NationStates Jolt Archive

Never been hit on, full stop. So I doubt the gays are interested. I'd take any compliment I could get, however. :p After all, if women are often attracted to gays (as conventional wisdom seems to have it) and gays were attracted to me, well, that'd be worth *something* at least vicariously, eh? :)

How you doin?

How you doin?

Not too bad, thanks! :p

I'm gonna go with, they don't want to be rejected by both genders.

All the guys I have ever heard talk about "oh, I don't want the gays checking me out" have been utterly rejectable slack jawed homophobic red necks.

But where will the fetus gestate?!

In a box.

Your 'universal acceptance' is no such thing,


I think you are confusing two points. The 'universal acceptance' idea is only connected to the 'we are all sexual' idea.

...and it is that I wish you to see. You've essentially stated, 'well I'm like this, therefore everyone is like this'.


I sure as hell have not.

That you actually believe this to be acceptance in any form, universal or not is baffling in the extreme.


Okay. Your strawman, you can choose to be baffled.


You can sing kumbya all you want, claim that because you feel no connection to a 'sexual orientation'


I'm pretty sure I didn't say that either.

(despite your claims to be bisexual),


Fass claimed I am bisexual. I didn't.

This is pretty sad - you've moved on from creating stramen from wholecloth, and you're now presenting Fass's claims as mine.

or ethnicity, or what have you....that's fine. Good. But when you further go on to tell everyone else that they must do as you do, it's fucking disgusting.


I haven't told anyone to do anything.


I am not going to applaud you for 'helping out the fags'. As I said...you get the respect due to you and nothing more for that.


Okay. I told you already, I don't give a shit what other people think. When I've done the things I've done, I've done it because it was the right thing to do - not for some sort of acceptance. 'Helping out the fags' is your terminology, not mine.

When you turn around and say "all right then, I've helped you out, now act like this, or believe this,


I didnt do that.


or 'you're not really gay'",


No one is 'really gay'.

your credibility is lost. You are in fact behaving as poorly as the people who wish homosexuals would just 'tone it down and not be so obvious about it'.


Bullshit. Even if I had presented the arguments you attribute to me, there'd be much less harm inherent in it, than in refusing rights or human dignity to people just because of their sexuality.

That's just weak. I hope you know that, really.


You don't get to deny people their sexual orientation/ethnicity/etc and then go around claiming 'look at me! I'm all universally accepting, please, shower me with the praise I so deserve'.

Like I said, I don't give a damn what people think. I'm pretty sure I've not asked for anyone to shower me with praise.

Divisions based on sexuality are damaging. Divisions based on race are damaging. I'll not apologise for looking beyond the veneer and identifying that, beneath it all, we are basically all the same. Faced with the choice of a homogenous culture, and a future of ongoing war, homogenous doesn't seem that bad.

And - I've denied people nothing. You are welcome to call yourself 'gay' or 'straight' or whatever. You are welcome to be almost entirely 'gay' or 'straight' in your active orientation. That doesn't make those terms anything more than a convenient label.

Never been hit on, full stop.

Maybe you're so attractive that nobody thinks he or she even stands a chance, so they just don't bother?

False. What is being said to you is that you don't get to make demands of a certain group simply because you have 'helped them out'. And that is what you are doing.


No, it's really not. My 'helping' isn't related to the central point.

You are demanding they discard notions of 'straight' 'het' or whatever, because you don't feel those terms are inclusive enough.


Not true. I didn;t say they weren't inclusive enough - I hold that they are nothing more than a convenience that can - at best - describe only your history or current state of play. And even then, they are often wrong, because most people aren't honest about their orientation - even with themselves.

You want them to use more vague 'inclusive' terms.


I didn't say that.

And frankly, you don't get to make those demands and call it inclusion, when it specifically denies people their sexuality.


I didn't make any demands. And it's utter tripe that it denies anyone their sexuality. Just because I say there is no such thing as 'gay' or 'straight' makes no difference to whether you bed boys or girls.


You have presented your ideal version of 'how life should be' as fact. You have denied that there are straight, or gay people. Your demand is that we accept your philosophy because it is 'true'.


There are no 'straight' or 'gay' people. There are just people. And some of them like to interlock with some people, and some with others.


Your role is limited in that you don’t get to define other people without their consent. And in saying there are no gay or straight people, you are doing just that.

Utter bullshit on every level. I get to define people with or without their consent, just like everyone else does. You and Fass have both defined me as bisexual in this thread. Physician, heal thyself.

You confuse yourself with an authority on the matter with whom we should all agree unconditionally.

Claiming that 'we do not' even though 'we are inherently able' to change our gender,


You said we can't. I said we don't.


or our sexuality is as fucking assinine as people who say you should just choose to not be gay please thanks.


Whatever. Your strawman.

And yes, that is what you are saying.


Repeating it ten times makes it true?

This theory of yours, that we are all inherently able to float around in a sea of ambiguous sexuality is unsubstantiated,


I'm not sure I said that either.

and offensive.


Like I said, I don't give a damn for popularity. I'm not going to pretend the Emperor is wearing clothes just to avoid 'offending' anyone. Anyone who WANTS to pretend he's not naked, is welcome to - but has no right to get offended by me doing otherwise.

That we are not all as cool as you with our ambiguous attractions is implied. That we could actually be as cool as you but choose not to is as much as stated.


Or not.


Boy, you're doing wonders for 'the cause'.

Which 'cause' would that be?

I think his position is more, "Everyone CAN have babies, not everyone CHOOSES to have babies. What? That's not possible? Quite shitting on my universal acceptance!"

Perhaps this is the cause of our confrontation.

The argument you attribute to me, was invented by you?

(My argument can only really be compared to this scenario if we all can have babies, but some people try to deny it).

And GnI certainly isn't as much man as Arnie to be able to handle that, true.

Saucer of milk for table six. Miaow!

most people aren't honest about their orientation - even with themselves.


This is the sort of bullshit neesika is talking about, you've just made a massive unsupported assertion, but that doesn't matter since there is no way you could ever support that anyway. The only thing you have is your own personal experience, which means shit. Asking someone to accept an unfalsifiable hypothesis like that as fact is ludicrous.

Maybe you're so attractive that nobody thinks he or she even stands a chance, so they just don't bother?

Now THAT is optimism, baby.

Maybe you're so attractive that nobody thinks he or she even stands a chance, so they just don't bother?

more likely is his insecurity gives off a weird vibe. People won't hit on you if they get that vibe because they think you will freak out.

This is the sort of bullshit neesika is talking about, you've just made a massive unsupported assertion, but that doesn't matter since there is no way you could ever support that anyway. The only thing you have is your own personal experience, which means shit. Asking someone to accept an unfalsifiable hypothesis like that as fact is ludicrous.

On this very thread, we have had people talk about their sexual attractions or experiences that are counter to the sexuality they claim for themselves.

Thus - people are not honest, even with themselves. Not a stretch, and I don't need to refer to my own experiences to 'prove' it.

Within the scope of my personal experiences, I have known a lot of guys that consider themselves 'straight' (and would arguably fight to the death to defend that).... but that sometimes blow other guys when they are drunk, for example... or who have had same-sex episodes when they were in certain conditions... college, hunting-trip, etc.

According to Fass (as far as I can gather), you're only actually 'gay' if you fuck your on gender... which would make those people 'gay', or - at least 'bi'.

I'm sure we've all heard of Republican politicians banging on about homosexuality as something bad, and then being caught in a compromising, same-sex, situation?

And yet - the statistics say that 'homosexuals' are a tiny minority. But almost everyone has had 'homosexual' encounters.

Most people must be lying, even to themselves.

(How is it 'unfalsifiable'?)

On this very thread, we have had people talk about their sexual attractions or experiences that are counter to the sexuality they claim for themselves.


=/= most people. But not a great deal on this thread have actually done this anyway.


Thus - people are not honest, even with themselves. Not a stretch, and I don't need to refer to my own experiences to 'prove' it.


You've only shown that a certain few people on this thread are not honest.


Within the scope of my personal experiences, I have known a lot of guys that consider themselves 'straight' (and would arguably fight to the death to defend that).... but that sometimes blow other guys when they are drunk, for example...

That doesn't nessecerally make you gay, you can do this without having to be actually sexually attracted to men.


or who have had same-sex episodes when they were in certain conditions... college, hunting-trip, etc.


Still doesn't come close to proving that "most people" are like this.


