[THREAD SPLIT] - LQTBQ/Homosexuality/Etc

mechtheist

Member
Something about the way you worded that made me laugh! Might not have been too funny at the time though, I appreciate...
Oh it was hilarious, hilariously stupid. Actually, I can't be sure what happened, when I shot that round, I instantly knew something was 'funny', it was way too loud [even with hearing protection], too much of a blast pressure wave. It was a moment before I looked at the gun and saw what happened. I suffered no damage at all luckily. I'm pretty sure it got over-loaded, probably a double load, a friend was helping me reload and if it was double loaded, most likely it was him. Really 'funny' was he shot the first 5 rounds and let me shoot the last one. Maybe no accident, maybe he was trying to kill me. Ya never know...
 

Attachments

  • PICT0015.JPG
    PICT0015.JPG
    576.4 KB · Views: 3

mechtheist

Member
Do you consider an animal operating on instinct making a conscious choice when their actions are dictated by instinct? I don't. I equate them to be roughly equal therefore it is muddled.

Yes by definition - literal definition - they are abnormal and/or deviant.

Deviant: : someone or something that deviates from a norm especially : a person who differs markedly (as in social adjustment or behavior) from what is considered normal or acceptable.

Abnormal: : deviating from the normal or average

Hint: even the dictionary uses derivatives of DEVIANT in order to define what being abnormal is.

Prove I hate gays.

The U.S. election system pretty much relies on binary voting as voting for someone other than the two mainline party candidates is a waste of vote. Yes absolutely it is a binary choice. Anything else and you are voting on principle and not actually voting to elect anyone.

That remains to be seen.

Voting for Trump instead of the dreaded and notorious (even among the Democrats) Hillary Clinton? Good - no brainer. Voting for Trump instead of the made fun of worse Democratic equivalent to George Bush where even Obama said "Don't underestimate Joe's ability to fuck things up" caught on audio recording so even the Democrats didn't have much faith in Biden. Also a no brainer. The people that voted for Biden suddenly massively regret their decision voting for him judging from his approval numbers. His handling of everything has absolutely been a fuster cluck and the things he's claimed right was ultimately accomplished because of Trump - Operation Warp Speed for one.

Yes that is a credit not a detriment.
You just keep repeating the same BS while failing to address most of the issues I've raised. Calling gays deviant is proof of hate, as I've already said. There's nothing to keep people from wising up and to stop thinking it has to be a dim or repug. A number of republicans think Trump could be the death of the party and if they keep concentrating the crazy in the party, it likely will be. We're lucky he's such an incompetent delusional and ignorant piece of shit or he could have done real damage, the next one might not be so lacking. There is almost no support for that repulsive pile of rotting filth amongst the younger folks, so as the old fuckers die off, we'll see.
 

BoganUSAFFLClerk

Active Member
But the metric you are using to determine deviancy is not particularly useful for anything, unless your goal is to imply (passively) that one group should be preferred over another or 1 is more moral, better or whatever.

I know that is your goal because I used to do the same thing. Then I would say "Oh poor me, I haven't done anything except say gays are abnormal! I looked it up in the dictionary and that's what abnormal means!"
Normies are more functional haven't you listened to anything? Remember the argument of normies are better for society? That is an opinion based on the FUNCTION or merit of the society. So yes I am stating openly that normies are better and deviants are worse for society.

Judging from this you haven't paid attention to the argument and are just throwing a tantrum ironically like the police you so hate.
 

BoganUSAFFLClerk

Active Member
You just keep repeating the same BS while failing to address most of the issues I've raised. Calling gays deviant is proof of hate, as I've already said. There's nothing to keep people from wising up and to stop thinking it has to be a dim or repug. A number of republicans think Trump could be the death of the party and if they keep concentrating the crazy in the party, it likely will be. We're lucky he's such an incompetent delusional and ignorant piece of shit or he could have done real damage, the next one might not be so lacking. There is almost no support for that repulsive pile of rotting filth amongst the younger folks, so as the old fuckers die off, we'll see.
You haven't disproven anything. You just keep using the very tired insult of bigot and all this when you haven't proven any of what I said is unreasonable. By the very definitions I am using the group I am talking about match those definitions so by the very definition it ISN'T unreasonable I am arguing. I am simpl stating facts based on the definitions I laid out. Therefore not a bigot by literal definition. Perhaps you should learn the English language.

Part 1: Hatred you lack evidence of this.

Part 2: Obstinate or Intolerance you lack evidence of this.

I don't hate them I tolerate them.

"Full Definition of bigot

: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudicesespecially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance"

Name 1 thing Joe Biden handled well.
 

mechtheist

Member
You haven't disproven anything. You just keep using the very tired insult of bigot and all this when you haven't proven any of what I said is unreasonable. By the very definitions I am using the group I am talking about match those definitions so by the very definition it ISN'T unreasonable I am arguing. I am simpl stating facts based on the definitions I laid out. Therefore not a bigot by literal definition. Perhaps you should learn the English language.

