[quote]Christine wrote:
And the reason why I said there was no reason for a response was that I assumed that any response would simply be an attack on my character or intelligence.[/quote]
Impressive how he manages it anyway.[/quote]
I was attempting to give him the benefit of the doubt. Just because he usually resorts to personal attacks doesn’t mean he will always do so.
I may some day be surprised.[/quote]
Tell me something do you ever count the personal attacks pointed in my direction by those who hold opposing views? No, I guess you don’t because you AGREE with those people.
[/quote]
How many personal attacks have I made towards you? I may have joked around a bit, but I am fairly certain I have never directly attacked your intelligence or you directly. If I am wrong, my apologies.
[quote]Christine wrote:
And the reason why I said there was no reason for a response was that I assumed that any response would simply be an attack on my character or intelligence.[/quote]
Impressive how he manages it anyway.[/quote]
I was attempting to give him the benefit of the doubt. Just because he usually resorts to personal attacks doesn’t mean he will always do so.
I may some day be surprised.[/quote]
Tell me something do you ever count the personal attacks pointed in my direction by those who hold opposing views? No, I guess you don’t because you AGREE with those people.
[/quote]
Here’s an idea, gramps - I’ll lay off the attacks on you if you can lay of on the attacks on every person you disagree with.
You start this shit, don’t bitch like a little girl when it comes back to you.[/quote]
Bitching? I was just enlightening one of your minion as to why things are the way they are. You know telling the truth. You know the word right T R U T H?
As to your “laying off the attacks” I actually enjoy the light combat that you offer. So please continue your cheap shots because I assure you I will continue to let it roll with anyone I’d like regardless of whether you like it or not. And quite frankly I would prefer if you didn’t like it. I have to assume that any time we agree on something that I’ve somehow taken a wrong turn. So in essence you’re like a barometer in which to measure my own correctness. If you disagree vehemently with me and do your usual name calling I know I’m on the right path.
Ha…it just occurred to me that you think I care if you drool out a witless line or two on an Internet message board. You’re a funny little fella.
It is easier for men to transfer HIV to other men or to a woman than it is for a woman to transfer HIV to a male. [/quote]
I agree, but the original question was raised because of the HIV rate among gay men. They are in fact promiscuous enough to spread that disease, and many others, above and beyond what the heterosexual population has done. And they only comprise about 2% - 3% of the population.
So instead of refuting my theory which may or may not be correct as I’ve said. I’d like you to offer up one of your own.
[quote]Christine wrote:
And the reason why I said there was no reason for a response was that I assumed that any response would simply be an attack on my character or intelligence.[/quote]
Impressive how he manages it anyway.[/quote]
I was attempting to give him the benefit of the doubt. Just because he usually resorts to personal attacks doesn’t mean he will always do so.
I may some day be surprised.[/quote]
Tell me something do you ever count the personal attacks pointed in my direction by those who hold opposing views? No, I guess you don’t because you AGREE with those people.
[/quote]
How many personal attacks have I made towards you? I may have joked around a bit, but I am fairly certain I have never directly attacked your intelligence or you directly. If I am wrong, my apologies.[/quote]
I have not gone back and looked but I think you entered this thread with a snide remark directed at me. And of course I returned fire. From this point forward it is forgotten and we can move on.
It is easier for men to transfer HIV to other men or to a woman than it is for a woman to transfer HIV to a male. [/quote]
I agree, but the original question was raised because of the HIV rate among gay men. They are in fact promiscuous enough to spread that disease, and many others, above and beyond what the heterosexual population has done. And they only comprise about 2% - 3% of the population.
So instead of refuting my theory which may or may not be correct as I’ve said. I’d like you to offer up one of your own.
[/quote]
Sorry, I’m much more interested in the logic used in an argument than the argument itself. Your ‘theory’ is invalid. Besides, the onus is on you on this one.
A snide remark is not equal to a personal attack.
And I know how the ‘debating’ is done here (and all over the web). Unfortunately, ad hominem attacks are used too often. It debases the debate and the debaters.
Sorry, I’m much more interested in the logic used in an argument than the argument itself. [/quote]
There IS a problem in the gay community and that problem is promiscuity. How or why they got there, while interesting to discuss, is far less important to me than the fact that there is a problem. That you don’t want to discuss it doesn’t surprise me as many on your side don’t want to acknowledge the very ugly truth. Fair enough you and I will have no more discussion on this topic.
Definition of Snide- “Derogatory in a malicious, superior way.”
Close enough.
I responded to it accordingly. It’s over now unless you don’t want it to be.
