Most of you erroneously thought the topic was about gay marriage. It wasn't. I merely saw the most manifestation of the topic in gay marriage. Yet I could just as well have used global warming notions of "consensus".

I think most of you have missed the point entirely. You're focus on gay marriage has made you guys rather myopic. Expand your vision and put on some new glasses. I seek to aid you in the matter here, since I've obviously been misleading in some manner.

You guysh kept thinking there was a political motive here towards "con" gay marriage. There wasn't. Many of you asked me to make an argumentative point against gay marriage. I properly declined because that wasn't my aim. (So neither ask me about global warming because I will ignore the invitation. Whatever "banana" I choose to use was never the point itself!)

Here's the point in case you guys missed it, and I think most of you have. The point was that the group mind can influence the individual mind, and likewise the individual mind is instrumental in influencing the group mind. The point was to get the reader to question what minds, group or individual, have been influenced and for what purposes. I secondarily used that notion to question in what manner proponents have tried to influence gay marriage opponents. If it helps, consider the use of proponents calling opponents "bigots" (which again is not itself the point, try to look behind the lines; I could have used another tactic of persuasion). That serves as an element in the art of persuasion which is all about influencing minds. Some of this persuasion, including the in particular name calling tactic, uses the tactic of the reward-punishment cycle, and I found that analogous to the ape metaphor of keeping other apes away from the banana. Yet I could just was well put a global warming element on this when proponents punish opponents in some manner, such as wanting to destroy the planet or some other like notion. I don't care if anyone catches on agrees or disagrees. Neither was that, nor is now, the point - i.e. who's right and who's wrong. The point was merely to get one to focus on how one's thinking has been influenced by the groupmind and how the groupmind is influenced by the individual mind. The interplay is quite dynamic. Secondary to that is how one can wield the groupmind as a weapon to influence individuals minds. Calling one a bigot for the mere purpose of persuasion is a case in point, for the point is to conform to expectations.

I think what you have highlighted applies equally to both sides of many issues. It highlights the need for real dialog and asking challenging questions. Through this Socratic-method like form of dialog, maybe we can all stronger truths.

You're focus on gay marriage has made you guys rather myopic.

I wonder how many of us have posted a 15 - 20 part "investigation" of homosexuality. I can only think of one off the top of my myopic head.

I think maybe you're spending too much time obsessing about "apes" and their "banannas".

Calling one a bigot for the mere purpose of persuasion is a case in point, for the point is to conform to expectations.

Not unlike calling someone a traitor for the simple reason that he has opposing political views, eh?

Oh yes Patrick.

It is abundantly clear that you have no political motive.

</sarcasm>

because you never got to the point, you rambled on & on & on about nothing. Your point, if you made it, was lost in your 10,000 word essay.

it just wasn't a very good one. you chose to you a very volatile topic for your example and we responded in kind. we gave you reasons that we believed what we did on the topic you chose and thus proved that we all had individual opinions and were not victims of group think. your obsession with trying to prove that we ARE of the groupthink mentality border on ridiculous.

you keep begging us to really examine ourselves and see if we are not being influenced by others. whatever. someone gave you a really great reply about how there is a difference between education and brainwashing and STILL here you are posting on this same subject. it doesn't matter what you change the topic to be. MY answer, at least, is still the same. i don't need you to tell me to examine my thought patterns and motives. i spend most of my life (way too much of it, i'd say) self analyzing and i think the way i do because i CHOOSE to. not because of any brainwashing.

Patrick is enamored of the false idea that if he has a new awareness it is not just new to him, but new in the global sense. A few weeks ago he discovered his asshole and ran around for days explaining this great new way to get rid of shit.

it simply is that there was nothing profound about it, or anything we didn't already know.

It is just that you are using "mind control", which is somewhat perjorative, to describe what others might describe as socialization or changing prejudices.

I heard your observation for years growing up in the south, with the whites complaining that they were called bigots just for stating their beliefs about N***rs.

And it does work - many of those old bigots still living haven't changed thier beliefs much but they keep them to themselves and their grandchildren mostly don't share them.

Just as your grandchildren probably won't share yours.

Yes, it runs both ways. Wouldn't know about the Socratic method though. If it corresponds, so be it.

ILMAO! You've unwittingly made my case! Look at you back-refer to the 'ol "obsession" card, which many have played. You are appealing to a side of the group mind. It's like you're saying subconsciously, "Let's see...four or five individuals have called you obsessed, so my side is superior." Why are you conditioned to think in such a manner? Yet in reality your assessment lacks sense, cohesion, and there's no correlation to my 'ol treatise. Moreover, you call me obsessed, that's precisely what I was getting at in part. You're trying to punish for reasons that are your own.

Note that I referred to the sense of "myopic" precisely because you'll too focused on the homosexual element, so I asked you to look beyond that to the real topic. I'm afraid I beat you the "don't be obsessed" card in the hidden suggestion of being obsessed with the topic! Hence you've merely proved that you at least, objectively, have been and still are myopic! Next you'll feel like you have to respond to defend yourself, and possible thrown in a few more punishment techniques to boot, and I'll respond, and we'll go back and forth as such. Yet for me to do so upon this note is unwitting, so you'll forgive me if I skip all that and cut the responses down to a few more minimally. In fact, I think I'll ignore all other responses until Mon.

Yes, any form of punishment or reward qualifies for groupmind manipulation. I mean, I wouldn't be all that personally qualified to scientifically assess what constitutes manipulation from the groupmind but surely the punishment/reward system is a clear indication. (And note that I am not referring to the same punishment/reward system that a mother gives a child. It is completely different.)

As to gay marriage, I side "con" so of course I might have some motive there just as the "pro" side might. Yet since the topic at hand doesn't concern gay marriage itself, ergo, I have no political motive. I have no political motive precisely because I don't care about persuading and convincing anyone to see that there is a groupmind that influences the individual mind and vice versa. (I'm not sure why exactly I don't seek to convince but I'm thinking that it would be contradictory upon some level in this assessment, possibly because I would be seeking one group mind over another - and I say that with some question because maybe that's the case and maybe it's not. Personal psychological insight is difficult to assess and that's kind of what I'm asking of all of you - to examine yourselves critically.)

So you can't read up to 10,000 words. Fair enough. Guess your alias-name says it all, which is rather amusing and ironic.

;)

Given the number of words written and posted to the internet each day, I am unlikely to read a 10,000 word post unless the first paragraph or so -- perhaps even the first sentence -- gives me reason to believe the rest would be a good use of my time.

Yours did not make that cut.