In No.2 he wants you to trust politicians when it comes to implimenting the rule of law. These will be the same politicians that make most of their choices based on what's best for their voters? Their parties voters? The businesses in his region? Or the lobbyists? Nice.
No. 7 & 8. Great to see that he's got the same blinkered outlook that Islam does. "it's the word of God and he knew what he was talking about 3,000 years ago" ... so no flexibility or development then on that front, sheesh.
What does Federal Income Tax pay for? I assume stuff like the FBI, the military, wages of congress and the senate, national programs like Medicare?
Just curious, as in many ways I can see the argument for individual states controlling as much as possible to give a more "fine grained" democracy that might be more sensitive to local needs. I get that some things are better not being handled at a state level though.
Forgive me if I'm being a bit thick, but if federal spending was capped at 20% GDP, what would happen in the case of a major catastrophe such as another world war, hell, another moderately-sized war, for that matter? Seems a little short-sighted, if you ask me.
Also, he seems to be broadly in favour of states rights, yet wants to make massive sweeping decisions at federal level that would greatly impact people's personal liberties. Also, his stance on abortion and gay marriage amounts to the establishment of a state religion.
He's leading the field, according to the article I read. The next closest nominee has 18%.
It's early days yet. Anyway, surely the Dems want a scary extremist to be the nominee for the republicans, to scare the moderates over to them?
Ah, so the world learns what Texas has known for a while now, Rick Perry is a highly corrupt extreme right wing hypocrite. It's just such a pity that he's still loved despite it because the Texas political arena is full of people just like him.
Melissia wrote:Ah, so the world learns what Texas has known for a while now, Rick Perry is a highly corrupt extreme right wing hypocrite. It's just such a pity that he's still loved despite it because the Texas political arena is full of people just like him.
Gonna take a shot in the dark and say you don't like him.
I wouldn't say I really like any member of the Texas republican party. considering they pretty much stay in power by manipulating redistricting to ridiculous extremes rather than by appealing to the voter.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:While I don't agree with all of the points, I like how he proposes amending the Constitution or giving power to the Congress.
Better than the current strategy of ignoring both.
Congress is currently the most powerful of the three branches. I hardly think we need to give MORE power to them, not like they're competent enough to do anything with it anyway.
Melissia wrote:Ah, so the world learns what Texas has known for a while now, Rick Perry is a highly corrupt extreme right wing hypocrite. It's just such a pity that he's still loved despite it because the Texas political arena is full of people just like him.
I suppose the logic behind it is that Congress more directly represents the people, being reelected every few years, than a judge that is in their position for life.
Still, I don't really see why he'd think that Congress would vote the way he thinks they should on every issue.
Kilkrazy wrote:What's the logic of not allowing people to elect senators directly, by which they most directly represent the people?
I suppose if the House directly represents the people, they'll pick the Senators that the people would most likely want? That might be what he's thinking, I don't know...
Kilkrazy wrote:Possibly hoi polloi have a habit of electing the wrong kind of senators.
Kilkrazy wrote:What's the logic of not allowing people to elect senators directly, by which they most directly represent the people?
Possibly hoi polloi have a habit of electing the wrong kind of senators.
The original rationale for allowing states (through their legislatures) to appoint Senators was to provide for a house that represents the interests of the states. The House is the body that is charged with representing the interests of the people, the Senate was supposed to represent the states.
Keep in mind, the 17th Amendment wasn't adopted until 1913. The Union survived reasonably well up until that point.
Da Boss wrote:Apparently he's got 20% support as a nominee though.
You obviously haven't seen Palin's popularity. It make you want to leave the solar system
biccat wrote: for allowing states (through their legislatures) to appoint Senators was to provide for a house that represents the interests of the states. The House is the body that is charged with representing the interests of the people, the Senate was supposed to represent the states.
Keep in mind, the 17th Amendment wasn't adopted until 1913. The Union survived reasonably well up until that point.
Also to keep the 'mob' in check. I actually think a huge problem in the US is that politicians are overly sensitive to an extremely diverse and fickle populace that never knows what's actually in its own interests. A lot of people never learn that the Founding Father's hated democracy and in their minds were not creating one. It's funny how 200 so years changes the outlook of some folks
Kilkrazy wrote:What's the logic of not allowing people to elect senators directly, by which they most directly represent the people?
Possibly hoi polloi have a habit of electing the wrong kind of senators.
The original rationale for allowing states (through their legislatures) to appoint Senators was to provide for a house that represents the interests of the states. The House is the body that is charged with representing the interests of the people, the Senate was supposed to represent the states.
Keep in mind, the 17th Amendment wasn't adopted until 1913. The Union survived reasonably well up until that point.
Yes, only one major civil war.
Rick Perry's thinking would seem to be not that government per se is bad but that the federal government is bad and state government is good.
As far as the abortion and gay marriage things go, don't be too quick to judge any nomination for their respective party. During the whole nomination process the candidates are usually very tight with their side of the fence and after the nomination they quickly begin to get away from the fringe and towards the middle.
As far as a Texas politicians go, I haven't heard of their reputation but I am well aware of Illinois politicians having issues.
lord commissar klimino wrote:i agree with 6 and 7. the others i don't or don't know enough about to decide.
I actually found 6 and 7 surprising. I was under the impression he was one of them let the states choose folks.
i don't keep up with politics much :/ all i base my opinion on is my morals,not the person. i just agree with those 2,not the person.for all i know hes a serial killer who hugs statues of kids made out of candy.
The Civil War didn't really have anything to do with the way senators were appointed. Even with directly-elected Senators the Civil War still would have happened, being an explosion of underlying cultural differences/conflicts between two regions/segments of the population of the US an all. Everything going "smoothly" might not be correct, but it's not much of a problem since the way senators entered office had little to do with why the big problem of 19th Century United States occurred.
Da Boss wrote:He's leading the field, according to the article I read. The next closest nominee has 18%.
It's early days yet. Anyway, surely the Dems want a scary extremist to be the nominee for the republicans, to scare the moderates over to them?
But yeah, still early. My money is on Romney as he sits towards the center, while Bachsauce and Perry will try to out-conservative each other; no one else really has a chance.
As for Perry's arguments, I agree with 4, though not for the ridiculous reason he provides. The direct election of Senators does not empower the federal government, it removes power from the states and hands it to the people.
6 and 7 won't ever happen, but he has to claim that they might. Hell even Democrats throw out those little political olive branches.
I would choose Cain out of all those listed, simply for the fact that he doesn't have 'senator', 'governor', 'mayor' or anything political attached to his name. The thing with politicians is that they ruin politics.
halonachos wrote:I would choose Cain out of all those listed, simply for the fact that he doesn't have 'senator', 'governor', 'mayor' or anything political attached to his name. The thing with politicians is that they ruin politics.
halonachos wrote:I would choose Cain out of all those listed, simply for the fact that he doesn't have 'senator', 'governor', 'mayor' or anything political attached to his name. The thing with politicians is that they ruin politics.
Don't hate the players, hate the game.
Okay, I hate politics. Either way, we don't need a politician in charge we need someone who's going to do the best for the overall good. I say no federal taxes, but have a federal sales tax so that way if you buy something the fed gets something for it. Need a source of money from somewhere and it would get rid of tax credits then start putting a tariff on foreign goods, start giving incentives to keep business over here, and punish those who export it. We need someone to fix our economy, not the world's.
halonachos wrote: Either way, we don't need a politician in charge we need someone who's going to do the best for the overall good.
Who will be a politician by necessity of democratic process.
halonachos wrote:
I say no federal taxes, but have a federal sales tax so that way if you buy something the fed gets something for it. Need a source of money from somewhere and it would get rid of tax credits then start putting a tariff on foreign goods, start giving incentives to keep business over here, and punish those who export it. We need someone to fix our economy, not the world's.
Very populist, and European. You're basically describing Scandinavia and Belgium, not bad systems to emulate.
Melissia wrote:
Congress is currently the most powerful of the three branches. I hardly think we need to give MORE power to them, not like they're competent enough to do anything with it anyway.
Actually I would argue that the parties are the most powerful "branch", but in terms of formal authority, yeah, Congress and possibly the Court.
Melissia wrote:
Congress is currently the most powerful of the three branches. I hardly think we need to give MORE power to them, not like they're competent enough to do anything with it anyway.
Actually I would argue that the parties are the most powerful "branch", but in terms of formal authority, yeah, Congress and possibly the Court.
Presumably you're ignoring the fact that the Federal agencies are part of the Executive.
Congress sets out the rules that agencies have to follow, but the agencies set the rules that are actually applied. And while the Judiciary can theoretically reverse agency decisions that are against the Congressional mandate, they typically defer to the agency's interpretation of the law. And they have their own courts (where you must exhaust your remedies before you can go to an Art. 3 court.
The executive (through Federal agencies) is far and away the most powerful branch.
6. The federal Constitution should define marriage as between one man and one woman in all 50 states.
Despite saying last month that he was "fine with" states like New York allowing gay marriage, Perry has now said he supports a constitutional amendment that would permanently ban gay marriage throughout the country and overturn any state laws that define marriage beyond a relationship between one man and one woman.
"I do respect a state's right to have a different opinion and take a different tack if you will, California did that," Perry told the Christian Broadcasting Network in August. "I respect that right, but our founding fathers also said, 'Listen, if you all in the future think things are so important that you need to change the Constitution here's the way you do it'.
In an interview with The Ticket earlier this month, Perry spokeswoman Katherine Cesinger said that even though it would overturn laws in several states, the amendment still fits into Perry's broader philosophy because amendments require the ratification of three-fourths of the states to be added to the Constitution.
7. Abortion should be made illegal throughout the country.
Like the gay marriage issue, Perry at one time believed that abortion policy should be left to the states, as was the case before the 1973 Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade. But in the same Christian Broadcasting Network interview, Perry said that he would support a federal amendment outlawing abortion because it was "so important...to the soul of this country and to the traditional values [of] our founding fathers."
This the best you got, Republicans?
lord commissar klimino wrote:i agree with 6 and 7. the others i don't or don't know enough about to decide.
Anti-Gay marriage stances baffle me, but do you guys really think abortion is such a cut and dried issue?
That's suprising. I think it's incredibly murky and can certainly empathise with anyone who holds a pro-life point of view.
I was pro life until I realised that I didn't actually care about the unborn children of other people, and I had to accept that. I don't think LCK's stance that it is wrong and should be illegal is hard to understand at all. It's certainly not worth mocking.
Anti-gay marriage though, yeah, I don't get that one.
abortion is equal rights? well,i guess it depends on your view of when its alive,but besides that WHEN its alive it deserves to breath and grow. yes if it was rape thats bad,but then just give the baby to an orphanage.
as for gay marriage,ill give to you snotty scientific like: if nature had intended 2 men to be together, then they could mate together.
lord commissar klimino wrote:abortion is equal rights? well,i guess it depends on your view of when its alive,but besides that WHEN its alive it deserves to breath and grow. yes if it was rape thats bad,but then just give the baby to an orphanage.
as for gay marriage,ill give to you snotty scientific like: if nature had intended 2 men to be together, then they could mate together.
I mean that giving someone the right to have an abortion is important. If the baby can survive outside of it's mother then it's alive. Otherwise...
Also, if nature intended us to fly we would have wings. Frankly nothing we do day to day is particularly natural so that's a pretty dumb excuse...
I've never gotten gay marriage proponents myself. Marriage is a soul sucking abyss of suffering from which one never wakes. I fully support the denial of gay marriage so as to protect people from such an awful experience
LCK, you got no sympathy for people with cancer then? After all, if nature had intended them to survive, they wouldn't have had cancer!
