- Joined
- Nov 12, 2012
- Messages
- 82,104
- Reaction score
- 19,742
- Location
- Houston, in the great state of Texas
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
Continue with the that lie, make little difference to me
:shock: :shock: :shock:
.
.
.
Seriously? Is anyone in this discussion guilty of demanding that 'gays should go away'? I ask because I am not aware of that having happened.
So, given the indisputable nature of that fact, the would-be argument which was offered above is a SPECIOUS load of fallacious nonsense.
:doh It's an embarrassment to the SPECIES! :3oops:
The 'Biological Design" is the STANDARD, through which Nature promotes the perpetuation of the species. That STANDARD provides for incentives which TYPICALLY induce in the male, the desire for sexual gratification USUALLY through sexual interaction with a female. This process typically results in conception… and while it does not always result in conception, conception is is the CONDITION which should be EXPECTED, as this is the purpose for which the process was designed.
Let's review:
Huh…
Now are you SURE that you can't see anything in there which MIGHT lead you to change your position here?
I haven't ever been talked out of liking men, I doubt you have the skills. And I will not be talked into agreement with you. I have been this way likely longer than you have been breathing, I have heard your nonsense argument, hell I even made your nonsense argument, i didn't see much validity in it then and I don't see now.
No I don't think your opinion will change my position, better people than you have tried.
I don't agree to your opinion of what biological standard is, and since I seriously doubt you have an owners manual, or a rule book I think you are not qualified to dictate what the standard is. obviously nature makes room fir homosexuality because it occurs naturally, otherwise it is super natural. unless you believe that gay people are your gods it ghosts. You must accept that it is natural. It may be unusual but it certainly isn't abnormal. Either your standard us rubbish or your understanding of biology is, I think its both.:shock: :shock: :shock:
.
.
.
Seriously? Is anyone in this discussion guilty of demanding that 'gays should go away'? I ask because I am not aware of that having happened.
So, given the indisputable nature of that fact, the would-be argument which was offered above is a SPECIOUS load of fallacious nonsense.
:doh It's an embarrassment to the SPECIES! :3oops:
The 'Biological Design" is the STANDARD, through which Nature promotes the perpetuation of the species. That STANDARD provides for incentives which TYPICALLY induce in the male, the desire for sexual gratification USUALLY through sexual interaction with a female. This process typically results in conception… and while it does not always result in conception, conception is is the CONDITION which should be EXPECTED, as this is the purpose for which the process was designed.
?
Your argument was flawed from the beginning.There is no record of anyone even discussing you or your desire for men… You're not being asked to agree with >ME<, you've been presented with an argument which presents a component of reasoning.
In every instance, the argument was presented and the subsequent response has failed to recognize so much as reality; going so far as to claim that a key relevant term exists and is being applied with-OUT KINSHIP WITH THE MEANING OF THE WORDS USED TO COMPOSE THE TERM.
Therefore your reasoning is logically invalid and as a result it is intellectually unsound; thus the reasoning offered in the response is, in every sense of the word: Illegitimate.
Ergo, in failing to offer a substantive, logically valid, intellectually sound response, your argument fails.
Therefore: ]
I don't agree to your opinion of what biological standard is, and since I seriously doubt you have an owners manual, or a rule book I think you are not qualified to dictate what the standard is.
obviously nature makes room fir homosexuality because it occurs naturally,
otherwise it is super natural.
unless you believe that gay people are your gods it ghosts.
You must accept that it is natural.
It may be unusual but it certainly isn't abnormal.
[sic]Either your standard us rubbish or your understanding of biology is, I think its both.
Your argument was flawed from the beginning.
Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.
delusions are not reality.
I didnt dictate the standard, I merely observed it and relayed that observation… However, the reasoning is indisputable, with your disagreement notwithstanding.
Like Ebola and The HIV, every living organism occurs naturally… That such occurs, doesn't mean that it is wise to encourage it…
There is no such thing as 'super-natural'.
Whuh?
I do accept that sexual abnormality is natural, just as accept that it is abnormal.