According to Fass (as far as I can gather), you're only actually 'gay' if you fuck your on gender... which would make those people 'gay', or - at least 'bi'.


No, if you WANT to fuck your own gender because you are sexually attracted to them, not the same.


I'm sure we've all heard of Republican politicians banging on about homosexuality as something bad, and then being caught in a compromising, same-sex, situation?


Closet gays/bis exit? OMG NO WAI


And yet - the statistics say that 'homosexuals' are a tiny minority. But almost everyone has had 'homosexual' encounters.


Nonsense.


(How is it 'unfalsifiable'?)

Because there is no such statistic, and there can never really be one, that records how truthful you are about your sexuality, unless you propose you hook up thousands of people to a lie detector, which no one will bother to do, so at least it isn't practically falsifiable.

=/= most people. But not a great deal on this thread have actually done this anyway.


But some have? See?


You've only shown that a certain few people on this thread are not honest.


Specifically - not honest about their sexuality, even with themselves... which is evidence for the point I made.


That doesn't nessecerally make you gay, you can do this without having to be actually sexually attracted to men.


It was Fass that was talking about people 'posing' as 'bi' or 'gay', but then not coming across with the goods.. and thus not really being 'gay' or 'bi'.

That makes it more Fass that you're arguing with, there.

Personally, I'm no sure the argument is valid - I think fucking girls and thinking about a guy, or vice versa, are both 'gay'. I don'tbuy the 'only activity' OR 'only intent' arguments. They sound like justifications that certain peple use to protect their own selfimage.

(See Willem Daoe in "The Boondock Saints" to see what I mean).


Still doesn't come close to proving that "most people" are like this.


When you meet a lot of people, and you dig a little deeper and find out practically everyone has a 'gay' experience somewhere in their past, you start to suspect that all is not as it seems. Indeed, eventually, you don't believe people when they say they've never had a counter-sexual experience... and you usually turn out, eventually, to be right.

Ask yourself. What do you consider your sexuality to be.... and has there EVER been an exception... an experience, just a feeling... curiousity... anything.

No need to answer here - that's something for you to think about.


No, if you WANT to fuck your own gender because you are sexually attracted to them, not the same.


That's quite a definition.


Closet gays/bis exit? OMG NO WAI


I notice you don't mention 'closet straights'. The 'closet' is actually evidence of what I said, yes?


Nonsense.


How many people can YOU say for CERTAIN, never has?


Because there is no such statistic, and there can never really be one, that records how truthful you are about your sexuality, unless you propose you hook up thousands of people to a lie detector, which no one will bother to do, so at least it isn't practically falsifiable.

So... "NOT unfalsifiable" would have been a more accurate term.

I'm straight, and I certainly hope that I'm not attractive to gay men. I have no problem with homosexuality, and I think that its stupid that here in the USA they can't always get the same rights as hetero couples, but by no means would I want to be considered attractive by another guy.

But some have? See?



Specifically - not honest about their sexuality, even with themselves... which is evidence for the point I made.


No it isn't, not evidence of "almost everyone".


Personally, I'm no sure the argument is valid - I think fucking girls and thinking about a guy, or vice versa, are both 'gay'. I don'tbuy the 'only activity' OR 'only intent' arguments. They sound like justifications that certain peple use to protect their own selfimage.

(See Willem Daoe in "The Boondock Saints" to see what I mean).


If you're sexually attracted to people of the same gender, you're gay or bi. How is that hard to understand? I could fuck a sheep if I wanted to, that doesn't mean that I am actually sexually attracted to it.


When you meet a lot of people, and you dig a little deeper and find out practically everyone has a 'gay' experience somewhere in their past, you start to suspect that all is not as it seems. Indeed, eventually, you don't believe people when they say they've never had a counter-sexual experience... and you usually turn out, eventually, to be right.


Oh I've met plenty of people who have described what you're describing, and have almost been in that situation myself. But this is anecdotal evidence at best, and of the people I've met, they only make up a tiny minority.


I notice you don't mention 'closet straights'. The 'closet' is actually evidence of what I said, yes?


You didn't say that some people are dishonest about your sexuality, you said that 'almost everyone' is.


How many people can YOU say for CERTAIN, never has?


How could I possibly know? That's the point, but at least the burden of proof is probably on you, since the idea that the majority of us is like this has much more complex implications.


So... "NOT unfalsifiable" would have been a more accurate term.

Not practically falsifiable is fine, since that's what it is. It's equal to me saying that in a million years the king of England will have 3 eyes, it is falsifiable in a million years, but practically it isn't.

No it isn't, not evidence of "almost everyone".


Enough repetitions of it would be....


If you're sexually attracted to people of the same gender, you're gay or bi. How is that hard to understand? I could fuck a sheep if I wanted to, that doesn't mean that I am actually sexually attracted to it.


It would still be bestiality. "But I didn't enjoy it!" isn't going to sway the judge.

I like your definition, it's cute. It means you can fuck your own gender all day, every day... armies of them. But, by claiming you weren't actually attracted to them, you're somehow absolved of it being 'gay'.


Oh I've met plenty of people who have described what you're describing, and have almost been in that situation myself. But this is anecdotal evidence at best, and of the people I've met, they only make up a tiny minority.


That's cool. You admit that you, yourself can be described by the circumstance, yet you still try to portray it as 'anecdotal'. Your OWN evidence is still just anecdote?


You didn't say that some people are dishonest about your sexuality, you said that 'almost everyone' is.


About their sexuality, surely? And, as far as I can tell, that's still true.


How could I possibly know? That's the point, but at least the burden of proof is probably on you, since the idea that the majority of us is like this has much more complex implications.


Yes, the burden of proof is probably on me. IF it matters to me whether you accept it... but it doesn't. You've seen the same thing, you already admitted as much. I guess you're complicit in their self-deception.


Not practically falsifiable is fine, since that's what it is. It's equal to me saying that in a million years the king of England will have 3 eyes, it is falsifiable in a million years, but practically it isn't.

I guess you don't understand the word 'unfalsifiable'. You said it was 'unfalsifiable'. It isn't. End of story.

GnI, you're wrong, you can experiment with something and it means nothing aside from you're curious.

There's a difference between sexuality and curiosity.

Enough repetitions of it would be....


Nope, it's not like NSG is a fair sample anyway.


It would still be bestiality. "But I didn't enjoy it!" isn't going to sway the judge.


If I could prove that I didn't enjoy it it would.


I like your definition, it's cute. It means you can fuck your own gender all day, every day... armies of them. But, by claiming you weren't actually attracted to them, you're somehow absolved of it being 'gay'.


No, by being (not claiming to be) not sexually attracted to them, you're not gay. Not the same thing, stop trying to spin what I say.


That's cool. You admit that you, yourself can be described by the circumstance, yet you still try to portray it as 'anecdotal'. Your OWN evidence is still just anecdote?

In the context of debate, also it proves shit anyway.


About their sexuality, surely? And, as far as I can tell, that's still true.


Yet you have no way to prove it.


Yes, the burden of proof is probably on me. IF it matters to me whether you accept it... but it doesn't. You've seen the same thing, you already admitted as much. I guess you're complicit in their self-deception.


No, I haven't seem the same thing. I've seen a minority, you've made a massive extrapolation (not seen) and stated that 'almost everyone' is like this. If you accept that you can't prove it, why post it at all, it's meaningless.


I guess you don't understand the word 'unfalsifiable'. You said it was 'unfalsifiable'. It isn't. End of story.

At first, then I updated my position to not practically falsifiable, which is a known concept and still makes your comment just as meaningless.

Perhaps this is the cause of our confrontation.

The argument you attribute to me, was invented by you?

(My argument can only really be compared to this scenario if we all can have babies, but some people try to deny it).

It's truly pathetic how when I characterise your argument as saying:

"Everyone has the ability to be attracted to everyone else, but choose not to"

you get all huffy and puffy and full of denial...and then go on to state that no, your argument is that "everyone can be attracted to everyone else but some people try to deny it".

Yes. I got it so wrong.

If you apply your little belief system to sexuality, you get this:

"Straight and gay people could be attracted to people outside their stated orientation, but choose not to".

Again. When you tell us that everyone can, but choose not to, you make it about choice. Which qualitatively makes you no different than people who believe that gays should choose to be straight.

I appreciate that you don't want to see yourself in a bad light. So perhaps you'll give it some thought, and realise that in the name of 'inclusivity' you are being a bigoted ass, and that ultimately, with 'friends' like you, there's little need for enemies.