(Hint: Your point of view has nothing to do with science. Homosexual behaviour happens in other species too.)
I can see no rational argument that the fetus is not a new, unique organism from conception. It's just a form of legal killing I have no problem with if it's happening to someone else. I'd be much more conflicted in the case of my own child. Which is why I am a fan of using both chemical and physical contraception.
lord commissar klimino wrote:abortion is equal rights? well,i guess it depends on your view of when its alive,but besides that WHEN its alive it deserves to breath and grow. yes if it was rape thats bad,but then just give the baby to an orphanage.
as for gay marriage,ill give to you snotty scientific like: if nature had intended 2 men to be together, then they could mate together.
I mean that giving someone the right to have an abortion is important. If the baby can survive outside of it's mother then it's alive. Otherwise...
Also, if nature intended us to fly we would have wings. Frankly nothing we do day to day is particularly natural so that's a pretty dumb excuse...
see,thats were the argument arises. i think its when its developed its brain to a certain amount.
as for the gay marriage,hence why i said snotty scientific. ever since some scientists called individual thinking a disorder,i don't trust scientists.
lord commissar klimino wrote:abortion is equal rights? well,i guess it depends on your view of when its alive,but besides that WHEN its alive it deserves to breath and grow. yes if it was rape thats bad,but then just give the baby to an orphanage.
as for gay marriage,ill give to you snotty scientific like: if nature had intended 2 men to be together, then they could mate together.
1) Points are much more convincing when they are written at least somewhat decently.
Personally I think the issue is that manly men don't like being gazed at with longing by people that have the power to exercise said longing. In essence, they don't like being akin to women.
You should trust scientists in the same way you shouldn't trust people in general. But at least scientists are required to present evidence for what they say.
As to your other point, I don't see why you would pick brain development other than as an arbitrary line.
lord commissar klimino wrote:abortion is equal rights? well,i guess it depends on your view of when its alive,but besides that WHEN its alive it deserves to breath and grow. yes if it was rape thats bad,but then just give the baby to an orphanage.
as for gay marriage,ill give to you snotty scientific like: if nature had intended 2 men to be together, then they could mate together.
1) Points are much more convincing when they are written at least somewhat decently.
2) Your point doesn't make much sense anyways
1) sorry,im working on my grammar.im horrible at it and have looked at programs to help,but none have worked.
2) ok? just to let everyone know i dont hate people that do those things,i just dont find it decent things to do. in the end as long as the gay guy isnt hitting on me and leaves me alone,ill ignore it.
Would it be so wrong for marriage, the religious thing, to grant zero rights for the couple, and be given or not given to whoever the church wants. However, for rights to be granted, people would need a civil ceremony which any combination of sexes could use?
MrDwhitey wrote:Would it be so wrong for marriage, the religious thing, to grant zero rights for the couple, and be given or not given to whoever the church wants. However, for rights to be granted, people would need a civil ceremony which any combination of sexes could use?
umm..sorry...what? not trying to be rude or mean,but i dont understand!
As it is, marriage grants legal rights. So married couples have certain legal rights.
Gay couples who are living together cannot access those rights without being able to access marriage.
Da Boss wrote:As it is, marriage grants legal rights. So married couples have certain legal rights.
Gay couples who are living together cannot access those rights without being able to access marriage.
hate to sound like a <insert word meaning snooty or whatever>,but then that sucks for them.
i know back when i was a kid these were not as big of issues.maybe im just stuck in a past world,and if i am well then,ill look at all of you in your new world,look at mine,notice how it was a good world,and say buggers to your new world.
Rick Perry is big on States rights, so I imagine that some of these views are to reel in the conservative vote. We've seen something of this nature in every election
And to Lord Commissar Kilmono, No offense, but you are pretty young, and you'll learn as you get older that "Morals" change with life experience, and knowledge. You'll start to see things in a shade of grey a lot more often than black and white.
Well, enjoy your homophobia and biggotry! Hope they've already dealt with smallpox back in past world, and corporal punishment isn't still in vogue.
Sasori: Yeah, bloody true. I always find that having any sort of ethical debate with the kids- they believe in absolute right and wrong, and it takes a long time for them to get any acceptance of ambiguity. Then they go through what I like to call the "bitter 18-20 year old phase" which can actually last to your mid twenties before moving on a little.
On one hand I can kinda see where this guy is coming from with his suggestions...
On the other hand the adage that "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." Applies here. I don't think he's thought completely about what kind of things could happen if (God forbid) all of those changes were made...maybe he doesn't really care...or maybe like a lot of politicians he's just saying those things to get votes...
Either way, it doesn't matter, I sincerely doubt such huge changes will be made any time soon to the Constitution, most of them are easily unconstitutional as it stands...
I'm not going to go into my opinions on Gay marriage and abortion here because it would just cause more arguments but I can tell you that a constitutional ban on either has a snowball's chance in hell of happening and staying around for long...
He sounds like a crazier version of Ron Paul in some regards, at least Paul had the guts to admit he didn't like abortion or SSM, but it wasn't the .fed's job nor business to decide if it was legal or not.
One or two of these I can kinda get behind, but he's to much of a hypocrit to ever even consider voting for "State good, Fed bad! As soon as I get a chance I'm going to outlaw a bunch of crap because my holy book says it's naughty!"
Sounds like a nut job, hopefully he doesn't make it very far, but then again not a huge fan of any of the GOP guys right now, nor the current guy, so we'll see next year.
I agree 100% with klimino , being gay is unatural and quite sick i also try to avoide gays. As for abortions ....how would you like to be killed before you were even born and not even given the chance to live. Even if you dont know your mother and father , if the sperm entered the egg even if its not concious the seed has been planted and removing it IS killing that person.And that is murder!
My opinion is becaus i was brougt up in a normal family a normal mother and father and normal brothers and sister and anyone who says other wise is wierd.
Sasori wrote:And to Lord Commissar Kilmono, No offense, but you are pretty young, and you'll learn as you get older that "Morals" change with life experience, and knowledge. You'll start to see things in a shade of grey a lot more often than black and white.
probably not actually. while i believe there is a gray area,i think somethings will always be black and some will always be white.
Da Boss wrote:Well, enjoy your homophobia and biggotry! Hope they've already dealt with smallpox back in past world, and corporal punishment isn't still in vogue.
we have,don't worry
MrDwhitey wrote:When I was a teenager I said some pretty stupid stuff too.
I still do now, but at least I try not to be proud of it.
meh, im a stubborn little guy. i dont care about my own pride much,all i care about is my views. im usually the sit in the corner alone guy,although i enjoy it unlike most.you learn alot in that corner those who never are there will never learn.
o0shotty0o wrote:I agree 100% with klimino , being gay is unatural and quite sick i also try to avoide gays. As for abortions ....how would you like to be killed before you were even born and not even given the chance to live. Even if you dont know your mother and father , if the sperm entered the egg even if its not concious the seed has been planted and removing it IS killing that person.And that is murder!
My opinion is becaus i was brougt up in a normal family a normal mother and father and normal brothers and sister and anyone who says other wise is wierd.
Sure. By normal, do you mean in a god fearing Christian house where Fox News was played via loudspeaker every hour of every day?
Because I think Mr. Cannerus would like to have a word with you.
Da Boss wrote:As it is, marriage grants legal rights. So married couples have certain legal rights.
Gay couples who are living together cannot access those rights without being able to access marriage.
hate to sound like a <insert word meaning snooty or whatever>,but then that sucks for them.
i know back when i was a kid these were not as big of issues.maybe im just stuck in a past world,and if i am well then,ill look at all of you in your new world,look at mine,notice how it was a good world,and say buggers to your new world.
They were always big issues. You were just never aware of intelligent enough as a child to understand them.
o0shotty0o wrote:I agree 100% with klimino , being gay is unatural and quite sick i also try to avoide gays.
Consider this:
Man is born of nature, and his nuances and actions are governed by his nature.
Thus, what man does is entirely natural, no matter what he does or what he creates.
Therefore, homosexuality is natural.
Maybe you'll understand when one of your friends turns out to be gay.
As for abortions ....how would you like to be killed before you were even born and not even given the chance to live. Even if you dont know your mother and father , if the sperm entered the egg even if its not concious the seed has been planted and removing it IS killing that person.And that is murder!
It's like every time I jack off I'm causing my own personal holocaust.
My opinion is becaus i was brougt up in a normal family a normal mother and father and normal brothers and sister and anyone who says other wise is wierd.
It saddens me if normal families are as close-minded as your own.
o0shotty0o wrote:I agree 100% with klimino , being gay is unatural and quite sick i also try to avoide gays. As for abortions ....how would you like to be killed before you were even born and not even given the chance to live. Even if you dont know your mother and father , if the sperm entered the egg even if its not concious the seed has been planted and removing it IS killing that person.And that is murder!
My opinion is becaus i was brougt up in a normal family a normal mother and father and normal brothers and sister and anyone who says other wise is wierd.
Sure. By normal, do you mean in a god fearing Christian house where Fox News was played via loudspeaker every hour of every day?
Because I think Mr. Cannerus would like to have a word with you.
Would that be a word on a piece of paper wrapped around a brick?
As to the two:
Fafnir wrote:It's like every time I jack off I'm causing my own personal holocaust.
o0shotty0o wrote:I agree 100% with klimino , being gay is unatural and quite sick i also try to avoide gays. As for abortions ....how would you like to be killed before you were even born and not even given the chance to live. Even if you dont know your mother and father , if the sperm entered the egg even if its not concious the seed has been planted and removing it IS killing that person.And that is murder!
My opinion is becaus i was brougt up in a normal family a normal mother and father and normal brothers and sister and anyone who says other wise is wierd.
Sure. By normal, do you mean in a god fearing Christian house where Fox News was played via loudspeaker every hour of every day?
Because I think Mr. Cannerus would like to have a word with you.
Christians get undermined too much. like EVERYTHING they are stereotyped.
as for cannerus,depends on what you mean by 'word'. i think he is a pretty nice guy,just wouldn't date him or like him hitting on me. more so are age difference actually.
o0shotty0o wrote:I agree 100% with klimino , being gay is unatural and quite sick i also try to avoide gays. As for abortions ....how would you like to be killed before you were even born and not even given the chance to live. Even if you dont know your mother and father , if the sperm entered the egg even if its not concious the seed has been planted and removing it IS killing that person.And that is murder!
My opinion is becaus i was brougt up in a normal family a normal mother and father and normal brothers and sister and anyone who says other wise is wierd.
Sure. By normal, do you mean in a god fearing Christian house where Fox News was played via loudspeaker every hour of every day?
Because I think Mr. Cannerus would like to have a word with you.
No actully my religion is islam, are you going to insult me for being a musil in your next post ? I am not a strict muslim, i dont pray or go to mosques even though ide like to , i just dont have the time for it , in fact im caucasion my mother is english , its my father who is muslim , i get ready everyday and go out with frainds and go out with girls and party on the weekends so im sorry to burst you bubble mate but i am normal.
Fafnir, Chowder, you do know that a sperm contains only half the genetic code required to produce a full person, right?
And Fafnir, your macro is nice and all but it's not a very strong argument.