It is unusual, just as it is abnormal…
[sic]
And let me just add that you're feelings, with regard to my qualifications, are irrelevant… The reasoning is what prevails… not me. I am merely the vessel which transported it. But I freely admit that we fly the flag with the pride that inherently comes with superior reasoning.
It should also be noted, that given the intellectual means demonstrated by both contributors; relevant to this discussion, where it is true that the prevailing intellect is unqualified to offer a judgment of the otherwise obvious standard, it follows that the party conceding to the superior reasoning, would suffer the same condition. And for your edification, you're presently sitting upon the failure of your own false paradigm… hopefully, in the future, you'll take more time in considering serious issues and avoid this oft' realized pitfall of unsound reasoning.
And finally, my understanding of the natural biological standard is, once again: Indisputable, with your dispute, again, notwithstanding. The standard is objective, you're rationalization, subjective. And where objectivity serves truth, subjectivity serves only to deflect from such.
It's been a hoot. I trust we'll see ya around…
What do you think?
You never observed anything objectively.
He says subjectively ...
Tell ya what clax... If you'd like to defend that, I'll teach you a lesson that you can use for the rest of your life.
It's free and would be remain a strong value at twice the price.
The OP and poll indicate a lack of comprehension regarding the complexity of human sexuality. Anyone with at least three ganglia (firing randomly) should be able to distinguish pedophile from homosexual, especially with the vast amount of factual information out there that can be accessed with a simple google search.
Priests molesting ONLY boys? Again, do a simple google search and you will find that that is a fallacy.
I think we can all agree that a pedophile, regardless of which gender they violate, is a criminal. The pedophile's sexual orientation is not important at all. The crime is.
Normal, in the instance of sexuality, is established by the design of the human species… which provides for the male to be attracted to females. This specific and wholly incontrovertible fact, serves the purpose of the biological imperative… which FTR: is an objective standard, established by nature and is not subject antiquity due to popular whimsy.
Yes, like the absurd progressivism which promotes the useless continuation of female sexuality well past the menopausal interregnum.
As you posit elsewhere, this is akin to disease, and we probably shouldn't encourage the behavior. We deviate from the biological imperative at society's peril.
What do you think?
You are viewing biology through the prism of your bias.
Therefore everything you say is subject to questions.
Unusual traits are not abnormal
Everything you have said is simply a reflection of your bias.
So he "only molest young boys?" You're saying that the only thing he ever does in his life is molest young boys? Wouldn't he still have to eat and drink water and go to the bathroom too?
Well, if he only molest young boys he's probably a pedophile and might be gay, but who knows? "Molest" is a pretty vague word, by which I mean that a male person could sexually abuse a boy without being gay. The documentary Stevie is about somebody who sexually abuses children but it shows the complexity of the situation. Every person is different and it's not our job to judge others, it's our job to protect children from the danger of sexual abuse.
I am viewing biology through absolutely nothing. I have witnessed it, as it passed before me, studied it and come to the conclusions advanced in my reasoning through many years of sober consideration.
Please inform the board, what specific biases you have found in my conclusions and, explain as well how these perceived biases serve my interests.
Here's a tip which may help:
Subjective: based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions: Contrasted with objective.
Objective: not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts: Contrasted with subjective.
So what? I have absolutely NO PROBLEM with questions. A question seeks further understanding. I have answered all questions asked and have no problem explaining any element of my reasoning.
Patently ABSURD…
To wit:
Unusual: not habitually or commonly occurring or done: abnormal
Abnormal: deviating from what is normal or usual, typically in a way that is undesirable or worrying
This is the second time that you have redefined commonly used and otherwise readily understood concepts as a means to sustain your desperate self-validating rationalization. This FACT ALONE wholly discredits your entire argument. As has been noted many times, by me, your argument is a deception. While it is a shame that you would deceive the reader, that you have deceived yourself, is tragic.