Divisions based on sexuality are damaging. Divisions based on race are damaging. I'll not apologise for looking beyond the veneer and identifying that, beneath it all, we are basically all the same. Faced with the choice of a homogenous culture, and a future of ongoing war, homogenous doesn't seem that bad. That's rich, coming from someone who has declared that he has no sexual or cultural 'identity'.

Divisions, hostility, what have you based on 'differences' are bad yes. But you wish to throw the baby out with the bath water. Even worse, you want to toss something out that you neither understand, or value...and you think it's best if we all do the same. Because you are right.

It isn't a choice between 'war' or 'peace in homogenity'. Acceptance and tolerance means respecting differences, not smooshing everyone together so that we're all the same. Underneath it all, we're all human. But if you want to live at that level of generality, you're not gong to do much good. Better if you try to understand differences, and build bridges to find common ground.


And - I've denied people nothing. You are welcome to call yourself 'gay' or 'straight' or whatever. You are welcome to be almost entirely 'gay' or 'straight' in your active orientation. That doesn't make those terms anything more than a convenient label.

You still say 'almost entirely' gay or straight, as though only you know the truth...that really, everyone is like you, and wants to jump the fence at some point or another.

By the way? You stated that Fass and I have labelled you bi? I believe you brought the term up first, and if not, then I got it from Fass. I have no idea what your preferences are, or how you choose to 'non-label' yourself. Probably with something vague like 'human'. Yes yes, very touching. And completely useless.

And completely useless.

Incidentally what all his BS posts have been so far. Such a shocker. And you didn't get the bisexual label for him from me - you got the "bisexual" label for him from me, because that's what he is. One of the "bisexuals", not one of the bisexuals. You see my beef with their hogwash, now?

GnI, you're wrong, you can experiment with something and it means nothing aside from you're curious.

There's a difference between sexuality and curiosity.

I like that one. It smacks of self-justification.

Incidentally what all his BS posts have been so far. Such a shocker. And you didn't get the bisexual label for him from me - you got the "bisexual" label for him from me, because that's what he is. One of the "bisexuals", not one of the bisexuals. You see my beef with their hogwash, now?

I'm all confused, am I "bisexual" or bisexual :P

I have no idea what GnI's sexuality is. I think he'd just say 'I'm sexual', which would be of very little use to someone trying to figure out if he/she would be able to get into GnI's pants. I'll respect whatever label he chooses to give himself though...it'd be nice if he'd do the same.

Except he knows your secret Fass. You're not 'really gay'.

No, I haven't seem the same thing. I've seen a minority, you've made a massive extrapolation (not seen) and stated that 'almost everyone' is like this. If you accept that you can't prove it, why post it at all, it's meaningless.


You admitted that you own anecdotal evidence is worthless even to you. All evidence on this matter would HAVE to be anecdotal - think about what it is I'm saying.

It could be proved, by finding out how much of a difference exists between the 'claimed' sexuality of a person and their actual exhibited orientation... and that could be replicated on and on, until you had sufficiently large quantities of data collected to extrapolate a reasonable assumption.

But - that would have to be anecdote... every single case, because that's the whole point - the true data doesn't match the statistic.

And - you've already claimed you wouldn't accept such data... not even for your own situation.


At first, then I updated my position to not practically falsifiable, which is a known concept and still makes your comment just as meaningless.

You said 'unfalsifiable'. It isn't. Anything else is quibbling semantics in an effort to not have to admit you were wrong.

It's truly pathetic how when I characterise your argument as saying:

"Everyone has the ability to be attracted to everyone else, but choose not to"

you get all huffy and puffy and full of denial...


Huffy? Puffy?

That's cute, but hardly helpful.

If pointing out that you misrepresented my argument is being 'full of denial', then I am willing to accept that part.


and then go on to state that no, your argument is that "everyone can be attracted to everyone else but some people try to deny it".

Yes. I got it so wrong.

If you apply your little belief system to sexuality, you get this:

"Straight and gay people could be attracted to people outside their stated orientation, but choose not to".


I wouldn't have said that, of course - since the very terminologies of 'gay' and 'straight' are counterproductive.


Again. When you tell us that everyone can, but choose not to, you make it about choice.


I'm not entirely sure that's a realistic interpretation of what I said.


Which qualitatively makes you no different than people who believe that gays should choose to be straight.


Of course. Me believing that we are all fundamentally the same is IDENTICAL to trying to 'convert' homosexuals.

Very inflammatory. Entirely unhelpful.


I appreciate that you don't want to see yourself in a bad light. So perhaps you'll give it some thought, and realise that in the name of 'inclusivity' you are being a bigoted ass,


Yep. Saying we are all the same is bigoted. Not discriminating is practically the definition.


and that ultimately, with 'friends' like you, there's little need for enemies.

Someone needs a time-out?

That, my dear, was hollow rhetoric, and served no purpose except to try to score some kind of emotional point. I think it was beneath you. I hope I'm right.

You admitted that you own anecdotal evidence is worthless even to you. All evidence on this matter would HAVE to be anecdotal - think about what it is I'm saying.


That's what I thought at first, hence calling your position unfalsifiable.


But - that would have to be anecdote... every single case, because that's the whole point - the true data doesn't match the statistic.

And - you've already claimed you wouldn't accept such data... not even for your own situation.


Assuming the lie detector is a reliable method, then it wouldn't be anecdotal, this is why I changed my position from unfalsifiable to not practically falsifiable, since no one would ever carry out this survey.


You said 'unfalsifiable'. It isn't.

I know, that's why I changed my position, why is that so hard to understand?


Anything else is quibbling semantics in an effort to not have to admit you were wrong.

No it's not, because it still makes your position meaningless and pointless, just not practically falsifiable rather than unfalsifiable.

That's rich, coming from someone who has declared that he has no sexual or cultural 'identity'.


I do not consider myself limited by common terminology. You seem to see that as a bad thing.


Divisions, hostility, what have you based on 'differences' are bad yes. But you wish to throw the baby out with the bath water.


No - throwing the baby out would be saying 'you all have to have the same kind of sex'. That's not what I'm doing - I'm saying the kind of sex doesn't matter.


Even worse, you want to toss something out that you neither understand, or value...and you think it's best if we all do the same. Because you are right.


Wait... this is YOUR assertion? That I "neither understand, or value"... because I disagree with you?


It isn't a choice between 'war' or 'peace in homogenity'.


Why? In real terms, it very often (maybe MOST often) is.


Acceptance and tolerance means respecting differences, not smooshing everyone together so that we're all the same.


Maybe... or maybe - acceptance and tolerance might even better mean not even NOTICING the differences.


Underneath it all, we're all human. But if you want to live at that level of generality, you're not gong to do much good.


Why? I think that's actually a really good way to look at it.

What's wrong with that view? Why can't it do any good?


Better if you try to understand differences, and build bridges to find common ground.


Even better if you accept there are NO meaningful differences.


You still say 'almost entirely' gay or straight, as though only you know the truth...that really, everyone is like you, and wants to jump the fence at some point or another.


I don't recall stating that I wanted to jump any fences, even in metaphor.

I can't say 100% that you will 'absolutely' anything - and neither can you, until after you die - that's the only point at which you'll be able to give a truly inclusive perspective on your whole life. Which will suck if there's no afterlife, maybe.


By the way? You stated that Fass and I have labelled you bi? I believe you brought the term up first,


I didn't. You believe wrong.


...and if not, then I got it from Fass.


Yes. Yes, you did. Apparently, Fass wants me to be 'bi'.


I have no idea what your preferences are, or how you choose to 'non-label' yourself. Probably with something vague like 'human'. Yes yes, very touching. And completely useless.

How can my label for myself be useless?

I'm all confused, am I "bisexual" or bisexual :P

I have no idea what GnI's sexuality is. I think he'd just say 'I'm sexual', which would be of very little use to someone trying to figure out if he/she would be able to get into GnI's pants.


They could just ask me. (I don't accept sex with just anything with a vagina, even though I'm statistically straight... and I might not reject something with a penis).

Why is it such a hardship for someone that wants to jump my old bones to find out if I'm interested in them, specifically?


I'll respect whatever label he chooses to give himself though...it'd be nice if he'd do the same.


I'll respect whatever name anyone chooses to label themselves with. Unless, by 'respect', I'm supposed to accept whatever is said as the infallible word-of-god, or something.

No - call yourself 'gay', 'straight', or 'bi'... or something else. It won't alter the facts.


Except he knows your secret Fass. You're not 'really gay'.

It's hardly a secret.

If pointing out that you misrepresented my argument is being 'full of denial', then I am willing to accept that part.
Then state your point again. Because I haven't misrepresented shit. Your words, your belief. State it.



I wouldn't have said that, of course - since the very terminologies of 'gay' and 'straight' are counterproductive. Only if you actually believe, as you have claimed to, while at the same time claiming that I am misrepresenting you, that no one really is 'gay' or 'straight'.

"I never said that!"
"Um, yes you did. Numerous times."
"But I didn't mean that! I meant x!"
"Right. X. Exactly what I said."
"No, but it's different when I say it!"
"Um....how?"

Of course. Me believing that we are all fundamentally the same is IDENTICAL to trying to 'convert' homosexuals. No. You believing that sexuality is a choice, and some of simply decide not to exercise that choice (and shift our sexuality) is akin to those trying to convert homosexuals.

Very inflammatory. Entirely unhelpful. Like pretty much everything you've had to say on the topic.



Yep. Saying we are all the same is bigoted. Not discriminating is practically the definition. No. Saying we're all like you is bigoted. Saying that people are not what they are, or do not have the orientation they claim to have, is bigoted. Denying the importance of people's differences in how they define themselves as wholly bad is bigoted.



That, my dear, was hollow rhetoric, and served no purpose except to try to score some kind of emotional point. I think it was beneath you. I hope I'm right.Hardly. You brought up your useful service to the gay 'cause' as though your following bigotry should therefore be excused.

With opponents, you know their agenda is negative. With 'friends', part of their agenda seems to be aligned with yours, but that makes it all the worse when they attempt to speak on your behalf, saying things that you do not in fact agree with. ESPECIALLY when such things being said are essentially the same arguments being made by the opposition, only with an 'equality' spin.

That's what I thought at first, hence calling your position unfalsifiable....No it's not, because it still makes your position meaningless and pointless, just not practically falsifiable rather than unfalsifiable.

You were wrong. That's okay. I'm happy with that, and I'm moving on.

You were wrong. That's okay. I'm happy with that, and I'm moving on.

Oh no! I was wrong on one tiny technicality that doesn't stop your unsupported assertion from being meaningless and pointless, you really pwned me!

Then state your point again. Because I haven't misrepresented shit. Your words, your belief. State it.


You most assuredly have. Everytime you have presented something I didn't say, as my argument (especially in cutely mocking tones), you have misrepresented my argument.


Only if you actually believe, as you have claimed to, while at the same time claiming that I am misrepresenting you, that no one really is 'gay' or 'straight'.


What?

No one is 'gay'. No one is 'straight'. We all just are. Anything more is elucidation, that's the heart of the matter.


"I never said that!"
"Um, yes you did. Numerous times."
"But I didn't mean that! I meant x!"
"Right. X. Exactly what I said."
"No, but it's different when I say it!"
"Um....how?"


This would be 'misrepresenting me'. I'm surprised I didn't mention you doing that already....


No. You believing that sexuality is a choice, and some of simply decide not to exercise that choice (and shift our sexuality) is akin to those trying to convert homosexuals.


I never said that sexuality was a choice.


Like pretty much everything you've had to say on the topic.


The problem is - you find my whole ARGUMENT 'inflammatory' and 'unhelpful'. If you are willing to discuss it, so be it and all to the good. Maybe you'll convince me otherwise. But you weren't rpesenting an argument - you were being deliberately inflammatory and unhelpful. There's the difference.


No. Saying we're all like you is bigoted.


It is bigoted to assume everyone on this forum is a human being?


Saying that people are not what they are, or do not have the orientation they claim to have, is bigoted.


No, it isn't. If you say you are a 'little person', and I have photos of you showing you to be a clear 7 feet tall, me 'saying' that you are not as you 'claim' is not bigoted - it's a simple observation of fact.


Denying the importance of people's differences in how they define themselves as wholly bad is bigoted.


I don't deny anyone the terms they use to describe themselves - much less TO themselves.

However, they shouldn't expect those terms to be considered in any way meaningful.


Hardly. You brought up your useful service to the gay 'cause' as though your following bigotry should therefore be excused.


I most assuredly did not.


With opponents, you know their agenda is negative. With 'friends', part of their agenda seems to be aligned with yours, but that makes it all the worse when they attempt to speak on your behalf, saying things that you do not in fact agree with. ESPECIALLY when such things being said are essentially the same arguments being made by the opposition, only with an 'equality' spin.

I wan't (initially) debating with you at all - much less claiming to be your friend. I think that's offtopic, to be honest. I can accept that you could be wrong, without it affecting any friendship we might have.

I don't think my agenda is at all negative. I'm not even sure I have an agenda. The argument some have THIS century about being 'gay' or 'straight' will be an irrelevence in the next century. You think I'm being antagonistic to the fight in this generation (and I've already said otherwise), and I think I'm merely cutting through the bullshit, and dealing with the inevitable outcome.

I do not consider myself limited by common terminology. You seem to see that as a bad thing. No, I don't care about your perception of yourself. I care that you told someone that there are not straight people and no gay people.

Had you simply said, this is how I feel about it, to me, such labels don't fit...fine. But you generalised. You externalised. You turned it into a factual statement. At that point you crossed the line from defining yourself, and began defining others.



No - throwing the baby out would be saying 'you all have to have the same kind of sex'. That's not what I'm doing - I'm saying the kind of sex doesn't matter. We've never been talking about sex acts. And if you want to have a discussion about whether sex acts define your sexuality that's fine...but that wasn't the issue here. You did not add a caveat to your 'no straight nor gay people' by saying, 'because I'm going to use a different definition of these terms based on the fact that the kind of sex doesn't really define you who are'.



Wait... this is YOUR assertion? That I "neither understand, or value"... because I disagree with you? Uh, no...I'm working from the words you used to described your lack of a 'straight' or 'ethnic' identity. Do you want me to go find the post again? You specifically stated that you don't understand these kinds of identities, you don't think they are important. Thus, you do not understand, or value them. You know...like I just said.



Why? In real terms, it very often (maybe MOST often) is. What an odd view you have of the world. Bizarely enough, people who are different, and who recognised and define themselves as different...manage to get alone with people who are NOT LIKE THEM...without sacrificing their differences. Most often this is the case. It is not most often the case that you must be all the same (to have peace) or be different (and have war).


Maybe... or maybe - acceptance and tolerance might even better mean not even NOTICING the differences. Oh god. And now you'll be saying, 'wow, you know I don't even SEE colour!'

*gags*

Yes. Let's pretend that we can hardwire the human brain differently to not notice differences.

OR, we can accept that we are inherently keyed to notice differences, and what we should be focusing on are ways to deal with those differences, rather than trying to eliminate them altogether.



Why? I think that's actually a really good way to look at it. Because in a practical sense, dealing with human beings who are interacting with one another, you need to know what differences are at play. Expecting people to simply devolve into 'just human' ignores the fact that we cannot shed our differences so easily...nor is it even particularily useful to do so.

When you have an African asylum seeker listing 'siblings' on a personal information form...and you say "hey we're all human, 'siblings' means the same for all humans", you are not in fact effectively reducing differences. You are ignoring them, and that can have a profound impact on your interactions with others. 'Siblings' to many African asylum seekers means much more than immediate blood related children of the same parents. If you refuse to recognise those differences you do an injustice.

There are many, many more practical ways in which UNDERSTANDING rather than denying differences is important, and much more useful.

Because we are not just talking about difference as conflict.

Even better if you accept there are NO meaningful differences. If wishes were fishes...

All good to hope for, to work for, but claiming you live it? Ridiculous. You can not possibly, with your personal belief alone, dissolve meaningful differences between yourself and other people. You can work to bridge them, but you will not erase them with your mind.



I don't recall stating that I wanted to jump any fences, even in metaphor.

I can't say 100% that you will 'absolutely' anything - and neither can you, until after you die - that's the only point at which you'll be able to give a truly inclusive perspective on your whole life. Which will suck if there's no afterlife, maybe.
Wait...it's NOT about the kind of sex you have...but it is? So...you only know if you're 'really' gay on your deathbed? And you're only 'really gay' if you didn't fuck a chick?

You know, for someone complaining that people are reading you all wrong, you sure send out some very specific mixed messages.



I didn't. You believe wrong.

Yes. Yes, you did. Apparently, Fass wants me to be 'bi'. That's nice. I don't really care. If you don't like the label, I shan't use it.