Just admit you're okay with the legal killing of barely developed babies you don't know. You're probably okay with killing lots of other people, this is just another type to add to the list.
lord commissar klimino wrote:
probably not actually. while i believe there is a gray area,i think somethings will always be black and some will always be white.
lord commissar klimino wrote:
probably not actually. while i believe there is a gray area,i think somethings will always be black and some will always be white.
o0shotty0o wrote:I agree 100% with klimino , being gay is unatural and quite sick i also try to avoide gays. As for abortions ....how would you like to be killed before you were even born and not even given the chance to live. Even if you dont know your mother and father , if the sperm entered the egg even if its not concious the seed has been planted and removing it IS killing that person.And that is murder!
My opinion is becaus i was brougt up in a normal family a normal mother and father and normal brothers and sister and anyone who says other wise is wierd.
Sure. By normal, do you mean in a god fearing Christian house where Fox News was played via loudspeaker every hour of every day?
Because I think Mr. Cannerus would like to have a word with you.
No actully my religion is islam, are you going to insult me for being a musil in your next post ? I am not a strict muslim, i dont pray or go to mosques even though ide like to , i just dont have the time for it , in fact im caucasion my mother is english , its my father who is muslim , i get ready everyday and go out with frainds and go out with girls and party on the weekends so im sorry to burst you bubble mate but i am normal.
You know, that's fine. I applaud you for being a Muslim at such a time where the average Muslim is being stereotyped and such.
However, that does not excuse the rampant homophobia that you show. Why do you hate gay people? Because Romans and Greeks had no problem with gays. And seeing as how you are French, and your system of government is based on the US, which in turn is based on the Greeco-Roman systems, then you should be accepting of gays. Why, just today, I had a gay couple sit next to me during the Red Bull Cliff Diving event. They did no harm to me or my friends, they did not hit on me, and they did not have lewd acts in public. They were simply in love. What's wrong with love?
I guess my argument boils down to a sentence. If you hate gays (Not gay marriage, that is a different argument) then you hate the idea of love and the idea of freedom. I'm going to play that card.
Da Boss wrote:Freedom also means the freedom to hate whoever you want, Chowder.
Yes it does. Freedom means a lot of things. However, an infringement of freedom via an act of freedom is wrong, and can lead down a dark road, IMHO
I'm also a bit passionate about Gay Rights, for some reason. No idea why. I just feel that a human (A Egg/Sperm concoction is not a human, FYI) is having his unalienable rights stripped from him, I should do something. Gays, minorities, women, etc.
Chowderhead wrote:I guess my argument boils down to a sentence. If you hate gays (Not gay marriage, that is a different argument) then you hate the idea of love and the idea of freedom. I'm going to play that card.
well im going against gay marriage so and even if you hate them,which i don't,that doesn't mean your against freedom.its your freedom to not have to see 2 guys all googly over each other when you leave the house. it is saying something against love i guess. not going to add ANOTHER multi-sided side to this behemoth of an argument.
Chowderhead wrote:I guess my argument boils down to a sentence. If you hate gays (Not gay marriage, that is a different argument) then you hate the idea of love and the idea of freedom. I'm going to play that card.
well im going against gay marriage so and even if you hate them,which i don't,that doesn't mean your against freedom.its your freedom to not have to see 2 guys all googly over each other when you leave the house. it is saying something against love i guess. not going to add ANOTHER multi-sided side to this behemoth of an argument.
That's like saying laws against murder impinge on my freedom to kill people...
well im going against gay marriage so and even if you hate them,which i don't,that doesn't mean your against freedom.its your freedom to not have to see 2 guys all googly over each other when you leave the house. it is saying something against love i guess. not going to add ANOTHER multi-sided side to this behemoth of an argument.
How do you think a gay guy feels about seeing a man and a woman make out?! What about his feelings?
Oh wait, he probably doesn't care, as he isn't incredibly insecure/childish (YMMVDOYLGC).
I think I need to drink myself to sleep now, but I've done my annual whiskey soak already.
When did the degrade into another argument about gay's and abortion?
And, if it's your freedom to not see two dudes going at it, what about a dude and a girl going at it? What about their freedom to do as they please? If you don't like something...don't look at it, the last thing we need is more government oversight on what's "good" for us, unless your into that big brother please take care of my Mr. Government because I'm incapable of living my own life crap.
Chowderhead wrote:I guess my argument boils down to a sentence. If you hate gays (Not gay marriage, that is a different argument) then you hate the idea of love and the idea of freedom. I'm going to play that card.
well im going against gay marriage so
Cool. I can respect that.
and even if you hate them,which i don't,that doesn't mean your against freedom.
It means you believe that a group of people who believe in something different than you are less of a person, than that's not freedom. The last people to become famous doing this were GODWIN'S LAW IS BEING INVOKED.
its your freedom to not have to see 2 guys all googly over each other when you leave the house.
It's also your freedom to look away. Don't intrude on business that isn't yours.
o0shotty0o wrote:I agree 100% with klimino , being gay is unatural and quite sick i also try to avoide gays. As for abortions ....how would you like to be killed before you were even born and not even given the chance to live. Even if you dont know your mother and father , if the sperm entered the egg even if its not concious the seed has been planted and removing it IS killing that person.And that is murder!
My opinion is becaus i was brougt up in a normal family a normal mother and father and normal brothers and sister and anyone who says other wise is wierd.
Sure. By normal, do you mean in a god fearing Christian house where Fox News was played via loudspeaker every hour of every day?
Because I think Mr. Cannerus would like to have a word with you.
No actully my religion is islam, are you going to insult me for being a musil in your next post ? I am not a strict muslim, i dont pray or go to mosques even though ide like to , i just dont have the time for it , in fact im caucasion my mother is english , its my father who is muslim , i get ready everyday and go out with frainds and go out with girls and party on the weekends so im sorry to burst you bubble mate but i am normal.
You know, that's fine. I applaud you for being a Muslim at such a time where the average Muslim is being stereotyped and such.
However, that does not excuse the rampant homophobia that you show. Why do you hate gay people? Because Romans and Greeks had no problem with gays. And seeing as how you are French, and your system of government is based on the US, which in turn is based on the Greeco-Roman systems, then you should be accepting of gays. Why, just today, I had a gay couple sit next to me during the Red Bull Cliff Diving event. They did no harm to me or my friends, they did not hit on me, and they did not have lewd acts in public. They were simply in love. What's wrong with love?
I guess my argument boils down to a sentence. If you hate gays (Not gay marriage, that is a different argument) then you hate the idea of love and the idea of freedom. I'm going to play that card.
Your move, Shotty!
First of all when did i say i hate gays ? And also there is no such thing as freedom , this is the animal kingdom the stongest survive and the weak perish , you americans are really brain dead beliveing in these false freedoms your gouverment force fed you since you were born, and since the stongest are the humans due to our intilect we have florished more than any other species ,
And also im on holiday in france i go back to uni in september.
I guess my argument boils down to a sentence, If humens were born naturally gay thay wouldent be able to reproduse and hence perish.
o0shotty0o wrote:First of all when did i say i hate gays ?
Right about here:
"being gay is unatural and quite sick i also try to avoide gays."
And also there is no such thing as freedom , this is the animal kingdom the stongest survive and the weak perish , you americans are really brain dead beliveing in these false freedoms your gouverment force fed you since you were born, and since the stongest are the humans due to our intilect we have florished more than any other species ,
And also im on holiday in france i go back to uni in september
This is the shittiest thing I have ever heard. I laughed so hard listening to this. We have a new Warpcrafter, folks!
I guess my argument boils down to a sentence, If humens were born naturally gay thay wouldent be able to reproduse and hence perish.
Checkmate, Chowderhead
Er... Yeah, no. A Male and a Female parent can give birth to a homosexual baby. There has also been no correlation between homosexual parenting and their children being gay. None. So, you sir, are in checkmate. Fume all you want, you will still be in the wrong.
Sckitzo wrote:When did the degrade into another argument about gay's and abortion?
And, if it's your freedom to not see two dudes going at it, what about a dude and a girl going at it? What about their freedom to do as they please? If you don't like something...don't look at it, the last thing we need is more government oversight on what's "good" for us, unless your into that big brother please take care of my Mr. Government because I'm incapable of living my own life crap.
not really. *shrug* i see good arguments against me and ones that are just crap.not gonna say which is which. so ill end my section of this political argument here.
gay marriage: marriage should be between a man and a women who are in love. nothing else. gay marriage goes against the basic principle of nature, religion, and what used to be the worlds morals.
abortion: its bad. the baby deserves to live.if you don't want it,give it to a orphanage. i actually think there should be a law were if someone gets raped and gets pregnant, they get financial aid for the months they cant work.once its gone,lets them give it to an orphanage if they really dont want it.
anyways.its been an insightful (if not headstrong on almost everyone's part,myself included) argument. see you in the next one. (note lack of orkmoticons.)
That's assuming sex=procreation only, and there is instances of homosexuality in the animal kingdom, granted it does not fit into the whole theory of evolution thing, but it happens. I'll admit it doesn't make sense at all from that outlook, but hell, what are a few less kids running around, not like were going to run out of people anytime soon.
Strongest survive and weak perish? Maybe 300 years ago otherwise eugenics would be a daily term not a taboo phrase. I do wonder what false freedoms were brain dead for believing in? There are a lot of sheeple running around, but that's a global thing.
o0shotty0o wrote:I agree 100% with klimino , being gay is unatural and quite sick i also try to avoide gays. As for abortions ....how would you like to be killed before you were even born and not even given the chance to live. Even if you dont know your mother and father , if the sperm entered the egg even if its not concious the seed has been planted and removing it IS killing that person.And that is murder!
My opinion is becaus i was brougt up in a normal family a normal mother and father and normal brothers and sister and anyone who says other wise is wierd.
Sure. By normal, do you mean in a god fearing Christian house where Fox News was played via loudspeaker every hour of every day?
Because I think Mr. Cannerus would like to have a word with you.
No actully my religion is islam, are you going to insult me for being a musil in your next post ? I am not a strict muslim, i dont pray or go to mosques even though ide like to , i just dont have the time for it , in fact im caucasion my mother is english , its my father who is muslim , i get ready everyday and go out with frainds and go out with girls and party on the weekends so im sorry to burst you bubble mate but i am normal.
You know, that's fine. I applaud you for being a Muslim at such a time where the average Muslim is being stereotyped and such.
However, that does not excuse the rampant homophobia that you show. Why do you hate gay people? Because Romans and Greeks had no problem with gays. And seeing as how you are French, and your system of government is based on the US, which in turn is based on the Greeco-Roman systems, then you should be accepting of gays. Why, just today, I had a gay couple sit next to me during the Red Bull Cliff Diving event. They did no harm to me or my friends, they did not hit on me, and they did not have lewd acts in public. They were simply in love. What's wrong with love?
I guess my argument boils down to a sentence. If you hate gays (Not gay marriage, that is a different argument) then you hate the idea of love and the idea of freedom. I'm going to play that card.
Your move, Shotty!
First of all when did i say i hate gays ? And also there is no such thing as freedom , this is the animal kingdom the stongest survive and the weak perish , you americans are really brain dead beliveing in these false freedoms your gouverment force fed you since you were born, and since the stongest are the humans due to our intilect we have florished more than any other species ,
And also im on holiday in france i go back to uni in september.
I guess my argument boils down to a sentence, If humens were born naturally gay thay wouldent be able to reproduse and hence perish.
Checkmate, Chowderhead
You called them SICK and UNNATURAL.
HUMANS are born Straight or Gay, there is no "becoming" gay. Sexuality is about as much a “choice” as handedness is. If you are so blinded by your religion that you can't accept someone who likes a penis instead of a vagina, then something is seriously wrong with you.
We aren't Animals, so no, its not the Animal Kingdom.
If you avoid and condemn gays to be "sick and unnatural", you hate gay people, and you don't have much INTELLECT.
