Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: MCWAY on March 24, 2013, 12:48:34 PM
-
Heard this earlier this week on Rush. But, it's on again, during the "Week in Review" broadcast.
I thought the whole gay argument was you can't control who you love. Now, even from the lefties, we get this? And, aren't these some of the very same people who blast anyone, trying to get folk to resist homosexuality, altogether (i.e. all the flap from that clinic the Bachmanns ran in Minnesota)?
Students at Brown University will host a workshop called “Protect me from what I desire,” which purports to help gay minority students resist their same-sex attractions to white people.
The event is sponsored by the Comprehensive Allyship Network, and will take place on April 8th. Though it will feature conversations about many aspects of gay sexuality, the dominant theme will be racial, according to the event’s Facebook page.
“Some of us… find ourselves falling always for the white queers or other bodies that possess dominant power, wishing we could have more agency in the process, be more intentional about who we desire and how,” the page reads.
http://dailycaller.com/2013/03/19/brown-universitys-workshop-on-gay-sex-will-segregate-participants-by-race/
You can't make up such foolishness, if you tried.
-
well, yes you can.
dont believe everything El Rusho talks about.
now, if Greta van susteren or Shep Smith report, then there's a chance of something being truthful.
-
Interesting how it's always the fundies on this board who are so up to date on any story involving gay people
I wonder why that is?
-
well, yes you can.
dont believe everything El Rusho talks about.
now, if Greta van susteren or Shep Smith report, then there's a chance of something being truthful.
So, the Daily Caller made this up too?
-
Interesting how it's always the fundies on this board who are so up to date on any story involving gay people
I wonder why that is?
Interesting how it's always the libs, ramming gay mess throughout the media and academia, trying to normalize this stuff, only to whine when "fundies" call them on it.
I wonder why that is.
-
Interesting how it's always the fundies on this board who are so up to date on any story involving gay people
I wonder why that is?
Maybe because O-TWINK is always in the news and in the tv?
-
I don't dislike you in the slightest but the, way that you consistently, create ungrammatical sentence fragments, via the use of commas, makes me want to punch you, in the, t,h,r,o,a,t.
-
So, the Daily Caller made this up too?
Did I say you or anyone else made it up?
I just said it's interesting how fundies are always on top of every gay story
The first time I hear about most of them is when a fundie posts them here
Do you have a google alert for "gay news" or something?
-
Interesting how it's always the libs, ramming gay mess throughout the media and academia, trying to normalize this stuff, only to whine when "fundies" call them on it.
I wonder why that is.
also interesting how you fundies always like to use the word "ramming"
usually it's "ramming down our throat" or something like that
-
I don't dislike you in the slightest but the, way that you consistently, create ungrammatical sentence fragments, via the use of commas, makes me want to punch you, in the, t,h,r,o,a,t.
Moi?
I thought a sentence fragment was a stand-alone group of words, which lacked either a verb or a noun.
-
Did I say you or anyone else made it up?
I just said it's interesting how fundies are always on top of every gay story
The first time I hear about most of them is when a fundie posts them here
Do you have a google alert for "gay news" or something?
I wasn't even talking to you, Einstein.
And, in case your ability to read has gone kaput....AGAIN, I mentioned that I heard this particular story on Rush's show.
Unfortunately, I don't need a Google alert for "gay news". This mess pops up, whether I want to hear about it or not. So, why are you blubbering about the fact that I simply reported it?
Oh! That's right! It's to duck and dodge the crux of the issue and why I actually reported it. If the crux of gay propagandists is that gays can't control who they love, then why are THEY trying to curb black, Asian, and Latino gays from having the hots for white homos?
These would be the same folks who'd blow a gasket, should someone dared to assist folk in ditching their homosexual behavior altogether.
-
Moi?
I thought a sentence fragment was a stand-alone group of words, which lacked either a verb or a noun.
I don't have as firm a grasp on the relevant technical terms as I ought to, but the point is that you unnecessarily (and illogically) break up thoughts into various grammatical chunks rather than expressing them in full.
The above quoted sentence is an example: the content following 'I thought' should be in the form of a single embedded clause ("a sentence fragment was a stand-alone group of words which lacked either a verb or a noun"). The comma divvies up this single thought in a confusing way and is inappropriate.
http://www.kent.edu/writingcommons/resources/upload/commoncommaerrors.pdf
-
the good chirstian,i thought you were not suppose to judge people, typ. christian hypocrite
-
I don't have as firm a grasp on the relevant technical terms as I ought to, but the point is that you unnecessarily (and illogically) break up thoughts into various grammatical chunks rather than expressing them in full.
The above quoted sentence is an example: the content following 'I thought' should be in the form of a single embedded clause ("a sentence fragment was a stand-alone group of words which lacked either a verb or a noun"). The comma divvies up this single thought in a confusing way and is inappropriate.
http://www.kent.edu/writingcommons/resources/upload/commoncommaerrors.pdf
That depends on how it's used. I know that such is the case when using the word, "that". It's the reason I used the word, "which", since it's specifically for describing things vs. describing people. ("that" can be used in either case).
-
the good chirstian,i thought you were not suppose to judge people, typ. christian hypocrite
As usual, you flap your beak without the slightest clue, regarding what you speak.
-
That depends on how it's used. I know that such is the case when using the word,(unnecessary comma) "that". It's the reason I used the word,(unnecessary comma) "which", since it's specifically for describing things vs. describing people. ("that" can be used in either case).
As usual, you flap your beak without the slightest clue,(improper comma) regarding what you speak.
Your unseemly love affair with commas aside, your thoughts are still being communicated. This being the case, I will drop the issue in a desperate attempt to curb my disposition toward Grammatical Nazism. God Bless you and may you live to be 100.
-
I went to brown university for a track meet back in he day. What a bunch of little twinks and fags. Disgraces to manhood and womanhood. Role reversal was strong there.
-
what i find so funny is that the regular libtards on the board have the need to attack others and defend their agenda so much that even they cant come out and admit that even for ppl advocating same sex relationships this is stupid
-
Heard this earlier this week on Rush. But, it's on again, during the "Week in Review" broadcast.
I thought the whole gay argument was you can't control who you love. Now, even from the lefties, we get this? And, aren't these some of the very same people who blast anyone, trying to get folk to resist homosexuality, altogether (i.e. all the flap from that clinic the Bachmanns ran in Minnesota)?
Students at Brown University will host a workshop called “Protect me from what I desire,” which purports to help gay minority students resist their same-sex attractions to white people.
The event is sponsored by the Comprehensive Allyship Network, and will take place on April 8th. Though it will feature conversations about many aspects of gay sexuality, the dominant theme will be racial, according to the event’s Facebook page.
“Some of us… find ourselves falling always for the white queers or other bodies that possess dominant power, wishing we could have more agency in the process, be more intentional about who we desire and how,” the page reads.
http://dailycaller.com/2013/03/19/brown-universitys-workshop-on-gay-sex-will-segregate-participants-by-race/
You can't make up such foolishness, if you tried.
Interesting potential. I'd like to see someone attempt to defend both stances, to see what that person would say.
-
what i find so funny is that the regular libtards on the board have the need to attack others and defend their agenda so much that even they cant come out and admit that even for ppl advocating same sex relationships this is stupid
I find that rather funny myself. Notice the usual suspects HAVE YET to answer the initial charge, as to why these folks are trying to "control" who people love.
-
I don't have as firm a grasp on the relevant technical terms as I ought to, but the point is that you unnecessarily (and illogically) break up thoughts into various grammatical chunks rather than expressing them in full.
The above quoted sentence is an example: the content following 'I thought' should be in the form of a single embedded clause ("a sentence fragment was a stand-alone group of words which lacked either a verb or a noun"). The comma divvies up this single thought in a confusing way and is inappropriate.
http://www.kent.edu/writingcommons/resources/upload/commoncommaerrors.pdf
What happened to your Balnazzar avatar bro? Warcraft III ftw.
-
Forgive me, but why are minorities so attracted to whites? Why does this generally seem to be a one way street?
-
Forgive me, but why are minorities so attracted to whites? Why does this generally seem to be a one way street?
Perhaps, it's due to a few centuries of white people, being held as the standard of all things beautiful?
Black people have undergone that for centuries. That's why black women get perms for their hair. Even dudes, back in day, got their hair "fried, dyed, and laid to the side". Heck, Al Sharpton sports that hairdo to this day.
If you've seen the movie "School Daze", you've seen the conflict between dark-skinned and light-skinned black women. I witnessed some of that first hand in college, having attended a historically-black college/university (HBCU) myself.
-
Perhaps, it's due to a few centuries of white people, being held as the standard of all things beautiful?
Black people have undergone that for centuries. That's why black women get perms for their hair. Even dudes, back in day, got their hair "fired, dyed, and laid to the side". Heck, Al Sharpton sports that hairdo to this day.
If you've seen the movie "School Daze", you've seen the conflict between dark-skinned and light-skinned black women. I witnessed some of that first hand in college, having attended a historically-black college/university (HBCU) myself.
hmmm... good point :o
-
How you keep your cool like ou do = respect.
Perhaps, it's due to a few centuries of white people, being held as the standard of all things beautiful?
Black people have undergone that for centuries. That's why black women get perms for their hair. Even dudes, back in day, got their hair "fired, dyed, and laid to the side". Heck, Al Sharpton sports that hairdo to this day.
If you've seen the movie "School Daze", you've seen the conflict between dark-skinned and light-skinned black women. I witnessed some of that first hand in college, having attended a historically-black college/university (HBCU) myself.
-
How you keep your cool like ou do = respect.
Yeah, and my question/comment was pretty fucked up.
-
Perhaps, it's due to a few centuries of white people, being held as the standard of all things beautiful?
Black people have undergone that for centuries. That's why black women get perms for their hair. Even dudes, back in day, got their hair "fired, dyed, and laid to the side". Heck, Al Sharpton sports that hairdo to this day.
If you've seen the movie "School Daze", you've seen the conflict between dark-skinned and light-skinned black women. I witnessed some of that first hand in college, having attended a historically-black college/university (HBCU) myself.
The reason Black women first started permanently straightening their hair, was NOT due to some subconscious desire to appear caucasian. It was because there were LAWS in place that made it ILLEGAL for Black women to show their natural hair in public. The practice continued because it was far easier to manage with the curl permanently relaxed. As a Black woman with a whole helluva lotta hair, I can assure you, if I didn't relax it, I would never be able to control it, unless I went for the crew cut, which will NOT be happening anytime soon, ...in this lifetime or the next! ;D
I also think that on certain subjects the all-encompassing "Black" moniker should be altered to 'African-Americans or even Black Americans, because alot of the baggage we see often uniquely affects American Blacks. We don't see much of any of it in Black communities outside of the USA.
-
The reason Black women first started permanently straightening their hair, was NOT due to some subconscious desire to appear caucasian. It was because there were LAWS in place that made it ILLEGAL for Black women to show their natural hair in public. The practice continued because it was far easier to manage with the curl permanently relaxed. As a Black woman with a whole helluva lotta hair, I can assure you, if I didn't relax it, I would never be able to control it, unless I went for the crew cut, which will NOT be happening anytime soon, ...in this lifetime or the next! ;D
I also think that on certain subjects the all-encompassing "Black" moniker should be altered to 'African-Americans or even Black Americans, because alot of the baggage we see often uniquely affects American Blacks. We don't see much of any of it in Black communities outside of the USA.
When are you posting nudes? ;D.
-
Forgive me, but why are minorities so attracted to whites? Why does this generally seem to be a one way street?
It's not ALWAYS a one-way street. I can assure you it does work both ways. ie: Robert Deniro / Kim Kardashian
-
When are you posting nudes? ;D.
Take a nude picture of yourself. I'll post it. ;D
-
Take a nude picture of yourself. I'll post it. ;D
I already posted my pics - your turn.
-
I already posted my pics - your turn.
You posted nude pics? ...and I already posted nudes in the other thread.
-
Forgive me, but why are minorities so attracted to whites? Why does this generally seem to be a one way street?
Ban minorities.
-
Ban minorities.
I swear sometimes i just wanna put you over my knee, and spank your little bottom! >:(
-
I swear sometimes i just wanna put you over my knee, and spank your little bottom! >:(
Ban punishments.
-
You posted nude pics? ...and I already posted nudes in the other thread.
I posted pics from shows i did. your turn.
-
I posted pics from shows i did. your turn.
Those pics you posted weren't nudes.
I already posted 3 shades of nude lipstick for you to apply, ...then kiss my ass with. >:(
-
x2
Ban white fags
x 3
-
The reason Black women first started permanently straightening their hair, was NOT due to some subconscious desire to appear caucasian. It was because there were LAWS in place that made it ILLEGAL for Black women to show their natural hair in public. The practice continued because it was far easier to manage with the curl permanently relaxed. As a Black woman with a whole helluva lotta hair, I can assure you, if I didn't relax it, I would never be able to control it, unless I went for the crew cut, which will NOT be happening anytime soon, ...in this lifetime or the next! ;D
I also think that on certain subjects the all-encompassing "Black" moniker should be altered to 'African-Americans or even Black Americans, because alot of the baggage we see often uniquely affects American Blacks. We don't see much of any of it in Black communities outside of the USA.
I must have missed some of those laws. And, apparently they didn't apply to black men.
As for this issue being almost exclusive to black people in America, I beg to differ on that one. In Jamaica and in certain countries in Africa, this issue is alive and well.
The influence of white standards of beauty was and is a factor as to black women's hair style. We could argue about the degree of influence. But, there's no question that such impacts the sisters and how they fix their hair.
-
Forgive me, but why are minorities so attracted to whites? Why does this generally seem to be a one way street?
Because they are self racists.
-
I must have missed some of those laws. And, apparently they didn't apply to black men.
Clearly you did.
As for this issue being almost exclusive to black people in America, I beg to differ on that one. In Jamaica and in certain countries in Africa, this issue is alive and well.
The influence of white standards of beauty was and is a factor as to black women's hair style. We could argue about the degree of influence. But, there's no question that such impacts the sisters and how they fix their hair.
I wouldn't say this particular issue is exclusive to Black people in America, certainly it exists elsewhere with, as you said, different degrees of influence. I wasn't referring to this specific issue, but I have noticed over the years a certain generalization, that quite frankly annoys the heck out of me, that assumes all Black people are homogenous in their experience, attitudes, culture, and influences... When in reality, people are taking a uniquely "African American" experience or reality, ...or whatever you want to call it, ...and superimposing it on all Black people. It's bloody annoying.
As a Black man who is most often assumed to be a Democratic supporter, simply because he is Black, I'm sure you can understand where I'm coming from on this. It's ridiculous.
You're Black, so people in America assume you come from an impoverished, underprivileged background. Meanwhile, the Europeans assume you're rich, because the only Black people they've ever encountered are the wealthy ones who send their children to prestigious European Universities. It's crazy.
-
Ban white fags
x 3
x4
Ban greasy dago wops, and ban guilt ridden white men who feel that they are personally responsible for the enslavement of every black american throughout history.
-
Clearly you did.
I wouldn't say this particular issue is exclusive to Black people in America, certainly it exists elsewhere with, as you said, different degrees of influence. I wasn't referring to this specific issue, but I have noticed over the years a certain generalization, that quite frankly annoys the heck out of me, that assumes all Black people are homogenous in their experience, attitudes, culture, and influences... When in reality, people are taking a uniquely "African American" experience or reality, ...or whatever you want to call it, ...and superimposing it on all Black people. It's bloody annoying.
As a Black man who is most often assumed to be a Democratic supporter, simply because he is Black, I'm sure you can understand where I'm coming from on this. It's ridiculous.
AMEN!!
You're Black, so people in America assume you come from an impoverished, underprivileged background. Meanwhile, the Europeans assume you're rich, because the only Black people they've ever encountered are the wealthy ones who send their children to prestigious European Universities. It's crazy.
I see your point. I wouldn't say my background was impoverished. Sure, we had our times when were po'.
But, that wasn't a perpetual thing. My mother sacrificed a lot to keep me in private school for most of my childhood and teenage years.
It wasn't a fancy or ritzy private school, but a small Christian school with 40-50 students and 2-3 teachers (counting the principal, at times). At one point, we had one teacher, covering 1st-4th grade, a second doing 5th-8th grade, and the principal (who for a few years did 9th grade).
-
Clearly you did.
I wouldn't say this particular issue is exclusive to Black people in America, certainly it exists elsewhere with, as you said, different degrees of influence. I wasn't referring to this specific issue, but I have noticed over the years a certain generalization, that quite frankly annoys the heck out of me, that assumes all Black people are homogenous in their experience, attitudes, culture, and influences... When in reality, people are taking a uniquely "African American" experience or reality, ...or whatever you want to call it, ...and superimposing it on all Black people. It's bloody annoying.
As a Black man who is most often assumed to be a Democratic supporter, simply because he is Black, I'm sure you can understand where I'm coming from on this. It's ridiculous.
You're Black, so people in America assume you come from an impoverished, underprivileged background. Meanwhile, the Europeans assume you're rich, because the only Black people they've ever encountered are the wealthy ones who send their children to prestigious European Universities. It's crazy.
AS further clarification, the insanity cuts all ways...
It's like people assuming Prince Charles who is white and comes from a very privileged background in London, has had the exact very same common experiences, attitudes, upbringing and desires as Charlie who grew up in the coal mines of Appalachia, ...just because they are both white.
Standards of beauty & desire differ from people to people, but those caught in the grip of western mind control media will often be attracted to what the prevalent memes put forth as a standard of beauty & desireability.
ie: I was chatting with a friend the other night who is building a home in the Philippines. He's a painter by trade who grew up in the Canadian arctic. He's traveled the world, and chose The Phillipines as his desired spot, so he somehow managed to get around a few laws, and bought a farm, and is building his dream house there. He works here for about 2 months of the year, which is enough to allow him to live the remaining 10 months in the philippines. Anyway, the other night he was telling me that over there, when guys look at women they may find desireable, they look at the hands. If she paints her fingernails... they don't want her. Any woman over there with painted nails, is a woman who is automatically deemed to be LAZY in their eyes. A flawless manicure is the sign of a woman who doesn't work, and as such she's undesireable. The women over there don't even bother with manicures because they'll only chip after 5 mins, ...so they paint their toe nails instead, but the hands are left bare. After spending so much time over there and getting so used to the customs, ...he still finds it hard to let go of those ideas when he comes back home to Canada. Wierd huh? He had this one Victoria's Secret model chasing after him for months on end, before he finally wised up and caught her, because he couldn't get past the fact that she was perfectly manicured. lol.
-
Interesting how it's always the libs, ramming gay mess throughout the media and academia, trying to normalize this stuff, only to whine when "fundies" call them on it.
I wonder why that is.
why does "gayness" occur in over a 100 species in the wild? Seems fairly ubiquitous to me, also, it is obvious anyone can suppress an urge or feeling.
Also, who are you to say what is normal? who cares if some people like men and some like woman you overvalue your importance perhaps because of your childhood indoctrination.
-
why does "gayness" occur in over a 100 species in the wild? Seems fairly ubiquitous to me, also, it is obvious anyone can suppress an urge or feeling.
Also, who are you to say what is normal? who cares if some people like men and some like woman you overvalue your importance perhaps because of your childhood indoctrination.
ahhh the "it happens in nature" argument...
simply b/c something happens in nature as an abnormality does not make the behavior normal. Its normal that a very small % develop this ABNORMAL behavior.
We shouldnt be seeking to normalize this abnormal behavior as normal, Im not saying we should persecute this individuals but to hold it up as the same or equal to heterosexual relationships is what we should be doing.
-
God apparently makes mistakes. In his children and in nature.
-
LOL so instead of calling this apex of liberalism and stupidity what it is you continue to deflect in approval.
Got it!!!
-
why does "gayness" occur in over a 100 species in the wild? Seems fairly ubiquitous to me, also, it is obvious anyone can suppress an urge or feeling.
In nature, certain species eat their own excrement or kill their mates after sex. Should we mimick that behavior, too?
BTW, that's 100 species out of how many, 10,000? That's 1%.
100,000? That's 0.1%
1,000,000? That's 0.01%
Any way you slice it, that's abnormal at best and immoral at worst.
Also, who are you to say what is normal? who cares if some people like men and some like woman you overvalue your importance perhaps because of your childhood indoctrination.
Look who's talking. You and your ilk want to say that two dudes cornholing each other is "normal", simply because they "love" each other.
You overvalue YOUR importance, because of your adult indoctrination.
-
LOL so instead of calling this apex of liberalism and stupidity what it is you continue to deflect in approval.
Got it!!!
EXACTLY!! None of our residence libs here have actually come to defend this foolishness at Brown University. They've ducked, dodged, and deflected from the central argument that I put forth, when I put up this thread.
-
I addressed it. I think minorities can be some of the most racists groups out there. Imagine a bar with a Whitney Houston remixed extended European bootleg mix playing in the background.
Black Dude cruising a white guy - "Yo wanna hook up?"
White Dude - "thanks, but no I can't. sorry."
Black Dude - "why not?"
White Dude - "well I am just not attracted to black men"
Black Dude - *head literally turns into that well known gif of the little black kid yelling THAT'S RACIST* "Yo dawg yous a RACIST"
White Dude - "umm... dude, you must be one too since you aren't trying to hook up with a black man yourself."
White Dude walks off while black dude glares after him while drinking his Zima through a straw that he has clutched in his manicured nails.
-
Heard this earlier this week on Rush. But, it's on again, during the "Week in Review" broadcast.
I thought the whole gay argument was you can't control who you love. Now, even from the lefties, we get this? And, aren't these some of the very same people who blast anyone, trying to get folk to resist homosexuality, altogether (i.e. all the flap from that clinic the Bachmanns ran in Minnesota)?
Students at Brown University will host a workshop called “Protect me from what I desire,” which purports to help gay minority students resist their same-sex attractions to white people.
The event is sponsored by the Comprehensive Allyship Network, and will take place on April 8th. Though it will feature conversations about many aspects of gay sexuality, the dominant theme will be racial, according to the event’s Facebook page.
“Some of us… find ourselves falling always for the white queers or other bodies that possess dominant power, wishing we could have more agency in the process, be more intentional about who we desire and how,” the page reads.
http://dailycaller.com/2013/03/19/brown-universitys-workshop-on-gay-sex-will-segregate-participants-by-race/
You can't make up such foolishness, if you tried.
So am I seeing that liberals on this board are okay with this? Is that right? ???
-
Why dont these twinks who are little panzies get in the gym and man up so to say?
-
I think minorities can be some of the most racists groups out there.
By "minorities" do you mean homosexuals? Homosexuals are some of the most racists groups out there?
-
By "minorities" do you mean homosexuals? Homosexuals are some of the most racists groups out there?
Got to love the beta-twinks complaining they get dominated by the alpha-twinks
-
By "minorities" do you mean homosexuals? Homosexuals are some of the most racists groups out there?
Both. Black homosexuals. Minority squared.
-
"ok" with it?
who gives a shit
this tiny group of students are perfectly free to get together and talk about whatever they want
WHO GIVES A SHIT
that's what I don't understand
Apparently this is hugely significant and meaningful to a certain group of people on this board
No - its just highly amusing
-
Both. Black homosexuals. Minority squared.
lol is that the same thing as a black women?
-
I love how all the Rand Paul worshipers who claim to love freedom so much have any problem at all with this obscure non-story
Isn't RP the guy who thinks that businesses in the public domain/serve the public should be free to discriminate
I wonder if he would have a problem with a tiny group of students at a private university who voluntarily choose to participate in this admittedly odd discussion and exercise their freedom of speech and right to assembly
Again, I just find it BIZZARO that fundies spend their time looking for this shit and then getting all worked up about it (ignoring of course the freedom loving irony of it all)
We are laughing at how absurd these people are.
Gay beta-twinks need a support group as to why they are attracted to alpha-twinks?
LMFAO!!!! Come on - that shit is hilarious.
-
"ok" with it?
who gives a shit
this tiny group of students are perfectly free to get together and talk about whatever they want
WHO GIVES A SHIT
that's what I don't understand
Apparently this is hugely significant and meaningful to a certain group of people on this board
Is being attracted to the same gender a choice? Liberals and homosexuals say not, not a choice.
Is being attracted to the same race a choice? Apparently liberals and homosexuals believe yes, it is a choice. wtf?
I'm just trying to understand here. I'm a fundy who doesn't care whether or not homos get married. They should suffer too.
-
lol is that the same thing as a black women?
No. Black women aren't after a white man. Evidence has long since proven that they are not attracted to men who are responsible, honest, and possess a work ethic.
-
No. Black women aren't after a white man. Evidence has long since proven that they are not attracted to men who are responsible, honest, and possess a work ethic.
Tbombz disagrees
-
You didn't read my last sentence.
I don't know what to think about Tbombz. I helped that dude out several times in the past and he never did anything with the opportunities I gave him.
-
I love how all the Rand Paul worshipers who claim to love freedom so much have any problem at all with this obscure non-story
Isn't RP the guy who thinks that businesses in the public domain/serve the public should be free to discriminate
I wonder if he would have a problem with a tiny group of students at a private university who voluntarily choose to participate in this admittedly odd discussion and exercise their freedom of speech and right to assembly
Again, I just find it BIZZARO that fundies spend their time looking for this shit and then getting all worked up about it (ignoring of course the freedom loving irony of it all)
Wrong again, Einstein. Nobody went looking for this, least of all me. Again I heard this on Rush's show last week.
When I heard it a second time on Rush's "Week In Review", which happened walking in the door after returning from my son's birthday party, it sounded even more preposterous than it did the first time. So, I looked it up (which took all of 10 seconds, if that) and the article is posted here.
-
.
-
the decision to gather together (right to assembly) and have a discussion (freedom of speech) are both choices and one is free to choose to attend or not
and
of course
who really gives a shit
I wouldn't care at all if a bunch of fundies wanted to get together to discuss why they are so freaking fascinated by anything that involves the word "gay"
Because its hilarious how pathetic these queers are
-
Not nearly as hilarious as how anything that involves the word gay just fascinates the shit out of you
True point here.
-
We are laughing at how absurd these people are.
Gay beta-twinks need a support group as to why they are attracted to alpha-twinks?
LMFAO!!!! Come on - that shit is hilarious.
What's even more hilarious is that Straw Man doesn't find it that bizarre! ;D
-
What's even more hilarious is that Straw Man doesn't find it that bizarre! ;D
Hey PIP - It seems the censors deem it unacceptable for me to point that that I had previously said this was an admittedly odd discussion
Apparently I'm not allowed to show proof that your claim is false
-
Hey PIP - It seems the censors deem it unacceptable for me to point that that I had previously said this was an admittedly odd discussion
Apparently I'm not allowed to show proof that your claim is false
Correct, you clearly don't seem to understand that we get to say whatever the fuck we want, but you, in fact do not.
-
I don't have as firm a grasp on the relevant technical terms as I ought to, but the point is that you unnecessarily (and illogically) break up thoughts into various grammatical chunks rather than expressing them in full.
The above quoted sentence is an example: the content following 'I thought' should be in the form of a single embedded clause ("a sentence fragment was a stand-alone group of words which lacked either a verb or a noun"). The comma divvies up this single thought in a confusing way and is inappropriate.
http://www.kent.edu/writingcommons/resources/upload/commoncommaerrors.pdf
My writing also suffers sometimes from too many unnecessary comma's. Unfortunately, the rules regarding commas aren't very clear to me. If they are to you, would you mind helping me out? As far as I can surmise, it all has to do with the flow of the sentence for ease in reading.
-
Forgive me, but why are minorities so attracted to whites? Why does this generally seem to be a one way street?
Is there proof that minorities are overly attracted to white folks, or is this just someone's opinion? Incidentally, it has been predicted that in not so many years, white folk will be the minority race. Will Blacks and Asians become more attractive to whites when this happens? Just wondering.
-
ahhh the "it happens in nature" argument...
simply b/c something happens in nature as an abnormality does not make the behavior normal. Its normal that a very small % develop this ABNORMAL behavior.
We shouldnt be seeking to normalize this abnormal behavior as normal, Im not saying we should persecute this individuals but to hold it up as the same or equal to heterosexual relationships is what we should be doing.
It was once thought that 1 in 6 people were exclusively homosexual for a period lasting longer than three years. Less then that, and it is just random sexual experimentation according to Kinsey. I challenge your concept of normal.
-
So am I seeing that liberals on this board are okay with this? Is that right? ???
No this is not right. Some things are just too ridiculous to bother commenting about. This would count as one of these things in my book.
-
It was once thought that 1 in 6 people were exclusively homosexual for a period lasting longer than three years. Less then that, and it is just random sexual experimentation according to Kinsey. I challenge your concept of normal.
It was once thought that homosexuality was a mental disorder.
Sorry boss simple statistics say its not normal. Seeing as less than 3% I believe identify as gay they are statiscallu an anomaly.
That aside you can't even begin to argue I hope anyway that you feel heterosexuality isn't the default sexuality of humans or any species that requires two opposite sex partners to procreate.
Stop and think about what you're saying for a minute prime.
-
It was once thought that homosexuality was a mental disorder.
Sorry boss simple statistics say its not normal. Seeing as less than 3% I believe identify as gay they are statiscallu an anomaly.
That aside you can't even begin to argue I hope anyway that you feel heterosexuality isn't the default sexuality of humans or any species that requires two opposite sex partners to procreate.
Stop and think about what you're saying for a minute prime.
I have nothing against homosexuals and I don't care if they marry, but if it were "normal" or "natural", humans would be extinct. The only way, if any, that it would be "normal" or "natural" is to control overpopulation in order to preserve the species as either extreme can lead to extinction.
-
I have nothing against homosexuals and I don't care if they marry, but if it were "normal" or "natural", humans would be extinct. The only way, if any, that it would be "normal" or "natural" is to control overpopulation in order to preserve the species as either extreme can lead to extinction.
Is this an argument for eugenics?
-
I already posted my pics - your turn.
you did?
where?
I'll offer cash to see them.
-
I have nothing against homosexuals and I don't care if they marry, but if it were "normal" or "natural", humans would be extinct. The only way, if any, that it would be "normal" or "natural" is to control overpopulation in order to preserve the species as either extreme can lead to extinction.
Let's look at each of your assertions in turn.
(1) 'If homosexuality were normal, the species (Homo sapiens) would go extinct.' This claim isn't evaluable in this context because it isn't clear what you mean by 'normal': the term is ambiguous between a variety of interpretations. If you mean anything like 'natural,' however, then (1) will reduce to (2) and thus (2)'s evaluation will be an evaluation of (1) as well (see below).
(2) 'If homosexuality were natural, the species (Homo sapiens) would go extinct.' This claim is false on the standard interpretation of 'natural,' which in this context I take to mean 'caused by biological (genetic, primarily) processes and not mere convention.' This is because homosexuality is in fact natural -- it has been exhibited across hundreds of species including our own and its occurrence is stable over time -- and we've yet to go extinct.
-
In nature, certain species eat their own excrement or kill their mates after sex. Should we mimick that behavior, too?
BTW, that's 100 species out of how many, 10,000? That's 1%.
100,000? That's 0.1%
1,000,000? That's 0.01%
Any way you slice it, that's abnormal at best and immoral at worst.
Look who's talking. You and your ilk want to say that two dudes cornholing each other is "normal", simply because they "love" each other.
You overvalue YOUR importance, because of your adult indoctrination.
to the first point, yes, if people want to do that then go right ahead, why are you always trying to decide what is allowed and not allowed for others. There are a few criteria any behavior needs to have in my book then all is permitted.
I am not saying it's normal, it is natural, it's commonality says nothing about it, absolutely nothing. The impact it has is the only issue, morally you have no authority.
-
to the first point, yes, if people want to do that then go right ahead, why are you always trying to decide what is allowed and not allowed for others. There are a few criteria any behavior needs to have in my book then all is permitted.
I am not saying it's normal, it is natural, it's commonality says nothing about it, absolutely nothing. The impact it has is the only issue, morally you have no authority.
its commonality has a lot to do with it, b/c its NOT NORMAL, why do we need to normalize it?
nobody is saying that homosexuals shouldnt be able to express themselves, it just shouldnt be made a normal part of society b/c ITS NOT NORMAL!!!
you pass judgement on ppl all the fucking time, where does your moral superiority come from?
-
you did?
where?
I'll offer cash to see them.
You do the reseach. I posted two yesterday or monday and a shit load in WOOs thread on me.
-
its commonality has a lot to do with it, b/c its NOT NORMAL, why do we need to normalize it?
nobody is saying that homosexuals shouldnt be able to express themselves, it just shouldnt be made a normal part of society b/c ITS NOT NORMAL!!!
you pass judgement on ppl all the fucking time, where does your moral superiority come from?
There have been gays & lesbians hidden all throughout the closets of history.
To ask "why do we need to normalize it?" or to say it shouldn't be made a normal part of society, assumes and presumes we have anything to do with it. It is already a normal part of society. What's abnormal is the amount of attention we're forced to pay to the issue, because people think they can legislate away their existence, deny them the same rights & privileges enjoyed by heterosexuals, and in so doing leave homosexuals feeling they are fighting for their lives... which in many cases they are.
-
There have been gays & lesbians hidden all throughout the closets of history.
To ask "why do we need to normalize it?" or to say it shouldn't be made a normal part of society, assumes and presumes we have anything to do with it. It is already a normal part of society. What's abnormal is the amount of attention we're forced to pay to the issue, because people think they can legislate away their existence, deny them the same rights & privileges enjoyed by heterosexuals, and in so doing leave homosexuals feeling they are fighting for their lives... which in many cases they are.
again you assume that simply b/c a very small % are gay that it is a normal part of society, it is absolutely not.
Nobody is denying their existence or trying to legislate them away...::)
what we are saying is that we should normalize an abnormal behavior...
-
again you assume that simply b/c a very small % are gay that it is a normal part of society, it is absolutely not.
Nobody is denying their existence or trying to legislate them away...::)
what we are saying is that we should normalize an abnormal behavior...
A small percentage are out of the closet, ...a huge number are still in hiding for fear of the bigots, or deluding themselves into thinking they're not really gay. HA! Just look at the posters on these boards.
-
It was once thought that homosexuality was a mental disorder.
Sorry boss simple statistics say its not normal. Seeing as less than 3% I believe identify as gay they are statiscallu an anomaly.
That aside you can't even begin to argue I hope anyway that you feel heterosexuality isn't the default sexuality of humans or any species that requires two opposite sex partners to procreate.
Stop and think about what you're saying for a minute prime.
Your response implies that I posted my own opinion, which is not the case. I posted the opinion of folk who are considered to be experts on these matters.
I would not even try to argue that heterosexuality isn't the norm, because it absolutely is. Your statistics disagree with those of the experts I cited. There studies purport that it is 1 in every 6 men are homosexual. I am no math wizard, but this seems higher than 3% of men. Moreover, their definition of a homosexual is someone who exclusively engages in homosexuality for several years. Men who experiment with various sexual experiences including same sex sexual relationships are not considered to be homosexuals.
My opinion, like it or not, is that folks are sexual creatures and thus crave sexual gratification. Sometimes for various reasons this gratification comes for same sex relations. At heart we are all animals who enjoy sexual pleasure and as such many people will take it were ever they can get it. Deprived of women, men have historically resorted to other men for sexual gratification. However, this does not necessarily mean they are gay. I suspect the same is true for women.
Obviously, up until recent times it took sex between a man and a woman to procreate, thus ensuring the continuation of our species. However, this no longer being the case, it opens the door for folks to explore other avenues. For example, women can now be impregnated without having sex with a male partner, via artificial insemination. Note that this avenue is also available to heterosexual couples who are, for one reason or another, unable to have a child through the conventional process. Likewise, two men who wish to be parents can provide their sperm to inseminate surrogate mother. The result of this relatively new science is that sexual norms are challenged.
Considering that the world is extensively overpopulated, the argument that homosexuality threatens the survival of our species is absolutely absurd.
Don't believe statistics which require one "identify" with homosexuality. Believe it or not, folks lie when it comes to admitting to their sexual preferences. This is understandable since there remains a stigma against folks who are homosexuals. I think the line is that they are in the "closet" and are not ready to come out. Can you blame them?
-
Why dont these twinks who are little panzies get in the gym and man up so to say?
Oh they do. Bodybuilding, which is by nature narcissistic behavior, is filled with men who are seeking to make themselves more attractive to other men.
-
I have nothing against homosexuals and I don't care if they marry, but if it were "normal" or "natural", humans would be extinct. The only way, if any, that it would be "normal" or "natural" is to control overpopulation in order to preserve the species as either extreme can lead to extinction.
I am bisexual for lack of a better definition. I have two children. They and their partners have produced four offspring. As a family we are zero growth, but stable in terms of human extinction.
I have no idea what is normal. I suspect "normal" is in the eye of the beholder. In other words, my normal may not be your normal.
-
Let's look at each of your assertions in turn.
(1) 'If homosexuality were normal, the species (Homo sapiens) would go extinct.' This claim isn't evaluable in this context because it isn't clear what you mean by 'normal': the term is ambiguous between a variety of interpretations. If you mean anything like 'natural,' however, then (1) will reduce to (2) and thus (2)'s evaluation will be an evaluation of (1) as well (see below).
(2) 'If homosexuality were natural, the species (Homo sapiens) would go extinct.' This claim is false on the standard interpretation of 'natural,' which in this context I take to mean 'caused by biological (genetic, primarily) processes and not mere convention.' This is because homosexuality is in fact natural -- it has been exhibited across hundreds of species including our own and its occurrence is stable over time -- and we've yet to go extinct.
Thanks. You have stated this much better than I could ever hope to do.
-
I am bisexual for lack of a better definition. I have two children. They and their partners have produced four offspring. As a family we are zero growth, but stable in terms of human extinction.
I have no idea what is normal. I suspect "normal" is in the eye of the beholder. In other words, my normal may not be your normal.
Real talk here.
I am amused by those arguing about what is "normal" when they themselves are biased against the very term and live their lives accordingly.
-
its commonality has a lot to do with it, b/c its NOT NORMAL, why do we need to normalize it?
nobody is saying that homosexuals shouldnt be able to express themselves, it just shouldnt be made a normal part of society b/c ITS NOT NORMAL!!!
you pass judgement on ppl all the fucking time, where does your moral superiority come from?
We are not normalizing it,you are talking about basic rights of human beings, you sound like a nazi dude.
What objections do you have towards gay marriage? what impact do you expect this to have? What is a normal society? one where blacks cannot drink out of the same water fountain? or perhaps one where woman are to keep covered from head to toe and be subservient?
I pass judgement sure, I don't try and mandate what they can and can't do with there lives especially when it harms no one. There is not one good argument against gay marriage, besides religious bigotry. Religion is a relic, dying slow and painfully, it is corrupt and rotten at the core.
-
Your response implies that I posted my own opinion, which is not the case. I posted the opinion of folk who are considered to be experts on these matters.
I would not even try to argue that heterosexuality isn't the norm, because it absolutely is. Your statistics disagree with those of the experts I cited. There studies purport that it is 1 in every 6 men are homosexual. I am no math wizard, but this seems higher than 3% of men. Moreover, their definition of a homosexual is someone who exclusively engages in homosexuality for several years. Men who experiment with various sexual experiences including same sex sexual relationships are not considered to be homosexuals.
My opinion, like it or not, is that folks are sexual creatures and thus crave sexual gratification. Sometimes for various reasons this gratification comes for same sex relations. At heart we are all animals who enjoy sexual pleasure and as such many people will take it were ever they can get it. Deprived of women, men have historically resorted to other men for sexual gratification. However, this does not necessarily mean they are gay. I suspect the same is true for women.
Obviously, up until recent times it took sex between a man and a woman to procreate, thus ensuring the continuation of our species. However, this no longer being the case, it opens the door for folks to explore other avenues. For example, women can now be impregnated without having sex with a male partner, via artificial insemination. Note that this avenue is also available to heterosexual couples who are, for one reason or another, unable to have a child through the conventional process. Likewise, two men who wish to be parents can provide their sperm to inseminate surrogate mother. The result of this relatively new science is that sexual norms are challenged.
Considering that the world is extensively overpopulated, the argument that homosexuality threatens the survival of our species is absolutely absurd.
Don't believe statistics which require one "identify" with homosexuality. Believe it or not, folks lie when it comes to admitting to their sexual preferences. This is understandable since there remains a stigma against folks who are homosexuals. I think the line is that they are in the "closet" and are not ready to come out. Can you blame them?
Nice post, bigots never learn they will always be on the wrong side of history.
-
what we are saying is that we should normalize an abnormal behavior...
It isn't clear what you're saying because it isn't clear what you mean by 'normal.' Let's explore the logical space a bit:
If by 'normal' you mean a property that 50+1% of human beings have, then you are simply engaging in semantics by arguing that we shouldn't consider as normal a property which you have stipulated is abnormal by definition -- fine as far as it goes, but irrelevant. No one is attempting to normalize homosexuality in this sense. What people are doing is trying to grant basic rights to an abnormal (as we've defined it in this paragraph) population on the basis of their being no compelling reason not to do so, plus a couple of good reasons to do so.
If by 'normal' you mean 'natural,' or resulting from our genetic endowment, then you are simply mistaken as homosexuality is exhibited across hundreds of species (including our own) and in stable percentages of species' populations over time (including our own). The only possible explanation for this is that it is a natural property.
If by 'normal' you mean what society deems acceptable, then you have simply made an assertion without argumentation -- you'd need to give some compelling evidence that if homosexuality were deemed acceptable, adverse societal outcomes would result. You'd probably also need to show that the arguments to the contrary are mistaken.
Finally, if you're simply expressing your feelings about homosexuality, then that's fine, but has no bearing on what the country's public policy ought to be.
-
You are wasting your time with Tony. He basically engages in logical fallacies in an effort to appear bright yet doesn't really grasp the fact they are just knee jerk emotional appeals that do nothing to prove or define the underlying claims.
-
again you assume that simply b/c a very small % are gay that it is a normal part of society, it is absolutely not.
Nobody is denying their existence or trying to legislate them away...::)
what we are saying is that we should normalize an abnormal behavior...
How does it normalize abnormal behavior by making legal?
Does that apply to everything or just homosexuality?
-
That's a definite possibility, but I'd like to at least give him a chance to say something that makes sense.
Good luck with that. He overcompensates by trying to string buzz words together in an attempt to sound witty and knowledgeable which in reality leaves any argument or stance of his with a bigger gap in it than there was before.
Particularly amusing is his habit of trying to reverse your statement back in the form of a rhetorical question in the hopes that you will make his argument for him. Since he isn't exactly sure of what he is trying to say or how to convey it.
-
Are white beta-twinks attracted to minority alpha twinks?
-
Are white beta-twinks attracted to minority alpha twinks?
You tell us. Do you get asked out a lot?
HAHA you walked into that one dude!
-
You tell us. Do you get asked out a lot?
HAHA you walked into that one dude!
I know - but its still a funny question in light of the thread.
-
I know - but its still a funny question in light of the thread.
i'd ask him out. and pay for drinks and dinner.
-
We are not normalizing it,you are talking about basic rights of human beings, you sound like a nazi dude.
What objections do you have towards gay marriage? what impact do you expect this to have? What is a normal society? one where blacks cannot drink out of the same water fountain? or perhaps one where woman are to keep covered from head to toe and be subservient?
I pass judgement sure, I don't try and mandate what they can and can't do with there lives especially when it harms no one. There is not one good argument against gay marriage, besides religious bigotry. Religion is a relic, dying slow and painfully, it is corrupt and rotten at the core.
LOL first youre the last person on here that should lecture anyone on hypocrisey.
second, it is normalizing an abnormal behavior...homosexuality by the pure numbers of statistics is abnormal. Im guessing you have a decent understanding of statistics, bell curves, standard deviations, variances etc...
homosexuality being at most 3% of the population puts them a good 2 standard deviations away on a standard bell curve...THAT IS ABNORMAL!!!!
only a retard would argue that in a species that requires 2 OPPOSITE SEX INDIVIDUALS to procreate that homosexuality is not abnormal
-
It isn't clear what you're saying because it isn't clear what you mean by 'normal.' Let's explore the logical space a bit:
If by 'normal' you mean a property that 50+1% of human beings have, then you are simply engaging in semantics by arguing that we shouldn't consider as normal a property which you have stipulated is abnormal by definition -- fine as far as it goes, but irrelevant. No one is attempting to normalize homosexuality in this sense. What people are doing is trying to grant basic rights to an abnormal (as we've defined it in this paragraph) population on the basis of their being no compelling reason not to do so, plus a couple of good reasons to do so.
