Homosexuality is designed?

[Granite]

"Granite, you are a real idiot. You know that you don't know what your talking about but you continue to press as though you do thinking that I don't know any more than you do. Fine. You want me to show off your ignorance, great. You asked for it."

Clete, this post of yours is pointless. I never denied that homosexual serial killers existed. I questioned your ridiculous claim that "most" serial killers are gay.

You've yet to demonstrate this.

And your claim that you read through the case history of "all" serial killers in one afternoon is just absurd.

:yawn:

Gotta get some coffee.

 

[Clete]

"Granite, you are a real idiot. You know that you don't know what your talking about but you continue to press as though you do thinking that I don't know any more than you do. Fine. You want me to show off your ignorance, great. You asked for it."

Clete, this post of yours is pointless. I never denied that homosexual serial killers existed. I questioned your ridiculous claim that "most" serial killers are gay.

You've yet to demonstrate this.

Did you look at the sites those names are linked too? It's a huge majority. And like I said in the post, if you include all the ones who were themselves victims of homos but not necessarily homos themselves, it's virtually all of them. You just have your eyes firmly closed to the truth. Anything to keep from admitting that homos are a blight on this nation and increasingly on the whole world.

And your claim that you read through the case history of "all" serial killers in one afternoon is just absurd.

No it isn't. I didn't say I read every detail of every charge these perverts were convicted of. I simply had a couple of websites, both of which at least claimed to have a complete list of all of the so called serial killers in history along with a description of who they were and what they had done. I read all of them in something like 3 or 4 hours. There really isn't that many serial killers, probably fewer than one hundred who are officially considered serial killers. I personally consider anyone who killed more than 5 times a serial killer in which case there are indeed hundreds and hundreds of them. I have not read that many, of course. But let's just say that I've read 10 times as many as I ever thought I would or ever care too again. I read proabably 50 just last night! And it didn't even take a whole hour. 31 of those fifty were themselves guilty of being a homo going simply on the incomplete information that I found in about two minutes on the internet. The number is almost certainly higher than that and again I'd be surprised to find even one of those fifty who had not been molested as a child by a homo.

:yawn:

Gotta get some coffee.

Dr. Pepper for Me! :yawn:


Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Caille]

yeah i agree with putting the execution behind us, and I'm not really sure being homo is something you choose to do, i mean how can you choose a hairy smelly dude over a woman of your own free will, and not be born into that

I dunno, Beef - that sounds like a pretty good argument to support female homosexuality to me.

 

[Caille]

You have to look past the end of your nose fool. The website you picked is more interested in telling grussome stories than in giving factual information about the serial killers. They list them in order of the most kills for goodness sakes. Haven't you ever had to do any real research on something before? Good grief man, this is not hard! Believe me, if I suggest you find something on google, it's because the information is so ridiculously easy to find that even google searches usually turn up good info.

I don't even know why I'm continuing this conversation anyway. I can tell none of you give a damn anyhow.

Resting in Him,
Clete

:baby: :baby: :baby:

 

[Granite]

Clete, the website you're citing also provides links such as these:

Erotic Art of Pompei
Who is Bettie Page?
Joe Millionaire Girl Bondage
I Hate ****** Cartoons
Brief History of Early Porn
Boudoir Photography
WW2 Pin-Up Girls
Looking For Porn?
Newscasters
Streaking Hall Of Fame

Interesting reading material. As the saying goes, consider the source.

As well as:

Infamous Train Clip
Budd Dwyer
Dad Kills Sons Kidnapper
Middle East Justice
Another Snuff Film - Fake?

Setting aside the lurid and sleazy source you use (as opposed to, say, John Douglas or Robert Ressler):

"like I said in the post, if you include all the ones who were themselves victims of homos but not necessarily homos themselves, it's virtually all of them."

Repeating it does not make it so. The FBI maintains most serial killers are heterosexual white males (you should read Douglas's books; "Journey into Darkness" or "Mindhunter" is a good place to start). Given a choice between web research and trusting a man who spent his career studying these deviants, I'll go with the latter.

"I simply had a couple of websites, both of which at least claimed to have a complete list of all of the so called serial killers in history..."

These webcrawlers do not have a clue. You are under- and misinformed.

"There really isn't that many serial killers, probably fewer than one hundred who are officially considered serial killers."

:darwinsm:

Clete, you keep digging yourself deeper. Worldwide and throughout history, we simply don't know. Your knowledge of psychopathology and serial murder is very superficial.

"I personally consider anyone who killed more than 5 times a serial killer in which case there are indeed hundreds and hundreds of them."

I could care less for your personal definition. I defer to the Bureau's behavorial sciences unit. You know...people who actually do this for a living.

