Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Don't ask, don't tell, don't persueFollow

#2152 Jan 25 2012 at 7:07 PM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,171 posts
In the jousei series Oruchuban Ebichu, the character of Ma-kun is apparently attracted to the main hamster character of Ebichu. He treats her to ice cream and blushes around her, but never makes any overt sexual gestures (since he's a human and she's a **** anthropomorphized hamster...) Instead, he channels that sexual energy into pleasing his girlfriend, who has no idea he's turned on by, well, a cute rodent. Everyone is happy, no one is harmed.

Ma-kun doesn't deny his attraction to Ebichu, but he doesn't act on it directly either. And he's not a zoophobe as a shameful response to it.

But that's where a lot of homophobes land - they are faintly turned on by homoerotic imagery, are shamed by it, and go into full blown crazy denial mode over it. That doesn't mean they're necessarily gay, and in fact most of them are still very much het. It does mean, however, that they're afraid they might be gay, and go overboard attacking gays as if by punishing their own internal arousal at the homosexual act they can banish it.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#2153 Jan 25 2012 at 7:48 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Belkira wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
Belkira wrote:
Actually, I amend my earlier statement. Being aroused by "kiddie porn" does not make you a @#%^phile. Raping a child makes you a @#%^phile. My mistake.


That is, technically, untrue. Being aroused by that would, in fact, make one a @#%^phile. It's the quality of being sexually attracted to children. Raping a child makes you a @#%^phile, and a child rapist.

Apologies if I'm missing something here. I'm sure whatever you're discussing, Alma is wrong for a litany of other, valid reasons.


I believe that wanting to stick your **** in a child is what would classify you as a @#%^. You can't help if it arouses you, and it doesn't necessarily mean anything, unless seeing it arouses you AND makes you want to go out and **** little babies.


That seems like a bit of an arbitrary distinction to me. Whether or not you can help it doesn't really weigh into the dictionary definition of the word. If you're attracted to them, you are one.

Allegory's DSM definition is interesting though; I hadn't heard that. But that's just another take on the word where it needs to serve another purpose.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#2154 Jan 25 2012 at 7:51 PM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,635 posts
I disagree. That's sort of like saying a guy that gets raped enjoyed it because he got hard whether he wanted to or not.
#2155 Jan 25 2012 at 7:59 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Belkira wrote:
I disagree. That's sort of like saying a guy that gets raped enjoyed it because he got hard whether he wanted to or not.


Smiley: confused

I don't see how that's comparable.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#2156 Jan 25 2012 at 8:07 PM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,635 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
Belkira wrote:
I disagree. That's sort of like saying a guy that gets raped enjoyed it because he got hard whether he wanted to or not.


Smiley: confused

I don't see how that's comparable.


I guess it would help if I explain that I'm workin off of a scenario where someone stumbles upon something, not that they are searching it out. I can easily see how one might get aroused before their brain can process what's going on. Your **** doesn't know that what your seeing is child porn. Does that make more sense?
#2157 Jan 25 2012 at 8:18 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Belkira wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
Belkira wrote:
I disagree. That's sort of like saying a guy that gets raped enjoyed it because he got hard whether he wanted to or not.


Smiley: confused

I don't see how that's comparable.


I guess it would help if I explain that I'm workin off of a scenario where someone stumbles upon something, not that they are searching it out. I can easily see how one might get aroused before their brain can process what's going on. Your **** doesn't know that what your seeing is child porn. Does that make more sense?


Ah, okay. I'm with ya again. I guess that's an issue with the regular ol' definition being more general. I think that when I read it, the "knowing" part is implied. It strikes me as suggesting habit, though I don't really know why. Might be a notch in the belt of the DSM version.

Pedophilia is weird. And somewhow I think I'm understanding it less as we talk about it.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#2158 Jan 25 2012 at 10:59 PM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,913 posts
I think I'm right in saying that that particular scientific study about homoerotic images and homophobia was designed much more around the investigation of Stumbled-Upon imagery than Sought-Out imagery.

