Homophobia: Fun Fact

[Cecilie1200]

Being a bigot against others for how they were born because society taught you/brainwashed you, that it was icky is wrong.

The kind who do such things are being washed away, into the black holes of history and being swarmed by the rising tide of acceptance. In the end when their purge is complete, I will be smiling ear to ear and asking them "what's that, now? I can't hear you."

There's no argument to be had, the choice is clear. Being good is usually innate.

I just find it amusing that you judge others for being judgmental, dude.

That makes no sense. That means you're, judging me, for judging them, for being judgemental.

It's redundant.

Calling out baseless bigotry for what it is - is appropriate. It's not hypocrisy.

Hypocrisy would be additional baseless bigotry.

It's only hypocrisy to judge if you're running around, spouting off about how wrong it is to be judgemental.

There's no hypocrisy in being judgemental if you don't think judgementalism is a bad thing.

Call out anything you want. Just don't imagine that anyone gives a tin shit what you do and don't approve of.

 

[daveman]

If you feel homosexuality is wrong, it is not a phobia, it is an opinion. I have the right NOT to be tolerant of others because they are different, weird, or tick me off.

Well its not called homo-opinion, is it? Its called homophobia for a reason.

Because the left is a bunch of lying sacks of shit who use buzzwords to demonize their opponents in place of reasoned argument?

You're a racist.

 

[Toro]

Funny, I am pretty sure I just pointed out that Joe is the one trying to argue that homosexuality is a choice.

That said, I can easily point out that the fact that some people do not get aroused by the same sex is not actually proof it is not a choice. If it worked that way, the fact that some people would never vote for a Republican no matter what would conclusively prove that political affiliation is not a choice.

I apologize for the graphic description, but I don't know how to describe it otherwise.

Sexual impulse is hardwired and is not choice. What you act upon is a choice. What you are responding to is not. Sexual impulse is not a cognitive response any more than your heart beating is a cognitive response.

This is why I ask you (or anyone who argues sexuality is a choice) to become aroused thinking about someone of your sex. If you can't do it, it's not a choice. It's not a choice like choosing between putting jam or honey on your toast, or deciding whether or not to go to the mall today. If sexual impulses were a choice, then you should be able to "choose" to become sexually aroused by a man if you are a heterosexual male. I can't anymore than I can a 90 year-old woman, a goat, or a toaster oven. If sexuality were a choice, you should be able to choose to become sexually aroused by a whole number of things. But since sexuality isn't a cognitive process, you can't. It's hardwired.

Feel free to believe that, just be aware that there is no real evidence that that is actually true. No one anywhere has ever demonstrated that free will does not exist, which would be the only way you could argue that sexual preference is not a choice. Perhaps bisexuality is simply a learned taste, like drinking coffee or alcohol.

By the way, who said I can't do it? Are you making assumptions about me based on your preconceived ideas and personal experience?

So you can then? Because whenever I've asked that question before to a heterosexual male, the answer I never get is "OK, I will arouse myself thinking about a naked man." It's always deflection and non sequiters. And not only that, if sexuality isn't hardwired, people should be able be able to logically and cognitively become sexually aroused at anything and everything. But of course, they can't.

That we don't have definitive proof doesn't mean its not true. It certainly means we haven't been able to verify it.

Your argument about freewill misses the point. There is a difference between action and how we are hardwired. Simply because we are hardwired doesn't mean we have to act on it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So, you admit that you're intolerant. And not just intolerant of an individual, but of an entire group of people.

At least you had the balls to admit it, unlike many of your conservative compatriots.

Most conservatives have no problem "admitting" anything of the sort, because we don't subscribe to the belief that "If the Left has decided it's bad, it must be". The left enshrines "tolerance" as it's holiest virtue? Whoop-de-*******-doo, remind me to pencil in some time in my calendar next month to utterly not give a rat's ass.

I have no tolerance for a lot of things, and have no problem whatsoever saying so. Right up at the top of the list would be "stupid people" and "leftists who think they're setting standards for me".

Actually, I consider conservatives' honesty about that one of their better
virtues. That doesn't mean I agree with everything they say, but I appreciate their greater tendency toward consistency than I see in most on the left.

And no, I don't expect you to care much what I think. I just like looking at your avatar.

I aim to please.

Well, actually, I couldn't care less if people are pleased or not, but if I manage it by accident, it's all good.