Yes there’s a whole lot of debasing going on. Please stay and enjoy the fun!
That will eventually make itself apparent, or not.
[quote]orion wrote:
Sooo, just to clear up some of Zebs delusions I hereby introduce exhibit A:
It seems that the average gay guy has about as much partners in his lifetime than straight men, it is just that a relatively small percentage of men (2%) own a relatively large share of the gay sex market (23%).
I seriously doubt that those 2% are the ones desperately looking to get married or to adopt kids.
You make several good points, but this one is especially important. It’s a common tactic to treat outliers as the norm, in an attempt to disparage an entire class of people. Sampling methods, statistical significance, standard deviation, and all those other pesky details pertaining to actual facts don’t matter to clown acts like Zeb.[/quote]
And to homosexual activists like yourself you continue to turn a blind eye to the outrageous behavior of your brethren. Any way you slice it homosexual males are the sickest (physically and emotionally according to the CDC) group of people in the world. Do you also disregard the FACTS regarding alcoholics? No…no you will accept that the over consumption of alcohol on a regular basis is a bad thing for most people. But then again you have an agenda so ignoring evidence which spits in the face of your constant flow of drivel is something that you do.[/quote]
It’s also a common tactic to point to the worst outliers of marriage as justification for homosexual marriages. Heterosexual marriage = homosexual marriage iff. heterosexual marriage is defined by infertile couples (<8%) and serial marriages (<10%)
Why would I, I am perfectly content with pointing out that your FACT !!!OMGD!!! is bullshit.
[/quote]
I’m disappointed Orion, this is petty. You merely disputed a fact and supported his larger assertion. Your ‘data’ pretty clearly suggests that homosexual marriage isn’t and never has been equal to any of the various forms of heterosexual marriage. 1231 societies, none considered a relationship between an man and a man as a marriage.
Why would I, I am perfectly content with pointing out that your FACT !!!OMGD!!! is bullshit.
[/quote]
I’m disappointed Orion, this is petty. You merely disputed a fact and supported his larger assertion. Your ‘data’ pretty clearly suggests that homosexual marriage isn’t and never has been equal to any of the various forms of heterosexual marriage. 1231 societies, none considered a relationship between an man and a man as a marriage.
Edit: fixed quote.[/quote]
You mean part of his larger point was that polygamy or polyandry are a-ok, due to the fact that those marriages are between men and women?
Sorry, I’m much more interested in the logic used in an argument than the argument itself. [/quote]
There IS a problem in the gay community and that problem is promiscuity. How or why they got there, while interesting to discuss, is far less important to me than the fact that there is a problem. That you don’t want to discuss it doesn’t surprise me as many on your side don’t want to acknowledge the very ugly truth. Fair enough you and I will have no more discussion on this topic.
Definition of Snide- “Derogatory in a malicious, superior way.”
Close enough.
I responded to it accordingly. It’s over now unless you don’t want it to be.
Yes there’s a whole lot of debasing going on. Please stay and enjoy the fun!
That will eventually make itself apparent, or not.[/quote]
So, I take it that you are now willing to concede that your argument was invalid then as you have abandoned it’s defense.
Promiscuity in general does not bother me. I am not convinced that humans are meant to be entirely monogamous. Besides, I’d rather hang out with the sinners. They are a heck of a lot more fun.
A snide remark isn’t even close to a personal attack, and you did not respond accordingly. I was remarking on the logic of the argument, no you personally.
And as far as minions go, where exactly do you obtain your marching orders from? See there, I can turn the attack back on you too. Guess that makes me cool?
Sorry, I’m much more interested in the logic used in an argument than the argument itself. [/quote]
There IS a problem in the gay community and that problem is promiscuity. How or why they got there, while interesting to discuss, is far less important to me than the fact that there is a problem. That you don’t want to discuss it doesn’t surprise me as many on your side don’t want to acknowledge the very ugly truth. Fair enough you and I will have no more discussion on this topic.
Definition of Snide- “Derogatory in a malicious, superior way.”
Close enough.
I responded to it accordingly. It’s over now unless you don’t want it to be.
Yes there’s a whole lot of debasing going on. Please stay and enjoy the fun!
That will eventually make itself apparent, or not.[/quote]
So, I take it that you are now willing to concede that your argument was invalid then as you have abandoned it’s defense.
Promiscuity in general does not bother me. I am not convinced that humans are meant to be entirely monogamous. Besides, I’d rather hang out with the sinners. They are a heck of a lot more fun.