Part 1: Hatred you lack evidence of this.

Part 2: Obstinate or Intolerance you lack evidence of this.

I don't hate them I tolerate them.

"Full Definition of bigot

: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudicesespecially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance"

Name 1 thing Joe Biden handled well.
Jesus, do you need a remedial reading class? You again just keep repeating the same BS that I and others have repeatedly addressed. And look, once again., the only way you can defend your support of Trump is to dump on Biden, who I have repeatedly said I also despise . This is all very revealing.
 

BoganUSAFFLClerk

Active Member
Jesus, do you need a remedial reading class? You again just keep repeating the same BS that I and others have repeatedly addressed. And look, once again., the only way you can defend your support of Trump is to dump on Biden, who I have repeatedly said I also despise . This is all very revealing.
The same BS? It is a refutation of your faulty premise. Also you should further establish a premise instead of such a vague one.
 

mechtheist

Member
The same BS? It is a refutation of your faulty premise. Also you should further establish a premise instead of such a vague one.
If I had more sense, I would just ignore this, I tell you you're just saying the same thing and your reply is to say you assert the same thing. It's not a refutation and it wasn't the previous times, mainly because you keep ignoring or failing to address the points I've made.. This is the kind of post that most irks me to have to write, where I have told the other person they're failing to address the points I've raised and they either ignore that or insist they have and then I have to list what they're ignoring. It's dishonest or disingenuous.

You tiresomely keep insisting homosexuality is 'deviant' and it's because it's somehow bad for society. It's a loaded term and exposes your bigoted view that gays are somehow bad for society. Your only support for this is gays don't reproduce. How is that bad? Do you really think there's not enough people on this planet? It may have been true in hunter gatherer times, but for the last 10,000 years or so it ain't so, to think otherwise is daft and smacks of 'go forth and multiply' BS you hear ahole believers spewing all the time. I said more than once 'deviant', by your definition, should apply to Einstein, and you spew the same BS about bad for society. I said it was a near cultural universal and found in almost all mammals and you ignored that quite salient and revealing point. You assert they're bad for society but give no valid excuse for that opinion, it's your choice to call them deviant because you choose to think they're bad for society when it's quite obvious if left alone, they're as normal and productive members of society as any straight folk. Lots of cultures have no problem with homosexuality, and there are many examples of 'great' men who were known or suspected of being gay, e/g/, Alexander the Great, or Alan Turing, who killed himself because of the treatment he got despite what he did for WWII.

You insist on disparaging gays for their suicide rate, saying they should grow a spine, when I've exposed how hateful a thing that is to say considering what many of them have gone through and you refuse to address the issue and can only reassert your hateful claim.

You think being gay is a choice, I exposed this and exposed the error in your denial. Then you keep exposing your muddled view of choice and free will and instinct and who knows what else. You said:
Do you consider an animal operating on instinct making a conscious choice when their actions are dictated by instinct? I don't. I equate them to be roughly equal therefore it is muddled.
I can't even understand what that says, you seem to say 'yes my thoughts are muddled'. How do you make a conscious choice when you're operating on instinct? Or, I'm confused, I just don't see how 'operating on instinct' and 'actions dictated by instinct' are different. YOU equated a gay choosing to reproduce, a very conscious choice, with their choosing to be gay, something they DID NOT do, there is NO choice there. How many guys did you sleep with before you decided you preferred women?

You can't defend Trump but can only denounce Biden, something I did from the start, and I pointed this out and you ignored that. You think Biden doing less than some ideal you have in your head somehow is a defense of Trump's record on handling the epidemic and that is so fucking lame and pathetic. As others have gone into detail about, Trump's handling of the epidemic, and even before as he closed down the efforts to monitor such things worldwide, were astoundingly incompetent, that just isn't open to question by anyone based in reality.

Actually, you failed to address the fact that I called you out for failing to address most of the points I've made.

My premise from the start was that your attitudes towards gays was troglodytic, and I've established that in almost every post. I've dealt with every objection you're raised and you can only repeat the same BS every time. For whatever reason, you don't like gays, you think they're deviant and abnormal and that they harm society. Do your gay 'friends' really support you on that?
 