Alma's posts are so full of misunderstanding and leaps of illogic that I'm not even going to try to answer them. Kudos to you all with the energy.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#2159 Jan 25 2012 at 11:17 PM Rating: Excellent
****
5,684 posts
I think it's disgusting that debates on the nature of homosexuality always devolve into debates about pedophilia and bestiality.
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I admit that I was wrong

God bless Lili St. Cyr
#2160 Jan 25 2012 at 11:22 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Bardalicious wrote:
I think it's disgusting that debates on the nature of homosexuality always devolve into debates about @#%^philia and bestiality.


Don't forget the toasters!!

Edited, Jan 26th 2012 12:23am by Eske
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#2161 Jan 25 2012 at 11:34 PM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,913 posts
Bardalicious wrote:
I think it's disgusting that debates on the nature of homosexuality always devolve into debates about @#%^philia and bestiality.


I'm sorry.* Smiley: frown

*This is not personal apology, but commiseration.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#2162 Jan 26 2012 at 5:42 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,939 posts
Belkira wrote:
Actually, I amend my earlier statement. Being aroused by "kiddie porn" does not make you a @#%^phile. Raping a child makes you a @#%^phile. My mistake.

If you want to have an adult discussion about whether or. It **** porn makes you gay, let me know.



When you decide to have a discussion over YOUR COMMENT that you made that the participants are irrelevant, then let me know.

Eske Esquire wrote:
Belkira wrote:
Actually, I amend my earlier statement. Being aroused by "kiddie porn" does not make you a @#%^phile. Raping a child makes you a @#%^phile. My mistake.


That is, technically, untrue. Being aroused by that would, in fact, make one a @#%^phile. It's the quality of being sexually attracted to children. Raping a child makes you a @#%^phile, and a child rapist.



This.

Eske wrote:
I'm sure whatever you're discussing, Alma is wrong for a litany of other, valid reasons.


Nope, that was it. Thanks for agreeing with me.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#2163 Jan 26 2012 at 6:01 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,939 posts
Belkira wrote:
I disagree. That's sort of like saying a guy that gets raped enjoyed it because he got hard whether he wanted to or not.


That's not equitable because your body doesn't differentiate if the person is a man, woman, girl, boy, ugly, fat, skinny, etc. Your body will naturally react regardless. What we do as people is all psychological. We aren't attracted to people based on their physical structure, but our bodies don't do the same discrimination.

We're talking about watching pr0n. Unless you're counting yourself, there is NO physical contact in watching **** by yourself. The stimulation originates from viewing.

This is what I corrected myself in the fact that it's able to have **** with a person you find unattractive. It's the physical contact that stimulates you.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#2164 Jan 26 2012 at 6:04 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,939 posts
Belkira wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
Belkira wrote:
I disagree. That's sort of like saying a guy that gets raped enjoyed it because he got hard whether he wanted to or not.


Smiley: confused

I don't see how that's comparable.


I guess it would help if I explain that I'm workin off of a scenario where someone stumbles upon something, not that they are searching it out. I can easily see how one might get aroused before their brain can process what's going on. Your **** doesn't know that what your seeing is child porn. Does that make more sense?


Exactly, but your MIND does... There is no physical stimulation for your **** to react. It reacted based on other senses.

Besides, we're not talking about "stumbling" on some pr0n, we're talking about ACTIVELY watching it.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#2165 Jan 26 2012 at 7:28 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,176 posts
Bardalicious wrote:
I think it's disgusting that debates on the nature of homosexuality always devolve into debates about @#%^philia and bestiality.


It is, on many levels.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#2166 Jan 26 2012 at 8:58 AM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,262 posts
Almalieque wrote:
My sentiments exactly.
No, not at all. What you said is that being sexually aroused by homoerotic imagery made you a homosexual. That's what you said.

Almalieque wrote:
post #2137.