Well now THAT is one Sweet Irony brother…
You have yet to show a single point of bias, in so much as a single facet of the argument… presenting instead, a litany of baseless and chronically advanced assertions which simply pretend the preceding, soundly reasoned points did not exist, demanding out of hand that the points are 'not true'… the nature of which presents the telltale signs of an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by well reasoned, logically valid, rational argument, signs which are typically presented as a symptom of mental disorder; which you may not recognize as the definition of DELUSION!~
Now that is stated, NOT as an attack upon you. It is stated as a FACT, born of the evidence that is the record of this discussion. A sound intellect does not redefine the meaning of words as a means to sustain the point. The sound mind understands that to do so is deceptive and that where one must deceive another in the maintenance of an idea, that the idea itself is fatally flawed, whereupon the sound mind seeks the truth, adjusting their reasoning to reflect the truth.
Now you may deny that you're presenting symptoms of such a disorder. And that's fine… Sadly, that position leaves only one potential and rather unsavory alternative, which is that you are fully aware of the meaning of the words you redefined or otherwise misused and have intentionally sought to deceive the reader through a specious and wholly fraudulent premise. Which would of course, lead to no other potential conclusion, beyond the certainty that you're simply acting on behalf of and are generally animated by: EVIL.
Here's a tip:
Evil: profoundly immoral and malevolent.
Work it out and get back to me.
You haven't presented a real argument, you have posted several misconceptions that I cleared up that you abandoned.I
You have yet to show a single point of bias, in so much as a single facet of the argument…
this is the longest run on sentence that I ever read and frankly out makes little sense. Except the part where you produce a hyperbole argument in which you insist that I am delusional. If you were correct in your analysis there would be no need to rebut with insults.instead, a litany of baseless and chronically advanced assertions which simply pretend the preceding, soundly reasoned points did not exist, demanding out of hand that the points are 'not true'… the nature of which presents the telltale signs of an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by well reasoned, logically valid, rational argument, signs which are typically presented as a symptom of mental disorder; which you may not recognize as the definition of DELUSION!~
You clearly attack me several times. Lets add dishonest to the traits that discredit you.Now that is stated, NOT as an attack upon you. It is stated as a FACT, born of the evidence that is the record of this discussion.
good point, maybe you should stop attempting to redefine words to sustain your point.A sound intellect does not redefine the meaning of words as a means to sustain the point.
I agree, you are deceptive.And sound mind understands that to do so is deceptive
another good point, sadly you don't realize how fatally flawed your idea is.and that where one must deceive another in the maintenance of an idea, that the idea itself is fatally flawed, whereupon the sound mind seeks the truth, adjusting their reasoning to reflect the truth.
More hyperbole.Now you may deny that you're presenting symptoms of such a disorder.
I don't think your premise is fraudulent, i think you were deceived. Fraud implys intent. I don't think you are intentionally attempting to produce false realities, i think you actually believe them.And that's fine… Sadly, that position leaves only one potential and rather unsavory alternative, which is that you are fully aware of the meaning of the words you redefined or otherwise misused and have intentionally sought to deceive the reader through a specious and wholly fraudulent premise.
I am evil because you are incredibly terrible at debate. Funny hire insults are always slung by the person who finds his case to be indefensible.Which would of course, lead to no other potential conclusion, beyond the certainty that you're simply acting on behalf of and are generally animated by: EVIL.
while i appreciate what you are attempting to do here, its kind of like a mechanic attempting to correct a neurologist regarding neurology.Here's a tip:
Evil: profoundly immoral and malevolent.
There is nothing to work out, you are easy.Work it out and get back to me.
You continuously jump to conclusions and when those conclusions you have jumped to have been proven false you go to another conclusion that is purely based upon your bias.
It's not our job to use sound judgment?
Where'd ya get that?
It follows that judgment is an essential element of survival. Meaning that failing to use it, rarely brings results of the positive variety.
CLAX1911 bleats: said:You are viewing biology through the prism of your bias.
American by Choice sez: said:I am viewing biology through absolutely nothing. I have witnessed it, as it passed before me, studied it and come to the conclusions advanced in my reasoning through many years of sober consideration.
Please inform the board, what specific biases you have found in my conclusions and, explain as well how these perceived biases serve my interests.
Here's a tip which may help:
Subjective: based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions: Contrasted with objective.
Objective: not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts: Contrasted with subjective.
You haven't presented a real argument…
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?