BoganUSAFFLClerk

Active Member
You tiresomely keep insisting homosexuality is 'deviant' and it's because it's somehow bad for society.
1) By literal definition they are deviant.
2) My argument doesn't solely rely on them being deviant.
3) Deviancy when it devolves into degeneracy is what the concern is about - this is the implication from the very status of being deviant.
It's a loaded term and exposes your bigoted view that gays are somehow bad for society. Your only support for this is gays don't reproduce.
1) Bigots are people that have intolerance for others that is under a basis of unfairness you haven't proven I am being unfair in my arguments.
2) "Only" no not only if you honestly think this then you haven't been reading and understanding.
Do you really think there's not enough people on this planet?
Specifically different countries are currently on a negative population curve. We are not making enough people in order to replace those that have died. If the trend continues then potentially that would mean the end of societies that are dealing with said trend.
I said more than once 'deviant', by your definition, should apply to Einstein, and you spew the same BS about bad for society.
Under the context I already argued that deviant is a generality. You cannot bring up an exception in order to explain a generality - in other words an argument based on a statement of generally or statement or majority.
I said it was a near cultural universal and found in almost all mammals and you ignored that quite salient and revealing point.
No I already made the argument that in those societies or even in mammals that do exist this is correct it is still a minority or deviancy. If you choose to ignore the comment about showing majority societies with the very same make up of such persons then that is your problem not mine.
You assert they're bad for society but give no valid excuse for that opinion, it's your choice to call them deviant because you choose to think they're bad for society when it's quite obvious if left alone, they're as normal and productive members of society as any straight folk.
If left alone you then get degeneracy after just being deviant. Have you actually attended the gay pride parade? Dudes are literally jacking each other off in public in front of minors. That is degenerate harmful shit.
Lots of cultures have no problem with homosexuality, and there are many examples of 'great' men who were known or suspected of being gay, e/g/, Alexander the Great, or Alan Turing, who killed himself because of the treatment he got despite what he did for WWII.
Lots of cultures also have crime but that still doesn't explain the majority now does it? A minority example trying to explain a majority or generality is invalid. You are still bringing up the minority or deviant in order to explain away a general argument.
You insist on disparaging gays for their suicide rate, saying they should grow a spine, when I've exposed how hateful a thing that is to say considering what many of them have gone through and you refuse to address the issue and can only reassert your hateful claim.
They should grow a spine they would kill themselves less. That is a good thing right? I'm telling them not to be victims which is preferable to being a victim yes?
You think being gay is a choice, I exposed this and exposed the error in your denial. Then you keep exposing your muddled view of choice and free will and instinct and who knows what else.
Incorrect I already explained this via the argument relating to making a conscious choice and having instinct there are two different lines of thought here. It lacked detail - again it is a general argument. I already clarified that instinct chooses things for you over conscious thought and I already said gays basically have other factors determine for them that they are gay. That wouldn't be a conscious choice say for example picking a soda.
My premise from the start was that your attitudes towards gays was troglodytic, and I've established that in almost every post. I've dealt with every objection you're raised and you can only repeat the same BS every time. For whatever reason, you don't like gays, you think they're deviant and abnormal and that they harm society. Do your gay 'friends' really support you on that?
I do not have to like gays. Remember what tolerance is? I tolerate them. I don't love them I don't hate them I tolerate them.

If they are my friends then potentially I like something about them? If I tolerate gays then possibly I like something unrelated to them being gay? Gee I wonder if gays can stop talking about being gay and simply get on with certain other topics without bringing said group membership up in order to renew their victim card? Hmm maybe I like those kinds of people perhaps ones that have very solid spines? May haps think that one through. I don't like whiney people in general and the gay seeking acknowledgment is the worst - the most annoying.
 

*SD*

Administrator
Staff member
We aren't big fans of closing/locking/deleting threads without good reason, so in this case I agree with the OP that the thread has gone completely off topic and any further off-topic replies will be removed, so kindly either return the the original topic or create a new thread to discuss the other matters.

Thank you chaps.
 

