California Voters Approve Gay-Marriage Ban

@spendius,

Quote:

All black swan fallacies, except the one I singled out.

None of those are a Black Swan fallacy at all, and your continued use of the term really points out what a ******* moron you are, Spendi.

Quote:

It would be more efficient if you admitted defeat by stamping your foot, marching out of the door and slamming it behind you hard enough for the echo to drown out your receding footsteps.

Perhaps you would enjoy that, but the only defeat anyone has suffered here is those who were looking for a rational and logical conversation, because once you show up, that goes out the window.

You wouldn't know **** if you had a mouthful, Spendi ol' chum. It is a waste of my time to converse further with you, so I'm just going to insult you from now on, and point out that your participation here is masturbatory in nature.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I think this is just a cute way of you saying that you don't believe their sexual identity is real, or permanent, but instead is contrived and malleable; unlike yours, of course, which is the real deal. Sort of a way of insulting them. Not very cool.

Cycloptichorn

Not "cool," but true. I am the zenith of American hetereosexuality.

I do not believe that ALL homosexuals have an unmalleable sexual preference. Some do, but many do not. I include the population of "bi-sexuals."

2 Replies

@Foofie,

Foofie, As the zenith of American heterosexuality, will you ever become a homosexual? Please explain why or why not?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

There's a huge difference between what you believe and facts. You can't even name me one concern that you seem to have about homosexuals wanting more than heterosexuals have.

Your imagination is in overdrive.

I believe that many homosexuals do have a bigger wardrobe than I do. They also likely shop more for clothes. And, based on the correlation to greater narcissism, I read, they likely spend more time in front of a mirror. In other words, as obnoxious as I might be as a New York Jew, many a homosexual can be more intrusively obnoxious about their personal thoughts than I can be in three lifetimes. Oh My God! [Foofie places his right open hand over his chest in a somewhat effeminate gesture.]

1 Reply

@Foofie,

Your observations are not only tainted with bigotry, but you will be unable to provide credible proof for your "opinions."

So how many homosexuals have you observed who have a bigger wardrobe, shop more for clothes, spend more time in front of a mirror?

The only truth in your statement is that you are an obnoxious NY Jew.

1 Reply

@failures art,

failures art wrote:

Foofie wrote:

Also, the fact that gays love their children is a non-sequitor. No one accused gays of not being able to be loving parents.

Quite contrary. This is a major thrust of many religious groups. Don't play naive.

A
R
T

Who is playing? I have no idea what religious groups claim, nor do I care. I would just like gays to be celibate homosexuals, and try very hard to initiate heterosexual practices within a marriage to the opposite sex. Children will then have two biological parents to live with, and the level of sexual enjoyment might not be that much worse than actual heterosexual couples.

2 Replies

@Foofie,

Foofie, It's general knowledge that people like you insist children require a father and a mother. Quit equivocating.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Foofie, As the zenith of American heterosexuality, will you ever become a homosexual? Please explain why or why not?

You are taking the liberty of asking me a personal question. I do not do that, because I am not interested in others, just the topic of the thread. Nor will I empower you with the ability to ask me questions.

The answer was in my original statement. All heteros cannot, by definition, become homos. However, since some homos are bi-sexuals, then some homos can be heteros. Only homos have the ability to morph between preference, I believe.

2 Replies

@Foofie,

But you are interested "in others." That's why you make such a big fuss about homosexuals.

1 Reply

@Foofie,

Foofie wrote:

failures art wrote:

Foofie wrote:

Also, the fact that gays love their children is a non-sequitor. No one accused gays of not being able to be loving parents.

Quite contrary. This is a major thrust of many religious groups. Don't play naive.

A
R
T

Who is playing? I have no idea what religious groups claim, nor do I care. I would just like gays to be celibate homosexuals, and try very hard to initiate heterosexual practices within a marriage to the opposite sex. Children will then have two biological parents to live with, and the level of sexual enjoyment might not be that much worse than actual heterosexual couples.

Your concession is noted. Thank you for the withdrawal that "no one" is accusing gays of being less loving to children.

A
R
T

0 Replies

@Foofie,

Foofie wrote:

I am the zenith of American hetereosexuality (sic).

I'm pretty sure that is George Clooney for men. You ain't no Clooney.

If you were the best heterosexuality had to offer, that would spell doom for our society. Thank goodness you're incorrect.

As usual.
R
T

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Your observations are not only tainted with bigotry, but you will be unable to provide credible proof for your "opinions."

So how many homosexuals have you observed who have a bigger wardrobe, shop more for clothes, spend more time in front of a mirror?

