested" did you?

There's nothing particularly stage green about what I said because I'm just stating facts about what Elon Musk has done, and I'm sure that Leo knows that by now. He also seems to think that those in Yellow or Turquoise would ignore ethics as a heuristic of discernment. But in actuality, it just shifts the perspective to one that is more compassionate where you can orient to the symptom-level behavior through the lens of ethics and justice... but view the root-level origins of the behavior through the morally neutral lens of compassion, unconditional love, and deep accurate understanding. He just had the knee-jerk reaction and stepped into the "you're stage green" argument two feet first... and has to pretend it's the case now to avoid losing the argument.

First off, that's not what the debate was about. You moved the goal posts to your supposed "meta issue" without even mentioning what the meta issue is. At this current time, I don't even know what you personally think about Elon Musk. What is the meta-issue that you're pointing out? You haven't even given me what your position is and you refuse. How am I even supposed to take you seriously right now? You just called me stage green and told me to watch interviews. And yet, you're pretending to be the teacher and the intellectual powerhouse in this that can grandstand on empty ad-hominem arguments and tell me that my perspective is insufficient... somehow. Don't play teacher with me. Regarding this thread, your sense of intellectual superiority over myself and others is unearned.

If you are unable to rebut my points, then just be honest and concede. I haven't said anything particularly stage green in my messages on this thread. I was merely pointing out concrete instances of Elon Musk's dishonesty because that is the topic we're ACTUALLY debating about. But you know that you agree with me on the topic we're actually debating... and you don't want to lose the debate because you already made a big show of grand standing about Spiral Dynamics. So you keep moving the goal posts from the debate about Elon Musk's level of honesty... to what my level of Spiral Dynamics is and how I don't recognize Elon Musk's contributions because I'm stage green. But that is NOT what you and I were debating about in the first place. That's just you interjecting your opinion on Musk into the debate and moving the debate to a topic where you feel like you have a fighting chance of winning. We were debating "Is Elon Musk honest?" but you keep moving the goal post to the topic "Is Elon Musk good/admirable?" Stay on the topic, be intellectually honest, and concede that you agree with me about that debate topic at hand... instead of pretending my argument is something that it isn't. I conceded to you that con-artist isn't an apt term for him. But he does have dishonest tendencies as is evidenced. Do you disagree with the specific points that I listed in my previous posts that those are instances of dishonesty? Would you characterize Elon Musk as an honest person?

First off... that's no excuse for you to not support your claims. It's a cop out and intellectually dishonest, and I know you know better. Your argument is an authority-appeal fallacy... and you're naming yourself baselessly as the authority you're appealing to because you've watched interviews with him. Secondly, I can tell you that the things I said about Musk are true about him being inconsistent with his values... purporting to value free speech as the reason he acquired Twitter and then actively censoring voices he dislikes while bolstering voices he agrees with. And that he was also dishonest in sharing details about is trans-daughter's childhood to build a narrative that appeals to the anti-trans people he's trying to impress. Those are things that I know for sure are true. So, watching 10, 100, or 1000 hours of interviews of Elon Musk isn't going to make me see these acts of dishonesty as honesty. Also, my understanding is also that he's not the direct inventor of the innovations he's credited for. Most of his patents that his name is on are around the shape or design of the inventions. And he has people work under him to create the innovations. Or like with Tesla, he acquired the company from the actual creators of the Tesla and put it out to mass market. And I've seen this from multiple sources over the years. Though I welcome a rebuttal if you have contradictory evidence. And of course, if I watch 10 hours of Elon Musk interviews... he's probably NEVER going to mention that he's not the direct inventor because that would hurt his image and his brand. So I'm relying on you, Leo, to provide me with evidence that my perspective is as uninformed as you believe it to be.

That's not a substantive counter-argument. And it's intellectually dishonest for you to even suggest that it is. If you can't rebut my claims, I'm not going to take what you say too seriously because you can't even articulate why you think I'm wrong.

Part of the issue is that people tend to see politics only as social values, as those are the things the average person feels tuned into on an emotional level. And it can't be removed from consideration of course because human rights are wrapped up in it. But when people only have that association, it creates a situations where people end up voting against their own economic interests to 'keep the kids from being transed.'

What is it specifically that you disagree with in our discussion about Elon Musk? You're not really providing any counter-arguments. You're just saying that we're giving "low quality stage green" perspectives. But vague Spiral Dynamics grand-standing isn't going to work if you actually want to convey to us why we're supposedly misguided. You're going to need to provide a clear counter-argument to be honestly engaged with if you want me to take your perspective seriously. And I'm also pretty sure it's not your position that he's a totally honest actor. Now, I conceded with you that con-artist isn't an accurate word to describe him because of the connotations of the word being more deliberate and all-encompassing. But I have also provided you specific instances of him being dishonest. So, it isn't the most far-fetched thing when someone calls him dishonest. If you disagree... then I await a more substantive rebuttal.

That's a totally non-scientific perspective. How do you suppose that people with same-sex attractions change the hormones in their body? I can tell you that, though I am mostly romantically attracted to men... I've been sexually attracted to males and females since before I went through puberty. My 10 year old self, would even rationalize away my sexual attraction to girls/women by thinking "Maybe it's because society conditions everyone to associate sex with pretty ladies." It took me until I was twenty to be like, "Oh yeah... duh. I just bisexual and rationalizing it away." So, there was no hormone change.... nor do I know how anyone would even pull that off in your mind. It's just something that's always been there that I have the capacity to be aroused by a woman.

That's certainly true. Back then, it was right off the back of the Great Depression. So, my suspicion is that back then, people were more tuned in to specific policies because of how much they were looking to the political sphere to solve the economy crash and how influential the New Deal was. Plus, they weren't so identified with partisan distinctions between parties and it wasn't as stark of a contrast in social values. Like both Eisenhower (Republican) and FDR (Democrat) were focused on a lot of policies that would be considered economically left-wing nowadays.

He's being dishonest with that. That's true. And beyond that he has told other lies and been inconsistent in his stated values. But a con-artist has a specific connotation that doesn't quite fit his more passive brand of intermittent dishonesty. A con-artist is Trump-like where, if their lips are moving, they're lying. And it's a very active thing. And to be fair, that doesn't describe Elon Musk. Think about a con-artist as a the quintessential used car salesman archetype where the guy's name is fast Eddie, and he's always trying to pull a fast on you. Elon Musk unconsciously tricks himself way more than he consciously tricks others.