 

[beefalobilly]

Did you look at the sites those names are linked too? It's a huge majority. And like I said in the post, if you include all the ones who were themselves victims of homos but not necessarily homos themselves, it's virtually all of them. You just have your eyes firmly closed to the truth. Anything to keep from admitting that homos are a blight on this nation and increasingly on the whole world.


No it isn't. I didn't say I read every detail of every charge these perverts were convicted of. I simply had a couple of websites, both of which at least claimed to have a complete list of all of the so called serial killers in history along with a description of who they were and what they had done. I read all of them in something like 3 or 4 hours. There really isn't that many serial killers, probably fewer than one hundred who are officially considered serial killers. I personally consider anyone who killed more than 5 times a serial killer in which case there are indeed hundreds and hundreds of them. I have not read that many, of course. But let's just say that I've read 10 times as many as I ever thought I would or ever care too again. I read proabably 50 just last night! And it didn't even take a whole hour. 31 of those fifty were themselves guilty of being a homo going simply on the incomplete information that I found in about two minutes on the internet. The number is almost certainly higher than that and again I'd be surprised to find even one of those fifty who had not been molested as a child by a homo.


Dr. Pepper for Me! :yawn:


Resting in Him,
Clete

THe book I have alone has over 500 serial killers in it, so I'd say there's more than 100.

 

[Clete]

granite,

When you learn to use the formating available on this website I will respond to you again. Not before. You're a waste of time anyway.

 

[Clete]

THe book I have alone has over 500 serial killers in it, so I'd say there's more than 100.

I'd say there were more like 2 or 3 thousand! But that doesn't mean that they are considered that by whomever it is that makes such definitions.

 

[Granite]

granite,

When you learn to use the formating available on this website I will respond to you again. Not before. You're a waste of time anyway.

:darwinsm:

Mr. Luther, until your handwriting improves these 95 Theses of yours will be ignored. There's also a big nailmark right through the top. Clean this up or we won't even bother responding to you.

Clete, you are a half-baked class act, I gotta give you credit. Keep entertaining me!:devil:

 

[Jukia]

I'd say there were more like 2 or 3 thousand! But that doesn't mean that they are considered that by whomever it is that makes such definitions.

so I take it you make the definitions?

 

[Granite]

so I take it you make the definitions?

He's already offered his own "personal" opinion on what constitutes a serial killer. Must be nice to make it up as you go along...

Quibbling about the website's format is one of the cheapest, laziest, and most cowardly ways to get out of a discussion I've ever seen. Clete's a low-rent version of Sozo: at least Sozo was willing to stay rumblin' in the jungle.

 

[Caille]

He's already offered his own "personal" opinion on what constitutes a serial killer. Must be nice to make it up as you go along...

Quibbling about the website's format is one of the cheapest, laziest, and most cowardly ways to get out of a discussion I've ever seen. Clete's a low-rent version of Sozo: at least Sozo was willing to stay rumblin' in the jungle.

Aw c'mon, with Sozo, you could actually feel his blood pressure rising.

 

[Mustard Seed]

When does change reach "abandonment" of the previous?

When does change reach "abandonment" of the previous?

This parody of science as a field that has no permanence in its conclusions has little validity. Certainly some ideas in science have been found to be in error, but the great majority of change in science is in improving old ideas, rather than in abandoning them.

When does change reach "abandonment" of the previous?

 

[ThePhy]

precept upon precept

precept upon precept

From Mustard Seed:

When does change reach "abandonment" of the previous?

When instead of using an old idea as a stepping stone towards improvement, it is necessary to discard the old idea because it was found to be fallacious.

Do you have specifics in mind?

 

[noguru]

When does change reach "abandonment" of the previous?

When a different/new model is found to have more evidential support than the previous model.

 

[Mustard Seed]

Doesn't change imply a previously fallicious nature of the old?

 

[Mustard Seed]

How different must a model be to be new?

 

[noguru]

How different must a model be to be new?

I think you're missing the point. Do you have a model that you believe explains the evidence better for any area of the material sciences?

 

[Mustard Seed]

This parody of science as a field that has no permanence in its conclusions has little validity. Certainly some ideas in science have been found to be in error, but the great majority of change in science is in improving old ideas, rather than in abandoning them.

When is "improving" not inherently demanding abandonment?

 

[noguru]

Doesn't change imply a previously fallicious nature of the old?

If you are refferring to the shift in the 19 century away from "supernatural 6 day young earth creation" to the use of naturalistic explanations. I would say yes.

But for the most part since scientists are human, we know they make mistakes. And sometimes the accuracy of the models constructed suffers from this human fallibility. Did you expect something different.

Did you have an area of the material sciences or any model(s) specifically in mind?