Stop Making Me into a Prophet

[Lighthouse]

The truth? Your statement consisted of the single word, "false". There is nothing there to respond to, except a vague allegation. If you think that my statement was false it is your obligation to explain how- in this case to tell us what else you think is relevant to the subject at hand not just say "false" and expect me to fall out of my chair trying to counter it. Which would pretty much be by writing, "true".
So no, :blabla: stands. I'm not interested in one-word back and forths, kthanks. If that's all you're good for don't bother.

You really are a moron, aren't you?

 

[PlastikBuddha]

You really are a moron, aren't you?

I keep responding to your pig-headed nonsense, so that's definitely one strike against me...
Do you have anything that actually adresses the topic at hand- the "dangers" of homosexuality- or are you just going to "play" dumb? Perhaps I should be convinced by your use of the word "moron" but for some reason it I find that it leaves lingering questions about your knowledge of the topic and your sincerity in approaching it...
Go figure, eh?

 

[Persephone66]

This is kinda entertaining, though I am wondering what an in person argument between Lighthouse and PB would be like.

 

[Granite]

This is kinda entertaining, though I am wondering what an in person argument between Lighthouse and PB would be like.

One of them would be an overweight virgin and the other wouldn't be. What else do you need to know?

 

[Lighthouse]

I keep responding to your pig-headed nonsense, so that's definitely one strike against me...
Do you have anything that actually adresses the topic at hand- the "dangers" of homosexuality- or are you just going to "play" dumb? Perhaps I should be convinced by your use of the word "moron" but for some reason it I find that it leaves lingering questions about your knowledge of the topic and your sincerity in approaching it...
Go figure, eh?

If you can't see how your statement was false you are just too stupid to help.

And my knowledge of the topic stems from the current and former homosexuals I have come to know in my 28 years on this planet. Which is more than most people I know, due to the fact that my aunt [mom's sister] is a dyke and my dad used to be a homo.

 

[Persephone66]

Maybe Lighthouse can explain why I display no destructive behaviour.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

If you can't see how your statement was false you are just too stupid to help.

If you can't explain then you are too stupid to bother talking with. YOU are the one making the claim.
YOU back it up.
If you can't do that, then don't bother making claims in the first place.
:loser:

And my knowledge of the topic stems from the current and former homosexuals I have come to know in my 28 years on this planet. Which is more than most people I know, due to the fact that my aunt [mom's sister] is a dyke and my dad used to be a homo.

It's not more than I've known. It's not more than most of the people on this forum. It's certaionly not more than the professionals who study and reference sexual behaviour.
So if you want to explain what other "dangerous" behaviour homosexuals engage in that can't be moderated with common sense and some basic precautions, by all means, speak up. If all you've got is more, "it's obvious that you are a moron because you keep disagreeing with me, despite the fact that I've repeated the same thing over and over again with nothing to support it," don't bother.

 

[Lighthouse]

If you can't explain then you are too stupid to bother talking with. YOU are the one making the claim.
YOU back it up.
If you can't do that, then don't bother making claims in the first place.
:loser:

Are you serious?

I said homosexuality is a dangerous lifestyle. You brought up STDs. I said they were not the only issue. You claimed they were, for this particular debate. However, no one who is arguing my side has said they were the only issue. Especially not me. Therefore your claim that they are is false. And the fact that you couldn't figure that out shows you to be an imbecile.

It's not more than I've known. It's not more than most of the people on this forum. It's certaionly not more than the professionals who study and reference sexual behaviour.

While I can agree that the likelihood of those who study sexuality for a living know more homos than me is certain the first two claims are not something you can know. You have no idea how many I've known, or currently know.

So if you want to explain what other "dangerous" behaviour homosexuals engage in that can't be moderated with common sense and some basic precautions, by all means, speak up. If all you've got is more, "it's obvious that you are a moron because you keep disagreeing with me, despite the fact that I've repeated the same thing over and over again with nothing to support it," don't bother.

There are, for instance, certain sexual acts which homosexuals are more likely to engage in that are dangerous even without the presence of STDs, and even when "protection" is used.

These, however, are still not the only factors.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

Are you serious?

I said homosexuality is a dangerous lifestyle. You brought up STDs. I said they were not the only issue. You claimed they were, for this particular debate. However, no one who is arguing my side has said they were the only issue. Especially not me. Therefore your claim that they are is false. And the fact that you couldn't figure that out shows you to be an imbecile.

Then explain to me what these other factors are. Just saying that they exist doesn't really satisfy me. I would looooove to hear about them. All I've seen is domestic violence- which was hardly above the norm and well within the paramaters of other cultures and situations (not just married Americans). That doesn't really pertain to lifestyle anyways since it is even easier to avoid than an STD: don't have a relationship with someone who uses violence or threats of violence to control and manipulate people mrt::duh- and a slightly higher risk for dying in a car crash. This is almost too stupid to even mention, but this seems to be a pretty obvious of correlation not causation.
But if you want to use that in your dialogues please tell me when and where so I can bring popcorn a camcorder.

While I can agree that the likelihood of those who study sexuality for a living know more homos than me is certain the first two claims are not something you can know. You have no idea how many I've known, or currently know.

Nor do I really care to know how many homosexuals you know or have known (in any sense of the word).
lain:
I was just returning your smug, know-it-all tone to you.

There are, for instance, certain sexual acts which homosexuals are more likely to engage in that are dangerous even without the presence of STDs, and even when "protection" is used.

More likely than who? How much more likely? Does the gay population at large being more likely to engage in completely voluntary behaviour add any risk whatsoever to the portion of the gay population that chooses to abstain from these risky sexual behaviours?
Even if protection isn't used if two people have been tested for STD's and are monogamous there is zero risk, just like in a heterosexual relationship of the same stripe.
These numbers mean nothing to people who aren't exposing themselves to the same risk factors as those at the most hedonistic end of the gay rainbow. I honestly don't see how this isn't crystal clear to you. Someone who isn't engaging in destructive behaviour isn't at risk for the consequences of that destructive behaviour.

These, however, are still not the only factors.

Are you going to tell us about them? If not why even mention them in the first place?

 

[Lighthouse]

Then explain to me what these other factors are. Just saying that they exist doesn't really satisfy me. I would looooove to hear about them. All I've seen is domestic violence- which was hardly above the norm and well within the paramaters of other cultures and situations (not just married Americans). That doesn't really pertain to lifestyle anyways since it is even easier to avoid than an STD: don't have a relationship with someone who uses violence or threats of violence to control and manipulate people mrt::duh- and a slightly higher risk for dying in a car crash. This is almost too stupid to even mention, but this seems to be a pretty obvious of correlation not causation.
But if you want to use that in your dialogues please tell me when and where so I can bring popcorn a camcorder.

I already gave you some of these other factors. And as for abusive relationships, you don't always know if someone is abusive when you get into a relationship with them. And most victims of abuse don't see themselves as worthy of not being abused. So it's not actually easier to avoid.

Nor do I really care to know how many homosexuals you know or have known (in any sense of the word).
lain:
I was just returning your smug, know-it-all tone to you.

Assuming to know what I know is only further proof of your idiocy.

More likely than who? How much more likely? Does the gay population at large being more likely to engage in completely voluntary behaviour add any risk whatsoever to the portion of the gay population that chooses to abstain from these risky sexual behaviours?

Yeah, it does. Of course that's because they all still engage in behaviors that are risky, even if they are not as risky as the most risky behaviors.

Even if protection isn't used if two people have been tested for STD's and are monogamous there is zero risk, just like in a heterosexual relationship of the same stripe.
These numbers mean nothing to people who aren't exposing themselves to the same risk factors as those at the most hedonistic end of the gay rainbow. I honestly don't see how this isn't crystal clear to you. Someone who isn't engaging in destructive behaviour isn't at risk for the consequences of that destructive behaviour.

This isn't about STDs. And "protection" is not 100% perfect. So it is all still a risk. Especially when you factor in that those who are not monogamous aren't always honest about that, especially when in a "committed" relationship.

Are you going to tell us about them? If not why even mention them in the first place?

Because this is a discussion. It should be dynamic. So mentioning everything all at once doesn't help anyone.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

I already gave you some of these other factors. And as for abusive relationships, you don't always know if someone is abusive when you get into a relationship with them. And most victims of abuse don't see themselves as worthy of not being abused. So it's not actually easier to avoid.