How can my label for myself be useless?In the same way that me staing my address on my taxes as 'Earth' is useless.

First you say:


I'll respect whatever name anyone chooses to label themselves with. Unless, by 'respect', I'm supposed to accept whatever is said as the infallible word-of-god, or something.
Then you say:

No - call yourself 'gay', 'straight', or 'bi'... or something else. It won't alter the facts.

Even if you define 'respect' as 'not taking as infallible word-of-god', you still fail to respect anything.

You say 'call yourself what you want...I know the truth'.

There is nothing respectful in believing you know more than the person defining him or herself.

And then you whine and say 'but but you're labelling me, you're not respecting ME!'

Your hypocricy is endless:

It's hardly a secret.

Case in point.

I don't think that word 'respect' means what you think it does.

Oh no! I was wrong on one tiny technicality that doesn't stop your unsupported assertion from being meaningless and pointless, you really pwned me!

Tiny Technicality?

You stated an absolute. Your absolute was refuted (easily). That's not a 'tiny technicality', that is being 'entirely wrong'. Not even debatable.

And - again, I'm willing to leave it, and go on.

You most assuredly have. Everytime you have presented something I didn't say, as my argument (especially in cutely mocking tones), you have misrepresented my argument.
I specifically asked you to state your position. Instead, you babble. Again. State your position.


What?

No one is 'gay'. No one is 'straight'. We all just are. Anything more is elucidation, that's the heart of the matter.
People are straight. People are gay. People are something not quite entirely either.
That you find these terms unhelpful doesn't mean that the concepts they represent do not exist.

And when I said "your position is that no one is straight and no one is gay" and you started crying about how I misrepresented your argument? Let me not use my mocking tones, let me just quote you again:



No one is 'gay'. No one is 'straight'. We all just are. Anything more is elucidation, that's the heart of the matter.
Your words. Which is exactly what I said you said.


This would be 'misrepresenting me'. I'm surprised I didn't mention you doing that already.... Yeah, I think we've established that you in fact said exactly what I claimed you said. The constant and foolish denial can end.




The problem is - you find my whole ARGUMENT 'inflammatory' and 'unhelpful'. If you are willing to discuss it, so be it and all to the good. Maybe you'll convince me otherwise. But you weren't rpesenting an argument - you were being deliberately inflammatory and unhelpful. There's the difference. If you want to pick up your marbles and go home because I wasn't nice, that's fine.

My tone is not the reason that you have denied saying what you have said...whilst bizarrely repeating in EXACTLY the same terms, the very words you've denied uttering.




No, it isn't. If you say you are a 'little person', and I have photos of you showing you to be a clear 7 feet tall, me 'saying' that you are not as you 'claim' is not bigoted - it's a simple observation of fact. Telling people they aren't gay, or straight, isn't 'simple observation of fact'...unless somehow you are omnipotent and have proof that they in fact are not completely gay or straight. You didn't say 'oh this one guy I know, he totally claimed to be straight, but I saw him fuck a guy *snort snort*...SOOOO not straight!'

You said, and again I'll quote you so you don't get sad about me 'misrepresenting you'



No one is 'gay'. No one is 'straight'. We all just are.
Please provide me with 'facts' to the contrary that would prove your assertion correct.


I don't deny anyone the terms they use to describe themselves - much less TO themselves.

However, they shouldn't expect those terms to be considered in any way meaningful. Right because you know the REAL truth...despite what they say:


No one is 'gay'. No one is 'straight'. We all just are.


I wan't (initially) debating with you at all - much less claiming to be your friend. I think that's offtopic, to be honest. I can accept that you could be wrong, without it affecting any friendship we might have. Oh I never claimed friendship with you. I used friendship in the sense of being friendly towards a cause...a 'friend' to LGBT people.


I don't think my agenda is at all negative. I'm not even sure I have an agenda. The argument some have THIS century about being 'gay' or 'straight' will be an irrelevence in the next century. You think I'm being antagonistic to the fight in this generation (and I've already said otherwise), and I think I'm merely cutting through the bullshit, and dealing with the inevitable outcome.

It's one thing to strive for a change in definitions. That's all well and good. It's another to claim that your new definitions are the right ones, ready for use NOW. A lot would have to change before the terms 'gay' or 'straight' no longer had the use they have now, and it's fine to want things to go in that direction. But saying, for example that 'nationstates' don't exist because eventually they won't, is great if it's predicting the future...but utterly stupid if used to describe the present.

Tiny Technicality?


Yes.


You stated an absolute.

Bollocks, I described your position, that is not 'an absolute'.


Your absolute was refuted (easily).

hahahahah! You didn't even refute it, I refuted myself! I was the one who showed you that using a lie detector would make it possible to collect data, but also showed you that it doesn't matter, since no one will bother to do this, so your position remains unsupported and will never be supported.


That's not a 'tiny technicality', that is being 'entirely wrong'. Not even debatable.


Entirely wrong on one tiny technicality, I'm still right about your position being unsupported and meaningless.


And - again, I'm willing to leave it, and go on.

I would like to, too, you're position is a load wishy washy unsupported rhetoric, lets move on.

No, I don't care about your perception of yourself. I care that you told someone that there are not straight people and no gay people.


There are no 'gay' or 'straight' people.


Had you simply said, this is how I feel about it, to me, such labels don't fit...fine. But you generalised. You externalised. You turned it into a factual statement. At that point you crossed the line from defining yourself, and began defining others.


That's because it isn't internal - it just IS. How you define YOURSELF is internal. The actual reality is not subjective.


We've never been talking about sex acts. And if you want to have a discussion about whether sex acts define your sexuality that's fine...but that wasn't the issue here.


I'm not sure what you are talking about. Maybe you are misinterpreting 'kind' of sex to mean 'specific acts'?


You did not add a caveat to your 'no straight nor gay people' by saying, 'because I'm going to use a different definition of these terms based on the fact that the kind of sex doesn't really define you who are'.


You're right. I didn't.


What an odd view you have of the world. Bizarely enough, people who are different, and who recognised and define themselves as different...manage to get alone with people who are NOT LIKE THEM...without sacrificing their differences.


I never mentioned sacrificing the differences.


Oh god. And now you'll be saying, 'wow, you know I don't even SEE colour!'


You find that hard to believe?


Yes. Let's pretend that we can hardwire the human brain differently to not notice differences.


It's pretense for you?


OR, we can accept that we are inherently keyed to notice differences, and what we should be focusing on are ways to deal with those differences, rather than trying to eliminate them altogether.


Noticing difference doesn't mean it matters. Although - to be honest - I have had friends that I've been around for quite some time before I did notice they had a different 'colour' to me. Sometimes you don't notice the difference at all. Mostly, it's just not important.


Because in a practical sense, dealing with human beings who are interacting with one another, you need to know what differences are at play.


Why? Why should it matter to me who you fuck, if we are trying to decide the value of oranges?


When you have an African asylum seeker listing 'siblings' on a personal information form...and you say "hey we're all human, 'siblings' means the same for all humans", you are not in fact effectively reducing differences. You are ignoring them, and that can have a profound impact on your interactions with others. 'Siblings' to many African asylum seekers means much more than immediate blood related children of the same parents. If you refuse to recognise those differences you do an injustice.


Yes. Using the wrong terms is unhelpful. I'm glad we agree.


If wishes were fishes...


You think there are "meaningful differences"?


All good to hope for, to work for, but claiming you live it?


I do live it.


Ridiculous. You can not possibly, with your personal belief alone, dissolve meaningful differences between yourself and other people. You can work to bridge them, but you will not erase them with your mind.


I can't respond to that. I just don't know what it's supposed to mean.


Wait...it's NOT about the kind of sex you have...but it is? So...you only know if you're 'really' gay on your deathbed? And you're only 'really gay' if you didn't fuck a chick?


The 'only gay if you fuck' thing was Fass, not I. And it wasn't much help then, either.

What I was referring to there, however, is that - even if you say right now that you are 'straight'... and even if that's not pure nonsense today... you can't possibly know if it will still be meaningful tomorrow.


You know, for someone complaining that people are reading you all wrong, you sure send out some very specific mixed messages.


No - you're just rushing to judgements about what I write.


That's nice. I don't really care. If you don't like the label, I shan't use it.


I neither 'like' nor 'dislike' it. It's just irrelevent. Use it all you like, it won't offend me. It just won't mean anything.


In the same way that me staing my address on my taxes as 'Earth' is useless.