LCK: You really not interested in changing your mind on this one? It often hurts to learn we're wrong, but so do push ups, and both make you stronger in the end.
lord commissar klimino wrote:
basic principle of nature
It happens in nature. You know, with the furry animals? Not the furries though.
lord commissar klimino wrote:
religion
You live in a Theocracy? News to me. Please note what I said earlier though in regards to my point on marriage not giving rights due to something called "Seperation of Church and State".
lord commissar klimino wrote:
worlds morals
Morals change so much it's quite amusing. Did you know kids were good to go for sex long ago? And didn't Chowder mention earlier about how in Roman times it was a-ok to be gay? Those Spartans from 300 people like emulating? Pederests.
Anyway, this is always a headstrong one. It's amazing no-ones tried to tear out a throat. Good life to ya.
Sckitzo wrote:When did the degrade into another argument about gay's and abortion?
And, if it's your freedom to not see two dudes going at it, what about a dude and a girl going at it? What about their freedom to do as they please? If you don't like something...don't look at it, the last thing we need is more government oversight on what's "good" for us, unless your into that big brother please take care of my Mr. Government because I'm incapable of living my own life crap.
not really. *shrug* i see good arguments against me and ones that are just crap.not gonna say which is which. so ill end my section of this political argument here.
gay marriage: marriage should be between a man and a women who are in love. nothing else. gay marriage goes against the basic principle of nature, religion, and what used to be the worlds morals.
abortion: its bad. the baby deserves to live.if you don't want it,give it to a orphanage. i actually think there should be a law were if someone gets raped and gets pregnant, they get financial aid for the months they cant work.once its gone,lets them give it to an orphanage if they really dont want it.
anyways.its been an insightful (if not headstrong on almost everyone's part,myself included) argument. see you in the next one. (note lack of orkmoticons.)
Your Morals, not mine, not even one the US shares let alone a global one. And is the term Marriage that bugs you? If they removed the legal benefits from marriage then this wouldn't be such a issue.
I honestly don't care if gay's marry or not, I just don't think it's the governments place to decide what's moral and what's not as long as someone exercising their freedom does not prevent you from exercising yours.
o0shotty0o wrote:First of all when did i say i hate gays ?
Right about here:
"being gay is unatural and quite sick i also try to avoide gays."
And also there is no such thing as freedom , this is the animal kingdom the stongest survive and the weak perish , you americans are really brain dead beliveing in these false freedoms your gouverment force fed you since you were born, and since the stongest are the humans due to our intilect we have florished more than any other species ,
And also im on holiday in france i go back to uni in september
This is the shittiest thing I have ever heard. I laughed so hard listening to this. We have a new Warpcrafter, folks!
I guess my argument boils down to a sentence, If humens were born naturally gay thay wouldent be able to reproduse and hence perish.
Checkmate, Chowderhead
Er... Yeah, no. A Male and a Female parent can give birth to a homosexual baby. There has also been no correlation between homosexual parenting and their children being gay. None. So, you sir, are in checkmate. Fume all you want, you will still be in the wrong.
Actully im right and your wrong and you will never be right unless you grow a brain and i already checkmated you and won the game , but i supose you must be a swore loser
You want a rematch ? bring it on baby ..... ill eat you up and spit you out just like ive been doing .
On a side note your becoming quite my nemesis on these forums , exept your the bad guy that keeps getting destroyed but keeps on coming back for more.
Da Boss wrote:LCK: You really not interested in changing your mind on this one? It often hurts to learn we're wrong, but so do push ups, and both make you stronger in the end.
Ok o0shotty0o, English may not be your primary language, but please at least run it through a spellcheck first, your posts border on unreadable. Though I'm fairly convinced your just trolling Chowder at this point.
Sckitzo wrote:Ok o0shotty0o, English may not be your primary language, but please at least run it through a spellcheck first, your posts border on unreadable. Though I'm fairly convinced your just trolling Chowder at this point.
If he isn't trolling, this is a whole new level of that I've never encountered beforehand.
I really wish I could meet you in person, shotty, I really do.
o0shotty0o wrote:I agree 100% with klimino , being gay is unatural and quite sick i also try to avoide gays. As for abortions ....how would you like to be killed before you were even born and not even given the chance to live. Even if you dont know your mother and father , if the sperm entered the egg even if its not concious the seed has been planted and removing it IS killing that person.And that is murder!
My opinion is becaus i was brougt up in a normal family a normal mother and father and normal brothers and sister and anyone who says other wise is wierd.
Sure. By normal, do you mean in a god fearing Christian house where Fox News was played via loudspeaker every hour of every day?
Because I think Mr. Cannerus would like to have a word with you.
No actully my religion is islam, are you going to insult me for being a musil in your next post ? I am not a strict muslim, i dont pray or go to mosques even though ide like to , i just dont have the time for it , in fact im caucasion my mother is english , its my father who is muslim , i get ready everyday and go out with frainds and go out with girls and party on the weekends so im sorry to burst you bubble mate but i am normal.
You know, that's fine. I applaud you for being a Muslim at such a time where the average Muslim is being stereotyped and such.
However, that does not excuse the rampant homophobia that you show. Why do you hate gay people? Because Romans and Greeks had no problem with gays. And seeing as how you are French, and your system of government is based on the US, which in turn is based on the Greeco-Roman systems, then you should be accepting of gays. Why, just today, I had a gay couple sit next to me during the Red Bull Cliff Diving event. They did no harm to me or my friends, they did not hit on me, and they did not have lewd acts in public. They were simply in love. What's wrong with love?
I guess my argument boils down to a sentence. If you hate gays (Not gay marriage, that is a different argument) then you hate the idea of love and the idea of freedom. I'm going to play that card.
Your move, Shotty!
First of all when did i say i hate gays ? And also there is no such thing as freedom , this is the animal kingdom the stongest survive and the weak perish , you americans are really brain dead beliveing in these false freedoms your gouverment force fed you since you were born, and since the stongest are the humans due to our intilect we have florished more than any other species ,
And also im on holiday in france i go back to uni in september.
I guess my argument boils down to a sentence, If humens were born naturally gay thay wouldent be able to reproduse and hence perish.
Checkmate, Chowderhead
You called them SICK and UNNATURAL.
HUMANS are born Straight or Gay, there is no "becoming" gay. Sexuality is about as much a “choice” as handedness is. If you are so blinded by your religion that you can't accept someone who likes a penis instead of a vagina, then something is seriously wrong with you.
We aren't Animals, so no, its not the Animal Kingdom.
If you avoid and condemn gays to be "sick and unnatural", you hate gay people, and you don't have much INTELLECT.
1) Say a man puts a dildo up his bottom and it gets stuck and he has to go to hospital and need an operation to remove it yes ? well....that would be sick and unatural but do i hate the guy ? NO
I do find it quite interesting that all these "guvmint better not interfere with muh personal bzns" types are intensely interested in government preventing two consenting adults from getting married.
Da Boss wrote:Fafnir, Chowder, you do know that a sperm contains only half the genetic code required to produce a full person, right?
But it still has the potential to form a human, much like a zygote does. Therefore it's murder, right?
And Fafnir, your macro is nice and all but it's not a very strong argument.
Well, there's the genetic evidence involved, but I'm much too lethargic to write it all out.
Just admit you're okay with the legal killing of barely developed babies you don't know. You're probably okay with killing lots of other people, this is just another type to add to the list.
RE: "Unnatural" arguments. Televisions, cars, and houses are, strictly speaking, "unnatural". Guess we should all live in caves and hit things with sticks.
I agree 100% with klimino , being gay is unatural and quite sick i also try to avoide gays.
You try to avoid them, clearly. You don't like being around them, and you wouldn't ever associate yourselves with them. All of these are true, correct?
You would never want to be friends with one, and think they are unnatural (even though they are born naturally, which makes you look very dumb) and sick (which is only true if you are blinded by Religion)
I'm not talking about guys getting plastic dicks up their arsehole, I'm talking about Guys loving eachother in a physical manner, and them being treated the same way that a man and a woman together would be.
Da Boss wrote:Just admit you're okay with the legal killing of barely developed babies you don't know. You're probably okay with killing lots of other people, this is just another type to add to the list.
I am okay with the legal killing of barely developed babies I don't know.
1) Say a man puts a dildo up his bottom and it gets stuck and he has to go to hospital and need an operation to remove it yes ? well....that would be sick and unatural but do i hate the guy ? NO
First, that's why man invented lube.
Second, it's no different if a girl gets one stuck in one of her orifices (hey, some girls like anal too...).
Third, straight couples partake in anal sex as well.
And fourth, if (insert your preferred deity of choice) hated gays so much, he wouldn't have put the male G-spot up the ass and he wouldn't have made girl on girl so hot.
RatBot wrote:RE: "Unnatural" arguments. Televisions, cars, and houses are, strictly speaking, "unnatural". Guess we should all live in caves and hit things with sticks.
For what it's worth, I consider the above constructs to be natural developments, and thus part of nature.
o0shotty0o wrote:
Sckitzo wrote:What if it's a straight dude that does it? Or a straight chick? Is it still sick and unnatural?
A straight dude does not do that and its natural for a woman to be penetrated maybe sick if it gets stuck up her bottom though.
And yes, straight men do occasionally do that. Prostate is the male equivalent to the G-spot (it's actually the other way around, but whatever), so even some straight men like being stimulated there. It's not too surprising to find a straight man who likes being fingered up there during the throws of engagement. Likewise, some straight men like performing anal sex with women for reasons that I need not explain on this forum.
RatBot wrote:I do find it quite interesting that all these "guvmint better not interfere with muh personal bzns" types are intensely interested in government preventing two consenting adults from getting married.
Some, not all. I have no issue with gays or abortion, nor do I think it's the governments place to decide was is moral and not.
This thread has quickly gone from a political debate to quite amusing...
Shotty, before you say anything else, think about what you are saying, is it benefiting anyone else? Do you or anyone here gain anything by you ramming your beliefs down each other's throats? Let me answer: no it does not. I'm not sure if you are trying to convince others to change their train of thinking, but let me tell you, on the internet, there is just about as much chance of that happening as these suggestions Perry has come up with passing and staying as law...
1) Say a man puts a dildo up his bottom and it gets stuck and he has to go to hospital and need an operation to remove it yes ? well....that would be sick and unatural but do i hate the guy ? NO
First, that's why man invented lube.
Second, it's no different if a girl gets one stuck in one of her orifices (hey, some girls like anal too...).
Third, straight couples partake in anal sex as well.
And fourth, if (insert your preferred deity of choice) hated gays so much, he wouldn't have put the male G-spot up the ass and he wouldn't have made girl on girl so hot.
RatBot wrote:RE: "Unnatural" arguments. Televisions, cars, and houses are, strictly speaking, "unnatural". Guess we should all live in caves and hit things with sticks.
For what it's worth, I consider the above constructs to be natural developments, and thus part of nature.
I was talking about dildos , you are talking about man and woman whish is the way it should be anal or vaginal as long as its man and woman
RatBot wrote:I do find it quite interesting that all these "guvmint better not interfere with muh personal bzns" types are intensely interested in government preventing two consenting adults from getting married.
Some, not all. I have no issue with gays or abortion, nor do I think it's the governments place to decide was is moral and not.
Yes, my bad, I should've said "many", not "all". Apologies.
Shotty, tell me, do you believe homosexuality is a choice? As in, gay people are gay because they choose to be gay?
EDIT: I'm pretty sure it's in the Bible/Koran somewhere that the poopchute is supposed to be a one way street. Not in so many words, but it does say sex is for procreation only, which would make anal, etc, wrong. So.... try again?