mechtheist

Member
1) By literal definition they are deviant.
How many times are you going to repeat this without actually addressing my objections?
2) My argument doesn't solely rely on them being deviant.
What else that doesn't ultimately stem from you claiming deviancy?
3) Deviancy when it devolves into degeneracy is what the concern is about - this is the implication from the very status of being deviant.
No, you can't change this, FFS, how many times have you used the definition and never a qualifier about degeneracy? Plus, now you're claiming homosexuals are degenerate! That's not helping your claim of not being a bigot. Try defining 'degenerate' objectively.
1) Bigots are people that have intolerance for others that is under a basis of unfairness you haven't proven I am being unfair in my arguments.
No, bigots are people who hate others because of who they are. I have proven you're unfair, you just keep refusing to address my arguments, see my previous post.
2) "Only" no not only if you honestly think this then you haven't been reading and understanding.
What other objections have you raised?
Specifically different countries are currently on a negative population curve. We are not making enough people in order to replace those that have died. If the trend continues then potentially that would mean the end of societies that are dealing with said trend.
Again, failed to address my question: Do you think there aren't enough people on this planet. Current trends say we won't stop increasing population by about 2050 with maybe 10 billion. We're clearly well past sustainable and have been for awhile. How long before we drop back to a reasonable number of folks? It might be pretty soon if climate change does the whole species in. Plus, you act like having gays around will doom societies or even the species. First off, there ain't enough of us. Plus, as you have failed to respond to at least twice, we've been around forever and the population has still gone up precipitously, so what's so bad about having a few non-baby makers around? As I said in my first post, objections to gays not reproducing applies to folks who choose to not have kids, they're also deviant, are they also degenerate and also deserving of bigotry?
Under the context I already argued that deviant is a generality. You cannot bring up an exception in order to explain a generality - in other words an argument based on a statement of generally or statement or majority.
FFS, Einstein is an example of a general category, I also mentioned Jim Thorpe, how much more obvious can it be what I'm getting at? If you really need help understanding what I was saying, ask me for a clarification.
No I already made the argument that in those societies or even in mammals that do exist this is correct it is still a minority or deviancy. If you choose to ignore the comment about showing majority societies with the very same make up of such persons then that is your problem not mine.
This is incoherent and very misleading. You can't get away from the simple concept that what is abnormal or deviant by definition isn't necessarily wrong or bad or a negative. It's your choice to use the words with very negative connotations that expose your bigotry. Why not show me a society of nothing but IQ over 180 or one where everyone can dance like Fred Astaire? You didn't address such an issue to me I don't think and it's not worth my time to find out but I answered it anyway despite it also being absurd and a silly objection.
If left alone you then get degeneracy after just being deviant. Have you actually attended the gay pride parade? Dudes are literally jacking each other off in public in front of minors. That is degenerate harmful shit.
This is incoherent and wrong in numerous ways. YOU are now using a very specific example and applying it to homosexuality in general. You're also exposing a real sickness in this and numerous other over-religious societies--the idea that minors being exposed to sex harms them, it's an ugly idea, it's absurd and very harmful as studies have shown, cultures that are the most open about sex have decidedly lower problems with all kinds of shit like unwanted/teen pregnancy, sexual abuse, and many others. Have you ever thought about how most folks have lived for a long time, some in single room houses, some in huts, most around farm animals. FFS, many Americans actually think that a kid seeing a woman's tits is going to be harmed! jesus fucking christ I can never ever get my head around that, it's way the fuck too mind-numbingly oblivious, absurd, and moronic. If someone doesn't want their id exposed to such things, then they sure as fuck ought to keep their kid away from pride parades, which have a history intertwined with the abuses gays have historically suffered, it's a complicated story and not one you'd ever comprehend.
Lots of cultures also have crime but that still doesn't explain the majority now does it? A minority example trying to explain a majority or generality is invalid. You are still bringing up the minority or deviant in order to explain away a general argument.
This is simply incoherent and non-responsive and silly.
They should grow a spine they would kill themselves less. That is a good thing right? I'm telling them not to be victims which is preferable to being a victim yes?
Oh FFS, can you really be that oblivious, heartless and naïve?
Incorrect I already explained this via the argument relating to making a conscious choice and having instinct there are two different lines of thought here. It lacked detail - again it is a general argument. I already clarified that instinct chooses things for you over conscious thought and I already said gays basically have other factors determine for them that they are gay. That wouldn't be a conscious choice say for example picking a soda.
Again, this makes NO sense and it's contradicted by your statement about choosing to reproduce, which you clearly have failed to address. So you don't think being gay is a choice? I can't tell, I also have no idea what you mean by 'other factors determine for them'. Like what? Wouldn't the same factors determine of someone is straight?
I do not have to like gays. Remember what tolerance is? I tolerate them. I don't love them I don't hate them I tolerate them.

If they are my friends then potentially I like something about them? If I tolerate gays then possibly I like something unrelated to them being gay? Gee I wonder if gays can stop talking about being gay and simply get on with certain other topics without bringing said group membership up in order to renew their victim card? Hmm maybe I like those kinds of people perhaps ones that have very solid spines? May haps think that one through. I don't like whiney people in general and the gay seeking acknowledgment is the worst - the most annoying.
So you like folks who are degenerate and are dooming society by their very existence? Gays don't have to 'play' the victim, they're STILL being victimized regularly, probably something like a third of the US are adherents of religions that are decidedly gay-hating with a lot of them actively seeking to harm them, through laws and other means. I loved Madalyn Murray O'Hair, but she was annoying, abrasive, and often incredibly rude. BUT, when your a member of an oppressed minority that has suffered oppression for a very long time, such an attitude is often necessary to get the oppression to stop. You're clearly simply oblivious to how gays have been treated and largely STILL are, you have no idea what many have had to go through. It's great you 'tolerate' gays, that in no way means you're not a bigot.

In general, I also don't like whiny folks, like all the straight folks who whine about gays, why do they care so so much about where a guys sticks his cock? It's one thing to get a little whiney when you're so often subjected to being maligned, ridiculed, demeaned, and vilified [like being told you're very existence is harmful to society], it's another thing entirely when you're in the comfortable majority whining about oppressed minorities trying to live their lives without interference and oppression in numerous forms.
 

