PDA

View Full Version : Would the "Gay Bomb" effectively end the war?


Taco John
06-11-2007, 08:42 PM
By now, people have read about the so called "Gay Bomb (http://cbs5.com/topstories/local_story_159222541.html)" which would supposedly release hormones in the air that would affect combatants by creating a strong, uncontrollable urge for gay sex (which seems to implicate body chemistry as causation for being gay, but that's another discussion altogether). Military leaders have since rejected the idea, though it's not completely clear why.

I have to wonder what the effects of a gay bomb would be in terms of fall-out, especially considering the culture of our enemies. Part of me wants to believe that like Japan, they would be so demoralized that many would just give up. I have to believe that it would possibly work to keep others on the sidelines.

On one hand, the idea of a "gay bomb" sounds utterly ridiculous, and on the other, it sounds so crazy that it might work.

I personally wish we'd give it a test trial.

Fishpicker
06-11-2007, 08:46 PM
I'll reserve judgement untill a Fox News reporter is subjected to the gay bomb treatment.

Cochise
06-11-2007, 08:49 PM
I don't know if there is any science or theory to back it up, but I thought I read somewhere that there was a medicine kind of like viagra that came in a nasal spray. If that is the case, maybe you could concentrate that and drop it someplace where people would inhale it.

Logical
06-11-2007, 09:37 PM
The Generals were probably afraid that the US soldiers would suddenly have an irresistable urge to tell.;)

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-11-2007, 10:07 PM
Are you f*cking serious?? Wow. :shake:

Fishpicker
06-11-2007, 10:23 PM
Are you f*cking serious?? Wow. :shake:

who?

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-11-2007, 10:25 PM
who?

Thread starter. To advocate the use of that. As though that 1) Chemical Warfare is ethical/defensible, and 2) That being gay is somehow so disastrous that you can't function.

Fishpicker
06-11-2007, 10:41 PM
Thread starter. To advocate the use of that. As though that 1) Chemical Warfare is ethical/defensible, and 2) That being gay is somehow so disastrous that you can't function.

ok. I didnt think TJ was completely serious.

1. our MIC is not above anything of the sort. I'm actually surprised the MIC wasnt interested.

2. We dont think that is the case but, if we unleashed a "gay bomb" on a muslim country, the bomb would definately have a great effect. If people turned gay, all of a sudden, that would create huge problems for countries that have adopted Sharia Law.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-11-2007, 10:43 PM
What troubles me more are the discursive elements that equate homosexuality with a chemical imbalance, a la depression.

Fishpicker
06-11-2007, 11:06 PM
well, the same thing can be said of all supposed chemical imbalances (I agree with you in essence). I just dont believe in superstitious nonsense. there isnt anything wrong with feeling pain/fear/blues/despair/anger so long as it righteous and the person can deal with it.

Taco John
06-11-2007, 11:09 PM
It is what it is. Drop a gay bomb in an American church in Kansas, and within a year, I'd wager that there'd be at least three suicides.

I'm not asking what's politically correct. I can figure that out myself. I'm posing the question about whether or not it would have an effect towards ending the war. Likewise, I'm not saying we *should* be using it. I'm just asking the question, hence the question mark in the thread title.

And for the record, I definitely believe that being gay has something to do with biological hormonal imbalance.

Logical
06-11-2007, 11:16 PM
I am having trouble taking the whole concept seriously because I don't believe it can be done. My belief is that if it could work it would not change the oppositions fighting ability significantly unless they were overcome with the inability to control themselves, otherwise a massive viagara bomb would seemingly be just as effective.

Fishpicker
06-11-2007, 11:17 PM
but a hormonal imbalance is not the same as a chemical imbalance. right TJ? I ask because psychiatry is so... so... idiotic? that's probably not the right word but, I know many shrinks... they are megalomaniacal dickheads.

Fishpicker
06-11-2007, 11:19 PM
I am having trouble taking the whole concept seriously because I don't believe it can be done. My belief is that if it could work it would not change the oppositions fighting ability significantly unless they were overcome with the inability to control themselves, otherwise a massive viagara bomb would seemingly be just as effective.

try spritzing yourself with a phermonal extract... even that can make a huge difference in how people will interract with you

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-11-2007, 11:29 PM
And for the record, I definitely believe that being gay has something to do with biological hormonal imbalance.