If by 'normal' you mean 'natural,' or resulting from our genetic endowment, then you are simply mistaken as homosexuality is exhibited across hundreds of species (including our own) and in stable percentages of species' populations over time (including our own). The only possible explanation for this is that it is a natural property.
If by 'normal' you mean what society deems acceptable, then you have simply made an assertion without argumentation -- you'd need to give some compelling evidence that if homosexuality were deemed acceptable, adverse societal outcomes would result. You'd probably also need to show that the arguments to the contrary are mistaken.
Finally, if you're simply expressing your feelings about homosexuality, then that's fine, but has no bearing on what the country's public policy ought to be.
goodness try and actually get a point across instead of trying to post up a wall of text to seem intelligent...
-
How does it normalize abnormal behavior by making legal?
Does that apply to everything or just homosexuality?
it isnt just about legalizing it Oz, dont sit here and try and act like the gay propaganda has not tried to normalize homosexuality in the eyes of society over the past decades.
only an ignorant moron would argue that they dont seek to normalize the behaviour in others eyes. Legalizing it is simply another step in that agenda bro.
-
You are wasting your time with Tony. He basically engages in logical fallacies in an effort to appear bright yet doesn't really grasp the fact they are just knee jerk emotional appeals that do nothing to prove or define the underlying claims.
LMFAO what logical fallacies am I engaging in?
that statiscally homosexuality is an an anomaly?
that it happens in nature as a genetic mutation?
or that the default sexuality of a species that requires opposite sex individuals to procreate is heterosexual?
LMFAO sorry hoss, I dont have anything against gays...be gay for all I care, just dont expect me to act like youre normal
-
i'd ask him out. and pay for drinks and dinner.
Why???
-
...homosexuality by the pure numbers of statistics is abnormal. Im guessing you have a decent understanding of statistics, bell curves, standard deviations, variances etc....
Normalcy cannot always be measured by statistics, bell curves, standard deviations and variances etc. Just because a particular behavior is less common then another does not automatically mean it is abnormal. Sometimes what is more rare is also more cherished. People with red hair and green eyes are definitely in the minority, however they are hardly abnormal. People who achieve great wealth are clearly the minority. Are they abnormal too?
-
Is being attracted to the same gender a choice? Liberals and homosexuals say not, not a choice.
Is being attracted to the same race a choice? Apparently liberals and homosexuals believe yes, it is a choice. wtf?
let me help you out. Sexual attraction is complicated.
In the early days of civilization, attractions were primarily based on things that insured the survival of the human race. Humans were tribal. Therefore, men were attracted to women who had features which indicated they were likely to bear children. Women were attracted to men who would protect and provide for them and there offspring. Because of the closeness of a tribal group, attractions to people outside the tribe were unusual. Therefore, race was not an issue.
My unscientific analysis of sexual attraction today, weighs heavily on the fact that there is no longer a need to populate the earth, since it is clearly over-populated. Most humans are far less tribal then they once were. This makes attractions outside of someone's "tribe" or race more understandable. Not only that, inbreeding often results in weakening the gene pool. Some examples of this are hemophilia, mental and other physical disorders. The ultimate counterpoint to inbreeding is breeding with persons of another race. As to whether doing so is a conscious choice is debatable.
When we think of men and women, we often see them as completely opposite. However, there is a lot of middle ground emotionally, sexually and physically. Some women and some men are exclusively attracted to the opposite sex. Other women and men acknowledge that they hold attraction to both sexes and there are people who are only attracted to the same sex. I believe people when they claim these attractions are not a choice so much as being something which is innate in there makeup. This brings us back to the fact that there is no longer as great a need to populate the earth.
-
LOL first youre the last person on here that should lecture anyone on hypocrisey.
second, it is normalizing an abnormal behavior...homosexuality by the pure numbers of statistics is abnormal. Im guessing you have a decent understanding of statistics, bell curves, standard deviations, variances etc...
homosexuality being at most 3% of the population puts them a good 2 standard deviations away on a standard bell curve...THAT IS ABNORMAL!!!!
only a retard would argue that in a species that requires 2 OPPOSITE SEX INDIVIDUALS to procreate that homosexuality is not abnormal
Tony your argument doesn't have a point as syntax pointed out. Are you suggesting that things that are not near the mean are to be outlawed? because that's all I can take from your argument.Homosexuality is a natural thing that occurs in many species, sexuality is a scale not a dichotomy. Is your argument about human population? I think that has been dismissed, in vitro anyone? Or how about that massive overpopulation? some countries have bans on number of offspring.
Give me one good argument besides "it ain't right" please.
The constitution forbids this form of discrimination.
-
Normalcy cannot always be measured by statistics, bell curves, standard deviations and variances etc. Just because a particular behavior is less common then another does not automatically mean it is abnormal. Sometimes what is more rare is also more cherished. People with red hair and green eyes are definitely in the minority, however they are hardly abnormal. People who achieve great wealth are clearly the minority. Are they abnormal too?
actually, normality is always measured in numbers...
sorry hoss again you cant even begin to argue that the default sexual orientation for humans is not heterosexual.
meaning that homosexuality is an abnormal trait for a species that requires heterosexual partners to procreate
-
Tony your argument doesn't have a point as syntax pointed out. Are you suggesting that things that are not near the mean are to be outlawed? because that's all I can take from your argument.Homosexuality is a natural thing that occurs in many species, sexuality is a scale not a dichotomy. Is your argument about human population? I think that has been dismissed, in vitro anyone? Or how about that massive overpopulation? some countries have bans on number of offspring.
Give me one good argument besides "it ain't right" please.
The constitution forbids this form of discrimination.
where did I say that it should be outlawed? you ppl get so over zealous and liberal at the very moment someone has a view point against yours.
I have nothing against gays, be gay for all I care...I couldnt care less, but dont try and get others to view it as a normal behavior b/c its not.
sorry bro simply b/c something occurs in nature as an abnormality doesnt make it a normal behavior...Its still an abnormal behavior.
To argue that your stance is to argue that the default sexual orientation for humans is not heterosexual...is that what youre arguing?
The argument I am making is that we shouldnt normalize abnormal behaviors simply for the sake of less than 3% of the population. Give them the same rights I dont care, if ppl dont want it to be called marriage call it something else or get rid of marriage as a govt institution all together and make marriage private.
DO NOT NORMALIZE ABNORMAL BEHAVIOR SIMPLY FOR THE SAKE OF OTHERS FEELINGS, THERE IS A REASON ITS ABNORMAL
-
Tony your argument doesn't have a point as syntax pointed out. Are you suggesting that things that are not near the mean are to be outlawed? because that's all I can take from your argument.Homosexuality is a natural thing that occurs in many species, sexuality is a scale not a dichotomy. Is your argument about human population? I think that has been dismissed, in vitro anyone? Or how about that massive overpopulation? some countries have bans on number of offspring.
Give me one good argument besides "it ain't right" please.
The constitution forbids this form of discrimination.
Of course they don't. This has been the underlying issue of his posts for the entire thread.
If you want to stick to a sense of "natural" and "abnormal" by Tony's definition, then no one should fly in an airplane, ride in a car, enjoy air conditioning, use a microwave, etc... because that is abnormal and not natural.
-
Of course they don't. This has been the underlying issue of his posts for the entire thread.
If you want to stick to a sense of "natural" and "abnormal" by Tony's definition, then no one should fly in an airplane, ride in a car, enjoy air conditioning, use a microwave, etc... because that is abnormal and not natural.
answer this question, whats the default sexual orientation of humans?
-
answer this question, whats the default sexual orientation of humans?
Default? Ummm well gee..... let's see.... Let me look that up... I see "default hair color", "default eye color", "default gender", ummm.... nothing about sexuality being a default.
Maybe there is a box on the BC that parents check to establish sexuality? Or maybe the babies are taken into a room and told to make a choice?
::)
Good luck with that. He overcompensates by trying to string buzz words together in an attempt to sound witty and knowledgeable which in reality leaves any argument or stance of his with a bigger gap in it than there was before.
Particularly amusing is his habit of trying to reverse your statement back in the form of a rhetorical question in the hopes that you will make his argument for him. Since he isn't exactly sure of what he is trying to say or how to convey it.
^^^
Point = Proven.
-
Default? Ummm well gee..... let's see.... Let me look that up... I see "default hair color", "default eye color", "default gender", ummm.... nothing about sexuality being a default.
Maybe there is a box on the BC that parents check to establish sexuality? Or maybe the babies are taken into a room and told to make a choice?
::)
^^^
Point = Proven.
so its your belief that heterosexual is not the default sexual orientation of a human?
its your belief that in a species that requires 2 opposite sex individuals to procreate, that heterosexuality isnt the default?
LMFAO the ends in which you morons will go to defend your stances is just amazing
-
where did I say that it should be outlawed? you ppl get so over zealous and liberal at the very moment someone has a view point against yours.
I have nothing against gays, be gay for all I care...I couldnt care less, but dont try and get others to view it as a normal behavior b/c its not.
sorry bro simply b/c something occurs in nature as an abnormality doesnt make it a normal behavior...Its still an abnormal behavior.
To argue that your stance is to argue that the default sexual orientation for humans is not heterosexual...is that what youre arguing?
The argument I am making is that we shouldnt normalize abnormal behaviors simply for the sake of less than 3% of the population. Give them the same rights I dont care, if ppl dont want it to be called marriage call it something else or get rid of marriage as a govt institution all together and make marriage private.
DO NOT NORMALIZE ABNORMAL BEHAVIOR SIMPLY FOR THE SAKE OF OTHERS FEELINGS, THERE IS A REASON ITS ABNORMAL
Ok fine, I thought you were against gay marriage and equal rights under the law.
Sexuality isn't the way you describe, which makes arguing impossible. No one in there right mind who has any knowledge of psychology would argue you are either gay or straight, the world doesn't work like that.
-
Ok fine, I thought you were against gay marriage and equal rights under the law.
Sexuality isn't the way you describe, which makes arguing impossible. No one in there right mind who has any knowledge of psychology would argue you are either gay or straight, the world doesn't work like that.
actually sexuality does work like that and I have a BS degreee in pysch....sorry hoss youre wrong...
I am against gay marriage, but I dont think that its wrong to call it something different with the same rights or make marriage strictly a private institution.
-
Why???
because I think he would be fascinating to visit with, in person.
-
because I think he would be fascinating to visit with, in person.
Who me? Ill accept the free booze - but you aint grtting anywhere near me otherwise.
-
Who me? Ill accept the free booze - but you aint grtting anywhere near me otherwise.
you stay on your side of the table; i'll stay on mine.
i'll even spring for appetizers.