Da Boss wrote:Fafnir, Chowder, you do know that a sperm contains only half the genetic code required to produce a full person, right?
But it still has the potential to form a human, much like a zygote does. Therefore it's murder, right?
And Fafnir, your macro is nice and all but it's not a very strong argument.
Well, there's the genetic evidence involved, but I'm much too lethargic to write it all out.
Just admit you're okay with the legal killing of barely developed babies you don't know. You're probably okay with killing lots of other people, this is just another type to add to the list.
For what it's worth, I was almost aborted too.
Interesting point on the first one. If we extend that, then the death of any cell is a problem, since with modern cloning techniques they could be used to create an individual. But I would probably catch you on a technicality there (sorry, I know they suck) in that no unique genetic code with the potential to replicate itself into a new organism has been created. There's my line in the sand, I guess. Like many areas in biology, it's somewhat arbitrary.
I'm intruiged by the examples of "genetic evidence". What is this, exactly? Honestly, show us a link or even a search term, I'll look it up myself. (This is not me saying "AHAH, WEAKPOINT" but genuine curiousity).
As to point number three, well, okay, I was born extremely premature, like on the borderline between viable birth and non viable. Don't think it makes much difference in a rational argument about this stuff though. (Cheers for the reply though!)
Chowder: Hurrah!
Now all you gotta do is accept Jesus as your personal saviour
WARORK93 wrote:This thread has quickly gone from a political debate to quite amusing...
Shotty, before you say anything else, think about what you are saying, is it benefiting anyone else? Do you or anyone here gain anything by you ramming your beliefs down each other's throats? Let me answer: no it does not. I'm not sure if you are trying to convince others to change their train of thinking, but let me tell you, on the internet, there is just about as much chance of that happening as these suggestions Perry has come up with passing and staying as law...
Well all i can tell you is that your wrong and if you think like that you really do need to change your train of thought !
You're argument has boiled down to "I'm right and you're wrong!", which saddens me. I was hoping to have an intellectually stimulating debate about right and wrong. But I see that's not going to happen.
Thanks to the argument that would be bulletproof is said by a third grader, we are stuck back in 1266. Humf. Maybe I'll talk to Da Boss. Hey Da Boss!
WARORK93 wrote:This thread has quickly gone from a political debate to quite amusing...
Shotty, before you say anything else, think about what you are saying, is it benefiting anyone else? Do you or anyone here gain anything by you ramming your beliefs down each other's throats? Let me answer: no it does not. I'm not sure if you are trying to convince others to change their train of thinking, but let me tell you, on the internet, there is just about as much chance of that happening as these suggestions Perry has come up with passing and staying as law...
Well all i can tell you is that your wrong and if you think like that you really do need to change your train of thought !
You mean he has different beliefs to you that you disagree with due to your personal background and are now construing your own views as some kind of immutable fact?
The truth is, it doesn't hurt anyone to allow gay marriage.
Chowderhead wrote:You're argument has boiled down to "I'm right and you're wrong!", which saddens me. I was hoping to have an intellectually stimulating debate about right and wrong. But I see that's not going to happen.
Thanks to the argument that would be bulletproof is said by a third grader, we are stuck back in 1266. Humf. Maybe I'll talk to Da Boss. Hey Da Boss!
Discuss!
It was always im right and your wrong ...i tried explaining why to you but you appear to be as thick as a brick. nothing i can do about that .
I don't choose to be straight. I am straight and I couldn't be gay if I wanted to be.
You, on the other hand, choose to be straight. Which means, logically, you could choose to be gay. This means being gay is an option for you,and being straight is not a natural trait you possess. After all, if being gay is a choice, so is being straight.
If I were less kind and prone to personal attacks, I might even insinuate that you are, in fact, deeply closeted.
Personally I'm all for abortions the world is already overpopulated enough, maybe the woman isn't mature enough to raise a child, maybe she doesn't want a child, maybe she can't afford to raise a child, pregnancy can
be pretty horrible some women don't want to go through that, etc.
Karon wrote:You know, just because I really dislike you, I'm going to share a story with you.
When I was younger, I had an older brother. He was the most racist, bigoted person I had ever met. He constantly avoided black people and minorities and never had a friend that wasn't white. He loathed me for the majority of my friends being non-white, even though that was just how I had grew up. I just belonged with them, its who I likened to the most, and its who I hung out with the most. He would leave the house if I ever brought them home, and would never speak to them.
He was a devout Christian, and whenever my Sister was talking about her girlfriend, he would mention that she was going to hell. He missed a Christmas because my Sister brought her girlfriend over with her.
6 days after my birthday on June 20th, my older brother was shot and killed in Chicago by a black man in a terrible neighborhood. In his Will that he had made when he was 16, he asked that if he was ever killed by a *racially charged word*, that his body be cremated and his ashes be threw into the fireplace for fear of his body carrying a taint, to put it in simple words.
He was never wronged by a Black person in his life, he was never picked on by a minority, he was just born that way. He was born an donkey-cave, he wasn't made to be an donkey-cave. Its who he was BORN TO BE.
That's why I absolutely hate people like you, that you hate someone just because of the color of their skin, or their sexual preference that is none of your business, you just do it because your Religious creed tells you to, or that you were brought up to be like that by your parents.
You are blind, and I know this doesn't mean gak to you,
WOW you mate really dont have a grasp of basic comunication , being against gays is not being racist...one of my best frainds is black i love him like a brother but i dont put the unmentionable up his bottom.
I do find it quite interesting that all these "guvmint better not interfere with muh personal bzns" types are intensely interested in government preventing two consenting adults from getting married.
Idiocy, self-contradiction and hypocrisy should not surprise you in politics. It's universal. I just want a candidate that will get out of my bedroom AND my gunsafe, and neither side offers one.
Not sure if trolling or just that stupid...I've already said my bit, let this guy writhe and scream and shout and throw a tantrum until the mods get here...then we'll see who gets the last laugh...
I used to be homophobic, I gotta admit. Was raised in an Irish Catholic family, pretty homophobic dad, no exposure to homosexuals.
Went to college. First house I lived in, full of builders. Used to get drunk, attack me, break stuff, all sorts.
Second house. Well, at this stage I'd made friends with a guy on my course, and he was living with us. Walked into the canteen one day and he had his tongue down another dude's throat. I was all "WTF!" but then had to accept "hey, this guy is actually the coolest person I know, so I better give him a chance."
Now, my room mate was camp as hell, but he said he was straight and I believed him- he even had girlfriends. Turned out in the end that he was bisexual, and since he's come out he hasn't hit on that many women at all- seems more comfortable with guys. The third guy I lived with also recently came out. All of them were totally awesome guys. I mean it's possible I turned them gay through my awesomeness, but regardless, you gotta see homophobia as something built on fear and ignorance. You may grow out of it, or you may not.
You believe being gay is a choice. This means being straight is a choice. Which means you CHOOSE not to be gay. You aren't straight because you are naturally attracted to women, you are straight because you CHOOSE to be straight. This means you are either asexual, or deep, deep in the closet.
As for me, I'm straight because, through no choice of my own, I am attracted to women. I can't help it, they're gorgeous.
I'm sure most of the other straight men in this thread feel the same.
I used to be homophobic. I refused to go to sleep unless there were boobs in my room. I'd like to say that I've overcome this fear, but I'm not so sure.
Da Boss wrote:
I'm intruiged by the examples of "genetic evidence". What is this, exactly? Honestly, show us a link or even a search term, I'll look it up myself. (This is not me saying "AHAH, WEAKPOINT" but genuine curiousity).
Had to make me get out the notes... might take a while, I take all my notes in analog
SEXUAL ORIENTATION
Measures of Sexual Orientation:
*sexual orientation identity
*behaviour
*genital arousal
*brain activity
Sexual fantasies/attractions are considered to be the best criteria for measuring sexual orientation (since someone's identity may not always coincide with their actual orientation, but is only a factor of it)
Measuring sexual orientation:
*Kinsey scale
Most people are exclusively heterosexual (Kinsey 0)
1-3% of men are exclusively homosexual (Kinsey 6)
<1% of women are exclusively homosexual (kinsey 6)
Bisexuality -rare in men
-more common in women
Stability of sexual orientation:
*generally speaking, men's sexual orientation seems to be more stable than women's
*research suggests that non-heterosexual women exhibit more sexual fluidity than men
(skipping segment on homosexuality in various cultures)
WHY ARE SOME PEOPLE HOMOSEXUAL *molecular genetic research has not consistently identified a specific gene(s) for homosexuality
*behavioural genetics research indicates that there is a genetic component to male homosexuality
Sibling studies and male homosexuality *men who have gay brothers are 5 times more likely to be gay
*male homosexuality clusters within families
Genes and Male Homosexuality Twin studies concordance rates:
*male homosexuality:
--> monozygotic twins - 37.5%
--> dizygotic twins - 6.3%
Twin studies Monozygotic twins reared apart show that the above concordance rates remain.
Androphilic (attracted to men) men reproduce less than gynophilic (attracted to women) men. Male-male sexual activity has been recorded for thousands of years.
--->Why don't genes associated with male androphilia go extinct?
Sexual Antagonistic Gene Hypothesis: Genes that promote sexual attraction to males have reproductive costs in males, but reproductive benefits in their female relatives
--->research conducted in Italy+Samoa indicates that the female kin of male androphiles are more fecund (fertile) than those of male gynophiles.
Kin Selection Hypothesis: male homosexuals can help their kin survive and reproduce, thereby helping to pass on genes that they share with close kin to the next generation.
(see uncle like behaviour)
--->notable example in Samoan Fafafine, who exhibit elevated avuncular tendencies compared to (straight) men and women
The Prenatal Hormone Hypothesis of Sexual Orientation *prenatally, androgen levels in fetuses are variable, range in variability creates a threshold that determines whether they are androphilic or gynophilic
*experimentally manipulating testosterone levels prenatally in animal models results in sex-atypical brain development and sex-atypical sexual partner preference in adulthood.
Sexual orientation is not an isolated trait Gay men and lesbians are gender-atypical for various behavioural, cognitive, personality, physiological and morphological traits (this is what we would predict based on the prenatal hormone hypothesis).
Childhood behaviour *childhood gender-atypicality in boys highly predictive of adult homosexuality
Adult behaviour *sex difference in gait (swagger vs sway/sashay) - gay men and women are gender-atypical in terms of their gait
*cognition
-sex differences in targetting accuracy (hetero men > hetero women)
*increased testosterone exposure = increased targetting accuracy
*gay men and women are sex-atypical for this traight
Body morphology *long bones
*increased prenatal Testosterone = increased length of long bones
(hetero men > hetero women)
(lesbians > hetero women)
(gay men < hetero men)
Physiology *Otoacoustic emissions: weak sounds produced by the cochlea (inner ear)
*OAE in hetero women > hetero men
*increase in testosterone exposure = decrease in OAE strength
*OAE in lesbians < hetero women
*Amgydala: clusters of nuclei in the left and right temporal lobes involved in regulating emotion, sexuality, and social information
*in hetero men, right amgydala more richly connected with other parts of the brain than the left.