BoganUSAFFLClerk

Active Member
How many times are you going to repeat this without actually addressing my objections?
Because your objections have to do with literal definitions and you not conforming to the English language.
What else that doesn't ultimately stem from you claiming deviancy?
Most of it does stem from being a deviant but are indeed separate problems. For example degeneracy see example of the gay pride parade example. Literally jacking each other off in full view of the public. Not good for society or for minors to see without proper context.
No, you can't change this, FFS, how many times have you used the definition and never a qualifier about degeneracy? Plus, now you're claiming homosexuals are degenerate! That's not helping your claim of not being a bigot. Try defining 'degenerate' objectively.
Considering we are mostly talking about sexual orientation or perception of gender possibly that would mean a decline in mental function leading them to assume that it is normal which by definition it isn't and secondly because their degenerate behavior flies in the face of moral values like say sexual deviant acts in public ironically in celebration of their identity.
No, bigots are people who hate others because of who they are. I have proven you're unfair, you just keep refusing to address my arguments, see my previous post.
Again you have prove I hate them. I am literally arguing that I don't like them. Those are two separate things and the reasons behind why I don't like them doesn't equate me specifically hating them for being gay or thinking they are women when in fact they are men. It is mostly derived from simply being annoying in tone and trying to soap box against literal definitions of the English language.
What other objections have you raised?
So do you think the degeneracy specific to gays or bisexuals and the like are positive for developing children when viewed or otherwise known about? I don't think so.
Again, failed to address my question: Do you think there aren't enough people on this planet. Current trends say we won't stop increasing population by about 2050 with maybe 10 billion. We're clearly well past sustainable and have been for awhile. How long before we drop back to a reasonable number of folks? It might be pretty soon if climate change does the whole species in. Plus, you act like having gays around will doom societies or even the species. First off, there ain't enough of us. Plus, as you have failed to respond to at least twice, we've been around forever and the population has still gone up precipitously, so what's so bad about having a few non-baby makers around? As I said in my first post, objections to gays not reproducing applies to folks who choose to not have kids, they're also deviant, are they also degenerate and also deserving of bigotry?
Fertility rate: 'Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born

NOT TRUE!

I will disregard the statements made after: "Current trends say we won't stop increasing population by about 2050 with maybe 10 billion." due to a false premise.
FFS, Einstein is an example of a general category, I also mentioned Jim Thorpe, how much more obvious can it be what I'm getting at? If you really need help understanding what I was saying, ask me for a clarification.
Fine clarify it. But Einstein is generally not the average or generally representative of the common person.
This is incoherent and very misleading. You can't get away from the simple concept that what is abnormal or deviant by definition isn't necessarily wrong or bad or a negative. It's your choice to use the words with very negative connotations that expose your bigotry. Why not show me a society of nothing but IQ over 180 or one where everyone can dance like Fred Astaire? You didn't address such an issue to me I don't think and it's not worth my time to find out but I answered it anyway despite it also being absurd and a silly objection.
Fine - thought experiment though all deviants I can think of listed on the fly in 3 min.
Deviants relative to "normal" populations:
1. Murderers
2. Thieves
3. Liars (criminally)
4. Non purely heterosexuals
5. Physical Violence committers (assault/battery)
6. Geniuses
7. Dunces
8. Government Employees
9. Didn't Graduate Highschool
10. PHD relative/College longer than 2/4 year degree.

6/10 are entirely negative not overwhelmingly negative but negative non the less. When something is out of the ordinary there is generally a reason why it shouldn't be ordinary.
This is incoherent and wrong in numerous ways. YOU are now using a very specific example and applying it to homosexuality in general. You're also exposing a real sickness in this and numerous other over-religious societies--the idea that minors being exposed to sex harms them, it's an ugly idea, it's absurd and very harmful as studies have shown, cultures that are the most open about sex have decidedly lower problems with all kinds of shit like unwanted/teen pregnancy, sexual abuse, and many others. Have you ever thought about how most folks have lived for a long time, some in single room houses, some in huts, most around farm animals. FFS, many Americans actually think that a kid seeing a woman's tits is going to be harmed! jesus fucking christ I can never ever get my head around that, it's way the fuck too mind-numbingly oblivious, absurd, and moronic. If someone doesn't want their id exposed to such things, then they sure as fuck ought to keep their kid away from pride parades, which have a history intertwined with the abuses gays have historically suffered, it's a complicated story and not one you'd ever comprehend.
In those societies which are exposed to sex it is overwhelmingly heterosexual sex not homosexual sex. The way it is supposed to be the way human relationships dependent on reproduction REQUIRE.

No I don't think nudity in general is going to harm you I never argued that. My example was homosexual acts in public by minors. Not seeing general nudity I don't care about that stuff. Go lay out on the beach with your dick hanging out I wouldn't care less. The moment you introduce two dudes wanking in a public street in celebration of that act around minors without context the more you mislead those minors.

Don't strawman me.
This is simply incoherent and non-responsive and silly.
You are trying to explain a generality (my argument) with a minority or something that is atypical.
Oh FFS, can you really be that oblivious, heartless and naïve?
Giving them drive to say not let things affect them MENTALLY makes me oblivious, heartless and naive? I thought mentality had everything to do with suicidality. People kill themselves because of what they think. If they have 'thicker skin' and things bother them less that would mean they would kill themselves less over abuses which generally relate to transgenders and gays into killing themselves. I am literally advocating for a stance that would reduce this.
Again, this makes NO sense and it's contradicted by your statement about choosing to reproduce, which you clearly have failed to address. So you don't think being gay is a choice? I can't tell, I also have no idea what you mean by 'other factors determine for them'. Like what? Wouldn't the same factors determine of someone is straight?
Environment and the theory of how much testosterone or estrogen developing persons are exposed to determine how feminine they are. If they grow up around certain stimuli can suggest or push them to one side or the other. I think this determines if you are straight or not but overwhelmingly this is the standard this is how humans evolved in order to be stable as a species. This species wouldn't be stable without the proper percentage of heterosexuals reproducing. Heterosexual sex is required in order to propagate the species.