-
actually, normality is always measured in numbers...
sorry hoss again you cant even begin to argue that the default sexual orientation for humans is not heterosexual.
meaning that homosexuality is an abnormal trait for a species that requires heterosexual partners to procreate
Of course heterosexuality is the "default" sexual orientation for most all creatures on earth, not just humans. However, I you are happier labeling homosexuality as abnormal, you are welcome to do that. Most people who are homosexual see nothing abnormal about it, nor should they.
Is a Giraffe normal? Is a cow? How about a bald eagle? There is a huge variance in these animals' population. Just because bald eagles are nearly extinct, does not make them abnormal. There are very few humans who are redheads with green eyes as opposed to brunettes with brown eyes. Do you find redheads abnormal? Do you think people with brown hair and brown eyes are more normal? There is a huge difference between the terms normal and abnormal and common verses uncommon. Normality is not always measured in numbers.
-
Of course heterosexuality is the "default" sexual orientation for most all creatures on earth, not just humans. However, I you are happier labeling homosexuality as abnormal, you are welcome to do that. Most people who are homosexual see nothing abnormal about it, nor should they.
Is a Giraffe normal? Is a cow? How about a bald eagle? There is a huge variance in these animals' population. Just because bald eagles are nearly extinct, does not make them abnormal. There are very few humans who are redheads with green eyes as opposed to brunettes with brown eyes. Do you find redheads abnormal? Do you think people with brown hair and brown eyes are more normal? There is a huge difference between the terms normal and abnormal and common verses uncommon. Normality is not always measured in numbers.
Its not that I see homosexuality as abnormal bro, IT IS ABNORMAL!!!!
normality is measured in numbers only when emotions come into play is normality not measured in numbers!!!!
sorry bro gay ppl are abnormal, nothing wrong with it...accept it and move on...dont expect ppl to recognize your behavior as normal
-
Its not that I see homosexuality as abnormal bro, IT IS ABNORMAL!!!!
normality is measured in numbers only when emotions come into play is normality not measured in numbers!!!!
sorry bro gay ppl are abnormal, nothing wrong with it...accept it and move on...dont expect ppl to recognize your behavior as normal
It appears that you are splitting hairs, or maybe I am. Either way, believe what you will, it makes no difference to me. This whole conversation is going nowhere. It is time to end it. People are getting bored with it, including me.
-
It appears that you are splitting hairs, or maybe I am. Either way, believe what you will, it makes no difference to me. This whole conversation is going nowhere. It is time to end it. People are getting bored with it, including me.
absolutely not splitting hairs, you are trying very hard to justify your beliefs though I will say that....and again whatever you seem like a good dude so if youre bisexual who cares.
But dont sit there and judge someone b/c they view an abnormal behavior as abnormal and feel it shouldnt be normalized in society.
-
actually sexuality does work like that and I have a BS degreee in pysch....sorry hoss youre wrong...
I am against gay marriage, but I dont think that its wrong to call it something different with the same rights or make marriage strictly a private institution.
Might want to go back and upgrade your marks or something, what they are teaching you is wrong. Is this a christian college?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_scale
"Kinsey reports
Main article: Kinsey Reports
Men: 11.6% of white males aged 20–35 were given a rating of 3 for this period of their lives.[7] The study also reported that 10% of American males surveyed were "more or less exclusively homosexual for at least three years between the ages of 16 and 55" (in the 5 to 6 range).[7]
Women: 7% of single females aged 20–35 and 4% of previously married females aged 20–35 were given a rating of 3 for this period of their lives.[8] 2% to 6% of females, aged 20–35, were given a rating of 5[9] and 1% to 3% of unmarried females aged 20–35 were rated as 6.[10]
Please don't start with academia, when I got my Psychology degree 6 years ago I would have bragged but seriously, your education means nothing if you are just wrong.
-
Might want to go back and upgrade your marks or something, what they are teaching you is wrong. Is this a christian college?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_scale
"Kinsey reports
Main article: Kinsey Reports
Men: 11.6% of white males aged 20–35 were given a rating of 3 for this period of their lives.[7] The study also reported that 10% of American males surveyed were "more or less exclusively homosexual for at least three years between the ages of 16 and 55" (in the 5 to 6 range).[7]
Women: 7% of single females aged 20–35 and 4% of previously married females aged 20–35 were given a rating of 3 for this period of their lives.[8] 2% to 6% of females, aged 20–35, were given a rating of 5[9] and 1% to 3% of unmarried females aged 20–35 were rated as 6.[10]
Please don't start with academia, when I got my Psychology degree 6 years ago I would have bragged but seriously, your education means nothing if you are just wrong.
LMFAO if you have a psych degree then you know the many many issues with the study, its parameters and the conclusions it draws.
Sorry hoss, try again...
I can make up a study that gives me any result I want, doesnt make it right....
PS I am not bragging brain child, I was simply letting you know as you stated that no one with education in psych believes like I do
-
Didn't that Kinsey fellow make some of his studies off prison population? Not to mention, didn't he had a thing for experimenting with little boys, even infants?
-
absolutely not splitting hairs, you are trying very hard to justify your beliefs though I will say that....and again whatever you seem like a good dude so if youre bisexual who cares.
But dont sit there and judge someone b/c they view an abnormal behavior as abnormal and feel it shouldnt be normalized in society.
You seem like an okay dude yourself, tonymctones. Trust me, I don't judge. You have your reasons for feeling like you do and I have mine. Either way, like I said before, it's all good as far as I am concerned.
Incidentally, I am not sure just how bisexual I am today in practice, since I have not had sex with another male (other than myself) since I can't remember when. The prostatectomy killed what little was left of my libido, so I really don't crave sex at all. Maybe it's a biological thing. I have no need to procreate, been there, done that, and love the results. I have a son and a daughter, both longtime married mature adults with children. The oldest of my wife and my four grandchildren is an adult who lives with her boyfriend, works and goes to college. Our two youngest of our grandchildren will be 16 this year. I just hope I live long enough to have great grandchildren....not pushing anyone in the early parenthood though. As for a romantic relationship the only one I've had in the last 54 years has been with my wife.
-
Didn't that Kinsey fellow make some of his studies off prison population? Not to mention, didn't he had a thing for experimenting with little boys, even infants?
Really? I've not heard of any of this. Where did you hear it from?
If this is your source, don't believe everything every crackpot writes or says.
Judith A. Reisman, born April 11, 1935) is a controversial American conservative writer best known for her criticism and condemnation of the work and legacy of Alfred Kinsey.
Over the following years her accusations against Kinsey became increasingly serious; she said he was a fraud who had employed and relied on pedophiles for his research,[6] and went on to claim that Kinsey himself sexually abused children. This allegation drew a response from Kinsey biographer James H. Jones, who wrote that unless new evidence to the contrary becomes available, Reisman's claims that Kinsey may have witnessed or personally participated in child molestation under the guise of scientific research must be considered groundless.
Prior to the release of the 2004 film Kinsey, Reisman and Laura Schlessinger attempted to place an advertisement "alleging Kinsey was a pervert and a pedophile".
-
LMFAO if you have a psych degree then you know the many many issues with the study, its parameters and the conclusions it draws.
Sorry hoss, try again...
I can make up a study that gives me any result I want, doesnt make it right....
PS I am not bragging brain child, I was simply letting you know as you stated that no one with education in psych believes like I do
That is not a study, you didn't even look at what I posted, Kinsey is famous for his sex research and is considered a pioneer and icon in the field. He knows a lot more then you or me, so your shitty degree (I have the same except neuroscience) means nothing in the face of facts. You can post your opinion all you want, it's wrong.
-
Didn't that Kinsey fellow make some of his studies off prison population? Not to mention, didn't he had a thing for experimenting with little boys, even infants?
Why don't you read more about it instead of just putting out wild conjecture. That is your thing, I get it.
-
Why don't you read more about it instead of just putting out wild conjecture. That is your thing, I get it.
WRONG! I did read more about it, hence the reason for my questions (which were somewhat rhetorical).
For example:
“Kinsey never carried out experiments on the sexual responses of children or employed or trained anyone else to do so for him,” wrote former Institute director John Bancroft, M.D., in a 2005 article, “Alfred Kinsey’s work 50 years on,” currently available on the Kinsey Institute website.
At least one former Kinsey Institute director, however, departed from this line, according to Barber. Kinsey’s successor, Paul Gebhard, Ph.D., assumed the leadership of the Kinsey Institute when Kinsey died, and ran the organization from 1956 to 1982.
“Kinsey’s colleague, Gebhard, acknowledged they were coordinating with nursery school directors and operators and parents and grandparents of these kids to obtain the so-called research,” Barber told WND. “He admitted they knowingly were collaborating with these people as they molested the children, and were making use of the fruit of the poisonous tree in Kinsey’s research.
“There’s pre-Kinsey and post-Kinsey,” Barber continued. “Unfortunately we live in a post-Kinsey world and have suffered as a culture tremendously for it … the U.S. Supreme Court has cited Kinsey’s research in Romer, Lawrence v Texas, and other decisions having to do with sexual orientation. Those decisions were made based on fraudulent information from Alfred Kinsey and his brood of perverts.” Kinsey’s research findings have been used to change laws regarding sex around the world.
Crouse told WND people today “think he’s the research guru who knew everything about sex.
“Only a handful of academics understand how fraudulent he was,” she said.
“He had very limited sampling, he did not follow the correct academic procedure for having legitimate samples. He used an extraordinary amount of personal stories about sexual behavior. He was a pseudo-scientist, a fraud, though his work is still cited in academia.
“People don’t realize the people in Kinsey’s studies were not normal, average Americans. They were prostitutes, criminals, the only folks willing to be involved in such slimy research. It was not legitimate research at all. It has been one of the biggest hoaxes perpetrated against the American people in our history.”
White compared Kinsey’s research to the U.S. government’s 1940s syphilis research in Guatemala, which elicited a flood of Obama administration apologies on Oct. 1.
“I think the experimentation done with government funding is an ongoing issue,” White told WND. “That’s what was going on with Kinsey. Scientific experimentation. They didn’t care about people, they cared about statistics. I was a statistic just like those people in Guatemala were.”
Reisman pointed out that the U.S. government apologized for what it did in Guatemala, “but that was all over long ago.”
“This was all done in the United States and still is being used to gut our laws and destroy our morality,” she said. “He is still the father of the sexual revolution and all that flows from it. And poor ‘Esther’ just stands there and says ‘What about me, what about all the people this was done to?’”
Robert Knight, director of a 1995 documentary, “The Children of Table 34,” which addressed the Kinsey controversy, said Esther’s testimony “scratches the surface of one of the 20th Century’s greatest and most enduring scandals.”
“Millions have been hurt by the false view of sexuality hatched in criminal fashion by Alfred Kinsey and his associates,” Knight said. “If Esther’s story and that of other victims was widely known, the Kinsey castle would come crashing down, bringing with it a sex education establishment dedicated to raping children’s innocence, plying them with condoms and pushing them toward either the abortion clinic or a gay bar.”
Reisman noted that the lead expert witness in the lawsuit challenging California’s pro-traditional marriage Proposition 8 initiative cited Kinsey.
http://www.wnd.com/2010/10/213213/
-
WRONG! I did read more about it, hence the reason for my questions (which were somewhat rhetorical).