I have to say I didn't expect you to walk into it. It was a cheap shot, I admit it.

Before I once again unleash the venom....

I know I'm clueless when it comes to religion and religious references and etc...

But after all these years...

I just got your name.

*blinks*

Before I once again unleash the venom....

I know I'm clueless when it comes to religion and religious references and etc...

But after all these years...

I just got your name.

*blinks*

You'll get no more venom from me. I'm agreeing to disagree.

I'm glad you got the name, it's made me feel a little more at-peace-with-the-world.

Good night and god bless.

There are no 'gay' or 'straight' people.

That's because it isn't internal - it just IS. How you define YOURSELF is internal. The actual reality is not subjective.

So when I say, once again, that you believe that objectively, there is no such thing as being gay or straight, am I misrepresenting you? Because I'm getting sick of saying EXACTLY what you say, and then having you go...'nuh uh, that's not what I said.'



I'm not sure what you are talking about. Maybe you are misinterpreting 'kind' of sex to mean 'specific acts'? Bleh, no idea what you were on about there, I was mentioning it to get it out of the way as irrelevant at this point.

Could you provide a definition for what you mean?




You find that hard to believe? I find it stupid to say. Of course you see colour. Unless you're blind.

It's entirely a different thing to say 'while I recognise that there are differences in our pigmentation, I don't feel any need to use this difference in pigmentation as a reason to treat you any differently than any other human being'.

That sort of "I don't SEE colour" crap is idiotic. "I didn't even notice he was black! Wow! I'm SOOOO accepting that I seriously didn't see that!"

Riiiight.



It's pretense for you? You cannot hardwire us differently. You can socialise us to not react to our inherent process of recognising differences. So yes, it is pretense.



Noticing difference doesn't mean it matters. Had you said that from the beginning...as in, had you been more precise in your use of language...we could have avoided the above, no?

Although - to be honest - I have had friends that I've been around for quite some time before I did notice they had a different 'colour' to me. Sure you didn't. You probably didn't notice if they were male or female, or if they were blind or deaf or in a wheelchair...or if they spoke English or not. Because you only see 'humans'.

Seriously. You think anyone would buy that? Talk about lying to yourself.

That it didn't matter...is fine. But you noticed. And discarded it as unimportant. Big difference from not seeing at all.


Why? Why should it matter to me who you fuck, if we are trying to decide the value of oranges?It matter if they're underage, or disabled, or unconscious....do you not notice these things too? And we don't just interact via fucking. Or this little exchange between us would be sex, wouldn't it?


Yes. Using the wrong terms is unhelpful. I'm glad we agree. No...assuming that the terms are the same for everyone because you refuse to recognise differences is unhelpful.



You think there are "meaningful differences"? Yup. If I have no legs, that is a meaningful difference. It means, when in the name of equality, you invite all your buddies out for a skipping contest, and then wonder why I'm flapping around spastically on the ground getting the skipping rope tangled around my neck, that you've missed a meaningful difference.



I do live it. Only if you float around in a delusion. Because while you can train yourself to not care about differences, you can not erase them, or cause others to do the same. And since you do not exist as a solitary human on an unpopulated earth, your ability to 'live it' is constrained by the existance of 6 billion plus other human beings who don't conform to your reality.



I can't respond to that. I just don't know what it's supposed to mean.
It means you can't think differences away. They will remain. You can think away the importance that we may attribute to certain differences...but those differences are still physically there. Again, it goes to your claim that you live it.

No, no you don't.



The 'only gay if you fuck' thing was Fass, not I. And it wasn't much help then, either.

What I was referring to there, however, is that - even if you say right now that you are 'straight'... and even if that's not pure nonsense today... you can't possibly know if it will still be meaningful tomorrow.
You need to explain first how you're defining sexual orientation before you can actually argue this point.

No - you're just rushing to judgements about what I write. Yeah it's crazy how you know, when we communicate, we use social and lingustic norms to convey meaning. And when we deviate from those social and linguistic norms without explanations, things suddenly aren't being conveyed well.

So, in the future, be more precise when speaking. The onus there is on you.



I neither 'like' nor 'dislike' it. It's just irrelevent. Use it all you like, it won't offend me. It just won't mean anything. Can you pick one please? Either you don't want us to call you bi, or you don't care, and therefore won't comment further when called bi. Sheesh. Have a little consistency there.



I have to say I didn't expect you to walk into it. It was a cheap shot, I admit it.I leave no stone unturned.

You'll get no more venom from me. I'm agreeing to disagree. Bastard. Forcing me to study.

I'm all confused, am I "bisexual" or bisexual :P

Which would you like?

I have no idea what GnI's sexuality is. I think he'd just say 'I'm sexual', which would be of very little use to someone trying to figure out if he/she would be able to get into GnI's pants. I'll respect whatever label he chooses to give himself though...it'd be nice if he'd do the same.

That is of course the reason I don't respect his own label - oh, right, he doesn't want to label himself, but he bitches about the label given him, because he really doesn't care... the point of "bisexuals" is almost incarnated in GnI: this whole "straight today and have been all my life, might be bi or gay tomorrow, can't know until I'm dead" nonsense is what they have. They really are nothing but "straight, gay or lying". There is nothing additional to them. Only jerking you around until they go "oops, I guess I'm not straight or gay enough yet! But in my mind I can keep fooling myself that I'm neither!".

They like to pretend that "labels and differences and sexualities" don't matter to them, so they can theoretically be attracted to and fuck any gender (because that's where it always remains, in theory), but in the real world, they don't. Just like GnI - in the real world, he doesn't find attractive and fuck all the genders. He finds only one attractive and fucks only that one. But in the "Lala"-land of his mind, he can convince himself that "theoretically" that could change (which it of course won't) and he can also delude himself into thinking that others are as willing to lie to themselves as he is, hence his claims that everyone else is "not straight, not gay, only lying" when, as I said, he's the one "gay, straight or lying", well, "straight and lying" actually.

Except he knows your secret Fass. You're not 'really gay'.

Such luck that what he knows in this matter has been amply demonstrated not to be enough to fill even a Lilliputian thimble.

That is of course the reason I don't respect his own label - oh, right, he doesn't want to label himself, but he bitches about the label given him, because he really doesn't care... the point of "bisexuals" is almost incarnated in GnI: this whole "straight today and have been all my life, might be bi or gay tomorrow, can't know until I'm dead" nonsense is what they have. They really are nothing but "straight, gay or lying". There is nothing additional to them.

They like to pretend that "labels and differences and sexualities" don't matter to them, so they can theoretically be attracted to and fuck any gender (because that's where it always remains, in theory), but in the real world, they don't. Just like GnI - in the real world, he doesn't attractive and fuck all the genders. He finds only one attractive and fucks only that one. But in the "Lala"-land of his mind, he can convince himself that "theoretically" that could change (which it of course won't) and he can also delude himself into thinking that others are as willing to lie to themselves as he is, hence his claims that everyone else is "not straight, not gay, only lying" when, as I said, he's the one "gay, straight or lying" with the change of the word "or" to an "and".

Such luck that what he knows in this matter has been amply demonstrated not to be enough to fill even a Lilliputian thimble.

If you're just bitching to someone about someone else, behind their back is the traditional way, so take it to messenger or something.

On the other hand, if you've anything worth saying, feel free to make it in comments to me, rather than gossiping non-constructively. It's pretty weak to engage in that kind of cattiness.

I expect a lot of things from you - I hadn't expected 'gutless'.

Checking me out is fine, I'll take all the compliments I can get. Getting hit on was annoying, moreso since I was working on a production line at the time and couldn't walk away when he wouldn't stop.

I am a bit peeved about a thing that happened today. I was in the sauna at my gym and there were these two guys, apparently straight, talking about gay men. Their conversation went along the lines:

"I don't mind gay men, but I don't want them checking me out."

Ugh! They were both among the most unattractive men I have had the misfortune of seeing naked, but they are so indicative of a certain stratum of straight men - the ones who like to flatter themselves by thinking they're desirable to gay men.

Gay men! Gay men who are surrounded by other gay men who take care of their bodies and spend countless hours at the gym because they're not conceited enough to think they'd be automatically desirable to anyone just because they happen to have a cock! Gay men who have to fight a constantly escalating struggle of being the hottest piece of tail in order to get the hottest piece of tail - they're supposed to go: "Oh, well, screw all that, he's straight!"

Bah!

So, how attractive do the straight men here think they'd be a gay man?