Smiley: facepalm

I'm done.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#2167 Jan 26 2012 at 9:00 AM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,281 posts
Nilatai wrote:

I'm done.

Are you? ARE YOU??

Smiley: motz
#2168 Jan 26 2012 at 9:01 AM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,262 posts
Nadenu wrote:
Nilatai wrote:

I'm done.

Are you? ARE YOU??

Smiley: motz

I am, I promise!
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#2169 Jan 26 2012 at 9:11 AM Rating: Good
Unforkgettable
*****
13,201 posts
Work complete?
____________________________
Banh
#2170 Jan 26 2012 at 9:18 AM Rating: Excellent
At first I though alma was just a typical self hating closet gay. Now that he's dragging child **** into the argument, I think it might be much much worse.
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#2171 Jan 26 2012 at 9:29 AM Rating: Excellent
Guru
**
715 posts
I've lurked through a lot and I still can't really pin Alma down (not in the **** wrestler sense).

He thinks homosexuality is a "personality" trait, much like hating broccoli or being short-tempered. At least, that is how I understood it. He seems to like to classify and quantify things in odd ways. Or, at the very least, classify them in ways that most of the population would not. I think until that conundrum is resolved no one will really be able to reach him on this issue.

I also realize that reaching him really is naively optimistic.

#2172 Jan 26 2012 at 9:35 AM Rating: Good
Quote:
I've lurked through a lot and I still can't really pin Alma down (not in the **** wrestler sense).
Warm up to him for a bit, if you can deal with his personality, and you probably could gay-wrestler-pin him.
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#2173 Jan 26 2012 at 10:43 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,666 posts
Dozer wrote:
I think until that conundrum is resolved no one will really be able to reach him on this issue.

I also realize that reaching him really is naively optimistic.


It's like the continuous journey to the end of the rainbow. You know you'll never find the pot of gold, but you might pick-up other interesting tidbits along the way.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#2174 Jan 26 2012 at 12:31 PM Rating: Excellent
Guru
**
715 posts
Elinda wrote:
Dozer wrote:
I think until that conundrum is resolved no one will really be able to reach him on this issue.

I also realize that reaching him really is naively optimistic.


It's like the continuous journey to the end of the rainbow. You know you'll never find the pot of gold, but you might pick-up other interesting tidbits along the way.


What a long, strange trip it's been. *

* For reference, please see post 206.
#2175 Jan 27 2012 at 1:50 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,939 posts
Nilatai wrote:
No, not at all. What you said is that being sexually aroused by homoerotic imagery made you a homosexual. That's what you said.


My point is that things that you find sexually exciting will sexually excite you. I'm not sure where the confusion comes in. You know that to be true.

If you're ACTIVELY watching something that sexually stimulates you, then that's an INDICATION that you might be sexually attracted to whatever you're watching.

I'm simply countering that nonsense that the participants are irrelevant. That would imply that a Kim Kardashian **** tape is as equally sexually pleasing as a Rosie O'Donnel **** tape. PARTICIPANTS play a role in your sexual excitement and that's a FACT.

If you ACTIVELY watch **** with overweight women, then that's an indication of you being attracted to overweight women. That is not the same as if you STUMBLE on it and became sexually aroused for some period of time.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#2176 Jan 27 2012 at 1:58 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,939 posts
Duke Lubriderm wrote:
At first I though alma was just a typical self hating closet gay. Now that he's dragging child **** into the argument, I think it might be much much worse.


You're making a distinction when Belkira claimed that there wasn't. If the argument is that the sexual activities are what stimulate you NOT the participants, then that includes everyone and everything. Obviously the participants make a difference if you're making a distinction of pr0n.

You can't say "Participants don't matter" then turn around say "THAT'S DIFFERENT!".
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#2177 Jan 27 2012 at 2:21 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,939 posts
Dozer wrote:
I've lurked through a lot and I still can't really pin Alma down (not in the **** wrestler sense).