For example:
“Kinsey never carried out experiments on the sexual responses of children or employed or trained anyone else to do so for him,” wrote former Institute director John Bancroft, M.D., in a 2005 article, “Alfred Kinsey’s work 50 years on,” currently available on the Kinsey Institute website.
At least one former Kinsey Institute director, however, departed from this line, according to Barber. Kinsey’s successor, Paul Gebhard, Ph.D., assumed the leadership of the Kinsey Institute when Kinsey died, and ran the organization from 1956 to 1982.
“Kinsey’s colleague, Gebhard, acknowledged they were coordinating with nursery school directors and operators and parents and grandparents of these kids to obtain the so-called research,” Barber told WND. “He admitted they knowingly were collaborating with these people as they molested the children, and were making use of the fruit of the poisonous tree in Kinsey’s research.
“There’s pre-Kinsey and post-Kinsey,” Barber continued. “Unfortunately we live in a post-Kinsey world and have suffered as a culture tremendously for it … the U.S. Supreme Court has cited Kinsey’s research in Romer, Lawrence v Texas, and other decisions having to do with sexual orientation. Those decisions were made based on fraudulent information from Alfred Kinsey and his brood of perverts.” Kinsey’s research findings have been used to change laws regarding sex around the world.
Crouse told WND people today “think he’s the research guru who knew everything about sex.
“Only a handful of academics understand how fraudulent he was,” she said.
“He had very limited sampling, he did not follow the correct academic procedure for having legitimate samples. He used an extraordinary amount of personal stories about sexual behavior. He was a pseudo-scientist, a fraud, though his work is still cited in academia.
“People don’t realize the people in Kinsey’s studies were not normal, average Americans. They were prostitutes, criminals, the only folks willing to be involved in such slimy research. It was not legitimate research at all. It has been one of the biggest hoaxes perpetrated against the American people in our history.”
White compared Kinsey’s research to the U.S. government’s 1940s syphilis research in Guatemala, which elicited a flood of Obama administration apologies on Oct. 1.
“I think the experimentation done with government funding is an ongoing issue,” White told WND. “That’s what was going on with Kinsey. Scientific experimentation. They didn’t care about people, they cared about statistics. I was a statistic just like those people in Guatemala were.”
Reisman pointed out that the U.S. government apologized for what it did in Guatemala, “but that was all over long ago.”
“This was all done in the United States and still is being used to gut our laws and destroy our morality,” she said. “He is still the father of the sexual revolution and all that flows from it. And poor ‘Esther’ just stands there and says ‘What about me, what about all the people this was done to?’”
Robert Knight, director of a 1995 documentary, “The Children of Table 34,” which addressed the Kinsey controversy, said Esther’s testimony “scratches the surface of one of the 20th Century’s greatest and most enduring scandals.”
“Millions have been hurt by the false view of sexuality hatched in criminal fashion by Alfred Kinsey and his associates,” Knight said. “If Esther’s story and that of other victims was widely known, the Kinsey castle would come crashing down, bringing with it a sex education establishment dedicated to raping children’s innocence, plying them with condoms and pushing them toward either the abortion clinic or a gay bar.”
Reisman noted that the lead expert witness in the lawsuit challenging California’s pro-traditional marriage Proposition 8 initiative cited Kinsey.
http://www.wnd.com/2010/10/213213/
I didn't say you were wrong, he has done all kinds of stuff that wouldn't fly today, as was the ethical climate during his time, he was a bit of a vangaurd.
that article is hilarious, I don't know where to start. No actual rebuttals, no data, nothing just bullshit from some crazies it appears. Pushing people to abortion clinics and gay bars? LMAO!
There are some very solid criticisms of his work, actually a lot of psychological research in the early stages would be barbaric today, however, a lot of info was gained.
Indiana university disagrees with these nuts. The site is claiming Kinsey paid people to rape children.
-
WRONG! I did read more about it, hence the reason for my questions (which were somewhat rhetorical).
For example:
“Kinsey never carried out experiments on the sexual responses of children or employed or trained anyone else to do so for him,” wrote former Institute director John Bancroft, M.D., in a 2005 article, “Alfred Kinsey’s work 50 years on,” currently available on the Kinsey Institute website.
At least one former Kinsey Institute director, however, departed from this line, according to Barber. Kinsey’s successor, Paul Gebhard, Ph.D., assumed the leadership of the Kinsey Institute when Kinsey died, and ran the organization from 1956 to 1982.
“Kinsey’s colleague, Gebhard, acknowledged they were coordinating with nursery school directors and operators and parents and grandparents of these kids to obtain the so-called research,” Barber told WND. “He admitted they knowingly were collaborating with these people as they molested the children, and were making use of the fruit of the poisonous tree in Kinsey’s research.
“There’s pre-Kinsey and post-Kinsey,” Barber continued. “Unfortunately we live in a post-Kinsey world and have suffered as a culture tremendously for it … the U.S. Supreme Court has cited Kinsey’s research in Romer, Lawrence v Texas, and other decisions having to do with sexual orientation. Those decisions were made based on fraudulent information from Alfred Kinsey and his brood of perverts.” Kinsey’s research findings have been used to change laws regarding sex around the world.
Crouse told WND people today “think he’s the research guru who knew everything about sex.
“Only a handful of academics understand how fraudulent he was,” she said.
“He had very limited sampling, he did not follow the correct academic procedure for having legitimate samples. He used an extraordinary amount of personal stories about sexual behavior. He was a pseudo-scientist, a fraud, though his work is still cited in academia.
“People don’t realize the people in Kinsey’s studies were not normal, average Americans. They were prostitutes, criminals, the only folks willing to be involved in such slimy research. It was not legitimate research at all. It has been one of the biggest hoaxes perpetrated against the American people in our history.”
White compared Kinsey’s research to the U.S. government’s 1940s syphilis research in Guatemala, which elicited a flood of Obama administration apologies on Oct. 1.
“I think the experimentation done with government funding is an ongoing issue,” White told WND. “That’s what was going on with Kinsey. Scientific experimentation. They didn’t care about people, they cared about statistics. I was a statistic just like those people in Guatemala were.”
Reisman pointed out that the U.S. government apologized for what it did in Guatemala, “but that was all over long ago.”
“This was all done in the United States and still is being used to gut our laws and destroy our morality,” she said. “He is still the father of the sexual revolution and all that flows from it. And poor ‘Esther’ just stands there and says ‘What about me, what about all the people this was done to?’”
Robert Knight, director of a 1995 documentary, “The Children of Table 34,” which addressed the Kinsey controversy, said Esther’s testimony “scratches the surface of one of the 20th Century’s greatest and most enduring scandals.”
“Millions have been hurt by the false view of sexuality hatched in criminal fashion by Alfred Kinsey and his associates,” Knight said. “If Esther’s story and that of other victims was widely known, the Kinsey castle would come crashing down, bringing with it a sex education establishment dedicated to raping children’s innocence, plying them with condoms and pushing them toward either the abortion clinic or a gay bar.”
Reisman noted that the lead expert witness in the lawsuit challenging California’s pro-traditional marriage Proposition 8 initiative cited Kinsey.
http://www.wnd.com/2010/10/213213/
Do you consider the sensationalist rag you quoted from a reliable source? What a shame that some people are so gullible as to believe everything they read. I suppose you think the Inquirer is accurate and true as well.
-
Do you consider the sensationalist rag you quoted from a reliable source? What a shame that some people are so gullible as to believe everything they read. I suppose you think the Inquirer is accurate and true as well.
It appears you're attacking the source, not the content within that source. It's a simple question: Did Kinsey or his succesor(s) perform such ghastly experiments on kids or not?
If you have a counter to the claim that Dr. Gebhard was involved with this child molestation stuff, let's see it.
-
It appears you're attacking the source, not the content within that source. It's a simple question: Did Kinsey or his succesor(s) perform such ghastly experiments on kids or not?
If you have a counter to the claim that Dr. Gebhard was involved with this child molestation stuff, let's see it.
When something is ridiculous like this is, there is no need to counter the claim because reasonable people don't take it seriously anyway.
I noticed while checking out at the market today that the Inquirer had a doctored photo of Kim Kardashian with a headline suggesting she's not really pregnant, just fat. http://sandrarose.com/2013/03/kim-kardashian-covers-the-national-enquirer/ (http://sandrarose.com/2013/03/kim-kardashian-covers-the-national-enquirer/) I suppose you believe this too. Like I said there are gullible folks and then there are folks who are too intelligent to be taken in by ridiculous nonsense.
BTW, most intelligent people believe if the source is unreliable, the claims it holds are also not reliable. Essentially, attacking the source is the same thing and saying the content is false. N'est pas?
-
It appears you're attacking the source, not the content within that source. It's a simple question: Did Kinsey or his succesor(s) perform such ghastly experiments on kids or not?
If you have a counter to the claim that Dr. Gebhard was involved with this child molestation stuff, let's see it.
are you serious? do you just attack anything to suit your views? your level of confirmation bias is outstanding brah.
-
are you serious? do you just attack anything to suit your views? your level of confirmation bias is outstanding brah.
Biased viewpoints are validated by other biased illogical viewpoints. Pointing this out to people who do this will do nothing to convince them otherwise.
-
When something is ridiculous like this is, there is no need to counter the claim because reasonable people don't take it seriously anyway.
I noticed while checking out at the market today that the Inquirer had a doctored photo of Kim Kardashian with a headline suggesting she's not really pregnant, just fat. http://sandrarose.com/2013/03/kim-kardashian-covers-the-national-enquirer/ (http://sandrarose.com/2013/03/kim-kardashian-covers-the-national-enquirer/) I suppose you believe this too. Like I said there are gullible folks and then there are folks who are too intelligent to be taken in by ridiculous nonsense.
BTW, most intelligent people believe if the source is unreliable, the claims it holds are also not reliable. Essentially, attacking the source is the same thing and saying the content is false. N'est pas?
True, although you can get reliable information from unreliable sources.
-
True, although you can get reliable information from unreliable sources.
certainly but such absurd claims would have been heard about no? it's not like saying a giant in psychology is paying people to rape kids would be a normal claim. Sounds like someone wants to discredit the guy based on a belief, perhaps the religious, anti-abortionist homophobes? Surely this kid rape if known wouldn't allow a wing of psychology in the Indiana university to seep through?
The religious people who combat science and try to force there beliefs on others are the worst kind of human.
-
certainly but such absurd claims would have been heard about no? it's not like saying a giant in psychology is paying people to rape kids would be a normal claim. Sounds like someone wants to discredit the guy based on a belief, perhaps the religious, anti-abortionist homophobes? Surely this kid rape if known wouldn't allow a wing of psychology in the Indiana university to seep through?
The religious people who combat science and try to force there beliefs on others are the worst kind of human.
Well I read the article McWay posted and those absurd claims have been heard about. You should read the article. It's possible the people mentioned in the article (who are highly educated) could just be "religious, anti-abortionist homophobes," but I doubt it.
You have some pretty strong views about religious people. I actually think the worst kind of human is one who abuses those are weaker and vulnerable. They're much higher on my evil list than religious people who "combat science."
-
Claims about Palin having an affair and not being the real birth mother to Trig have been heard about too. Does that make it true?