A snide remark isn’t even close to a personal attack, and you did not respond accordingly. I was remarking on the logic of the argument, no you personally.
And as far as minions go, where exactly do you obtain your marching orders from? See there, I can turn the attack back on you too. Guess that makes me cool?[/quote]
No- Your Dot avatar makes you cool.
Video somewhat related to Zebs statistics interpretation skills:
I also like how they omit that the APA clearly states that pedophilic behavior is criminal and immoral, and that the organization itself is NOT considering declassifying pedophilia as a mental disorder. In the article, Spitzer said declassification would never happen in a million years. Oops.
[/quote]
That irks me somewhat.
“Criminal” and “immoral” are hardly categories to use when it comes to what constitutes mental health.
[/quote]
Agreed, but I don’t think the APA was implying otherwise. They were differentiating between inclinations and behavior. That said, it’s not in their jurisdiction to say what is moral/legal and what isn’t.
[quote]Bambi wrote:
If I were a teacher I’d keep my personal and political views off a social network where people can see them. What if this person had posted racist or sexist views. Or pictures of themselves drunk and/or stoned? Nothing to do with ideology, just professionalism. I would have no problem with teachers who do not believe in gay marriage, and I doubt many people would, but they do not have to broadcast that fact where other people know it
inb4 overly ‘liberal’ media.[/quote]
Does this work the same for all professionals?
There are doctors here with pictures of their shirts off…but this is a bodybuilding forum…so how would that reflect on their professionalism at work in a clinic?
Sorry, I’m much more interested in the logic used in an argument than the argument itself. [/quote]
There IS a problem in the gay community and that problem is promiscuity. How or why they got there, while interesting to discuss, is far less important to me than the fact that there is a problem. That you don’t want to discuss it doesn’t surprise me as many on your side don’t want to acknowledge the very ugly truth. Fair enough you and I will have no more discussion on this topic.
Definition of Snide- “Derogatory in a malicious, superior way.”
Close enough.
I responded to it accordingly. It’s over now unless you don’t want it to be.
Yes there’s a whole lot of debasing going on. Please stay and enjoy the fun!
That will eventually make itself apparent, or not.[/quote]
So, I take it that you are now willing to concede that your argument was invalid then as you have abandoned it’s defense.[/quote]
What I offered up was one possibility and I think a sound one. That you doubt its validity means what? Who cares? I asked if you had a better theory and you ran away from the argument.
Reckless promiscuity that is clearly displayed by homosexuals bothers me much more.
I gave you the definition of snide remark and I felt it was close enough - From this point forward you can whine about it all you like - I…just…don’t care
Video somewhat related to Zebs statistics interpretation skills:
[/quote]
I’ve seen first hand your argumentation skills and they are sorely wanting. As to my interpretation of data it is SPOT ON. That you don’t like it is certainly understandable. You tend to hate the truth when it doesn’t suit your needs.
Now you better get going I heard there was a big Ron Paul rally today — Oh that’s right you live in Austria.
Video somewhat related to Zebs statistics interpretation skills:
[/quote]
I’ve seen first hand your argumentation skills and they are sorely wanting. As to my interpretation of data it is SPOT ON. That you don’t like it is certainly understandable. You tend to hate the truth when it doesn’t suit your needs.
[/quote]
All right, that made me lol.
You do not know your ass from a standard deviation, but of course your interpretation is spot on, got it.
Video somewhat related to Zebs statistics interpretation skills:
[/quote]
I’ve seen first hand your argumentation skills and they are sorely wanting. As to my interpretation of data it is SPOT ON. That you don’t like it is certainly understandable. You tend to hate the truth when it doesn’t suit your needs.
[/quote]
All right, that made me lol.
You do not know your ass from a standard deviation, but of course your interpretation is spot on, got it.
[/quote]
Most of what you post makes me lol—What ever data I post you will ignore as it does not fit your PC view of homosexuality. So go romp in the Austrian sun with your eyes shut and your fingers in your ears.
Video somewhat related to Zebs statistics interpretation skills:
[/quote]
I’ve seen first hand your argumentation skills and they are sorely wanting. As to my interpretation of data it is SPOT ON. That you don’t like it is certainly understandable. You tend to hate the truth when it doesn’t suit your needs.
[/quote]
All right, that made me lol.
You do not know your ass from a standard deviation, but of course your interpretation is spot on, got it.
[/quote]
Most of what you post makes me lol—What ever data I post you will ignore as it does not fit your PC view of homosexuality. So go romp in the Austrian sun with your eyes shut and your fingers in your ears.