 

[mjollnir]

If you feel homosexuality is wrong, it is not a phobia, it is an opinion. I have the right NOT to be tolerant of others because they are different, weird, or tick me off.

Well its not called homo-opinion, is it? Its called homophobia for a reason.

Because the left is a bunch of lying sacks of shit who use buzzwords to demonize their opponents in place of reasoned argument?

The ironic thing is that you wouldn't know a reasoned argument if it were ******* you up the ass.

But practically every time you post, reasoned arguments do **** you up the ass.

To paraphrase the old joke: you can't be coming here for the hunting.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Well its not called homo-opinion, is it? Its called homophobia for a reason.

Because the left is a bunch of lying sacks of shit who use buzzwords to demonize their opponents in place of reasoned argument?

You're a racist.

That always makes me giggle, no matter how many times I hear it. If you could see the family pictures surrounding my desk, you'd know why.

If there is any leftist buzzword LESS likely to provoke defensiveness in me (or any reaction other than mirth), I have no idea what it could be.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Well its not called homo-opinion, is it? Its called homophobia for a reason.

Because the left is a bunch of lying sacks of shit who use buzzwords to demonize their opponents in place of reasoned argument?

The ironic thing is that you wouldn't know a reasoned argument if it were ******* you up the ass.

But practically every time you post, reasoned arguments do **** you up the ass.

To paraphrase the old joke: you can't be coming here for the hunting.

Coming from you, that means . . . less than nothing.

All I hear is that you're obsessed with my ass. I suppose the Constitution guarantees you the right to fantasize about whatever you like, but I hope you aren't expecting me to be interested.

 

[mjollnir]

Because the left is a bunch of lying sacks of shit who use buzzwords to demonize their opponents in place of reasoned argument?

The ironic thing is that you wouldn't know a reasoned argument if it were ******* you up the ass.

But practically every time you post, reasoned arguments do **** you up the ass.

To paraphrase the old joke: you can't be coming here for the hunting.

Coming from you, that means . . . less than nothing.

All I hear is that you're obsessed with my ass. I suppose the Constitution guarantees you the right to fantasize about whatever you like, but I hope you aren't expecting me to be interested.

Lulz.

Your ass?

No, ma'am. I've got a vivid imagination, but even with that I couldn't conceive of anything of that size.

 

[daveman]

Because the left is a bunch of lying sacks of shit who use buzzwords to demonize their opponents in place of reasoned argument?

You're a racist.

That always makes me giggle, no matter how many times I hear it. If you could see the family pictures surrounding my desk, you'd know why.

If there is any leftist buzzword LESS likely to provoke defensiveness in me (or any reaction other than mirth), I have no idea what it could be.

And they absolutely HATE it when you tell them their most effective weapon (since they don't have facts and logic) is utterly ineffective.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Let's just deal with this juvenile, didn't-put-a-second's-thought-into-it argument once and for all, shall we? I'm really tired of hearing it spewed at me as though it's meaningful (like most leftist arguments, come to think of it).

Human beings are animals. What this means - ALL that this means - is that the field of biological science places us, in the taxonomical sense, in the animal kingdom. (Taxonomy, for the leftists among us who spent most of high school smoking and jacking off behind the boys' gym, is the classification of organisms in an ordered system.)

Being in the same kingdom with another species means very little in terms of having anything common with that species. The qualifications to be found in the animal kingdom are that the organism be multi-cellular, heterotrophic (requiring complex organic compounds of nitrogen and carbon (as that obtained from plant or animal matter) for metabolic synthesis), eukaryotic (refers to the structure of the cells; look it up), digest food outside their cells, and then absorb the nutrients.

We share the "distinction" of belonging to the animal kingdom with over 1 million known species, including protozoa, sea sponges, worms, starfish, snails, etc. As you can see, assuming that because one is an "animal", one can be correctly expected to share the same characteristics, instincts, and behaviors as other animals is ludicrous on the face of it, and reveals a childishness of thought that no self-respected adult should EVER wish to display.

If this has still not been made clear to some of you (because I certainly do not assume comprehension on the parts of many of the flatliners who populate this board), then consider how many species of animal display parental killing and eating of offspring. (The sad thing is how many of you are pro-abortion psychopaths who won't see this as horrible.) Consider further that earthworms are also animals, and CANNOT be homosexual. The reason: they're hermaphrodites. Humans, on the other hand, only very rarely present as hermaphrodites, and even more rarely present as hermaphrodites with functional reproductive capacity. In earthworms, hermaphroditism is the norm. In humans, it's an aberrant mutation.