*hetero women exhibit the opposite pattern
*sex differences in the main functional connections to other parts of the brain
*the amgydalas of homosexual men+women is sex-atypical
*Frateral Birth Order (older brother) effect
*the number of older biological brothers increases the chances of male androphilia in later born male siblings
*for every older brother the odds that a male will be androphilic increases by 33%
*older adopted brothers have no influence on the sexual orientation of younger brothers, the effect is biological, not social
Maternal Immune Hypothesis Mothers develop antibodies to male specific H-Y (minor-histocombatibility) antigens which are coded for by the Y chromosome
*with each successive male fetus she produces, the mother's body becomes increasingly sensative to the presence of H-Y antigens, producing more and more antibodies
*H-Y antigens are thought to be involved in sexual differentiation of male fetuses
*increased amounts of maternal antibodies compromise the ability of the H-Y antigens to function, which, in turn, compromises sexual differentiation and increases the probability that the male will be homosexual
*latter born homosexual men, on average, have a lower birth-weight than latter born heterosexual men, suggesting that their prenatal development of the former may have been compromised
*There is no scientific evidence to suggest that sexual orientation can be changed through intervention programs
I used to be homophobic but then I went through American High school and had to get comfortable with other guys seeing my body and junk in the locker room...
Does that make me gay? No. Just like being uncomfortable if a guy hits on me does not make me homophobic...
o0shotty0o wrote:being against gays is not being racist
Right, it's homophobic, pretty much equal to being racist, and you should be ashamed of yourself if either is truthfully applied to you
Its called being normal , homophobic is a made up word that the gays created.
Actually it's a latin word. "Homo" roughly translates to "man" or "same", but in this case refers to the latter definition. Thus the existence of words like like homogeneous (of the same kind, such as with chemical solutions and mixtures) and homosexual (sexually attracted to the same gender). Phobic is a variant of phobia, and roughly means "fear/hatred of", such as the common Acrophobia, fear of heights (a person who is afraid of heights is acrophobic). For a long while, I suffered from Apiphobia (fear/hatred of bees), myself, though for the most part I've gotten over it.
Thus, homophobic essentially translates to "fear/hatred of homosexuals." It is most assuredly in line with other latin terms referring to fear.
Now, your shameful homophobia aside, "normal" sexuality unhindered by societal norms (IE, what is truly natural) is probably some form of bisexuality. Indeed, because of the male-centric nature of most cultures, homosexuality between men was almost expected behind closed doors, as that was the only way for many nobles to be in a relationship with someone that was socially equal to themselves. Sure, they were expected to impregnate their wife regardless, so they probably would be referred to as bisexual rather than homosexual, but still. It's really only quite recently in human history that homosexuals have truly been condemned, and that's mostly because of the uprising of evangelism in Christianity and Islam.
And just because someone isn't "normal" doesn't mean they should be ashamed. You're not normal, you play 40k.
Da Boss wrote:
I'm intruiged by the examples of "genetic evidence". What is this, exactly? Honestly, show us a link or even a search term, I'll look it up myself. (This is not me saying "AHAH, WEAKPOINT" but genuine curiousity).
Had to make me get out the notes... might take a while, I take all my notes in analog
Awww jeez, sorry Fafnir, I thought your genetic evidence was about "life" not beginning at conception.
D'oh! Communication mix up.
That's a decent collection of information on genetic homosexuality though. Thank you.
o0shotty0o wrote:being against gays is not being racist
Right, it's homophobic, pretty much equal to being racist, and you should be ashamed of yourself if either is truthfully applied to you
Its called being normal , homophobic is a made up word that the gays created.
Actually it's a latin word. "Homo" roughly translates to "man" or "same", but in this case refers to the latter definition. Thus the existence of words like like homogeneous (of the same kind, such as with chemical solutions and mixtures) and homosexual (sexually attracted to the same gender). Phobic is a variant of phobia, and roughly means "fear/hatred of", such as the common Acrophobia, fear of heights (a person who is afraid of heights is acrophobic). For a long while, I suffered from Apiphobia (fear/hatred of bees), myself, though for the most part I've gotten over it.
Thus, homophobic essentially translates to "fear/hatred of homosexuals." It is most assuredly in line with other latin terms referring to fear.
Now, your shameful homophobia aside, "normal" sexuality unhindered by societal norms (IE, what is truly natural) is probably some form of bisexuality. Indeed, because of the male-centric nature of most cultures, homosexuality between men was almost expected behind closed doors, as that was the only way for many nobles to be in a relationship with someone that was socially equal to themselves. Sure, they were expected to impregnate their wife regardless, so they probably would be referred to as bisexual rather than homosexual, but still.
And just because someone isn't "normal" doesn't mean they should be ashamed. You're not normal, you play 40k.
Careful Melissa ...that may perhaps be more information than he's capable of processing...
We need to get into Gun Control to make this a proppa thread.
I think all citizens should have to PROVE their suitability to have a weapon, rather than the state needing a reason to ask them to prove it!
YEAH!
SUCK ON THAT YOU DAMN GUN NUTS! (I sleep with 4 boxes of ammo beside my bed. I too am in the closet. The gun closet.)
o0shotty0o wrote:Wow there are alot of ignorent people on this forum. And im not one of them.
Pffftt.... ba ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
It's OK. I only hope one day you'll be comfortable enough with yourself to embrace your true nature and find the man of your dreams.
....OK, that was a low blow, even for me.
A low blow ? ...what blow ? you mean implying that im gay ? i remember doing that when i was in primery school.
Yes, that's exactly what I meant. It's a low blow.
You cannot refute the logic:
You choose to be straight. This means you choose not to be gay. This means being straight is not part of your nature, or else it wouldn't be a choice. At best it means your argument is wrong, at worst it means that you are attracted to men and choose to ignore it, instead acting upon your attraction to women. It could also mean you are not attracted to anyone but force yourself to be attracted to women because that's what society tells you to do.
So no, I take it back. You aren't necessarily gay. By your own logic, though, there's a good chance you are bisexual or asexual.
Da Boss wrote:We need to get into Gun Control to make this a proppa thread.
I think all citizens should have to PROVE their suitability to have a weapon, rather than the state needing a reason to ask them to prove it!
YEAH!
SUCK ON THAT YOU DAMN GUN NUTS! (I sleep with 4 boxes of ammo beside my bed. I too am in the closet. The gun closet.)
Da Boss wrote:We need to get into Gun Control to make this a proppa thread.
I think all citizens should have to PROVE their suitability to have a weapon, rather than the state needing a reason to ask them to prove it!
YEAH!
SUCK ON THAT YOU DAMN GUN NUTS! (I sleep with 4 boxes of ammo beside my bed. I too am in the closet. The gun closet.)
Is the gun closet roomier than the gay closet?
The gun closet is the perfect place to blame the victim.
Da Boss wrote:We need to get into Gun Control to make this a proppa thread.
I think all citizens should have to PROVE their suitability to have a weapon, rather than the state needing a reason to ask them to prove it!
YEAH!
SUCK ON THAT YOU DAMN GUN NUTS! (I sleep with 4 boxes of ammo beside my bed. I too am in the closet. The gun closet.)
Noooooo.... I need to get away from the computer, or play Space Marines, or something besides hit refresh and read this thread and it's hilarity.
Da Boss wrote:We need to get into Gun Control to make this a proppa thread.
I think all citizens should have to PROVE their suitability to have a weapon, rather than the state needing a reason to ask them to prove it!
YEAH!
SUCK ON THAT YOU DAMN GUN NUTS! (I sleep with 4 boxes of ammo beside my bed. I too am in the closet. The gun closet.)
Da Boss wrote:We need to get into Gun Control to make this a proppa thread.
I think all citizens should have to PROVE their suitability to have a weapon, rather than the state needing a reason to ask them to prove it!
YEAH!
SUCK ON THAT YOU DAMN GUN NUTS! (I sleep with 4 boxes of ammo beside my bed. I too am in the closet. The gun closet.)
Da Boss wrote:We need to get into Gun Control to make this a proppa thread.
I think all citizens should have to PROVE their suitability to have a weapon, rather than the state needing a reason to ask them to prove it!
YEAH!
SUCK ON THAT YOU DAMN GUN NUTS! (I sleep with 4 boxes of ammo beside my bed. I too am in the closet. The gun closet.)
Is the gun closet roomier than the gay closet?
Roomier, but equally full of long hard cylinders.
Man, this isn't so much fun ever since the Commisar left and Shotty was left to defend his point of view on his own.
I feel like I should re-assert my homophobia to even things up.
Da Boss wrote:(I sleep with 4 boxes of ammo beside my bed. I too am in the closet. The gun closet.)
lol...
If I had money, I'd get a gun myself. I was eying a Colt 1991 for a while. No, no 1911, the new version which has a few improved parts. Sure, it's not a custom gun, but it's cheap and it's reliable.
Sckitzo wrote:Noooooo.... I need to get away from the computer, or play Space Marines, or something besides hit refresh and read this thread and it's hilarity.
Da Boss wrote:I think all citizens should have to PROVE their suitability to have a weapon, rather than the state needing a reason to ask them to prove it!
YEAH!
SUCK ON THAT YOU DAMN GUN NUTS! (I sleep with 4 boxes of ammo beside my bed. I too am in the closet. The gun closet.)
I agree. But why restrict this only to the Second Amendment? I think people should have to PROVE their suitability to free speech. And they should prove their suitability to a jury trial.
We're far too lenient on criminals and malcontents who don't deserve their rights. People I disagree with politically too.
Oh man, those people I disagree with politically, man, feth those guys.
We should just imprison the lot of them, and make them...like, lay tarmac and build schools and stuff.
The constitution should apply only to me! As I interpret it! You're all fascist communist corporate socialist nazi gay gun-loving gun-controlling baby killing atheist bible belting extremists!
Hey, my 300th post was apparently somewhere in this horrifying train wreck of a thread.
o0shotty0o wrote:being against gays is not being racist
Right, it's homophobic, pretty much equal to being racist, and you should be ashamed of yourself if either is truthfully applied to you
Its called being normal , homophobic is a made up word that the gays created.
Actually it's a latin word. "Homo" roughly translates to "man" or "same", but in this case refers to the latter definition. Thus the existence of words like like homogeneous (of the same kind, such as with chemical solutions and mixtures) and homosexual (sexually attracted to the same gender). Phobic is a variant of phobia, and roughly means "fear/hatred of", such as the common Acrophobia, fear of heights (a person who is afraid of heights is acrophobic). For a long while, I suffered from Apiphobia (fear/hatred of bees), myself, though for the most part I've gotten over it.
Thus, homophobic essentially translates to "fear/hatred of homosexuals." It is most assuredly in line with other latin terms referring to fear.
Now, your shameful homophobia aside, "normal" sexuality unhindered by societal norms (IE, what is truly natural) is probably some form of bisexuality. Indeed, because of the male-centric nature of most cultures, homosexuality between men was almost expected behind closed doors, as that was the only way for many nobles to be in a relationship with someone that was socially equal to themselves. Sure, they were expected to impregnate their wife regardless, so they probably would be referred to as bisexual rather than homosexual, but still. It's really only quite recently in human history that homosexuals have truly been condemned, and that's mostly because of the uprising of evangelism in Christianity and Islam.
And just because someone isn't "normal" doesn't mean they should be ashamed. You're not normal, you play 40k.
Wouldn't Bisexual mean they had some sort of affection or attraction to their wives? Of course, maybe not, alot of people seem to hate their spouse and are considered straight...
That's always made me wonder, if there is nothing beyond a sexual attraction to one gender or another, does that count towards classifying yourself? Or is the simple act of say sex without love (love being such a debatable term) good enough for the label?
There, I think I just confused us all, know I did me.
o0shotty0o wrote:Why is it when someone tries to point oout how your wrong you call them a troll ? is it becaus you cant think of anything else to say ?
Actually it's because you're being a **** about it.
o0shotty0o wrote:Wow there are alot of ignorent people on this forum. And im not one of them.
Pffftt.... ba ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
It's OK. I only hope one day you'll be comfortable enough with yourself to embrace your true nature and find the man of your dreams.
....OK, that was a low blow, even for me.
A low blow ? ...what blow ? you mean implying that im gay ? i remember doing that when i was in primery school.
A low blow is a blow below the belt. In layman's terms,
Thanks for pointing that out im sure your used to explaining things like that to the people you hang around with.
My friends? That's a low blow. That's mean. I wouldn't stoop to your level. Also, it's a long fall from the top. We can catch you. However, I don't want to. Yet. Repent, and maybe we'll accept you once more. For now, and forever, you will be a Troll here on Dakka Dakka.
Da Boss wrote:We need to get into Gun Control to make this a proppa thread.
I think all citizens should have to PROVE their suitability to have a weapon, rather than the state needing a reason to ask them to prove it!
YEAH!
SUCK ON THAT YOU DAMN GUN NUTS! (I sleep with 4 boxes of ammo beside my bed. I too am in the closet. The gun closet.)
Is the gun closet roomier than the gay closet?
Roomier, but equally full of long hard cylinders.
Man, this isn't so much fun ever since the Commisar left and Shotty was left to defend his point of view on his own.
I feel like I should re-assert my homophobia to even things up.
well i dident think this forums was so full of gays or any other unatural sexual orientation.And mate its not a point of view its a fact .
Nah Shotty makes a good point there. We're far too troll happy around here.
I mean, I am at least half troll tonight and no one has thrown that label at me yet. But Shotty is having difficulty backing up his emotional gut feeling so we label him a troll, rather than a reactionary.
Right, just like it's a fact that because you CHOOSE to be straight, it means you CHOOSE not to be gay, which means either being gay is just as natural as being straight, or being straight is just as unnatural as being gay, using your own logic.
What's worse is I almost feel like a troll, but I honestly am trying to use logic to refute Shotty's baseless arguments which basically consist of "NU UH, NO U".
Da Boss wrote:(I sleep with 4 boxes of ammo beside my bed. I too am in the closet. The gun closet.)
lol...
If I had money, I'd get a gun myself. I was eying a Colt 1991 for a while. No, no 1911, the new version which has a few improved parts. Sure, it's not a custom gun, but it's cheap and it's reliable.
Depending on hand size you'd love the 19 style or hate it, my wife loved how it felt (tiny, carny hands, smelled of cabbage) but the .45 and 10mm rounds kicked a bit much, but a single stack may be the way to go.
o0shotty0o wrote:Why is it when someone tries to point oout how your wrong you call them a troll ? is it becaus you cant think of anything else to say?
Actually it's because you're being a **** about it.
And by "being a ****," he means you're refusing to agree with people who disagree with you.
Dakka OT isn't very easy on people who don't accept the liberal/progressive view of things. And you're more likely to get banned for responding to a troll than the troll is for trolling.
Da Boss wrote:Nah Shotty makes a good point there. We're far too troll happy around here.
I mean, I am at least half troll tonight and no one has thrown that label at me yet. But Shotty is having difficulty backing up his emotional gut feeling so we label him a troll, rather than a reactionary.
Da Boss wrote:Nah Shotty makes a good point there. We're far too troll happy around here.
I mean, I am at least half troll tonight and no one has thrown that label at me yet. But Shotty is having difficulty backing up his emotional gut feeling so we label him a troll, rather than a reactionary.
Tis an unfair world, indeed.
Well there's 2 reasons for that...
You're in the majority.
You're not claiming that your opinion is a fact.
You're not being a **** about it.
Oh wait... that's 3 things...
Da Boss wrote:We need to get into Gun Control to make this a proppa thread.
I think all citizens should have to PROVE their suitability to have a weapon, rather than the state needing a reason to ask them to prove it!
YEAH!
SUCK ON THAT YOU DAMN GUN NUTS! (I sleep with 4 boxes of ammo beside my bed. I too am in the closet. The gun closet.)
Is the gun closet roomier than the gay closet?
Roomier, but equally full of long hard cylinders.
Man, this isn't so much fun ever since the Commisar left and Shotty was left to defend his point of view on his own.
I feel like I should re-assert my homophobia to even things up.
well i dident think this forums was so full of gays or any other unatural sexual orientation.And mate its not a point of view its a fact .
You sir..are clearly a very ignorant idividule, I don't believe I've ever read such ill informed, uneducated nonsense on Dakka in all the years I've posted here.
So shotty, I noticed you ignored my serious response in favor of paying attention to the troll ones. Is taht because you don't have an answer, and admit defeat in the argument? If so, that s fine, but you should speak up.
Sckitzo wrote:Wouldn't Bisexual mean they had some sort of affection or attraction to their wives? Of course, maybe not, alot of people seem to hate their spouse and are considered straight...
Yeah, it would. Course, if they were purely homosexual theyd' probably blame it on their wives. They used to think that the wife decided when to get pregnant and what gender the child would be (even though the latter especially is actually up to the man and the former is up to her biology,which is often beyond one's control outside of diet, exercise, and then-lacking medicine).
Sckitzo wrote:That's always made me wonder, if there is nothing beyond a sexual attraction to one gender or another, does that count towards classifying yourself?
Yeah, it does. One can have a romantic relationship without it being sexual, or a sexual relationship without it being romantic. Human sexuality is a very confusing subject because we humans are very confused about our sexuality.
Sckitzo wrote:Depending on hand size you'd love the 19 style or hate it, my wife loved how it felt (tiny, carny hands, smelled of cabbage) but the .45 and 10mm rounds kicked a bit much, but a single stack may be the way to go.
My hands aren't tiny, but they are smaller than that of most men at any rate. Thing is, I've held quite a few guns when going to firing ranges with my father, and the tiny "purse guns" always feel uncomfortably small.
Of course, my first experience with guns was holding my father's hunting rifle at the ripe old age of ten, so there you go.
o0shotty0o wrote:Why is it when someone tries to point oout how your wrong you call them a troll ? is it becaus you cant think of anything else to say?
Actually it's because you're being a **** about it.
And by "being a ****," he means you're refusing to agree with people who disagree with you.
Dakka OT isn't very easy on people who don't accept the liberal/progressive view of things. And you're more likely to get banned for responding to a troll than the troll is for trolling.
Such is Dakka.
Actually i meant when he claims his opinion is a fact...
I don't understand the other side of the argument but fine if they don't like it that's for them to deal with. When people then say their opinion is a fact on this topic i start to get annoyed.
Da Boss wrote:Nah Shotty makes a good point there. We're far too troll happy around here.
I mean, I am at least half troll tonight and no one has thrown that label at me yet. But Shotty is having difficulty backing up his emotional gut feeling so we label him a troll, rather than a reactionary.
Tis an unfair world, indeed.
Fine. Da Boss, I declare the Troll!
BLAAAARGH!
*bursts out of batman tee shirt*
I haven't trolled in a good long while. Feels good man, you know?
We're all trolls though. At least, trollbloods. We all want a reaction to our posts.
Da Boss wrote:We need to get into Gun Control to make this a proppa thread.
I think all citizens should have to PROVE their suitability to have a weapon, rather than the state needing a reason to ask them to prove it!
YEAH!
SUCK ON THAT YOU DAMN GUN NUTS! (I sleep with 4 boxes of ammo beside my bed. I too am in the closet. The gun closet.)
Is the gun closet roomier than the gay closet?
Roomier, but equally full of long hard cylinders.
Man, this isn't so much fun ever since the Commisar left and Shotty was left to defend his point of view on his own.
I feel like I should re-assert my homophobia to even things up.
well i dident think this forums was so full of gays or any other unatural sexual orientation.And mate its not a point of view its a fact .
You sir..are clearly a very ignorant idividule, I don't believe I've ever read such ill informed, uneducated nonsense on Dakka in all the years I've posted here.
Never argue with an idiot. all they do is drag you down to their level and beat you with years of experience.
Da Boss wrote:Nah Shotty makes a good point there. We're far too troll happy around here.
I mean, I am at least half troll tonight and no one has thrown that label at me yet. But Shotty is having difficulty backing up his emotional gut feeling so we label him a troll, rather than a reactionary.
Tis an unfair world, indeed.
Fine. Da Boss, I declare the Troll!
BLAAAARGH!
*bursts out of batman tee shirt*
I haven't trolled in a good long while. Feels good man, you know?
We're all trolls though. At least, trollbloods. We all want a reaction to our posts.
Some want positive, some want negative, and some just want attention. Trolls just want attention.
I'm not going to lie, I'm still fascinated by this whole "Being gay is a choice thing".
I mean, really, doesn't that mean that neither is "more natural" than the other if it's a choice we all make? Does that not totally demolish the argument that "homosexuality is unnatural"?
I mean, I guess I'm trying to apply logic to irrationality, which is futile, but still.
Wouldn't Bisexual mean they had some sort of affection or attraction to their wives? Of course, maybe not, alot of people seem to hate their spouse and are considered straight...
That's always made me wonder, if there is nothing beyond a sexual attraction to one gender or another, does that count towards classifying yourself? Or is the simple act of say sex without love (love being such a debatable term) good enough for the label?
There, I think I just confused us all, know I did me.
See my notes. Although sexual identity is a factor, actual attraction and arousal is the defining factor in sexuality. A man who is attracted to men is gay. A man who by some cruel twist of fate is made to have sex with another man, even though he's not at all attracted to men, is not gay. Like in prison.
It's possible to have a very loving relationship without it being sexual. See 'Boston wives.'
Biccat: What you say is true to an extent, I think. I mean, I disagree with a lot of your views, sometimes somewhat vehemently. But I respect the fact that you don't get personal very often that I've seen. I used to think Dakka wasn't a friendly place for lefty liberals, but the balance has shifted over time.
Da Boss wrote:Nah Shotty makes a good point there. We're far too troll happy around here.
I mean, I am at least half troll tonight and no one has thrown that label at me yet. But Shotty is having difficulty backing up his emotional gut feeling so we label him a troll, rather than a reactionary.
Tis an unfair world, indeed.
Fine. Da Boss, I declare the Troll!
Your funny calling other people trolls when you your self are trolling infact all you ever do is troll
EVERYBODY LISTEN TO YOUR KING ....................I DECLARE CHOWDERHEAD A TROLL !
Da Boss wrote:Biccat: What you say is true to an extent, I think. I mean, I disagree with a lot of your views, sometimes somewhat vehemently. But I respect the fact that you don't get personal very often that I've seen. I used to think Dakka wasn't a friendly place for lefty liberals, but the balance has shifted over time.
I'll second this. I usually disagree with Biccat, but he at least justifies his arguments with statements that reflect some form of logic and thoughtfulness, as opposed to "Gay people are yucky".
Melissia wrote:So shotty, I noticed you ignored my serious response in favor of paying attention to the troll ones. Is taht because you don't have an answer, and admit defeat in the argument? If so, that s fine, but you should speak up.
Sckitzo wrote:Wouldn't Bisexual mean they had some sort of affection or attraction to their wives? Of course, maybe not, alot of people seem to hate their spouse and are considered straight...
Yeah, it would. Course, if they were purely homosexual theyd' probably blame it on their wives. They used to think that the wife decided when to get pregnant and what gender the child would be (even though the latter especially is actually up to the man and the former is up to her biology,which is often beyond one's control outside of diet, exercise, and then-lacking medicine).
Sckitzo wrote:That's always made me wonder, if there is nothing beyond a sexual attraction to one gender or another, does that count towards classifying yourself?