I already explained and clarified about 'choosing' in an earlier post so if you don't get it reread it. It generally has to do with conscious and unconscious thought.
So you like folks who are degenerate and are dooming society by their very existence? Gays don't have to 'play' the victim, they're STILL being victimized regularly, probably something like a third of the US are adherents of religions that are decidedly gay-hating with a lot of them actively seeking to harm them, through laws and other means. I loved Madalyn Murray O'Hair, but she was annoying, abrasive, and often incredibly rude. BUT, when your a member of an oppressed minority that has suffered oppression for a very long time, such an attitude is often necessary to get the oppression to stop. You're clearly simply oblivious to how gays have been treated and largely STILL are, you have no idea what many have had to go through. It's great you 'tolerate' gays, that in no way means you're not a bigot.
The gays I like are deviant but they certainly aren't degenerate. There is a difference and your statement here makes it clear why you don't understand.

On the contrary because I tolerate gays precisely makes it IMPOSSIBLE to be a bigot by definition. To be a bigot you have to hate someone based on their group. I hate somebody based on their actions not what they are.
In general, I also don't like whiny folks, like all the straight folks who whine about gays, why do they care so so much about where a guys sticks his cock? It's one thing to get a little whiney when you're so often subjected to being maligned, ridiculed, demeaned, and vilified [like being told you're very existence is harmful to society], it's another thing entirely when you're in the comfortable majority whining about oppressed minorities trying to live their lives without interference and oppression in numerous forms.
Yes and I don't like self entitled people telling me people are oppressed when they have been granted more entitlements than anyone in the known world and then feigning ignorance and pretending like they don't have the maximum amount of victim card point or privilege when they specifically get such a status precisely for whining about oppression when very little if any exists in their specific example. Group identity group victim points saver program is all this is.
 

mechtheist

Member
Fertility rate: 'Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born

NOT TRUE!

I will disregard the statements made after: "Current trends say we won't stop increasing population by about 2050 with maybe 10 billion." due to a false premise.
????? The article you cited says "the researchers expect the number of people on the planet to peak at 9.7 billion around 2064, before falling down to 8.8 billion by the end of the century." You do realize these are really uncertain estimates, right? My remembered stat and the one cited are essentially the same. NOTHING in it has anything to do with whether there are too many folks on this planet. To remedy what the articles isw saying will be a problem would mean vastly MORE folks on the planet, or just kill off the old.

Fine clarify it. But Einstein is generally not the average or generally representative of the common person.
Jesus, you have no clue. I can't spell it out any clearer. Of course Einstein isn't average, he's an extreme outlier, that's the whole fucking point, he's really deviant, but he's also representative of really smart folks all of whom are deviants, but nobody calls them that, they reserve the term for people they disapprove of, because it's a loaded term.

Fine - thought experiment though all deviants I can think of listed on the fly in 3 min.
Deviants relative to "normal" populations:
1. Murderers
2. Thieves
3. Liars (criminally)
4. Non purely heterosexuals
5. Physical Violence committers (assault/battery)
6. Geniuses
7. Dunces
8. Government Employees
9. Didn't Graduate Highschool
10. PHD relative/College longer than 2/4 year degree.

6/10 are entirely negative not overwhelmingly negative but negative non the less. When something is out of the ordinary there is generally a reason why it shouldn't be ordinary.

In those societies which are exposed to sex it is overwhelmingly heterosexual sex not homosexual sex. The way it is supposed to be the way human relationships dependent on reproduction REQUIRE.

No I don't think nudity in general is going to harm you I never argued that. My example was homosexual acts in public by minors. Not seeing general nudity I don't care about that stuff. Go lay out on the beach with your dick hanging out I wouldn't care less. The moment you introduce two dudes wanking in a public street in celebration of that act around minors without context the more you mislead those minors.

Don't strawman me.

You are trying to explain a generality (my argument) with a minority or something that is atypical.

Giving them drive to say not let things affect them MENTALLY makes me oblivious, heartless and naive? I thought mentality had everything to do with suicidality. People kill themselves because of what they think. If they have 'thicker skin' and things bother them less that would mean they would kill themselves less over abuses which generally relate to transgenders and gays into killing themselves. I am literally advocating for a stance that would reduce this.

Environment and the theory of how much testosterone or estrogen developing persons are exposed to determine how feminine they are. If they grow up around certain stimuli can suggest or push them to one side or the other. I think this determines if you are straight or not but overwhelmingly this is the standard this is how humans evolved in order to be stable as a species. This species wouldn't be stable without the proper percentage of heterosexuals reproducing. Heterosexual sex is required in order to propagate the species.