Which thereby equates it with an illness. Don't you think that is a bit homophobic?

HolmeZz
06-11-2007, 11:55 PM
If it's not a choice, it's a disease!

Taco John
06-12-2007, 12:56 AM
Which thereby equates it with an illness. Don't you think that is a bit homophobic?


Not at all. I don't see it as an illness. Illnesses can be cured. You can't "cure" gay. Maybe a coctail of drugs could manage the imbalance, but I'd suspect that once the person is off the drugs, their system would reset back to their hardwiring, and the hormones would return to the natural state. So you're not really "curing" them. You're just fighting biology.

But as far as that goes, I definitely see it as a biological malfunction. Pure science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenatal_hormones_and_sexual_orientation). It might not be politically correct, but as far as the biology is concerned, it is what it is. I certainly hold nothing against gay people for being gay, so I don't know how homophobia plays into this.

I'm certainly open-minded to the idea that being gay is an evolutionary adaption to advance the species. I just haven't seen much science to support the theory. Rather than challenge me on grounds of homophobia (yawn), I'd be interested in your perspective on how the phenomenon of "gay" advances the species.

I understand that there are people who don't like the stigma that goes along with my point of view, but my intention isn't to stigmatize anybody. It's just to frame the phenomenon in context with the theory of natural selection (of which I am a believer).

But back to the topic of this thread, the bottom line is that there *is* a stigma that goes along with the concept of "gay," whether anybody likes it or not. And while there's a lot of incredulity that goes along with the idea of actually using a "gay bomb," I can't help but wonder if we could use that stigma to our advantage and effectively demoralize our enemies, and ultimately bring an end to the war.

Personally, I don't know how gripping the gay stigma is in the muslim culture. I imagine, given how they feel about simple things like seeing a woman's ankle, that it's a significant stigma.

So the question I'd pose to you is wouldn't it be IN-ethical to have a weapon that could (relatively) peacefully put an end to the war, and not use it? Or is it more ethical to hold your nose at the idea, and hope a better solution rolls around?

Disclaimer: Again, because I know that people on the Internet have a hard time recognizing the difference between inquiry and advocacy, I don't know the right answer here- that's why I'm asking the question.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-12-2007, 02:40 AM
Not at all. I don't see it as an illness. Illnesses can be cured. You can't "cure" gay. Maybe a coctail of drugs could manage the imbalance, but I'd suspect that once the person is off the drugs, their system would reset back to their hardwiring, and the hormones would return to the natural state. So you're not really "curing" them. You're just fighting biology.

But as far as that goes, I definitely see it as a biological malfunction.

But that right there is the very problem. If you see it as a biological malfunction then you characterize it as a value negative condition. That creates a discourse of gay people as damaged goods, putting them below heterosexuals on a hierarchy of what makes a "correct" human being. That epitomizes anti-gay behavior, whether its intentional or not.

patteeu
06-12-2007, 06:47 AM
I am having trouble taking the whole concept seriously because I don't believe it can be done.

That's what I'd guess too. If the military abandoned the research, I'd guess they did so because they didn't think it would work not because they decided it was unPC.

patteeu
06-12-2007, 06:48 AM
Which thereby equates it with an illness. Don't you think that is a bit homophobic?

Would you be more comfortable if it were described as a different balance rather than an imbalance?

Mr. Kotter
06-12-2007, 06:48 AM
LMAO LMAO LMAO

StcChief
06-12-2007, 07:45 AM
But that right there is the very problem. If you see it as a biological malfunction then you characterize it as a value negative condition. That creates a discourse of gay people as damaged goods, putting them below heterosexuals on a hierarchy of what makes a "correct" human being. That epitomizes anti-gay behavior, whether its intentional or not.
ROFL if the shoe fits.

Taco John
06-12-2007, 08:12 AM
But that right there is the very problem. If you see it as a biological malfunction then you characterize it as a value negative condition. That creates a discourse of gay people as damaged goods, putting them below heterosexuals on a hierarchy of what makes a "correct" human being. That epitomizes anti-gay behavior, whether its intentional or not.