Im gay, and i think im a hot piece of ass, I work out and wrestle and play football, as a matter of a fact, i just came out to my teamates and classmates a very short time ago.(parents still dont know)

Like I said, I don't give a damn what people think. I'm pretty sure I've not asked for anyone to shower me with praise.

*showers GnI with praise*
just because ;)

That doesn't nessecerally make you gay, you can do this without having to be actually sexually attracted to men.

Voice of experience?

--snip-- I expect a lot of things from you - I hadn't expected 'gutless'.

Oh, yeah, how "gutless" of me to post something, in a thread that you will be able to read and respond to, by using a literary device consisting of directing myself to a third person as an auxiliary medium to convey a general message that concerns the discussion as a whole!

I expect very little from you, so your inability to properly label this stylistic tournure is of course unsurprising and expected, but if you want me to direct myself at you, fine. I shall use a dandy function called "search and replace" to render this:

"That is of course the reason I don't respect your own label - oh, right, you don't want to label yourself, but you bitch about the label given you, because you really don't care... the point of "bisexuals" is almost incarnated in you: this whole "straight today and have been all my life, might be bi or gay tomorrow, can't know until I'm dead" nonsense is what you have. You really are nothing but "straight, gay or lying". There is nothing additional to you. Only jerking people around until you go "oops, I guess I'm not straight or gay enough yet! But in my mind I can keep fooling myself that I'm neither!".

You like to pretend that "labels and differences and sexualities" don't matter to you, so you can theoretically be attracted to and fuck any gender (because that's where it always remains, in theory), but in the real world, you don't. Yeah, GnI - in the real world, you don't find attractive and fuck all the genders. You find only one attractive and fuck only that one. But in the "Lala"-land of your mind, you can convince yourself that "theoretically" that could change (which it of course won't) and you can also delude yourself into thinking that others are as willing to lie to themselves as you are, hence your claims that everyone else is "not straight, not gay, only lying" when, as I said, you're the one "gay, straight or lying", well, "straight and lying" actually.

Such luck that what you know in this matter has been amply demonstrated not to be enough to fill even a Lilliputian thimble."

Oh, yeah, how "gutless" of me to post something, in a thread that you will be able to read and respond to, by using a literary device consisting of directing myself to a third person as an auxiliary medium to convey a general message that concerns the discussion as a whole!

I love this sentence. I'm not being sarcastic, either. I really love it.

While sometimes it bothers me to see folks I think are great really go at it, this is really entertaining. And in spite of my admiration for GnI, I've gotta go with Fass on this.

I like that one. It smacks of self-justification.

Well I like that one. It smacks of speaking for other people which, let's face it, is something your entire argument is predicated on.

People might say they're gay or straight but they're simply in denial.

Why?

Because you say so.

I was at a friend's house the other day, a houseboat of all things, jealous me.

Anyway, we were talking about her daughter's propensity for the colour pink and, as a mother, she was saying that her daughter always liked pink, has always liked 'girly' things - she was thinking about it because, as parents in China, albeit foreigners, they had no idea of whether they were going to have a boy or girl since it's against the law to find out.

So all the decorations and toys they had were pretty neutral, yellows and blues, basic teddy bears.

Yet she simply remembers that her daughter was simply attracted to what she calls, 'girly' things.

I don't know if you have children, and people argue we place cultural values on them but the fact is you simply see that boys and girls are interested in different things, different ways of playing.

This is a fair generalization to some extent and I'm sure specific examples can be magicked out of the air to dispute this but there's simply different hormones, there's X and Y over X and X.

Yes, everyone's different but you can still group and one grouping, absolutely without doubt, is gay. To that extent, there is also straight.

Do any women feel weirded out by lesbians checking them out? Or are we all too desensitized to it because we are constantly being checked out by unattractive men?

Do any women feel weirded out by lesbians checking them out? Or are we all too desensitized to it because we are constantly being checked out by unattractive men?

Touche.
Which, due to the missing accent, is merely a misspelling of 'touch'.

Maybe you're so attractive that nobody thinks he or she even stands a chance, so they just don't bother?

I could totally see that. ;)

more likely is his insecurity gives off a weird vibe. People won't hit on you if they get that vibe because they think you will freak out.

I might at that. :p I mean, it would be like people suddenly calling you "sir" with you thinking you were female for so many years. Not so unreasonable. ;)

I am a bit peeved about a thing that happened today. I was in the sauna at my gym and there were these two guys, apparently straight, talking about gay men. Their conversation went along the lines:

"I don't mind gay men, but I don't want them checking me out."

Ugh! They were both among the most unattractive men I have had the misfortune of seeing naked, but they are so indicative of a certain stratum of straight men - the ones who like to flatter themselves by thinking they're desirable to gay men.

Gay men! Gay men who are surrounded by other gay men who take care of their bodies and spend countless hours at the gym because they're not conceited enough to think they'd be automatically desirable to anyone just because they happen to have a cock! Gay men who have to fight a constantly escalating struggle of being the hottest piece of tail in order to get the hottest piece of tail - they're supposed to go: "Oh, well, screw all that, he's straight!"

Bah!

So, how attractive do the straight men here think they'd be a gay man?

I can't stand people who do that. What makes them think they're hot enough for anyone to check them out? And, shouldn't you just be flattered if someone thinks you're attractive?

Homophobic idiots.

Meh, du wusstest was ich sagen wollte, aber mich nicht daran erinnern konnte (or "mich daran erinnern nicht konnte"?).

Tss, ich wusste, dass Du Dich ärgern würdest, Inkorrektes zu lernen und zu verbreiten und nie korrigiert zu werden. ("mich nicht daran erinnern konnte" is what you want to say).

You might as well claim you don't believe in trees, but that you do believe in a flora. Trees exist, just like binary gender exists. That there are plants that aren't trees doesn't mean that trees don't exist, just as little as the existence of people who don't fall into binary genders negates those that do (the majority - making my tree analogy reverse, as your stance is actually equivalent to using the existence of trees to deny the existence of all the other plants). You're using an exception to deny the rule, when in fact all it does is confirm it.

The problem is, my personal experience has been that the supposed "exceptions" are actually the rule.

I've met very few people who actually conform to the standardized image of "maleness" or "femaleness." Most people are at least a bit of both.

It's not about claiming I don't believe in trees. It's about pointing out how stupid it is for somebody to insist that all plants are trees when they're standing in the middle of a field of wildflowers.


Then why deny there are straight people or people who fit into the binary gender scheme, other than from a profound loss of touch with reality?

I don't deny that there are people who fit into the binary gender scheme, I simply think it's a stupid scheme because most people don't fit neatly into it. Again, to use your color analogy, I know that blue and yellow certainly exist, but they represent only a tiny fraction of the full electromagnetic spectrum. It would be stupid to refer to the electromagnetic spectrum as a Blue-Yellow dichotomy. It is, in my opinion, likewise stupid to refer to human sexuality in terms of the Male-Female dichotomy.


I reiterate - you make the equivalent mistake of denying the existence of regularly conjugated verbs just because you found some that are irregularly conjugated.

And I reiterate - no, I don't. I don't deny that there exist people who fit perfectly into the ideal image of maleness or femaleness. I simply think it's silly to try to define an entire population based on the characteristics of a small minority.


Of the loss touch of touch with reality we were talking about earlier. It's fine and dandy to say "a lot of people like a lot of different things", but isn't fine and dandy to say "all people like all things".

I've certainly never said that. That would be goofy. I know that I don't like all things, so why on Earth would I assume that everybody else does?


I am claiming that you have insufficient substantiation to deny the gender roles to those who adhere to them,

I don't think I understand this. Could you clarify what you mean?


and that no, in most cases individually human sexuality is not "fluid". And even if it were, denying the existence of people whose sexuality isn't fluid would still be plain old stupid.

I don't know if human sexuality is fluid in most cases, since I haven't been most people. I know that most of the people I've asked about this subject report that their sexuality has changed at least somewhat over time. I don't know if you want to call that "fluid," since at any given point their sexuality was what it was, and certainly wasn't anything else.


His clarification didn't change the meaning of what he was saying at all - it served only to distract you from him still sticking to it with another verbiage.

I think I should just bow out of this particular issue, since it looks like GnI has been more than able to talk about this with you guys already.


Of course someone's out there sexuality can change, as you mention most probably not through an act of will, but there are people out there - seemingly the overwhelming majority - for whom that does not occur.

That has not been my experience, though I freely admit that I have only met a teeny tiny fraction of humanity and I might simply associate with lots of freaks.