I already explained and clarified about 'choosing' in an earlier post so if you don't get it reread it. It generally has to do with conscious and unconscious thought.

The gays I like are deviant but they certainly aren't degenerate. There is a difference and your statement here makes it clear why you don't understand.

On the contrary because I tolerate gays precisely makes it IMPOSSIBLE to be a bigot by definition. To be a bigot you have to hate someone based on their group. I hate somebody based on their actions not what they are.

Yes and I don't like self entitled people telling me people are oppressed when they have been granted more entitlements than anyone in the known world and then feigning ignorance and pretending like they don't have the maximum amount of victim card point or privilege when they specifically get such a status precisely for whining about oppression when very little if any exists in their specific example. Group identity group victim points saver program is all this is.
You think gays have been granted more entitlements than anyone in the known world? This is astoundingly daft and even more astoundingly ignorant. I'll just mention a couple of counterexamples: The very rich and royalty. How many really entitled elites have a bunch of assholes clammoring to get to SCOTUS in order to destroy their lives?

FFS, there is almost nothing new here at all, I'm not going to address the same BS again, and it's almost all the same BS.
 

Led Zeppelin

Active Member
You think gays have been granted more entitlements than anyone in the known world? This is astoundingly daft and even more astoundingly ignorant. I'll just mention a couple of counterexamples: The very rich and royalty. How many really entitled elites have a bunch of assholes clammoring to get to SCOTUS in order to destroy their lives?

You actually think its possible for a person who has even privately once said anything in the last 15 years that could be taken as a non-affirmation of homosexuality, to have a place on the SCOTUS?
 

he_who_is_nobody

Well-Known Member
So much for freedom of speech.

Another topic you know nothing about; is anyone surprised?

Yes as in the ancient Greeks had enough normies in order to reproduce in order to keep the population stable. This means they had heterosexual reproduction as majority. Just because gay sex exists doesn't mean that is good or stabilizes the society in which it resides. It is almost like societies depend on heterosexual reproduction in your typical society in order to continue.

And no one said otherwise. I have always agreed that homosexuals are a minority. So please stop burning straw. However, will you ever actually address the point and defend your claim? You have failed to define normal human society yet again, so I guess not. Did you realize that without defining normal human society, you are just holding an empty bag?

If for example the ancient Greeks didn't have enough straights to reproduce then the Greek's society wouldn't have lasted as long as it did. Not existing and your society going away is a bad thing correct? Or is that a desired thing and normal to you?

I already rejected your attempt to equate normal human society to simply reproduction. That is far too narrow a definition for such a term. Beyond that, you already agreed that homosexuals could reproduce; thus, this argument is moot. Why you keep bringing it up when you already agree it is wrong is beyond me.

Name a society in which heterosexual reproduction is not normal.

Straw man. Will you ever argue in good faith?

Yes you are in fact going against one of your purposes as the human type animal you are.

Laughably myopic. I reject your definition of ordinary human society as simply reproduction. That is far too narrow a description for such a term. Look what it forces you to say—what a joke.

The function of genitals are what exactly?

Several actually, pleasure is one of them. Someone that is born producing a low sperm count still has genitals, right?

What are the function of your teeth? To break up foods to be digested.

Again, several functions, such as a third hand.

If you don't use things that you definitionally require to commit to said action then you literally are not using them for their intended purpose

You realize that there are very few parts of our anatomy that have a 1:1 use, right? And you recognize that our anatomy is not tied to a Plutonic ideal, right?

What are genitals functions? Reproduction.

What if I decided to use my mouth to give pleasure to my partner's genitals? Again, our anatomies are not tied to a Plutonic ideal.

Bisexual not homosexual. "Bisexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction, or sexual behavior toward both males and females". By definition people that commit to both hetero and homosexuality are Bisexual.

You realize that having a child does not negate being a homosexual, right? One can do both. Again, you are exposing your biases and shallow thinking on this topic.

If you don't reproduce you die out. If you fully commit to being homosexual as a principle then you die out. Is dying out good for society or a negative? And again even if you are homosexual and decide to have sex in regards to heterosexuality then that would make you a bisexual not a homosexual.

You realize that having a child does not negate being a homosexual, right? One can do both. Again, you are exposing your biases and shallow thinking on this topic. However, I am glad you dropped the suicide talk. I will take that as you admitting you are wrong. Thank you.

Yes, homosexuals are a minority group. However, I would disagree that they are not a part of normal human society because of that. Perhaps if you tried defining a normal human society you would also see that just because there are minority groups among it does not make them harmful. Otherwise, it just appears that you are arguing that minorities do not belong in a normal human society. But, of course, you are a bigot after all, so this could be the case.
That isn't my argument. Irrelevant. Faulty premise.