Well, I guess that's just too bad. I'll let you go ahead and assign values to what the science means. I personally don't care. It is what it is. I explained how I came to my position quite succinctly. I'm not interested in changing it just for the sake of political correctness. I've offered you the chance to correct me using science and reason using the theory of natural selection as the basis of reasoning. I've already told you that I'm open to the idea that I'm wrong, but you're not going to get anywhere using political correctness as the basis of your position.

StcChief
06-12-2007, 09:41 AM
Would the "Gay Bomb" effectively end the war? or an outbreak of rump rangers.

The don't ask don't tell. could be rendered useless.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-12-2007, 10:39 AM
Well, I guess that's just too bad. I'll let you go ahead and assign values to what the science means. I personally don't care. It is what it is. I explained how I came to my position quite succinctly. I'm not interested in changing it just for the sake of political correctness. I've offered you the chance to correct me using science and reason using the theory of natural selection as the basis of reasoning. I've already told you that I'm open to the idea that I'm wrong, but you're not going to get anywhere using political correctness as the basis of your position.

Do you really want to use natural selection as the end-all be-all of your argument? IF you think that you can use natural selection as a leavening agent for behaviors that are acceptable vis-a-vis human beings then you have a lot of problems that extend beyond this one aspect. This was already tried in this country in the 1920s and 1930s.

You are trying to characterize me as being some anti-speech PC nazi because you either aren't capable or willing to acknowledge my point, which isn't that you aren't allowed to have your opinion, but the fact that your opinion explicitly characterizes homosexuality as a disease.

You are just pissed off because you didn't realize the ramifications of your statements and you aren't willing to rescind or modify them, one of which is that being gay is so disastrous that society would collapse upon itself, and that homosexuality can be caused by a temporary dispersal of vapors.

This isn't the 14th century---miasma has been out of vogue for a while.

And patteeu,

Yes, all I'm looking for is an acknowledgment that it is a different biological makeup, not an inferior one.

Back to TJ:

Does it lessen the chance for the propagation of the species? Yeah, but so does being retarded or having a predilection for childhood leukemia. Does that mean that we should start dropping tard bombs or lacing the Arab population with strontium 90?

If you want to live your life according to natural selection, then ok, but I want you to promise that you'll execute your own child if he shows signs of a genetic defect, as he will be a burden on society and the human race's capacity for surival.

Donger
06-12-2007, 10:48 AM
Yes, all I'm looking for is an acknowledgment that it is a different biological makeup, not an inferior one.

Unless and until homosexuals can procreate, they are by definition inferior to heterosexuals.

Radar Chief
06-12-2007, 10:57 AM
You are just pissed off because you didn't realize the ramifications of your statements and you aren't willing to rescind or modify them, one of which is that being gay is so disastrous that society would collapse upon itself, and that homosexuality can be caused by a temporary dispersal of vapors.

This isn't the 14th century---miasma has been out of vogue for a while.

And patteeu,

Yes, all I'm looking for is an acknowledgment that it is a different biological makeup, not an inferior one.

I don’t read Teej’s response as even slightly miffed, much less “pissed”. :shrug:
Looks to me like he’s acknowledging the fact that it’s the release of hormones, due to varying stimuli, which creates within us all the drive to procreate.
Apparently, you just don’t like the way he put it. :shrug:

HolmeZz
06-12-2007, 11:01 AM
Homosexuality is an epidemic set forth when God unleashed his gay plague(or gaygue) upon Ancient Greece.

You can read more about it in the Book of HolmeZz. Believe it or burn in Hell.

Baby Lee
06-12-2007, 11:02 AM
Which thereby equates it with an illness. Don't you think that is a bit homophobic?
Oh how I hate people with diabetes!!!!!

BIG_DADDY
06-12-2007, 11:22 AM
Funny, this is not much different than my idea of dumping estrogen in the water supply to end the pro-creation of the terrorist network. I got blasted for that idea.

Donger
06-12-2007, 11:25 AM
Funny, this is not much different than my idea of dumping estrogen in the water supply to end the pro-creation of the terrorist network. I got blasted for that idea.

Introducing Diet Shasta Orange to the Middle East would have the same result.