He thinks homosexuality is a "personality" trait, much like hating broccoli or being short-tempered. At least, that is how I understood it. He seems to like to classify and quantify things in odd ways. Or, at the very least, classify them in ways that most of the population would not. I think until that conundrum is resolved no one will really be able to reach him on this issue.


For clarification, I do not believe that your sexuality, regardless of what it is, is a physical trait because there is nothing physical about it. The only other category that I can think of is a personal trait. If you want to classify it in another category, then go for it, but it isn't a physical trait.

See, that's what you call "consistency". Your mind and body are two different "systems". Your body will be excited by anything, it's your mind that make distinctions. Therefore, your arousal during **** does not make you a particular sexual orientation. HOWEVER, if you make a constant effort to engage in those activities, then that's a pretty good indication of your sexual orientation. That doesn't occur until your MIND becomes part of that equation. Therefore, it can not possibly be a physical trait if it's based on a mental acceptance.

See, what people on this forum do is jump ships to whatever supports their argument. Belkira mentioned that the ~philia comes in when the person becomes physical with the children. However, she also argued that the sodomy laws in the military aren't contradictory by repealing DADT because your sexual orientation isn't defined by your sexual actions and not everyone is having sex. That would imply that you aren't "gay" or "straight" until you have sex. Complete contradiction.

Dozer wrote:
I also realize that reaching him really is naively optimistic.


Only if you're a close-minded ignoramus who lacks the aptitude to know when you're approaching a more perspicacious person.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#2178 Jan 27 2012 at 2:38 AM Rating: Excellent
Revolving Door Inspector
Avatar
*****
12,711 posts
Alma wrote:
Therefore, your arousal during **** does not make you a particular sexual orientation. HOWEVER, if you make a constant effort to engage in those activities, then that's a pretty good indication of your sexual orientation.



AHA! So, Alma experimented and the dude forgot to use lube. It all makes sense now!


Surprise buttsecks don't make ya gay...but multiple surprise buttsecks just aren't as surprising? Smiley: laugh
____________________________
FFXI: Exodus @ San d'Oria since November 19, 2003, Siren Server
FFXIV: Turk Kalahai @ Gridania, Balmung Server
Rift: Kalahai @ Sanctum, Faeblight Server
Exo @ YouTube | Exo @ Tumblr | Exo @ Twitter | Cheese
#2179 Jan 27 2012 at 2:59 AM Rating: Excellent
Almalieque wrote:
That would imply that a Kim Kardashian **** tape is as equally sexually pleasing as a Rosie O'Donnel **** tape.
Since these are both equally repulsive, could you pick two other females, please?[:barf:]
____________________________
gbaji wrote:
I'm smarter then you. I know how to think. I've been trained in critical thinking instead of blindly parroting what I've been told.

#2180 Jan 27 2012 at 4:16 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,939 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
That would imply that a Kim Kardashian **** tape is as equally sexually pleasing as a Rosie O'Donnel **** tape.
Since these are both equally repulsive, could you pick two other females, please?[:barf:]


Well, there isn't a universal woman that matches everyone attractive criteria..

Mila Kunis **** tape vs Rosie O'Donnel **** tape ?

Jessica Alba **** tape vs Rosie O'Donnel **** tape ?

Beyonce **** tape vs Rosie O'Donnel ?

Megan Fox **** tape vs Rosie O'Donnel ?

J. LO **** tape vs Rosie O'Donnel ?

Throw me a bone...
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#2181 Jan 27 2012 at 6:07 AM Rating: Excellent
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,913 posts
Sir Spoonless wrote:
Work complete?

No, I'm completely turned off.

Why do I get the feeling Alma didn't even read that one, simple paragraph I quoted? Maybe he read the first two words, and the last sentence? Because that's "how you speed read"?
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#2182 Jan 27 2012 at 8:00 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
Throw me a bone...

Homo.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2183 Jan 27 2012 at 8:13 AM Rating: Excellent
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,262 posts
Almalieque wrote:

Throw me a bone...