-
Claims about Palin having an affair and not being the real birth mother to Trig have been heard about too. Does that make it true?
Of course not.
-
But yet the claims about Kinsey should be believed?
-
But yet the claims about Kinsey should be believed?
Who said that?
-
Who said that?
So you don't believe the claims about Kinsey that McWay posted?
-
True, although you can get reliable information from unreliable sources.
I suppose this is possible. However, how does one know it is reliable or true when the source has a long history of sensationalizing their reports by lying and fabricating?
Sometimes there is a very small grain of truth in what's reported. For instance, with regards to therapist studying children's sexuality, I have no doubt this is true not only for Kinsey and his clinicians in their day, but for psychologist and psychiatrist practicing today. Like it or not, kids are sometimes sexual.
I worked around school age children K-12 for thirty years prior to retiring from my job at 65. While one expects that high school age kids are sexual because they have already gone through puberty, one wouldn't expect this to be the case with elementary school kids, but it is in some cases. We had students as young as the third grade who were already identified as sexual predators.
-
So you don't believe the claims about Kinsey that McWay posted?
Didn't say that either.
-
I suppose this is possible. However, how does one know it is reliable or true when the source has a long history of sensationalizing their reports by lying and fabricating?
Sometimes there is a very small grain of truth in what's reported. For instance, with regards to therapist studying children's sexuality, I have no doubt this is true not only for Kinsey and his clinicians in their day, but for psychologist and psychiatrist practicing today. Like it or not, kids are sometimes sexual.
I worked around school age children K-12 for thirty years prior to retiring from my job at 65. While one expects that high school age kids are sexual because they have already gone through puberty, one wouldn't expect this to be the case with elementary school kids, but it is in some cases. We had students as young as the third grade who were already identified as sexual predators.
You definitely don't know if you don't read it. I can understand completely dismissing a source in some instances (for example one of those nutty CT websites). I do that.
On what basis did you conclude WND has a "long history of sensationalizing their reports by lying and fabricating"?
-
Didn't say that either.
I'm asking a yes or no question. Do you believe the content of what MCWAY posted?
-
I'm asking a yes or no question. Do you believe the content of what MCWAY posted?
It's not a yes or no question. I don't have a position on whether the content (including the people quoted in the article) is accurate. I have no idea if it's true or false. I was addressing the issue of dismissing the content based solely on the source.
But nice, repeated attempted straw man. :)
-
On what basis did you conclude WND has a "long history of sensationalizing their reports by lying and fabricating"?
WND
"Independent conservative news web site with an emphasis on aggressive investigative reporting and gossip. Founded by Joseph and Elizabeth Farah."
WorldNetDaily (WND) is an American web site that publishes news and associated content from the perspective of U.S. conservatives and the political right. It was founded in May 1997 by Joseph Farah with the stated intent of "exposing wrongdoing, corruption and abuse of power" and is headquartered in Washington, D.C.
WND provides news, editorials, commentaries, letters to the editor, forums and conducts a daily poll. It claims its editorial content has a diverse range of viewpoints, though predominantly from a right wing or conservative perspective. Besides providing articles authored by its own staff, the site links to news from other publications. Notable staff includes Jerusalem Bureau Chief Aaron Klein, White House Correspondent Lester Kinsolving, and Staff Writer Jerome Corsi. Its commentary pages feature editorials from the site's founder, Joseph Farah and other social conservative a.uthors such as Pat Buchanan, Ellis Washington, Ann Coulter, David Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, and Chuck Norris.
WND has published articles that have created controversies and criticism of the site by other media outlets.
On September 13, 2001, WND published a commentary by Anthony C. LoBaido regarding the September 11 attacks on New York. City and Washington, D.C. that occurred two days earlier. In his column, LoBaido outlined what he regarded as the moral depravity of America in general and New York in particular, asking whether "God (has) raised up Shiite Islam as a sword against America". Commentators Virginia Postrel of Reason magazine and James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal criticized LoBaido and Joseph Farah for the piece and called for columnists Hugh Hewitt and Bill O'Reilly to sever their ties with WND, prompting Farah to respond with a column of his own explaining that the article did not reflect the viewpoint of WND, and that it, like most other commentary pieces, had not been reviewed before being published.
WorldNetDaily has emerged as a leading outlet publicizing conspiracy theories about Barack Obama's citizenship status, claiming that Obama is not a natural-born American citizen and is thus not eligible to serve as president. After the 2008 presidential campaign, WND began an online petition to have Obama's Hawaiian birth certificate released to the public. The website also unsuccessfully urged Supreme Court justices to hear several lawsuits aiming to release Obama's birth certificate.
On September 20, 2000, WND published an article claiming that a Savannah, Tennessee car dealer, and fund-raiser for then-Vice President Al Gore, had interfered with a criminal investigation, had been a "subject" of a criminal investigation, was listed on law enforcement computers as a "dope dealer", and implied that he had ties to others involved in alleged criminal activity. In 2001 the car dealer, Clark Jones, filed a lawsuit against WND; the reporters, Charles C. Thompson II and Tony Hays; the Center for Public Integrity, which had underwritten Thompson and Hays' reporting on the article and related ones and various Tennessee publications and broadcasters who he accused of repeating the claim, claiming libel and defamation. The lawsuit had been scheduled to go to trial in March 2008; but, on February 13, 2008, WND announced that a confidential out-of-court settlement had been reached with Jones. A settlement statement jointly drafted by all parties in the lawsuit stated that a Freedom of Information Act request showed that the allegations had been false, and that WND had misquoted sources.
WND has also come out against LGBT participants in the Republican party and their associates. In 2010, when writer and pundit Ann Coulter accepted the invitation to attend and speak at GOProud's Homocon 2010 event, Farah announced the withdrawal of Coulter's name from the list of speakers at the company's Taking America Back conference. Coulter responded by saying that speaking engagements do not imply endorsement of the hosting organization; however, after Farah published private emails between himself and Coulter, Coulter called him a “publicity whore” and a “swine” in an email to the Daily Caller blog.
-
North Korea is talking about nuking us and we are worred about minority beta twinks pissed off they are attracted to white alpha twinks?
WTF?
-
WND
"Independent conservative news website with an emphasis on aggressive investigative reporting and gossip. Founded by Joseph and Elizabeth Farah."
WorldNetDaily (WND) is an American web site that publishes news and associated content from the perspective of U.S. conservatives and the political right. It was founded in May 1997 by Joseph Farah with the stated intent of "exposing wrongdoing, corruption and abuse of power" and is headquartered in Washington, D.C.
WND provides news, editorials, commentaries, letters to the editor, forums and conducts a daily poll. It claims its editorial content has a diverse range of viewpoints, though predominantly from a right wing or conservative perspective. Besides providing articles authored by its own staff, the site links to news from other publications. Notable staff includes Jerusalem Bureau Chief Aaron Klein, White House Correspondent Lester Kinsolving, and Staff Writer Jerome Corsi. Its commentary pages feature editorials from the site's founder, Joseph Farah and other social conservative authors such as Pat Buchanan, Ellis Washington, Ann Coulter, David Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, and Chuck Norris.
WND has published articles that have created controversies and criticism of the site by other media outlets.
On September 13, 2001, WND published a commentary by Anthony C. LoBaido regarding the September 11 attacks on New York City and Washington, D.C. that occurred two days earlier. In his column, LoBaido outlined what he regarded as the moral depravity of America in general and New York in particular, asking whether, "God (has) raised up Shiite Islam as a sword against America". Commentators Virginia Postrel of Reason magazine and James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal criticized LoBaido and Joseph Farah for the piece and called for columnists Hugh Hewitt and Bill O'Reilly to sever their ties with WND, prompting Farah to respond with a column of his own explaining that the article did not reflect the viewpoint of WND, and that it, like most other commentary pieces, had not been reviewed before being published.
WorldNetDaily has emerged as a leading outlet publicizing conspiracy theories about Barack Obama's citizenship status, claiming that Obama is not a natural-born American citizen and is thus not eligible to serve as president. After the 2008 presidential campaign, WND began an online petition to have Obama's Hawaiian birth certificate released to the public. The website also unsuccessfully urged Supreme Court justices to hear several lawsuits aiming to release Obama's birth certificate.
On September 20, 2000, WND published an article claiming that a Savannah, Tennessee car dealer, and fund-raiser for then-Vice President Al Gore, had interfered with a criminal investigation, had been a "subject" of a criminal investigation, was listed on law enforcement computers as a "dope dealer", and implied that he had ties to others involved in alleged criminal activity. In 2001 the car dealer, Clark Jones, filed a lawsuit against WND; the reporters, Charles C. Thompson II and Tony Hays; the Center for Public Integrity, which had underwritten Thompson and Hays' reporting on the article and related ones and various Tennessee publications and broadcasters who he accused of repeating the claim, claiming libel and defamation. The lawsuit had been scheduled to go to trial in March 2008; but, on February 13, 2008, WND announced that a confidential out-of-court settlement had been reached with Jones. A settlement statement jointly drafted by all parties in the lawsuit stated that a Freedom of Information Act request showed that the allegations had been false, and that WND had misquoted sources.
Link?
So from this excerpt, WND is a conservative site, and in 2000 and 2001, it published two articles that contained false information. That's it?? I think you can find articles that contain false information going back thirteen years from CNN, Fox, MSNBC, Huffington Post, etc., etc.
And after all that, they're still part of the White House press corps. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_press_corps#Current_White_House_correspondents
-
It's not a yes or no question. I don't have a position on whether the content (including the people quoted in the article) is accurate. I have no idea if it's true or false. I was addressing the issue of dismissing the content based solely on the source.
But nice, repeated attempted straw man. :)
The question I asked is a yes or no question.
Do you think Kinsey is guilty of what McWay stated? It can't be more simple than this. Lack of answer is often an answer anyway.
-
The question I asked is a yes or no question.
Do you think Kinsey is guilty of what McWay stated? It can't be more simple than this. Lack of answer is often an answer anyway.
It's not a yes or no question. I don't have a position on whether the content (including the people quoted in the article) is accurate. I have no idea if it's true or false. I was addressing the issue of dismissing the content based solely on the source.
But nice, repeated attempted straw man. :)
-
North Korea is talking about nuking us and we are worred about minority beta twinks pissed off they are attracted to white alpha twinks?
WTF?
I know it might be hard to understand but a lot of people notable ones with higher then 70 IQ's can worry about multiple issues at once. For example once a decision is made you move to the next topic, you do not have to invest all of your mental power to one issue.
-
I know it might be hard to understand but a lot of people notable ones with higher then 70 IQ's can worry about multiple issues at once. For example once a decision is made you move to the next topic, you do not have to invest all of your mental power to one issue.
333 cant even have sex without thinking of Obama at least once.
Pretty scary.
-
It's not a yes or no question. I don't have a position on whether the content (including the people quoted in the article) is accurate. I have no idea if it's true or false. I was addressing the issue of dismissing the content based solely on the source.
But nice, repeated attempted straw man. :)
you don't actually know what that means...do you?
-
you don't actually know what that means...do you?
I didn't think he did either.
-
333 cant even have sex without thinking of Obama at least once.
Pretty scary.
that assumes 333386 has sex; jacking doesn't count