Anyone in an abusive relationship, gay or straight, has the same option of walking out the door the first time the fist lands. It's absolutely easy to avoid and no amount of heewing or hawing is going to put that anywhere but in the province of individual responsibility.
Are you going to even try and establish a causal link between homosexuality and domestic violence?

Assuming to know what I know is only further proof of your idiocy.

Or of your inferior communication skills.
I know which side I'm betting my chips on.

Yeah, it does. Of course that's because they all still engage in behaviors that are risky, even if they are not as risky as the most risky behaviors.

Everybody takes risks. When you fly in a plane, drive a car, leave the house you are taking a certain amount of risk. Why do you assume that the risk a rational, free adult chooses to expose themselves to is in any way your business?

This isn't about STDs. And "protection" is not 100% perfect. So it is all still a risk. Especially when you factor in that those who are not monogamous aren't always honest about that, especially when in a "committed" relationship.

There are also those who are perferctly honest and committed. There are straight people who lie and cheat, too. What of it? How does that change anything?

Because this is a discussion. It should be dynamic. So mentioning everything all at once doesn't help anyone.

:rotfl:
Exchanging pages and pages of "you're a moron" and "it's obvious that you are dumb" doesn't exactly move the conversation along, either.
But thanks for the interest in maintaining a steady flow of information...
:thumb:

 

[Persephone66]

I think Lighthouse just needs to quit and go read a comic book or something.

 

[Lighthouse]

Anyone in an abusive relationship, gay or straight, has the same option of walking out the door the first time the fist lands. It's absolutely easy to avoid and no amount of heewing or hawing is going to put that anywhere but in the province of individual responsibility.
Are you going to even try and establish a causal link between homosexuality and domestic violence?

Am I the one who brought up domestic violence?

Let me look...

Nope. I didn't think so.

Or of your inferior communication skills.
I know which side I'm betting my chips on.

Chips? Is that what I hear rattling around in your head?

Everybody takes risks. When you fly in a plane, drive a car, leave the house you are taking a certain amount of risk. Why do you assume that the risk a rational, free adult chooses to expose themselves to is in any way your business?

Because I care about people. And I don't want them taking unnecessary risks where the reward is not great enough, or non-existent.

There are also those who are perferctly honest and committed. There are straight people who lie and cheat, too. What of it? How does that change anything?

It doesn't.

 

[Vendergood]

People who support homosexuality are actually guilty of apathy and hatred of homosexuals.

:banana:

 

[PlastikBuddha]

Am I the one who brought up domestic violence?

Let me look...

Nope. I didn't think so.

I brought it up to help the fill the empty space in our little back-and-forth where you are supposed to set forth your position.
It was mentioned earlier in the thread.
:mrt::duh:

Chips? Is that what I hear rattling around in your head?

:nono:
Your kung-fu is weak.

Because I care about people. And I don't want them taking unnecessary risks where the reward is not great enough, or non-existent.

You don't get to make those decisions for other people. By all means; educate them about those risks, encourage them to think seriously about the risk/reward ratio, preach to them about the sinfullness of their desires if you think it necessary and prudent.
Don't patronize an entire segment of our society by pretending that they aren't qualified to decide how to live their own lives, however.

It doesn't.

Just another little fragment of random trivia brought into the flow of conversation for grins, eh?

 

[Lighthouse]

You don't get to make those decisions for other people. By all means; educate them about those risks, encourage them to think seriously about the risk/reward ratio, preach to them about the sinfullness of their desires if you think it necessary and prudent.
Don't patronize an entire segment of our society by pretending that they aren't qualified to decide how to live their own lives, however.

I never said anything about making others' decisions for them.

Just another little fragment of random trivia brought into the flow of conversation for grins, eh?

Look! A plane! Oops, you missed it. It went right over your head.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

I never said anything about making others' decisions for them.

When push comes to shove it seems you never really say anything about anything.
Why do you bother?

 

[Flipper]

Look! A plane! Oops, you missed it. It went right over your head.

His eyes were probably covered by his facepalm.

 

[Jefferson]

Stop making Bob into a prophet.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

Stop making Bob into a prophet.

I think Bob's predictive powers are seriously called into doubt if he predicts the decline of ToE in favor of any kind of creationism.
He needn't worry himself about the hardships of precognition.