I could go on and on about the various, EXTREME differences between us and other animals, but I think the point has been made to anyone with two brain cells positioned close enough in his head to rub together.

So if you want to defend the "normality" of homosexual behavior, then you're going to have to look to something other than "other animals do it". We are not other animals, and have almost nothing in common with the vast majority of organisms that enjoy that taxonomic classification.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The ironic thing is that you wouldn't know a reasoned argument if it were ******* you up the ass.

But practically every time you post, reasoned arguments do **** you up the ass.

To paraphrase the old joke: you can't be coming here for the hunting.

Coming from you, that means . . . less than nothing.

All I hear is that you're obsessed with my ass. I suppose the Constitution guarantees you the right to fantasize about whatever you like, but I hope you aren't expecting me to be interested.

Lulz.

Your ass?

No, ma'am. I've got a vivid imagination, but even with that I couldn't conceive of anything of that size.

Ooh, "you're fat!" Rolling out the big-gun insults right off the bat, huh?

Just a thought: perhaps you could hire a high-schooler to write your material from now on. I know they cost more than middle-schoolers, but you really do get a more creative class of attack.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You're a racist.

That always makes me giggle, no matter how many times I hear it. If you could see the family pictures surrounding my desk, you'd know why.

If there is any leftist buzzword LESS likely to provoke defensiveness in me (or any reaction other than mirth), I have no idea what it could be.

And they absolutely HATE it when you tell them their most effective weapon (since they don't have facts and logic) is utterly ineffective.

ALL of their weapons are ineffective on me, because all of their weapons are dependent on emotional "thinking", which I refuse to engage in, and dependent moreover on giving a damn what leftists think of you. I consider it a badge of honor to have them hate me. The worst insult I can think of is to have one of those evil, brainless fuckwits APPROVE of me.

 

[mjollnir]

Coming from you, that means . . . less than nothing.

All I hear is that you're obsessed with my ass. I suppose the Constitution guarantees you the right to fantasize about whatever you like, but I hope you aren't expecting me to be interested.

Lulz.

Your ass?

No, ma'am. I've got a vivid imagination, but even with that I couldn't conceive of anything of that size.

Ooh, "you're fat!" Rolling out the big-gun insults right off the bat, huh?

Just a thought: perhaps you could hire a high-schooler to write your material from now on. I know they cost more than middle-schoolers, but you really do get a more creative class of attack.

No, it's not 'right off the bat', or that's what I would have led with.

Do let's have you keep up and not look so stupid.

There's a good dog.

 

[varelse]

Are you saying cancer is not caused by smoking, among other things?

'smoking causes cancer' is technically not a true statement. Doctors can never say what causes any given case of cancer and can only say thse who smoke (or who share other risk factors) are at higher riak for cancer (that is, they are more likely to develop cancer)

Doctors cannot say that UV exposure causes skin cancer? Seriously?

UV exposure increases (statistically) the odds of exposed cells becoming cancerous- it increases one's risk/odds of developing cancer.The eact 'cause' of any given case of cancer can not be proven or stated with any certanty.

So no, they can't, but they do out of laziness and because people like you [stupid people] areincapable of grasping the distinction or understanding how such things work

 

[Cecilie1200]

"You can always judge a man by the quality of his enemies." - Oscar Wilde

One of the reasons I so decry the leftist dumbing-down of the population is because it's simply impossible now to acquire enemies of sufficient caliber. Seriously, how is one to keep one's edge when, "Well, you have a fat ass!" is the best opposition available?

At least KosherGirl got, "Die of fire AIDS!" It was pathetic, but at least it was HUMOROUS. I'm jealous. I simply cannot work with this inferior material. Oh, for a nemesis who presents more of a challenge than merely not laughing myself into a hernia, or dying of boredom.

 

[Cecilie1200]

"Please be less of whore. Please?" - Mjollnir

And the quality of material continues to degrade. First "You're fat!", and now the most rudimentary of juvenile misogyny. The intellect weeps.

Allow me to counter with a paraphrase from Edmond Rostand (and no, I won't tell you who that is; look it up): There are many things you might have said, had you some tinge of letters or wit to color your discourse. But wit? Not so, you never had an atom. And of letters, you need but three to write you down: A, S, S. Ass.

If you MUST go for the simplistic insult, at least do it with panache.

 

[mjollnir]

"You can always judge a man by the quality of his enemies." - Oscar Wilde

One of the reasons I so decry the leftist dumbing-down of the population is because it's simply impossible now to acquire enemies of sufficient caliber. Seriously, how is one to keep one's edge when, "Well, you have a fat ass!" is the best opposition available?

At least KosherGirl got, "Die of fire AIDS!" It was pathetic, but at least it was HUMOROUS. I'm jealous. I simply cannot work with this inferior material. Oh, for a nemesis who presents more of a challenge than merely not laughing myself into a hernia, or dying of boredom.

“There is no art in turning a goddess into a witch, a virgin into a whore, but the opposite operation, to give dignity to what has been scorned, to make the degraded desirable, that calls for art or for character.”

It's been good owning you.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

That always makes me giggle, no matter how many times I hear it. If you could see the family pictures surrounding my desk, you'd know why.

If there is any leftist buzzword LESS likely to provoke defensiveness in me (or any reaction other than mirth), I have no idea what it could be.

And they absolutely HATE it when you tell them their most effective weapon (since they don't have facts and logic) is utterly ineffective.

ALL of their weapons are ineffective on me, because all of their weapons are dependent on emotional "thinking", which I refuse to engage in, and dependent moreover on giving a damn what leftists think of you. I consider it a badge of honor to have them hate me. The worst insult I can think of is to have one of those evil, brainless fuckwits APPROVE of me.

Most extremists feed off their emotions.

I know that leftists lie, they're just a little more subtle at it than the extreme righties.

To illustrate, one of the things that drives me absolutely nuts about my fellow Republicans is their tendency to fall for fantasy-based chain letters. I receive tons of them.

The left and the right both create their "scare" emails using factual distortions and in some cases outright fabrications, but I see far more of them from the right. Anybody who takes 15 minutes to investigate the factual basis of them can debunk them easily enough, but that doesn't stop the people who create them.

Just go to snopes and enter the word "Obama" and you'll see pages and pages of items that were debunked from fantastic chain letters. I'm in no way a defender of Obama, but when I see the number of distorted truths and outright lies that have been circulated on this one man alone though these idiotic chain letters, my head spins. I can't even keep up. Every one of them feeds off of the emotions of who are basically good-hearted patriotic Americans, but who unfortunately fall for them more often than not. I'm sorry, but I don't care what side of the political fence one rests, I think you will agree that lying is not acceptable.

Why am I condemning this in the right and not the left, you may ask? Simple. I happen to believe in the intellectual value of Devil's Advocate. This was a practice developed by the Vatican to challenge the one's assertions, and by those that agreed with the assertion. The intent of this device was, and is, to strengthen the advocates of whatever the assertion is. While I am not a Christian, I definitely recognize the genius of this development.

I don't care to strengthen the left. I would much rather strengthen the right. You have challenged me before for being too "moderate." Well, I am more moderate than yourself, this is true. But one thing you can take to the bank is that my tendency to challenge my fellow Republicans is out of love, I can assure you, even if most of them hate my guts, or at least find me extremely annoying, or even "stupid" as some of them like to call me.

It's all good. I don't mind.

 

[daveman]

That always makes me giggle, no matter how many times I hear it. If you could see the family pictures surrounding my desk, you'd know why.

If there is any leftist buzzword LESS likely to provoke defensiveness in me (or any reaction other than mirth), I have no idea what it could be.

And they absolutely HATE it when you tell them their most effective weapon (since they don't have facts and logic) is utterly ineffective.

ALL of their weapons are ineffective on me, because all of their weapons are dependent on emotional "thinking", which I refuse to engage in, and dependent moreover on giving a damn what leftists think of you. I consider it a badge of honor to have them hate me. The worst insult I can think of is to have one of those evil, brainless fuckwits APPROVE of me.

 

[mjollnir]

"Please be less of whore. Please?" - Mjollnir

And the quality of material continues to degrade. First "You're fat!", and now the most rudimentary of juvenile misogyny. The intellect weeps.

Allow me to counter with a paraphrase from Edmond Rostand (and no, I won't tell you who that is; look it up): There are many things you might have said, had you some tinge of letters or wit to color your discourse. But wit? Not so, you never had an atom. And of letters, you need but three to write you down: A, S, S. Ass.

If you MUST go for the simplistic insult, at least do it with panache.

Panache? Really? Oh, how rich.

Panache for a simple guttersnipe is like maple syrup on dogshit.

Oh, wait. You are dogshit.

Genius!