BIG_DADDY
06-12-2007, 11:58 AM
Introducing Diet Shasta Orange to the Middle East would have the same result. LMAO

StcChief
06-12-2007, 12:36 PM
Unless and until homosexuals can procreate, they are by definition inferior to heterosexuals.
Turkey basters to the rescue....

Donger
06-12-2007, 12:40 PM
Turkey basters to the rescue....

It still takes the opposite sex/heterosexuals, as nature intended.

BIG_DADDY
06-12-2007, 12:56 PM
Unless and until homosexuals can procreate, they are by definition inferior to heterosexuals.

I can't believe you posted that here on Zachback mountain. :shake:

Donger
06-12-2007, 01:05 PM
I can't believe you posted that here on Zachback mountain. :shake:

Meh. Sometimes the truth is unpleasant.

keg in kc
06-12-2007, 01:09 PM
They'd be the best dressed army in the world, that's about it.

We'd need to invent the French Bomb to end the war.

Taco John
06-12-2007, 02:25 PM
Do you really want to use natural selection as the end-all be-all of your argument? IF you think that you can use natural selection as a leavening agent for behaviors that are acceptable vis-a-vis human beings then you have a lot of problems that extend beyond this one aspect. This was already tried in this country in the 1920s and 1930s.

You are trying to characterize me as being some anti-speech PC nazi because you either aren't capable or willing to acknowledge my point, which isn't that you aren't allowed to have your opinion, but the fact that your opinion explicitly characterizes homosexuality as a disease.

You are just pissed off because you didn't realize the ramifications of your statements and you aren't willing to rescind or modify them, one of which is that being gay is so disastrous that society would collapse upon itself, and that homosexuality can be caused by a temporary dispersal of vapors.

This isn't the 14th century---miasma has been out of vogue for a while.

And patteeu,

Yes, all I'm looking for is an acknowledgment that it is a different biological makeup, not an inferior one.

Back to TJ:

Does it lessen the chance for the propagation of the species? Yeah, but so does being retarded or having a predilection for childhood leukemia. Does that mean that we should start dropping tard bombs or lacing the Arab population with strontium 90?

If you want to live your life according to natural selection, then ok, but I want you to promise that you'll execute your own child if he shows signs of a genetic defect, as he will be a burden on society and the human race's capacity for surival.



Please. Make no mistake. I've fully considered the ramifications of my position, and am unapologitic about them. I'm not pissed in the least.

I presented the science quite clearly via a wikipedia link that contained information that I personally trust. I've never said that there is anything wrong with being gay. I believe that's the way a person is born. That said, I see it as a biological malfunction. I don't know where you've come to the conclusion that I've advocated killing gay people for being gay. I'm definitely unimpressed with the amount of demagoguery you've done on the topic. But you're right: my position unapologetically considers homosexuality in the light of a biological malfunction. As I've said, that's where the science has led me.

Once again, I encourage you to present a case that counters my position that it's a biological malfunction, by demonstrating how the gay phenomenon advances the species.

But let's be clear: I'm not saying there is anything wrong with being gay any more than I'm saying there is anything wrong with being allergenic. Or straight and healthy for that matter. It is what it is: a biological dead end. That doesn't mean that there shouldn't be a place for gay people in our society.

That said, there is a lot of stigma that goes along with it... And I can't believe that I even have to explain this again, so I'm not going to bother. It's apparent that this issue makes you too emotional to discuss it on an even keel.

BIG_DADDY
06-12-2007, 02:35 PM
Tard Bombs ROFL

BucEyedPea
06-12-2007, 02:57 PM
I'd rather see something like "Sleep Rain" developed.

Read this,in a book many years ago. There was supposed to be some whacky ideas formulated by scientists ( think working for govt weapons back in the 30's). This idea was tossed about....apparently it's supposed to be doable but was abandoned. Probably, not destructive enough for govts. Yeah! That must be it.

Apparently, the way it works is somehow ( I forget exact details) but whatever it is gets dropped from the air....the whole population falls asleep. Then the invading govt just quietly takes over. When everyone wakes up they have a new govt! Voila! Guess it depends on what side your on if it's good or bad.