That's what he said.

Trololol.


Edit: **** it!

Edited, Jan 27th 2012 9:14am by Nilatai
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#2184 Jan 27 2012 at 8:15 AM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,913 posts
If we're going to attack the man, I vote we jump straight to the rape slanders.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#2185 Jan 27 2012 at 8:17 AM Rating: Good
******
43,369 posts
What's with his fascination with Rosie O'Donnel?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#2186 Jan 27 2012 at 8:23 AM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,262 posts
She's his goddess.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#2187 Jan 27 2012 at 8:37 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
lolgaxe wrote:
What's with his fascination with Rosie O'Donnel?

Show tunes and Koosh balls. He and Varus should start a fan club.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2188 Jan 27 2012 at 8:53 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,939 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
What's with his fascination with Rosie O'Donnel?


The point was to compare a woman who is seen as "attractive" vs a woman who is not seen as "attractive".
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#2189 Jan 27 2012 at 9:03 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,369 posts
Ahh, so now you want us to play semantics on what is considered attractive with your use of quotation marks, subtly (possibly even subconsciously) implying you find O'Donnel visually pleasing. Interesting ...
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#2190 Jan 27 2012 at 9:05 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
a woman who is not seen as "attractive".

You should have picked a black woman. It'd be more scientific!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2191 Jan 27 2012 at 9:09 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,939 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Ahh, so now you want us to play semantics on what is considered attractive with your use of quotation marks, subtly (possibly even subconsciously) implying you find O'Donnel visually pleasing. Interesting ...


The goal was to compare an "attractive" woman with an "unattractive" woman. I was asked to find a more pleasing woman, so the woman that I changed to would denote the pleasing woman. So, if you were to analyze what was said in context with common sense, then you would realize that your analysis is incorrect.

I used quotes because I don't like calling people "ugly" or "unattractive" because I know it's all in the eyes of the beholder. Just like Bijou doesn't find Kim Kardashian attractive, there's millions of men who disagree. Check any top 100 hot woman chart that includes U.S women and she's probably in there.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#2192 Jan 27 2012 at 9:11 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,369 posts
Subconscious it is. Thanks for proving a fact what was just a joke.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#2193 Jan 27 2012 at 9:15 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,939 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Subconscious it is. Thanks for proving a fact what was just a joke.


Whatever gets you off... Don't worry, that doesn't mean you're gay.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#2194 Jan 27 2012 at 9:15 AM Rating: Excellent
Guru
**
715 posts
Almalieque wrote:
For clarification, I do not believe that your sexuality, regardless of what it is, is a physical trait because there is nothing physical about it. The only other category that I can think of is a personal trait. If you want to classify it in another category, then go for it, but it isn't a physical trait.


I am physically a male because of my genes. I have brown hair, green eyes and white (it is really more of a pink color actually) skin because of my genes. I am 5 foot, 9 inches tall because of my genes. And it is possible that I am **** because of my genes. Genes drive physical characteristics of an organism.

And that is the crux of the issue, at least in my eyes. You say there is nothing physical about sexuality, even when it is widely known that the jury is out on if there is a genetic link to sexuality. So while the rest of the rational world is willing to say "we don't know" you say "I know". No one knows the cause of homosexuality. No one. Not you, and not me.

Listen, I am not going to debate this with you because there is no point - everything I said above has already been said. Changing your mind on this subject is well beyond my power, which is why I said it was naively optimistic. It wasn't a cut at you, it was an honest reflection of my observations.
#2195 Jan 27 2012 at 9:16 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,369 posts
Giggle, now you've moved on to transference.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#2196 Jan 27 2012 at 9:36 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,939 posts
Dozer wrote:
I am physically a male because of my genes. I have brown hair, green eyes and white (it is really more of a pink color actually) skin because of my genes. I am 5 foot, 9 inches tall because of my genes. And it is possible that I am **** because of my genes. Genes drive physical characteristics of an organism.