Yeah, it does. One can have a romantic relationship without it being sexual, or a sexual relationship without it being romantic. Human sexuality is a very confusing subject because we humans are very confused about our sexuality.
Sckitzo wrote:Depending on hand size you'd love the 19 style or hate it, my wife loved how it felt (tiny, carny hands, smelled of cabbage) but the .45 and 10mm rounds kicked a bit much, but a single stack may be the way to go.
My hands aren't tiny, but they are smaller than that of most men at any rate. Thing is, I've held quite a few guns when going to firing ranges with my father, and the tiny "purse guns" always feel uncomfortably small.
Of course, my first experience with guns was holding my father's hunting rifle at the ripe old age of ten, so there you go.
Im sorry if you want an informed answer to a wall of text pm me and ill get back to you in a day
Im busy slaying the ignorent and purging the gays " rides back to the battle"
Da Boss wrote:Nah Shotty makes a good point there. We're far too troll happy around here.
I mean, I am at least half troll tonight and no one has thrown that label at me yet. But Shotty is having difficulty backing up his emotional gut feeling so we label him a troll, rather than a reactionary.
Tis an unfair world, indeed.
Fine. Da Boss, I declare the Troll!
Your funny calling other people trolls when you your self are trolling infact all you ever do is troll
EVERYBODY LISTEN TO YOUR KING ....................I DECLARE CHOWDERHEAD A TROLL !
If he is then he's a damn good one...
Grats to you honey.
Da Boss wrote:Nah Shotty makes a good point there. We're far too troll happy around here.
I mean, I am at least half troll tonight and no one has thrown that label at me yet. But Shotty is having difficulty backing up his emotional gut feeling so we label him a troll, rather than a reactionary.
Tis an unfair world, indeed.
Fine. Da Boss, I declare the Troll!
Your funny calling other people trolls when you your self are trolling infact all you ever do is troll
EVERYBODY LISTEN TO YOUR KING ....................I DECLARE CHOWDERHEAD A TROLL !
Da Boss wrote:Biccat: What you say is true to an extent, I think. I mean, I disagree with a lot of your views, sometimes somewhat vehemently. But I respect the fact that you don't get personal very often that I've seen. I used to think Dakka wasn't a friendly place for lefty liberals, but the balance has shifted over time.
I'll second this. I usually disagree with Biccat, but he at least justifies his arguments with statements that reflect some form of logic and thoughtfulness, as opposed to "Gay people are yucky".
Exactly, even if I may disagree with some of Biccats views, he at least comes across as intelligent in his arguments..
Seriously, how are we ignorant? You have not used a shred of logic to back up your statement. Your argument is "Gay people are yucky cuz I think they are," and then any attempt to use logic to refute your statements is met with "NU UH, THEY'RE YUCKY AND YOU'RE IGNORANT".
I might be a bit trollish, but I'm using your own logic against you and you can't refute it. I'm calling you gay, yes, but that's because, by your "logic", there's a good chance you might be!
o0shotty0o wrote:Negative attention ? may i remind you your the one thats giving me it ...i dont want it i m just trying to tell you that being gay is wrong .
Must also be sad thinking everything is about you.
First my response to Karon, then to Chowder.
Lonely hun? You need a hug? I mean, I'm not exactly a twink, but I can give a good huggin'.
Fafnir wrote:
See my notes. Although sexual identity is a factor, actual attraction and arousal is the defining factor in sexuality. A man who is attracted to men is gay. A man who by some cruel twist of fate is made to have sex with another man, even though he's not at all attracted to men, is not gay. Like in prison.
It's possible to have a very loving relationship without it being sexual. See 'Boston wives.'
Melissia wrote:Yeah, it would. Course, if they were purely homosexual theyd' probably blame it on their wives. They used to think that the wife decided when to get pregnant and what gender the child would be (even though the latter especially is actually up to the man and the former is up to her biology,which is often beyond one's control outside of diet, exercise, and then-lacking medicine).
Fair enough on both counts, it was half musing and half derailing the troll, and the sad thing is I've met people who if they don't think the woman chooses the childs gender think it's her fault for having "another girl"
Melissia wrote:My hands aren't tiny, but they are smaller than that of most men at any rate. Thing is, I've held quite a few guns when going to firing ranges with my father, and the tiny "purse guns" always feel uncomfortably small.
Of course, my first experience with guns was holding my father's hunting rifle at the ripe old age of ten, so there you go.
Purse guns are horrible to shoot unless you really are a carny (why am I hating on carnies now?) their normally is to much power for such a light weapons. I was going more towards the grip size then the gun size, but if your still in the market for a pistol and the 1991 doesn't pan out, look up the Jerico Baby Eagle, it's sized for people of more petite frames (it's a compact/sub compact) but has some weight behind it, and I have to admit is the nicest firing 9mm I've ever shot in my life.
Gah, maudin serious drunk moment.
Lads, you're not going to convince Shotty that you're right through rubbishing his arguments and making out like he's the devil. It doesn't work that way. I mean, I know we all argue to convince the silent majority, but I guess I'm feeling a bit sorry for what I assume is a kid with fairly simplistic stances. Nobody is gonna change his mind, and neither should we be particularly suprised by his stance. Rather, we should reflect on the conditions that create that stance.
Gah. Don't mean to be a downer. I guess I just don't like seeing one guy against the masses, especially when he's a kid.
Melissia wrote:So essentially you admit that you'd rather troll than face a serious argument because you know that your serious arguments fall flat on their faces?
No i said if you give me a wall of text pm me it so i can give you a proper answer .
Da Boss wrote:Gah, maudin serious drunk moment.
Lads, you're not going to convince Shotty that you're right through rubbishing his arguments and making out like he's the devil. It doesn't work that way. I mean, I know we all argue to convince the silent majority, but I guess I'm feeling a bit sorry for what I assume is a kid with fairly simplistic stances. Nobody is gonna change his mind, and neither should we be particularly suprised by his stance. Rather, we should reflect on the conditions that create that stance.
Gah. Don't mean to be a downer. I guess I just don't like seeing one guy against the masses, especially when he's a kid.
He's in Uni. Meaning he's over the age of 18. Meaning he's an adult. He has made his choices, and now we must prove to him that they are wrong in every way! It's the Internet law!
o0shotty0o just wants attention and the arguers are just giving him attention, and the best thing to do would be to ignore him and not respond, and not say any words at all, to just let the conversation die out, to just
be quiet, so that it will be forgotten, so let's not devote another word to this, and if we just stop talking about this, then it'll go away, and do you see how cluttering up the thread like this makes it hard for people who
Hmmmm. Okay. Well that changes things quite significantly iin my head.
Funny that.
Fire away.
Edit: Heh, well yeah. The original post is actually extemely interesting and some subsequent posts had me nerding away all night looking at websites and so on.
But hot damn, and abortion AND gay marriage debate in OT? I wasn't going to miss that gak if you paid me.
o0shotty0o wrote:No i said if you give me a wall of text pm me it so i can give you a proper answer .
Ah, so you DO admit tto being too cowardly to argue with me in public in this thread. Good to know.
Sckitzo wrote:Purse guns are horrible to shoot unless you really are a carny (why am I hating on carnies now?) their normally is to much power for such a light weapons. I was going more towards the grip size then the gun size, but if your still in the market for a pistol and the 1991 doesn't pan out, look up the Jerico Baby Eagle, it's sized for people of more petite frames (it's a compact/sub compact) but has some weight behind it, and I have to admit is the nicest firing 9mm I've ever shot in my life.
If it's not the 1991, I'll likely go for a SIG Sauer.
Melissia wrote:So essentially you admit that you'd rather troll than face a serious argument because you know that your serious arguments fall flat on their faces?
No i said if you give me a wall of text pm me it so i can give you a proper answer .
Da Boss wrote:Gah, maudin serious drunk moment.
Lads, you're not going to convince Shotty that you're right through rubbishing his arguments and making out like he's the devil. It doesn't work that way. I mean, I know we all argue to convince the silent majority, but I guess I'm feeling a bit sorry for what I assume is a kid with fairly simplistic stances. Nobody is gonna change his mind, and neither should we be particularly suprised by his stance. Rather, we should reflect on the conditions that create that stance.
Gah. Don't mean to be a downer. I guess I just don't like seeing one guy against the masses, especially when he's a kid.
A kid ? im doing a civil hydrolic engineering phd program in uni .
MrDwhitey wrote:Must be a very sad person to only want negative attention.
Negative attention ? may i remind you your the one thats giving me it ...i dont want it i m just trying to tell you that being gay is wrong .
No...being stupid is wrong...you seem to be wrong quite a lot.
Thats how your wrong.
Well now...that is truly a dazzling well thought out reply...must have taken you ages to think that one up...
Thanks for proving my point with every post you submit...now...why don't you bop on over to Stormfront where you belong.
o0shotty0o wrote:I got 5 A s at advanced higher level in scotland , im of to st andrews uni to do bio-medcine. I had to study like hell to get them grades apart from art i like that !
LordofHats wrote:So much intolerance of intolerance. Yes. Feed me.
I just want him to stand up and debate with me, instead of responding to the trolls. Sadly, he appears to be one of them instead of someone who can offer a proper intellectual conversation.
Maybe it was the chemistry major in me. I like debating with someone who can offer an intelligently written opposition. Probably a bit too much, given my hot-blooded nature.
o0shotty0o wrote:I got 5 A s at advanced higher level in scotland , im of to st andrews uni to do bio-medcine. I had to study like hell to get them grades apart from art i like that !
Stop yelling at him. Get him to "talk" about all the "unnatural" things gays do. He already created a senario involving a dildo and a trip to the hospital. Talk more about that. What other "bad" stuff is gay?
Eventually he might realize he doesn't have to fear his own sexual drives, and he doesn't have to feel like everyone is judging him for his desires.
o0shotty0o wrote:I got 5 A s at advanced higher level in scotland , im of to st andrews uni to do bio-medcine. I had to study like hell to get them grades apart from art i like that !
o0shotty0o wrote:A kid ? im doing a civil hydrolic engineering phd program in uni .
No you're not, or you'd know it's spelled hydraulic.
Burned...
Typo much ? geez talk about nazis lol and not to mention its 4 am where i am .
o0shotty0o at 18:14, Aug 20th, 2011 wrote:I got 5 A s at advanced higher level in scotland , im of to st andrews uni to do bio-medcine. I had to study like hell to get them grades apart from art i like that !
LordofHats wrote:So much intolerance of intolerance. Yes. Feed me.
I just want him to stand up and debate with me, instead of responding to the trolls. Sadly, he appears to be one of them instead of someone who can offer a proper intellectual conversation.
You and I both know what happens when one brick wall hits another brick wall. I don't blame anyone for not getting involved in forum debates
Da Boss wrote:But hot damn, if you've made it even to Uni with your views, that's hilarious and I'm much more inclined to consider you a troll.
People with unpopular views shouldn't get admitted to Uni? That's an awesome opinion.
o0shotty0o wrote:Yeah im starting in september im doing a b-eng in biomed and phd in civil , you never heared of people with big ambitions ?
...why the hell would you get a degree in biomedicine (I assume you mean biomedical engineering) and then go into freaking civil engineering? What the hell kind of a career path is that?
I don't even know what to say anymore. I really don't.
I can barely even think anymore, and I'm almost positive I've gotten stupider and one more step closer to developing high-blood pressure responding to the moron who shall not be named.
Couldn't it be used to put Amurica out of recession? 
you trollin? or just colorblind? 
that I've never encountered beforehand.
