Reply
Thu 25 Mar, 2004 11:49 pm
I just joined up to this forum as I saw some propaganda on a web search where some homosexual agenda practitioner were here lying about hetero AIDS risks.
I am going to spend a considerable amount of time here exposing the lifestyle, behaviors and practices as well as the homosexual agenda here.
There is a scripted response among homosexuals used in debates, so allow me to expose it in advance so you can see what they will say before I give them a chance to say it.
For starters, homosexual agenda practitioners saw the successes of the civil rights movements. Because of this, you will notice they try to couch all the homosexual agenda under the civil rights cloak. To do this, they frequently interject buzzwords like negro, jew, etc. As an example, the refrain of "I can no more control being gay then someone can control being black or jewish". Clearly they don't realize that "jew" is not a race, but a religion.
Certain truths such as there is no heterosexual AIDS epidemic, AIDS does discriminate, hardly anyone is at risk, etc, are truths that homosexual AIDS extremists must silence at all costs. The way they do this is to ignore all scholarly research, ignore CDC stats, ignore discussions of the stats, lie about the stats if they do talk about them, etc, and just engage in ad hominems against the messenger.
Here is the scripted lexicon they use to attack the messenger:
homophobe, hate fileld, wrong headed, mean spirited, bigoted, bible thumper, right wing whacko, Nazi, klan member, religious fundamentalist, Reagan lover, Helms lover, Limbaugh lover (insert your hated conservative here), preacher, intolerant, etc.
The next tactic is to use what homosexual call "camp". As an example, when attempting to deny that there is a homosxual agenda, rather then suporrted retorts, you will see this "I lost my copy of the gay agenda, can you make a copy for me?"
There are many truths I am prepared to list an overwhelming amount of evidece that shows that:
a male homosexuals are the overwhelming vectors of HIV
b there is no heterosexual AIDS epidemic
c homosexual males are far more likely to be pedophiles then heterosexuals
d it is unlikely for a male or female to aquire HIV from having 500 acts of intercoruse with a serodiscrodant partner of the opposite sex.
As I start a discussion here under various topics listed above, below I have listed the homosexual agenda response tactics and numbered them so as the discussion goes along, I will reference via numbers the scripted response they use.
1. Camp
2. half truths
3. ad hominem homoexual epithet lexicon/attack the mesenger
4. reductio ad absurdum
5. circular logic
6. unsupported opinions
7. attack my lame typing
8. But What About Africa?!
9. Accuse opponents of being homosexual
10. The Straw man
11. The bait and switch
12. reply nonsubstantively
13. Claim your opponant is religious, then attack them for their religion, without of course bothering to check if they are religious.
Now one of the thing democrats will never do is convince republicans that democrats ar right. It is important to viewers to know that I will not convince homosexual agenda extremists to the contrary, I am merely here to expose their agenda filled with lies, counter them with a blitzkrieg of scholarly research which they will avoid and let normal people conclude what they wish.
Now, if there are any homosexual agenda practitioners here, let the games begin....
There is no heterosexual AIDS epidemic
There is no heterosexually vectored AIDS epidemic in countries with Western standards of behavior and health care such as in the U.S.
Anyone foolish enough to challenge me on this?
well this should be interesting. it'll be like watching a train wreck.
I'm not gay but I don't mind debating people espousing absurdity in strident fashion. It's even more fun when they don the mantle of logic.
I'll make a point to debate you over the next few days and it'll be great fun.
For now, welcome to Able2Know. Try to stay civil when you are outmatched in debate and things should go just fine.
pueo wrote:well this should be interesting. it'll be like watching a train wreck.
Yes, it's like The Crocodile Hunter. You're just sucked in.
I looked, it's a quarter moon. What's with all the quacks today?
An early start? I dunno. :shrug:
Of course, any interest group has an agenda, that in-and-of-itself doesn't indicate anything nefarious or worrisome. That aside, there's no question that those pushing the gay rights agenda use misinformation and the tactics you describe to do so. But then, so do the so-called environmentalists, the anti-globalization crowd, the neo-nazis, and the Harry David fruit people.
I take issue with major portions of the agendum of all of these groups (especially those fruit bastards... the Harry David ones), but that's different than taking issue with the groups themselves. I have no bone to pick with homosexuals, per se, and I have to opine that your stridency and mere choice to come here with the stated purpose of debunking the gay agenda leads me to at least consider the possibility that you have issues not merely with what you see as the gay agenda, but with gays themselves.
