Homosexual Agenda Exposed!!!!!!

Another prediction about RealityChecker:

He will revel in the attention. Many times quacks will adopt their positions because of the validation in terms of attention that it lends them. I don't know if this is the case with RealityChecker but I predict that it will be.

Either way, this ilk is a fun one. Only the indefatigable can serve as a punching bag in debate and are conveniently happy to serve as one.

It's a win-win situation for everyone, spectators get a laugh, debators get to toy with a "cork debator" and said debator gets the attention he craves.

Skrat,

Then perhaps the excercise is not for you, because perhaps you see the obvious that there is no hetero AIDS epidemic.

The issue is the homophile media claims there is, and the homosexual AIDS agenda extremists claim there is. I am waiting for those types to make the claim and enter a debate.

Craven, I did get a kick out of your original post, the problem is you infer you may be up for the task shortly, but starting off with an inference that I will degrade to incivility is a really poor debate tactic. Then next you use epithets like "ilk" and 'quack". So far you are not doing a very good job, Craven, unless the job is using unsubstantive replies and ad hominems, in which case I give you a 3 snaps up....

"Ilk" is an epithet?

I guess et al is also?

Or cohort?

I feel discriminated against. Why does no one ever talk about the "bisexual agenda?" We have one too..really.. honestly...well..maybe not. Oh wait, I remember now....I have twice the chance to get laid!

Ilk is not an epithet RealityChecker. Check the dictionary. It simply means "type" or "kind", without inherent inference as to the type or kind being discussed.

That's lesson number three from me to you. And I haven't started in earnest yet. ;-)

Imagined ad hominems might float your boat, but without an inordinate amount of sensitivity you'd be hard pressed to make a case for them.

In this case you just alleged an ad hominem based on your ignorance of the meaning of a three letter word.

I can't be faulted for your ignorance of word meanings RealityChecker.

Funny how he claims that the 'homosexual agenda' will use #3, then he goes and does just that. . .

I'm curious to know why you should be so bothered by "the homosexual agenda." If there does appear to be a prevalence of gay themes on the tube these days in Amreeka, I suspect it's because we are growing up as a culture, moving toward a more mature notion of what should and should not merit shame and personal concern -- and because part of growing up is being an adolescent obsessed with relatively trivial themes that simultaneously fascinate us, amuse us, and make us uncomfortable.

I can acknowledge a number of your claims and still come to the following conclusion: so what? Do differential infection rates mean that the infected are receiving their just deserts? High infant mortality rates don't correspond to "Western standards of behavior and health care," either; does that mean that the problem should not be addressed? Honestly, I'm at a loss to ascribe the motivations behind your argument to anything but some sort of buzzing paranoia -- but, then, I've surely played right into your hands. The real wonder is that you don't seem to realize that your rant is every bit as predictable and scripted as the rebuttals you are anticipating.

One thing I will concede is that the gay rights movement has plagiarized liberally from the civil rights movement, when in reality, the struggles are remarkably dissimilar. As a black man, this irks me.

Also, since you are so quick to predict what the "homosexual agenda practitioners" are going to do, let me make a prediction of my own: occasionally, irrational people such as yourself show up and make absurd rants. When confronted with counter-arguments, thier stance eventually degenerates into incoherant inanity, at which point they leave the forum.

Dissimilar in circumstance yet very similar in that both are confronted by visceral prejudices. IMO, that similarity is profound in nature.

Indeed. But dissimilar in that one was a struggle against segregation and a history of slavery. The gay rights movement, on the other hand, is primarily a struggle to win over the acceptance of society in general and to secure some symbolic, but rather inconsequential legal rights in marriage. That, IMO, is a dissimilarity profound in nature, Please, do not even attempt to compare the stuggle against slavery and its legacy to the stuggle for Steve to wed Steve.

This is going to be interesting.

I myself used to be a public health educator, and my focus was on HIV/STD's.

I gotta tell you, Reality, your going to have a real tough time trying to support your view. There is alot going against it. Particularly if you try to use real science and research to back up the claims.

Its a quarter past two a.m. though, and I have lots of studying to do, so if no one else completely destroys your logic/arguments, I'll be happy to do so when I get the chance.

By the way, are you gay? (just kiddin'... don't take it personal!)

Funny you should say that, I was thinking the same myself. I've heard that a lot of homophobes fear being gay, which is why they are so outspoken and violent (Verbally and physically) towards homosexuals.

Well, so far lots are attacking me personally, but none are really putting much effort into countering the contention I made. Doesn't surprise me at all.

However, I had no idea there were so many people on this forum and posts were so abundant....makes it difficult to reply to any of the few substantive ones.....

We've already established that your ignorance of the definition of a three letter word is sufficient cause for you to falsely allege an "attack".

Again, it is not the fault of your interlocutors that you imagine slurs based on your own ineptness.

Incidentally "gay" is not a slur except for the homophobic, and you've just been documented in a freudian slip. :wink:

Re: Homosexual Agenda Exposed!!!!!!


Indeed...

It's not as if you reply, see 1-12.

Well, let's see, several have inferred I am a homosexual so far.....

See tactic #9

Yep, and it's only a slur if you are homophobic. See above.

i hope you're not...we don't need your kind...and it is 202 am...and it's hard to debate the ignorant.....google my friend...check the stats for yourself...my agenda is to be treated equally..not better or different...get a grip...but there are others more articulate than myself...i will let them debate you...

He He He - reality checker is funny