Always reminded me of story of Sleeping Beauty....kind of a romantic way to wage warfare. Patty would love it....he could take all the oil rich companies he wanted and never have to rely on markets again for it. :p

Cochise
06-12-2007, 02:58 PM
I think the military used too pragmatic of a view on deciding not to develop the gay bomb. They paid too much attention to workability and not enough to comedic value.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-12-2007, 03:08 PM
Please. Make no mistake. I've fully considered the ramifications of my position, and am unapologitic about them. I'm not pissed in the least.

I presented the science quite clearly via a wikipedia link that contained information that I personally trust. I've never said that there is anything wrong with being gay. I believe that's the way a person is born. That said, I see it as a biological malfunction. I don't know where you've come to the conclusion that I've advocated killing gay people for being gay. I'm definitely unimpressed with the amount of demagoguery you've done on the topic. But you're right: my position unapologetically considers homosexuality in the light of a biological malfunction. As I've said, that's where the science has led me.

Once again, I encourage you to present a case that counters my position that it's a biological malfunction, by demonstrating how the gay phenomenon advances the species.

But let's be clear: I'm not saying there is anything wrong with being gay any more than I'm saying there is anything wrong with being allergenic. Or straight and healthy for that matter. It is what it is: a biological dead end. That doesn't mean that there shouldn't be a place for gay people in our society.

That said, there is a lot of stigma that goes along with it... And I can't believe that I even have to explain this again, so I'm not going to bother. It's apparent that this issue makes you too emotional to discuss it on an even keel.

Absolutely not.

You are unable to separate the intent of what you say with the ramifications of what your discourse is.

I can say that I don't mean any harm towards gays via a certain measure, and that can absolutely be true, but intent does not wholly equate with reality.

I'm not denying that there is a biological component to homosexuality. I do take umbrage to the discursive construction of homosexuality as a "defect", which regardless of your personal intentions, has implications that extend beyond one mere person.

I suggest you check out Foucault for a deeper understanding of how discourse operates to shape individual subjects.

The problem that I have with your viewpoint is that it is entirely self-centered and completely oblivious to broader implications.

BIG_DADDY
06-12-2007, 03:13 PM
The problem that I have with your viewpoint is that it is entirely self-centered and completely oblivious to broader implications.

Broader implications?

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-12-2007, 03:19 PM
Broader implications?

Your specific goal is to help w/ the War on Terr'

You drop a "gay bomb" on an Islamist area.

You did so believing that it would help your military objectives. But there are also social implications--namely the belief that homosexuality will create a state of complete and utter disarray and that it is so inimical with order that our enemies won't be able to function.

What kind of belief system towards gays do you think that will propagate?

Iowanian
06-12-2007, 03:26 PM
I doubt it....I think this bomb was set off near hordes of muslim men who routinely corn hole each other in the desert....and they're still assholes.

BIG_DADDY
06-12-2007, 03:28 PM
Your specific goal is to help w/ the War on Terr'

You drop a "gay bomb" on an Islamist area.

You did so believing that it would help your military objectives. But there are also social implications--namely the belief that homosexuality will create a state of complete and utter disarray and that it is so inimical with order that our enemies won't be able to function.

What kind of belief system towards gays do you think that will propagate?

I'm a little more concerned about ending this terrorist breeding pool. My idea was to just put estrogen in the water so they can't reproduce. It seems easy enough and if we had done that from the get go we already would well along in ending this cycle. I know it sounds cold but my biggest problem in going to war these days is we just don't go in it to win it anymore. It seems a lot more about fighting a PC war and testing our weapons systems.

Mr. Kotter
06-12-2007, 03:28 PM
Your specific goal is to help w/ the War on Terr'

You drop a "gay bomb" on an Islamist area.

You did so believing that it would help your military objectives. But there are also social implications--namely the belief that homosexuality will create a state of complete and utter disarray and that it is so inimical with order that our enemies won't be able to function.

What kind of belief system towards gays do you think that will propagate?

LMAO LMAO LMAO

Valiant
06-12-2007, 03:57 PM
Can't we just blame the French for dropping the bomb??

How about a emo bomb instead...

http://www.evilchili.com/mediaview/11966/Brotherly_Love_Taken_Too_Far

keg in kc
06-12-2007, 04:03 PM
LMAO LMAO LMAODid you get Frazod's permission to use his likeness?

Mr. Kotter
06-12-2007, 04:11 PM
Did you get Frazod's permission to use his likeness?
:spock:

Damn, if Tim's diet worked that well....I need to take some notes from his thread. :hmmm:

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-12-2007, 04:13 PM
I'm a little more concerned about ending this terrorist breeding pool. My idea was to just put estrogen in the water so they can't reproduce. It seems easy enough and if we had done that from the get go we already would well along in ending this cycle. I know it sounds cold but my biggest problem in going to war these days is we just don't go in it to win it anymore. It seems a lot more about fighting a PC war and testing our weapons systems.

If you were "in it to win it". You'd be best served just using neutron bombs to kill everyone in the area without the long term effects of fall out that a conventional nuke would have.

keg in kc
06-12-2007, 04:14 PM
:spock:

Damn, if Tim's diet worked that well....I need to take some notes from his thread. :hmmm:That was a blast from the past. I don't remember how many years ago, but I did a schtick about the time when Tim was talking about interior decorating and I'd put 2+2 together.

The likeness is rather uncanny...

BIG_DADDY
06-12-2007, 04:17 PM
If you were "in it to win it". You'd be best served just using neutron bombs to kill everyone in the area without the long term effects of fall out that a conventional nuke would have.

I was never for going into Iraq because I knew we would mamby pamby around.

Stewie
06-12-2007, 04:20 PM
I've heard they have bears that can talk in Russia.

Donger
06-12-2007, 04:31 PM
If you were "in it to win it". You'd be best served just using neutron bombs to kill everyone in the area without the long term effects of fall out that a conventional nuke would have.

We have ERWs that don't produce fall-out?

Cool!

codeman
06-12-2007, 05:02 PM
This post is just stupid.

Donger
06-12-2007, 05:08 PM
This post is just stupid.

Well, keep at it. Maybe they'll improve.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-12-2007, 05:12 PM
We have ERWs that don't produce fall-out?

Cool!

:spock:

The majority of their energy is dissipated through radiation at the time of the blast rather than heat as in a conventional nuke. This leads to far less fall out over a regular bomb, as the radiation was mostly sapped up killing the f*ck out of everything in the blast zone.

Donger
06-12-2007, 05:15 PM
:spock:

The majority of their energy is dissipated through radiation at the time of the blast rather than heat as in a conventional nuke. This leads to far less fall out over a regular bomb, as the radiation was mostly sapped up killing the f*ck out of everything in the blast zone.

Less, yes. You seemed to be suggesting that ERWs had none.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-12-2007, 05:18 PM
Less, yes. You seemed to be suggesting that ERWs had none.

No. But if you are looking for a complete victory, which is specifically what Big Dipshit referred to, without the longterm effects that conventional nuclear weapons would have, a neutron bomb is how you'd roll.

Donger
06-12-2007, 05:21 PM
No. But if you are looking for a complete victory, which is specifically what Big Dipshit referred to, without the longterm effects that conventional nuclear weapons would have, a neutron bomb is how you'd roll.

Last I heard, we don't have any.

Taco John
06-12-2007, 07:14 PM
I'm not denying that there is a biological component to homosexuality. I do take umbrage to the discursive construction of homosexuality as a "defect", which regardless of your personal intentions, has implications that extend beyond one mere person.



I'm honestly not the least bit concerned with the social implications of the paradigm. I figure that there are probably a lot of homosexuals who have the intellect to be able to put 2 + 2 together to get four, and be ok with four. As far as I've ever heard, the gay community has wanted to make it loud and clear that thier "condition" (as it were) is due to biology, and not choice. I give them that in spades. I'm not sure what the problem is here. The name of the game in biology is reproduction. Gay people understand this fundamental aspect of biology, don't they?

patteeu
06-12-2007, 09:01 PM
And patteeu,

Yes, all I'm looking for is an acknowledgment that it is a different biological makeup, not an inferior one.

I agree with this, although I can understand how some might see it as a defect based on the disinclination to procreate.

Radar Chief
06-13-2007, 06:48 AM
Last I heard, we don't have any.

“Officially” we don’t have a lot of stuff.