The only truth in your statement is that you are an obnoxious NY Jew.

Shop for anything in NYC (e.g. Bloomingdales), and one can likely see a parade of homosexuals enjoying their shopping excusion. Many in NYC enjoy, I believe, being seen by others. Sort of histrionic.

Why would my observations be "tainted with bigotry"? There is nothing wrong with being narcissistic. Others might not appreciate it, but there is nothing wrong with it, nor have I implied anything is wrong with narcissism, whether I appreciate narcissistic people or not.

My observations are nothing to take offense to, if one understands we all have a right to our opinions, and as a private citizen to be discriminating in our choices of who to relate to. Must I like histrionic people who are intrusive by their exhibitionist behavior? This includes straights as well as gays; however, since gays are the focus in this thread, must I like intrusive behavior from them?

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

But you are interested "in others." That's why you make such a big fuss about homosexuals.

From a sociological perspective. I do not make "a fuss about homosexuals." I believe that they have an agenda that may weaken the cohesiveness of this country's society. And, in my opinion, they may not care collectively, since I believe the "homosexual activist agenda" is idealogical, and focussed on their objectives, not on the possibility of negative consequences to the society at large. Sort of narcissistic, I believe.

1 Reply

@Foofie,

Do women have an agenda?

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

None of those are a Black Swan fallacy at all, and your continued use of the term really points out what a ******* moron you are, Spendi.

That's the black swan fallacy again. Your conclusion that I'm a ******* moron is based on what you see as if anything you don't see doesn't exist just as a black swan does not exist for those who have only ever seen or heard of white swans.

There might be something you are not seeing which would show that I'm not a ******* moron at all.

So there you are. You're a black swan specialist. You can even use the black swan fallacy to deny using black swan fallacies.

Here is the black swan argument as you used it.

All of the conversations you have seen are intellectually brilliant. Therefore all conversations are intellectually brilliant. Here's a conversation I have never seen. As all conversations are intellectually brilliant therefore this one can't be intellectually brilliant. It's a short step from that to "******* moron". You do understand a simple thing like that I hope.

1 Reply

@Foofie,

Quote:

The answer was in my original statement. All heteros cannot, by definition, become homos. However, since some homos are bi-sexuals, then some homos can be heteros. Only homos have the ability to morph between preference, I believe.

That has to be some of the silliest logic I have ever seen.

You define homo as anyone that has had homosexual relations.
Wouldn't that mean heteros are anyone that has heterosexual relations?
Since some people are bisexual, does that make them hetero or homo? You clearly have made your circular argument and then used it to support you idiotic bias.

1 Reply

@spendius,

It goes without saying that the black swan fallacy is masurbatory. The easy way out. I may have used in in my seven years on A2K but I doubt it.

I'll do another for you Cyclo.

1-All the priests I know about diddle choirboys.
2-Therefore all priests diddle choirboys.
3-This priest does not diddle choirboys.
4-Therefore he's not a priest.

And if the only priests covered in media diddled choirboys, media knowing how exciting such stories are, then only those sorts of people would be known as priests. There are diffuse and cloudy black swan fallacies as well as obvious ones. General impressions. Unconscious until you mention a priest or priestcraft in a pub and then just listen to it pour out . Listen to how powerfully the above black swan fallacy was eased into people's minds. Mention priests and diddling choirboys is their first word association. Occasionally it nuns. Or each other now and again. The hundreds of thousands of priests working in the poorest areas of the world don't get a mention.

1 Reply

@spendius,

That's the no true Scotsman fallacy Spendi.

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

You define homo as anyone that has had homosexual relations.

I don't think he did para. Some people try it out. Particulary women.

A homosexual is someone attracted to the same sex and who finds the opposite sex unattractive or even repulsive. They need not have sexual relations. In fact I would argue that homosexuals don't have sexual relations at all. The Catholic Church would argue that only conjunctions where conception is a possibility, i.e. between two uninterfered with persons, constitutes sexual relations and the rest is massage parlour stuff dressed up with etiquette. I think that's the position.

Similarly a het is someone attracted to the opposite sex who finds the same sex unattractive or even repulsive as I do. And any sexual relations are a side issue. And some of them I've heard give the hom a try. Just to see. Persistance with such things is called "libertinage" and very rare.

I would say that if a hetero becomes a homo they were homo all along and were faking the hetero for social reasons.

It's getting interesting.

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

That's the no true Scotsman fallacy Spendi.

Yes-for the people who associate priest with choirboy diddling. It makes my point.

0 Replies

California Voters Approve Gay-Marriage Ban

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know