You're confusing genotypes with phenotypes. According to your definition, everything is physical. Even if that were true, that wouldn't allow us to make any distinctions from physical disorders from mental disorders, etc. If you have any intentions to make those distinctions, then you can not put sexuality in the same category on how tall you are.

Dozer wrote:
And that is the crux of the issue, at least in my eyes. You say there is nothing physical about sexuality, even when it is widely known that the jury is out on if there is a genetic link to sexuality. So while the rest of the rational world is willing to say "we don't know" you say "I know". No one knows the cause of homosexuality. No one. Not you, and not me.


Read above. You're going into an area that I'm not. I don't care if it's biological or not. I don't care if Schizophrenia is biological through traits or not, it's still a MENTAL disorder.

Dozer wrote:
Listen, I am not going to debate this with you because there is no point - everything I said above has already been said. Changing your mind on this subject is well beyond my power, which is why I said it was naively optimistic. It wasn't a cut at you, it was an honest reflection of my observations.


I didn't take it as a cut, that's why my response was what it was. The two of us are arguing over a topic and because I'm not accepting your opinion then the problem must be with me. In reality, I can say the same for you and everyone else here. Once you engage in diverse audiences, you'll start to see the light in your cloudy judgement.

Hint, if everyone around you agrees with you, then you're in the wrong place. Jus' sayin'.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#2197 Jan 27 2012 at 9:38 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,369 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Hint, if everyone around you agrees with you, then you're in the wrong place. Jus' sayin'.
Wasn't one of your recent arguments that it was funny how when you had the same discussions the people around you all agreed with you? Jus' sayin'.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#2198 Jan 27 2012 at 9:44 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,939 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Hint, if everyone around you agrees with you, then you're in the wrong place. Jus' sayin'.
Wasn't one of your recent arguments that it was funny how when you had the same discussions the people around you all agreed with you? Jus' sayin'.


Lol, you're such a tool... I was going to clarify, but I decided not..

That's the reason why I go here.. .. to argue with people who disagrees with me. Pretty sure I've said that the last past 8 years.

Besides, the people that I talk to in person are carefully selected as people who aren't idiots but have differing beliefs. We don't always agree, the results are either mutual agreements or agreements and the agreements are usually parts of arguments not the overall concept. For example, the S2 is all for abortion, but he understands my argument against it. He's an atheist and think religious people are idiots, but we came to a mutual agreement on the "creation of the universe".
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#2199 Jan 27 2012 at 9:46 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,369 posts
Ahaha. You screen people so they don't challenge you too much! Smiley: laugh
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#2200 Jan 27 2012 at 9:51 AM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Quote:
Besides, the people that I talk to in person are carefully selected as people who aren't idiots


I've no doubt that he dismisses anyone who really challenges his beliefs as an idiot.

His efforts to prove just how objective and logical he is are doing an amazing job at accomplishing the opposite!

Edited, Jan 27th 2012 10:51am by Eske
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#2201 Jan 27 2012 at 10:05 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,939 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Ahaha. You screen people so they don't challenge you too much! Smiley: laugh


Maybe you should reread what I said?

I find intelligent people with varying beliefs... You can't get any more challenging. My BN S2 is by far one of the most overall smart people that I've met in awhile. I learned a lot from just short discussions. He took over my role as the "Math guy". Unlike me, he actually remembers everything that he done in college, because he does problems for fun. That gave me motivation to get back in it.

Eske wrote:
I've no doubt that he dismisses anyone who really challenges his beliefs as an idiot.

His efforts to prove just how objective and logical he is are doing an amazing job at accomplishing the opposite!


Read above.. Nice try. Your point of view doesn't make you smart or dumb, it's your logic and rationale for supporting it. The reality is, most people just support stuff without actually researching anything.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 38 All times are in CDT
idiggory, Jophiel, klausneck, WindChimes, Xsarus, Anonymous Guests (33)