I mean no disrespect by this, and I may well be wrong. I look forward to seeing where this goes. There's no question that you're going to be attacked as a hate-filled right-winger, but hey, that just means you've disagreed with the chosen few 'round here, and that ain't all bad. :wink:
What does
"There is no heterosexually vectored AIDS epidemic in countries with Western standards of behavior and health care such as in the U.S."
have to do with the price of fish, just for a start?
AIDS epidemics in general are greater where health education, availability of condoms, willingness to practice safer sex, medical treatment etc are diminished by economic or cultural factors.
What has this to do with whether AIDS is more commonly vectored by heterosexual people or not?
As understand it, this means that worldwide it is more a heterosexually vectored than homosexual vectored disease.
But - what has this to do with anything anyway?
What is your point?
Re these:
"c homosexual males are far more likely to be pedophiles then heterosexuals "
Prove it.
"d it is unlikely for a male or female to aquire HIV from having 500 acts of intercoruse with a serodiscrodant partner of the opposite sex."
I have no idea of the truth re this one - but again, so what?
It is unlikely for sex between males to produce a baby - but, so what?
Allow for some predictions about "RealityChecker":
1) Will commit far more fallacies than will point out.
2) Will rely heavily on "read this tome/long text" as a form of debate. Innundation of so called "evidence" is a staple of many um, people like this (staying within the TOS ;-) ).
3) Will filibuster in leiu of sound logic. in other words will attempt to win debates by being indefatigable rather than constructing logically sound arguments.
LOL! As far as I can see from all this crap, I should avoid sex with HIV positive homosexual males.....oh, wait a minute......
Heehee - what is it called where you beg the question of the accuracy of your position by saying that the only people who will oppose you are purveyors of this "homosexual agenda"?
was this a drive-by posting? How come (s)he's not here to defend their position?
About what I figured, actually.
dlowan wrote:Heehee - what is it called where you beg the question of the accuracy of your position by saying that the only people who will oppose you are purveyors of this "homosexual agenda"?
It's a variation of the
emperor's new clothes fallacy. Ironically, this individual probably meets with this fallacy used against him regularly.
Turner_727 writes; "sigh" ....See item 12
Craven writes; "I'm not gay but I don't mind debating people espousing absurdity in strident fashion. It's even more fun when they don the mantle of logic."
He opposes my claim using the term "absurdity", but offers nothing to support his counterclaim. See item 12
Next he says this :Try to stay civil when you are outmatched in debate and things should go just fine."
The assumes I will have a difficult time staying civil. See item 12 and 3
Ceili wrote; "I looked, it's a quarter moon. What's with all the quacks today?" See item 3 and 12
I am still waiting for someone who is willing to challenge me in a debate with their position being there is a heteosexual AIDS epidemic in the U.S. as an example. So far seems nobody is up for the intellectual challenge....
RealityChecker,
I made very clear that I would tackle your brainfarts in subsequent days, it's too close to bedtime to deal with it.
So feel free to count yer points. It's kinda like imagining touchdowns before the game starts.
Incidentally you can't claim an ad hominem fallacy without an attached fallacious premise.
My comment did not address your position and were cautions only about what I predict will be your temperment when debate doesn't go your way.
If you knew what the ad hominem fallacy is you would know that it has to fallaciously support a premise.
For example, in a dicussion about an individual no comment about that individual is a fallacious ad hominem.
More lessons later on.
Should have read the thread, rc. At least two people answered up, and you've yet to counter their arguements.
You know, I've seen you a hundred times on fourms such as this. You come in, you throw down your glove, and fall back on personal attacks when people rise up to your challenge.
Allow me to put it another way: **** or get off the pot.
Two people answered your post. And yet all you can do is attack other people, and say "look what I said here" and "look what I said there".
Back up what you've said, and post replies to the counter-arguements presented, or get out of here and leave us alone.
And let me anticiapte your response to this. I don't argue religion with people such as yourself, because you don't listen. When presented facts, you will find something else to argue about, just as pointless as your first point. No, I'd much rather stick around and watch other people debunk you. It's much more fun.
RealityChecker wrote:I am still waiting for someone who is willing to challenge me in a debate with their position being there is a heteosexual AIDS epidemic in the U.S. as an example. So far seems nobody is up for the intellectual challenge....
Perhaps everyone here simply recognizes that the point you want them to debate you on is in fact true; there is no heterosexual AIDS epidemic in the US. Your contention, that no response means nobody is up to the intellectual challenge, to me smacks a bit of your #6 and #12.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace