NationStates Jolt Archive

So I was at a coffeeshop a few days ago studying and in walked an 80-year old man. He seemed like a nice enough guy, up until he refused to talk to me because he thought I was black. I felt lucky though, because he picked out a guy who was also studying and started a loud conversation that everyone could hear.

What struck me as a little odd about this guy was that, throughout the conversation, he referred to women only as 'females'. At one point he explained his frustration at having to put up with females invading all of the things that defined manhood, and the effect it was having on today's boys. Not two sentences later, he sounded off against homosexuality, arguing that it was a choice and that giving gay guys more rights would only encourage such behaviour amongst normal guys like him. And in an instant the inescapable dawned on me...

Why did he believe normal guys like him would lay down their manhood and pursue homosexuality if given the chance? I for one certainly wouldn't. It's just not me, and I usually don't pretend to be things that I'm not. Also, what was the underlying cause of his emotional detachment from women?

I'm no psychoanalyst, but it was like he was on the down low or something. People think only black guys are on DL, but it is probably representative of a much larger community. I can see how such people could blame the other sex for their predicament. I'd probably be pissed off too if I had kids with someone I never even found attractive. If the hardcore homophobes out there really are themselves homosexuals, that would be a very sad example of dramatic irony.


ok I realize this issue has the potential to go nuclear, so I'm asking that people try to remain civil here. And if flaming does start, please try to douse it.

How do you know "he refused to talk to me because he thought I was black?" :confused:

Scientists already did a study on this issue. They found that yes, homophobes have homosexual tendencies.

;) maybe because other guy was white as bread! :D

isnt that the idea behind being homophobic? that one is deep down worried that they will "go gay all of a sudden"? why else care what anyone else does "in bed"? i dont give a second thought about the sexual practices of my straight neighbors why care about my gay neighbors unless im worried that it might affect ME somehow?

You know what would be funny? Go up to a homophobe in and say, "You didn't call me last night.", or something along those lines.

isnt that the idea behind being homophobic? that one is deep down worried that they will "go gay all of a sudden"? why else care what anyone else does "in bed"? i dont give a second thought about the sexual practices of my straight neighbors why care about my gay neighbors unless im worried that it might affect ME somehow?
I know what you mean.

I actually (in a moment of utter and blatant weakness) dated someone like that. The mentality is SO overbearing. They can't even take a gay joke. They are really anal (no pun intended) about it. I remember he was very protective of his sexuality. It was so bad that he refused to go to the gay pride parade with me! I went with my fatehr (who is straight) and there were plenty of straight and not straight people there.

How do you know "he refused to talk to me because he thought I was black?" :confused:

Yeah I forgot to explain that. I said 'hi' to him and he just stared at me. So big deal, I thought, not everyone is talkative. Then the first thing he did when he sat down was start a conversation with the guy next to him, talking about 'black people these days'...

That goes down in my book as racist. He was a living anachronism though, and from what I could tell the guy he was talking to seemed more than a little embarassed. So I just considered myself lucky.

Hmn, I'm going on a limb here and guessing that is the reason why you said that... :rolleyes:

It's worse in high school.

If you don't get a date with someone of the opposite sex, you're labelled as gay. No matter how horny you were to get a girl, if you couldn't get one, you were labelled as gay by the other guys, and that in turn kiboshed your chances with the ladies even more. Vicious ****ing cycle. I hated it.

God knows, I learned to hate anything the least bit gay directed at me for that alone. I have a gay roommate. If he hits on me, even as a joke, I tell him to back off instead of laughing it off. I don't let him hug me, and I rarely let him approach me from behind. I like the guy, but being labelled as one of them for most of my high school experience makes me indirectly pissed off at them.

You want to quash homophobia? Give straight guys more of a chance to date and mate. That'll loosen 'em up! Either that... or everyone can keep their sexuality to themselves, straight people included, so that there is no competition, no chiding, no hard feelings, until they are married. Of course it'll piss off the people who are horny as hell and have no problem scoring, but they don't matter. THey deserve to be knocked down to MY level!

You want to quash homophobia? Give straight guys more of a chance to date and mate. That'll loosen 'em up! Either that... or everyone can keep their sexuality to themselves, straight people included, so that there is no competition, no chiding, no hard feelings, until they are married. Of course it'll piss off the people who are horny as hell and have no problem scoring, but they don't matter. THey deserve to be knocked down to MY level!
Hear, hear!!

So I was at a coffeeshop a few days ago studying and in walked an 80-year old man. He seemed like a nice enough guy, up until he refused to talk to me because he thought I was black. I felt lucky though, because he picked out a guy who was also studying and started a loud conversation that everyone could hear.

What struck me as a little odd about this guy was that, throughout the conversation, he referred to women only as 'females'. At one point he explained his frustration at having to put up with females invading all of the things that defined manhood, and the effect it was having on today's boys. Not two sentences later, he sounded off against homosexuality, arguing that it was a choice and that giving gay guys more rights would only encourage such behaviour amongst normal guys like him. And in an instant the inescapable dawned on me...

Why did he believe normal guys like him would lay down their manhood and pursue homosexuality if given the chance? I for one certainly wouldn't. It's just not me, and I usually don't pretend to be things that I'm not. Also, what was the underlying cause of his emotional detachment from women?

I'm no psychoanalyst, but it was like he was on the down low or something. People think only black guys are on DL, but it is probably representative of a much larger community. I can see how such people could blame the other sex for their predicament. I'd probably be pissed off too if I had kids with someone I never even found attractive. If the hardcore homophobes out there really are themselves homosexuals, that would be a very sad example of dramatic irony.


ok I realize this issue has the potential to go nuclear, so I'm asking that people try to remain civil here. And if flaming does start, please try to douse it.

I thought only gay homosexuals hung out in "coffee shops"? Back in my day we called those gay places "bath houses". Be sure to visit the glory hole while you visit there.

BTW studying is for the library.

gay homosexuals

As opposed to straight homosexuals.

So I was at a coffeeshop a few days ago studying and in walked an 80-year old man. He seemed like a nice enough guy, up until he refused to talk to me because he thought I was black. I felt lucky though, because he picked out a guy who was also studying and started a loud conversation that everyone could hear.

What struck me as a little odd about this guy was that, throughout the conversation, he referred to women only as 'females'. At one point he explained his frustration at having to put up with females invading all of the things that defined manhood, and the effect it was having on today's boys. Not two sentences later, he sounded off against homosexuality, arguing that it was a choice and that giving gay guys more rights would only encourage such behaviour amongst normal guys like him. And in an instant the inescapable dawned on me...

Why did he believe normal guys like him would lay down their manhood and pursue homosexuality if given the chance? I for one certainly wouldn't. It's just not me, and I usually don't pretend to be things that I'm not. Also, what was the underlying cause of his emotional detachment from women?

I'm no psychoanalyst, but it was like he was on the down low or something. People think only black guys are on DL, but it is probably representative of a much larger community. I can see how such people could blame the other sex for their predicament. I'd probably be pissed off too if I had kids with someone I never even found attractive. If the hardcore homophobes out there really are themselves homosexuals, that would be a very sad example of dramatic irony.


ok I realize this issue has the potential to go nuclear, so I'm asking that people try to remain civil here. And if flaming does start, please try to douse it.

I wouldn't let that get to you. If this guy is 80 and he STILL isn't secure...I wouldn't take ANYTHING he says seriously.

If straight guys weren't too afraid to try sex with their own gender, they might discover that a man knows best what a man wants/needs. You'll never get a better bj anywhere - not even from a woman ;) Most just are too sissy to experiment.

I thought only gay homosexuals hung out in "coffee shops"?
They do. So do homophobes. Thus, homophobes are actually gay themselves.

Ein Deutscher']If straight guys weren't too afraid to try sex with their own gender, they might discover that a man knows best what a man wants/needs. You'll never get a better bj anywhere - not even from a woman ;) Most just are too sissy to experiment.
Ah, silly little gays. I can't just choose to enjoy gay sex. If I could, I would.

I thought only gay homosexuals hung out in "coffee shops"? Back in my day we called those gay places "bath houses". Be sure to visit the glory hole while you visit there.

BTW studying is for the library.

Really? What day was that?

They do. So do homophobes. Thus, homophobes are actually gay themselves.


So someone who hates blacks are actually blacks themselves. Shoot, I guess my mirrors haven't been working all of these years. Here is an updated pic of yours truely. (http://www.besmark.com/minstrel.jpg) Wow, I'm glad I finally came out of the black closet. Thanks swim. ;)

Really? What day was that?

Anyday, 1965.

Ah, silly little gays. I can't just choose to enjoy gay sex. If I could, I would.
Have you tried it? :p

gay homosexuals
As opposed to straight homosexuals.

Gay heterosexuals. :)

So someone who hates blacks are actually blacks themselves. Shoot, I guess my mirrors haven't been working all of these years. Here is an updated pic of yours truely. (http://www.besmark.com/minstrel.jpg) Wow, I'm glad I finally came out of the black closet. Thanks swim. ;)

Why do you hate black people?

Ein Deutscher']Have you tried it? :p
Not yet, but I am not attracted to men.

Ein Deutscher']Have you tried it? :p

Do you always drive the wrong way on a one way street.? What are you going to do when you get into your "golden years" and can't keep your stools from falling out after years of rectum abuse?

Why do you hate black people?

Do you really need an answer?

So someone who hates blacks are actually blacks themselves. Shoot, I guess my mirrors haven't been working all of these years. Here is an updated pic of yours truely. (http://www.besmark.com/minstrel.jpg) Wow, I'm glad I finally came out of the black closet. Thanks swim. ;)

First of all, the fact that one type of bigotry is often derived from the fear of being homosexual does not mean that all bigotry is derived from similar ideas.

Second of all, if your family has been in the US for any significant number of generations, chances are that you *do* have some black ethnicity in you, whether it shows or not.

First of all, the fact that one type of bigotry is often derived from the fear of being homosexual does not mean that all bigotry is derived from similar ideas.

Second of all, if your family has been in the US for any significant number of generations, chances are that you *do* have some black ethnicity in you, whether it shows or not.

Ok, Freud, thanks for explaining hate to me.

Second, I challenge you to find any black blood in my veins. The Wadds have been here in the US since 1740.

I thought only gay homosexuals hung out in "coffee shops"? Back in my day we called those gay places "bath houses". Be sure to visit the glory hole while you visit there.

BTW studying is for the library.
You know, you'd be really funny if you didn't take yourself so seriously.

[QUOTE=Deleuze]You know, you'd be really funny if you didn't take yourself so seriously.[/QUOTE

You know, you'd be really funny if you didn't suck.

[QUOTE=Deleuze]You know, you'd be really funny if you didn't take yourself so seriously.[/QUOTE

You know, you'd be really funny if you were humorous.

Ein Deutscher']If straight guys weren't too afraid to try sex with their own gender, they might discover that a man knows best what a man wants/needs. You'll never get a better bj anywhere - not even from a woman ;) Most just are too sissy to experiment.
That's an intelligent and openminded perspective.

You know, you'd be really funny if you were humorous.
Besides writing perhaps the most circular comment I've ever seen, you're completely missing the point of my comment - that if you were trying to be satricial, you'd be quite funny. The thing is, it seems that the antiquated and anachronistic views that you espouse aren't jokes. You seem to think that degrading other people and placing them in a category of second class citizens is still in vogue - in short, you're good at pretending that certain events in American history just didn't hapen. You know, the whole Civil War thing, equal rights movements, etc. Way to go selective memory.

On that loose stools comment, you know that could happen anyway, right? You might as well say why ever get in an auto because you could be in a fatal car accident one day. For that matter, since childbirth can lead to a damaged urinary tract, you could just as easily say that heterosexual sex should be avoided.

Besides writing perhaps the most circular comment I've ever seen, you're completely missing the point of my comment - that if you were trying to be satricial, you'd be quite funny. The thing is, it seems that the antiquated and anachronistic views that you espouse aren't jokes. You seem to think that degrading other people and placing them in a category of second class citizens is still in vogue - in short, you're good at pretending that certain events in American history just didn't hapen. You know, the whole Civil War thing, equal rights movements, etc. Way to go selective memory.

Yeah, I have no idea of what happened in American History. I must have slept through it. I never said my beliefs were in vogue.

BTW WTF are you talking about?

On that loose stools comment, you know that could happen anyway, right? You might as well say why ever get in an auto because you could be in a fatal car accident one day. For that matter, since childbirth can lead to a damaged urinary tract, you could just as easily say that heterosexual sex should be avoided.

You have a better chance of having issues back there if someone is ramming you in the anus on a regular basis. Ask any doctor if anal sex is really all that great for the anus.

Yeah, I have no idea of what happened in American History. I must have slept through it. I never said my beliefs were in vogue.

BTW WTF are you talking about?
The simplified version of a philosophical attack on your positions. It's a way of using both natural rights/Enlightenment philosophy and Foucauldian criticism as a way of attacking bigoted positions. I just didn't feel like mentioning them by name or explaining the specific reasons for each.

The dumbed down version of a philosophical attack on your positions. It's a way of using both natural rights/Enlightenment philosophy and Foucauldian criticism as a way of attacking bigoted positions. I just didn't feel like mentioning them by name or explaining the specific reasons for each.

Yeah, you wouldn't want to do that since I'm a backwoods, ignorant bigot, and I really wouldn't understand anything you type.

Yeah, you wouldn't want to do that since I'm a backwoods, ignorant bigot, and I really wouldn't understand anything you type.

*shrug* At least you admit it.

Now, if you would kindly provide your entire family tree, since you claim that you know for a fact that there is no "black blood" in you...

*shrug* At least you admit it.

Now, if you would kindly provide your entire family tree, since you claim that you know for a fact that there is no "black blood" in you...

BTW-how would a family tree show blacks. Are them apples black?

Sure my family lived in the south, and owned numerous slaves, but that doesn't mean they got into my bloodline. Yes, I'm sure there were some rapings of slaves going on, but who didn't do that back then. Even if "two-toned" children were the result, it does not mean they were in my bloodline. They were just my ancestors' side action.

You have a better chance of having issues back there if someone is ramming you in the anus on a regular basis. Ask any doctor if anal sex is really all that great for the anus.

Ask any doctor if eating a Big Mac and fries is really good for you. You want to argue against that too?

Coming right down to it, NO sex is really good for you. It's been scientifically proven that neautering can extend lifespan and improve overall health if done early enough (less hormones running mad through your body, less stress on the system). Also, testicular cancer ceases to be a danger. Are you going to get your kids neutered to prevent testicular cancer? because that's way worse than wearing adult diapers in your 70s.

Ask any doctor if eating a Big Mac and fries is really good for you. You want to argue against that too?

Coming right down to it, NO sex is really good for you. It's been scientifically proven that neautering can extend lifespan and improve overall health if done early enough (less hormones running mad through your body, less stress on the system). Also, testicular cancer ceases to be a danger. Are you going to get your kids neutered to prevent testicular cancer? because that's way worse than wearing adult diapers in your 70s.

We are talking about gay butt sex. Not anything else.

Sure my family lived in the south, and owned numerous slaves, but that doesn't mean they got into my bloodline. Yes, I'm sure there were some rapings of slaves going on, but who didn't do that back then. Even if "two-toned" children were the result, it does not mean they were in my bloodline. They were just my ancestors' side action.

You seem to forget/not know how those who could "pass" as white were often encouraged to leave their families and do so. Unless you traced back every branch on your family tree and had kept track of every ethnicity, you have no idea whether or not one of your ancestors married someone who was "passing".

Coming right down to it, NO sex is really good for you. It's been scientifically proven that neautering can extend lifespan and improve overall health if done early enough (less hormones running mad through your body, less stress on the system).

Actually, biologically, doing away with hormones is generally *bad* for your system. Eunuchs generally lived shorter lives than their counterparts and women who have hysterectomies have all sorts of health problems that result.

It's good to know that gay butt sex exists in a vacuum for you. I take it that you have no problem with lesbians, then?

You seem to forget/not know how those who could "pass" as white were often encouraged to leave their families and do so. Unless you traced back every branch on your family tree and had kept track of every ethnicity, you have no idea whether or not one of your ancestors married someone who was "passing".

Yes, I did extensive research at Duke University, and can say with 100% confidence, that yes my bloodline is 100% white.

It's good to know that gay butt sex exists in a vacuum for you. I take it that you have no problem with lesbians, then?

I do have a problem with lesbos too.

Yeah, you wouldn't want to do that since I'm a backwoods, ignorant bigot, and I really wouldn't understand anything you type.
Actually, I was just lazy. I'll go more in depth now.

Natural Rights: Each individual has an inherent worth and dignity accorded to them simply because they're human beings. Therefore, discriminating against them cannot be justified, because all humans posess an equal amount of human dignity.

Foucauldian: When we place different human beings in different categories based on gender, race, or sexual orientation, the state becomes the arbiter of human worth and value. When it becomes the state's place to decide which people have worth, it also becomes the state's place to decide who's worthless. Therefore, the state gains the power to exterminate anyone by labelling them as an enemy to the state.

Michael Dillon/Ontological: Calculating human lives is inherently dangerous, because if a value can be placed on something, it can also be devaluated to the point of worthlessness - justifying its extermination.

Actually, biologically, doing away with hormones is generally *bad* for your system. Eunuchs generally lived shorter lives than their counterparts and women who have hysterectomies have all sorts of health problems that result.

You're talking about neutering later in life, which causes problems because of the sudden absence of hormones. Also, a lot of eunuchs were having their alterations done in such a way that infection was a major problem, and early death could be associated with that rather than castration.

Hysterectomies are an entirely different issue because that's an invasive procedure that requires the abdominal cavity to be breached and internal organs to be removed. Anytime that a person gets cut open and has bits pulled out, there are bound to be some complications. And these surgeries are also done later in life. When's the last time that you heard of an eight-year-oldgetting a hysterectomy? This usually happens to women over forty, and many complications related to menopausal symptoms.

Actually, I was just lazy. I'll go more in depth now.

Natural Rights: Each individual has an inherent worth and dignity accorded to them simply because they're human beings. Therefore, discriminating against them cannot be justified, because all humans posess an equal amount of human dignity.

Foucauldian: When we place different human beings in different categories based on gender, race, or sexual orientation, the state becomes the arbiter of human worth and value. When it becomes the state's place to decide which people have worth, it also becomes the state's place to decide who's worthless. Therefore, the state gains the power to exterminate anyone by labelling them as an enemy to the state.

Michael Dillon/Ontological: Calculating human lives is inherently dangerous, because if a value can be placed on something, it can also be devaluated to the point of worthlessness - justifying its extermination.

That almost made my head explode as it was hard to comprehend. But I do believe that human lives can be given a value. I won't get into whom is worth what, because you would object.

What's the issue with "lesbos", Wadd? They don't want anything to do with you, so it's not like they're going to bother you.

Hysterectomies are an entirely different issue because that's an invasive procedure that requires the abdominal cavity to be breached and internal organs to be removed. Anytime that a person gets cut open and has bits pulled out, there are bound to be some complications. And these surgeries are also done later in life. When's the last time that you heard of an eight-year-oldgetting a hysterectomy? This usually happens to women over forty, and many complications related to menopausal symptoms.

I am speaking specifically of complications due to lack of hormones, not to infections/etc.

Hormones do a lot more in the body than control sexual traits. For instance, estrogen is vasoprotective. Women who miss periods (even those who never have them) are at greater risk for osteoporosis. Progesterone, in some cases, seems to protect against Alzheimer's.

What's the issue with "lesbos", Wadd? They don't want anything to do with you, so it's not like they're going to bother you.

They are abominations just like their gay male counterparts. They are a waste of oxygen on this planet. They don't reproduce on their own without medical assistance. They serve no purpose other then to take up space, and have silly parades.

They are abominations just like their gay male counterparts. They are a waste of oxygen on this planet. They don't reproduce on their own without medical assistance. They serve no purpose other then to take up space, and have silly parades.


Little over-the-top, aren't you?

I am speaking specifically of complications due to lack of hormones, not to infections/etc.

Hormones do a lot more in the body than control sexual traits. For instance, estrogen is vasoprotective. Women who miss periods (even those who never have them) are at greater risk for osteoporosis. Progesterone, in some cases, seems to protect against Alzheimer's.

You're right, although I haven't heard of Progesterone protecting against Alzheimer's. But remember that women who never have periods have something going on in their systems that is preventing a natural biological function. One big reason for a girl never having a period is an unnaturally low percentage of body fat, often due to an eating disorder or thyroid problems. Athletes miss periods because of low body fat. One could imagine that virtual starvation or extreme amounts of athletic activity could lead to health issues including osteoporosis.

In any case, there's more to osteoporosis than hormones, as some synthetic estrogen prescribed to menopausal and post-menopausal women has negatively impacted bone density rather than the opposite.

Little over-the-top, aren't you?

Maybe to you, but there are many like me. I live in a nation where I have the right to be as over the top as I wish.

Maybe to you, but there are many like me. I live in a nation where I have the right to be as over the top as I wish.


That really doesn't limit the number of nations. Like at all. I don't know what point you were trying to make there.

And just because there are many does not mean it is correct. Numbers do not translate out to legitimacy.

They are abominations just like their gay male counterparts. They are a waste of oxygen on this planet. They don't reproduce on their own without medical assistance. They serve no purpose other then to take up space, and have silly parades.

I'll skip the abomination comment because that's not worth addressing. Many straight couples can't reproduce on their own without medical assistance, in fact, 7% of males are sterile due to genetic faults in the gradually decaying Y-chromosome. That's 7% of men who, by your definition, are a waste of oxygen. The elderly can't reproduce on their own at all, so I take it that you want to see them terminated too. And let's face it, we hardly have a shortage of people on this planet. Do we really need more? Isn't it GOOD that some people aren't filling up the remaining space?

Oh, Johnny Wadd! You humorous, humorous person!

I take it you consider anyone who cannot reproduce to be an abomination? Like couples who happen to have fertility problems (like Monica and Chandler)? Like all those godforsaken cellibate priests? Like old people? Like deformed people who can't do it?

I'll skip the abomination comment because that's not worth addressing. Many straight couples can't reproduce on their own without medical assistance, in fact, 7% of males are sterile due to genetic faults in the gradually decaying Y-chromosome. That's 7% of men who, by your definition, are a waste of oxygen. The elderly can't reproduce on their own at all, so I take it that you want to see them terminated too. And let's face it, we hardly have a shortage of people on this planet. Do we really need more? Isn't it GOOD that some people aren't filling up the remaining space?

That leaves 93% who can reproduce.

Like I said, I have a whole list of "people" who shouldn't take up space.

Yes, we need more people. We have no idea how many this planet will support. Those who can't cope will be gone.

I'll skip the abomination comment because that's not worth addressing. Many straight couples can't reproduce on their own without medical assistance, in fact, 7% of males are sterile due to genetic faults in the gradually decaying Y-chromosome. That's 7% of men who, by your definition, are a waste of oxygen. The elderly can't reproduce on their own at all, so I take it that you want to see them terminated too. And let's face it, we hardly have a shortage of people on this planet. Do we really need more? Isn't it GOOD that some people aren't filling up the remaining space?

Elderly women are incapable of reproduction since their eggs are also elderly. Ask Rod Steiger or Tony Randal about having kids...at 80. Also, elderly do not chose to be elderly...unlike the heterosexually challenged :D

SEAS

That really doesn't limit the number of nations. Like at all. I don't know what point you were trying to make there.

And just because there are many does not mean it is correct. Numbers do not translate out to legitimacy.

WTF?? I was just stating I have a right to say what I want to. When did I say the US was greater then everywhere else?

Way to try to read into a statement. I take it you're also a rocket surgeon?

Hold on, you want more people, but you want to execute at least 7% of the population?

WTF?? I was just stating I have a right to say what I want to. When did I say the US was greater then everywhere else?
IT is called connotation. By claiming you live in a nation where you have the right to be as over the top as you wish, you imply that there must be at last one nation where being over the top is not allowed. Simple logic really.

Way to try to read into a statement. I take it you're also a rocket surgeon?

I never once mentioned the United States or any nationalist superority complex. Seems like you are the one hard of reading.

IT is called connotation. By claiming you live in a nation where you have the right to be as over the top as you wish, you imply that there must be at last one nation where being over the top is not allowed. Simple logic really.



I never once mentioned the United States or any nationalist superority complex. Seems like you are the one hard of reading.


Try being over the top in Iran. You'll be locked up. So whatever arguement you were trying to make is f'd up.

You never once made any sense either, so I used what is called connotation.

Hold on, you want more people, but you want to execute at least 7% of the population?


Yes, I want certain specific people to keep reproducing.

Try being over the top in Iran. You'll be locked up. So whatever arguement you were trying to make is f'd up.
Depends on which direction of over-the-top it is. They are easily allowed to be extreme-religious, or (like yourself) over-the-top homophobic. So once again your point has failed.

You never once made any sense either, so I used what is called connotation.
Difference is mine had direct connotations from your statement; yours has little basis in my own wording. Congratulations on not being able to analyze implied statements properly.

Elderly women are incapable of reproduction since their eggs are also elderly. Ask Rod Steiger or Tony Randal about having kids...at 80. Also, elderly do not chose to be elderly...unlike the heterosexually challenged :D

SEAS

Heterosexually challenged?

Elderly women can't have children because there is a biological and social benefit to having non-reproducing females around to care for children between infancy and puberty while the reproducing females are busy with bearing and nourishing new infants. Elderly women could probably continue to have children if hormone levels didn't drop off at the internal cue of menopause, but the children would probably be so unlikely to survive that there's little point.

You're right that some males are capable of producing a sufficient quantity of sperm to impregnate a fertile female. BUT sperm count decreases with advanced age, and the quality of the sperm is inferior to sperm produced earlier in life. That is, older men produce less sperm less often, and what sperm they do produce has a higher percentage of disfunctional and/or mutated sperm. Also, a lot of men require medical aids such as Viagra to deliver the sperm, so why waste the time or money on them? Besides, most men, even in developed countries like the US, don't live to see 80. Built-in obsolescence kicks in before then.

It doesn't matter anyway. If breeding is the only concern then 50% of men could easily be done away with, since men don't need to invest any real time in reproduction and they could be passed around. Hey, with all the sperm banks around, American men are pretty much obsolete anyway. ;)

Depends on which direction of over-the-top it is. They are easily allowed to be extreme-religious, or (like yourself) over-the-top homophobic. So once again your point has failed.


Difference is mine had direct connotations from your statement; yours has little basis in my own wording. Congratulations on not being able to analyze implied statements properly.

Try being over the top in a homosexual way. You'll have a spear up your bum and coming out of your shoulder.

You can't really have direct "connotations" in typed conversation. You can't really tell tone. "Implied Statements"? Here is a quick example of your fallacy:

"Bob, please turn off the light."

"Bob, please turn off the light."

Now can you tell in which one I was angry at Bob. Using an "implied statement" you should be able to. :rolleyes:

Try being over the top in a homosexual way. You'll have a spear up your bum and coming out of your shoulder.
We (you and I) were never talking about being homosexual. See the first post in this chain and that it was directly about your homophobia.

You can't really have direct "connotations" in typed conversation. You can't really tell tone.
Have you ever taken any such english course in your life? Writing carries as many connotations as tone, much based on the choice of words.
Example:
"Billy, be quiet."
"Billy, shut up."
Both mean exactly the same thing, yet you tell me which one is the harsher and therefore implicating of anger.

It's a sad day for mankind when we consider our most important function to be making more people.

It's a sad day for mankind when we consider our most important function to be making more people.

So true.

Do you always drive the wrong way on a one way street.? What are you going to do when you get into your "golden years" and can't keep your stools from falling out after years of rectum abuse?
Doesn't seem to be a problem for elderly homosexuals.

We are talking about gay butt sex. Not anything else.
What about straight anal sex?

Yes, we need more people. We have no idea how many this planet will support. Those who can't cope will be gone.
We don't need more people. Food is being consumed faster than it can be grown, and this is a world where billions go without enough food.

Even liberal estimates of how many people this planet can support almost never go about 12 billion. We're already at 6.4 billion. It was 5 billion 10 years ago. Do you really think it's a good idea for all humans to be breeding like rabbits?

Also, elderly do not chose to be elderly...unlike the heterosexually challenged
Gays don't choose to be gay either. Why would they?

Hold on, there - we actually have a surplus of food overall, and yet people are still starving.

Hold on, there - we actually have a surplus of food overall, and yet people are still starving.
You just mentioned humanity's greatest shame.

Absolutely. 30,000 kids starving to death each day.

That almost made my head explode as it was hard to comprehend. But I do believe that human lives can be given a value. I won't get into whom is worth what, because you would object.

See, I was challenging the concept of being able to assign value to lives. So far, you've provided zero justification for calculative thought. So until you can give a reason why your perspective is good, I'll assume I won this argument.

Absolutely. 30,000 kids starving to death each day.
Shit. And here we are arguing about homosexuality?

I do have a problem with lesbos too.
Good for you, as long you're not shoving your problem down into our throats.

They are abominations just like their gay male counterparts. They are a waste of oxygen on this planet. They don't reproduce on their own without medical assistance. They serve no purpose other then to take up space, and have silly parades.
Homosexuals can reproduce. For instance, myself, if I have an unprotected sex with a lady, I am sure I can get her pregnant. Another instance, the previous governor of New Jersey, who came out as a homosexual last summer, has a family.

Shit. And here we are arguing about homosexuality?

Yup. I say screw the abortionists and anti-abortionists, and screw the homosexuals and the homophobes, first make sure everyone on this planet has enough to eat everyday. Then maybe we can settle other issues.

Johnny Wadd, you waste oxygen on your stupid tirades. If they are taking all your precious O2, then get on a colony ship. Or just steal a Spaceshuttle and point it at the moon.

:eek:

I would've punted his 80 year old ass out of the place!

Absolutely. 30,000 kids starving to death each day.

Damn. That was the daily death toll during the most ferocious days of WWII.

:eek:

I would've punted his 80 year old ass out of the place!

Not without me getting in a few good kicks first.