Really? That is not your argument? I must ask, what is your argument then? Because when I first asked you to cite a source for your claim, all you have done to support it is point out that homosexuality is a minority. So, please point out exactly how what I said above does not sum up your argument thus far. Because I agree, your premise is faulty.

Correct, one could not have a binary pulsar in a courtyard. But that has far more to do with the nature of both of those things. I have also seen courtyards made of different kinds of food at various fairs I have been to. However, this is all beside the point that we can agree on what a courtyard is. It appears that you are trying to define a normal human society as just being about reproduction which I flat out disagree with, and homosexuals can and do have children. Thus, even this very bad analogy you have created fails at making its point.
"Just" - (meaning only) no. That is a faulty assumption on your part

Fundamentally - yes.

This reply appears to have no bearing on the point I was making. Want to try again?

Which is perfectly fine. Societies ending is a bad thing that is my opinion apparently not held by others. LGBTQs are literally deviant by definition.

Again with the straw man. Will you ever argue in good faith? I guess when you know you are wrong and have been repeatedly exposed as wrong, erecting strawmen is all one can do.

If you add deviancy to society do you make the society more or less deviant?

Since deviant means departing from norms or standards, it becomes the norm or standard when one adds deviancy to society. Duh.

If only you would define normal human society and provide a citation for your original claim, you might start to be making a point. But, until then, your semantics will get you nowhere.

Just because people accept such things does not make it them normal necessarily and definitionally deviancy still contributes to the society.

You said back in the 70s when talking about miscegenation. Just because you can make a bigoted statement does not mean it means anything. Provide a citation that homosexuality is against normal human society or keep being a joke.

Ironic considering I had more people go out with me to go offroad or go shooting during the pandemic because in their home cities they were tired of putting up with Corona measures.

I doubt that.

Ah but the difference is I don't get any of the benefits unlike them. That argument kind of backfired now didn't it.

That is because you already have all the benefits. Also, glad to see that you admit to whining. Not sure why you would think that is a backfire on me.

I like broadcasting it.

Exactly. We already know you are not wise.

Having access to a boat and guns...

I doubt that.

I have gay friends and they even agree with my general arguments above.

I doubt that.

'Badge of honor'? Good, go on thinking that. The levels of delusion behind supporting Trump are unbelievable. You'll never be able to wash it off. Your grandkids will be too embarrassed to admit their ancestry.

I do not think this is likely. There are tons of people in the US that are proud to have ancestors that fought for the Confederacy. It would not surprise me to find out that BoganUSAFFLClerk is one of them.

Normies are more functional haven't you listened to anything? Remember the argument of normies are better for society? That is an opinion based on the FUNCTION or merit of the society. So yes I am stating openly that normies are better and deviants are worse for society.

Wow. So when I summed up your argument as:

Yes, homosexuals are a minority group. However, I would disagree that they are not a part of normal human society because of that. Perhaps if you tried defining a normal human society you would also see that just because there are minority groups among it does not make them harmful. Otherwise, it just appears that you are arguing that minorities do not belong in a normal human society. But, of course, you are a bigot after all, so this could be the case.

[Emphasis added]

I was right. Well, glad to see you admit it now even though you could not earlier.

"Full Definition of bigot

: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudicesespecially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance"

[Emphasis added]

Yeah. That fits you well. I mean, so far, you have only supported your opinion about homosexuals with other opinions you hold. You provide no evidence for anything and have only played semantics to defend your opinion.

Name 1 thing Joe Biden handled well.

The economy and pandemic.

I said more than once 'deviant', by your definition, should apply to Einstein, and you spew the same BS about bad for society.
Under the context I already argued that deviant is a generality. You cannot bring up an exception in order to explain a generality - in other words an argument based on a statement of generally or statement or majority.

Special pleading.

If left alone you then get degeneracy after just being deviant. Have you actually attended the gay pride parade? Dudes are literally jacking each other off in public in front of minors. That is degenerate harmful shit.

Citation needed.

I don't like whiney people in general...

Says the guy that is whining on the internet.

So do you think the degeneracy specific to gays or bisexuals and the like are positive for developing children when viewed or otherwise known about? I don't think so.

Yet, no one cares about your feelings. Provide a citation.

????? The article you cited says "the researchers expect the number of people on the planet to peak at 9.7 billion around 2064, before falling down to 8.8 billion by the end of the century." You do realize these are really uncertain estimates, right? My remembered stat and the one cited are essentially the same. NOTHING in it has anything to do with whether there are too many folks on this planet. To remedy what the articles isw saying will be a problem would mean vastly MORE folks on the planet, or just kill off the old.

This is a modus operandi for BoganUSAFFLClerk, reading the headlines but not the article.
 

mechtheist

Member
You actually think its possible for a person who has even privately once said anything in the last 15 years that could be taken as a non-affirmation of homosexuality, to have a place on the SCOTUS?
I would be surprised if the last two at least haven't said things that were non-affirmation of homosexuality, but I can't say I know this to be true. Do you think it's a bad thing to think anyone who clings to the idea that there is something wrong with gays just because they're gay have no place on the court?
 
Top