Do not use the existence of those for whom it does to deny those for whom it doesn't, or to somehow claim that their "labels" aren't correct - denying the labels is the same thing as denying what the labels denote.

I don't think that's remotely true. For me to say that I think the "gay" versus "straight" labels are based on a fundamentally flawed concept does NOT equate to me denying anybody's sexuality. I also try not to ever question somebody's own label of their sexuality, since I figure each person should get to identify how ever they damn well please.

I may disagree with how a person conceptualizes sexuality, and I (obviously) enjoy debating the topic, but at the end of the day it's not my place to tell somebody how they must identify their sexuality (or their sex!). I've met biologically male individuals who identify as female, and I respect their feelings on that subject, so really it's not that hard to respect the feelings of people who identify as gay or straight or whatever! :)

I was at a friend's house the other day, a houseboat of all things, jealous me.

Anyway, we were talking about her daughter's propensity for the colour pink and, as a mother, she was saying that her daughter always liked pink, has always liked 'girly' things - she was thinking about it because, as parents in China, albeit foreigners, they had no idea of whether they were going to have a boy or girl since it's against the law to find out.

So all the decorations and toys they had were pretty neutral, yellows and blues, basic teddy bears.

Yet she simply remembers that her daughter was simply attracted to what she calls, 'girly' things.

I don't know if you have children, and people argue we place cultural values on them but the fact is you simply see that boys and girls are interested in different things, different ways of playing.

So, one person happens to have a child who likes pink and girly stuff, and that child happens to be female.

That's great, but what about kids like me and my brother?

I've always preferred blue and "boy things," my whole life. I'm pretty exclusively a tom-boy, always have been, even though my mother did make an effort to get me interested in "girl stuff."

Meanwhile, my little brother is almost completely split when it comes to liking "girly" stuff or "guy" stuff. He has always loved having his nails painted, even when he was a toddler, and he cried when we told him he couldn't wear nail polish to kindergarten because the other kids would tease him. He used to carry around his stuffed monkey like his baby, and feed it and put it to bed. His secret shame (he's a teenager now) is that all his favorite movies growing up were romantic comedy "chick-flicks."

Of course, he also loves trucks and construction equipment and shoot-em-up videogames. He hates pink, too, preferring light blue. He always gets along with guys better than girls. When he received his first shaving razor last Xmas, he immediately ran to the bathroom to use it, ignoring every other present he'd received. He now proudly cuts up his face every morning trying to remove the five hairs which show on his upper lip. If you met him you'd probably think he was a real "man's man" from first impressions.

Our parents never tried to force us to like anything. They never told us that we had to like certain things because of our gender. They never made fun of us for liking something that was "for boys" or "for girls." They just let us like what we like, and it turns out that one of us likes almost exclusively things "for boys," while the other likes a bit of both.


This is a fair generalization to some extent and I'm sure specific examples can be magicked out of the air to dispute this but there's simply different hormones, there's X and Y over X and X.

You're the one that tried to "magick examples out of the air," here. Yes, there are some kids who love pink and frills and all the "girly" things our culture has to offer. Some of those kids are girls. Some of them are boys. It's silly to assume that femaleness causes an individual to like pink and flowers, just like it's silly to assume that maleness causes and individual to hate those things.


Yes, everyone's different but you can still group and one grouping, absolutely without doubt, is gay. To that extent, there is also straight.
Yes, you can create arbitrary groups into which a small minority of people fit, and you can try to define the entire population based on those groups. But why would you do that? It's lazy, it's narrow, it's confining, and it ultimately doesn't help you understand your fellow humans any better. It's just a short-hand way of forcing people into simple roles so that you can look at them and make snap judgments about their likes and dislikes.

When I hear people talking about how "girls like pink" or all that crap, to me it sounds no different than "blacks like fried chicken."

*snip*

Just because we can always find an exception to any rule, doesn't mean we should ignore the rule altogether. Different hormones are prevalent to varying degrees in the different sexes, we can certainly make general groupings and narrow in to individuals.

My point is not that all girls like pink, it's that children show tendencies before cultural expectations make a mark. I simply used the example I had.

Here you go (http://www.newhorizons.org/neuro/diamond_male_female.htm), and I'm being lazy but our brains alone show statistical differences.

Of course, we always have to recognise that people are individuals and I agree that in terms of rights, there's no reason for making anything of these differences. However, in science, we need to deal with what the evidence shows, even if just statistically.

*showers GnI with praise*
just because ;)

Eee! I hope that was praise....

Well I like that one. It smacks of speaking for other people which, let's face it, is something your entire argument is predicated on.

People might say they're gay or straight but they're simply in denial.

Why?

Because you say so.

I was at a friend's house the other day, a houseboat of all things, jealous me.

Anyway, we were talking about her daughter's propensity for the colour pink and, as a mother, she was saying that her daughter always liked pink, has always liked 'girly' things - she was thinking about it because, as parents in China, albeit foreigners, they had no idea of whether they were going to have a boy or girl since it's against the law to find out.

So all the decorations and toys they had were pretty neutral, yellows and blues, basic teddy bears.

Yet she simply remembers that her daughter was simply attracted to what she calls, 'girly' things.

I don't know if you have children, and people argue we place cultural values on them but the fact is you simply see that boys and girls are interested in different things, different ways of playing.

This is a fair generalization to some extent and I'm sure specific examples can be magicked out of the air to dispute this but there's simply different hormones, there's X and Y over X and X.

Yes, everyone's different but you can still group and one grouping, absolutely without doubt, is gay. To that extent, there is also straight.

Nice. Girls are inclined towards pink. Right.

I have three kids - two basically too young to express a preference (although the older one loves his hoodie top, I think it's for the hood, not the yellow), and one who expresses a LOT of preferences. The oldest is a girl - and she likes pink, and barbie, and bubblegum pop. Absolutely conforms to the stereotype.

The issue for me is - before she started at her current school, she prefered blue, the Gorrilaz, and her favourite toys were Spiderman toys.

Your 'pink' scenario is not evidence of anything implicit in our brains. Maybe this ONE girl really DOES like pink, but it doesn't speak to the average child, who is bombarded with images from all sides of what is expected of them.

Nice. Girls are inclined towards pink. Right.

I have three kids - two basically too young to express a preference (although the older one loves his hoodie top, I think it's for the hood, not the yellow), and one who expresses a LOT of preferences. The oldest is a girl - and she likes pink, and barbie, and bubblegum pop. Absolutely conforms to the stereotype.

The issue for me is - before she started at her current school, she prefered blue, the Gorrilaz, and her favourite toys were Spiderman toys.

Your 'pink' scenario is not evidence of anything implicit in our brains. Maybe this ONE girl really DOES like pink, but it doesn't speak to the average child, who is bombarded with images from all sides of what is expected of them.

If I was more intelligent I'd have wittingly used 'pink' rather than simply out of a recent observation example because it's so predictable that both of you would jump on it without considering the fact of the matter.

People's brains are different, male to female, statistically, are different. To say that we're all some hodge-podge of denial and cultural expectations is simply wrong. Certainly they're large factors, factors that muddy the issue but we are not tabula rasa.

There are gay people, there are straight people - it's not all cultural belief.

Oh, yeah, how "gutless" of me to post something, in a thread that you will be able to read and respond to, by using a literary device consisting of directing myself to a third person as an auxiliary medium to convey a general message that concerns the discussion as a whole!

I expect very little from you, so your inability to properly label this stylistic tournure is of course unsurprising and expected, but if you want me to direct myself at you, fine. I shall use a dandy function called "search and replace" to render this:


I choose to respond to this seperately, since it doesn't impact the content of the other post.

You 'chose' to respond to Sin, who I had already said I was no longer debating with. Your little 'aside' was not intended directly for me, but was definitely intended that I would be able to SEE it.

Your excuse that it was some kind of openletter is just that - an excuse. You didn't debate the issue, you did what your almost entire argument has been up to this point - you attacked the messenger. I'm not 'gay' enough to have an opinion, 'bisexuals' like me are half the problem.

You have presented nothing but ad hominem - and, on this particular occassion, you weren't even up front about that... choosing to hide behind rhetorical devices.

You 'expect very little' of me? And that, my dear, is why you always come up short.

People's brains are different, male to female, statistically, are different. To say that we're all some hodge-podge of denial and cultural expectations is simply wrong. Certainly they're large factors, factors that muddy the issue but we are not tabula rasa.


This is valid if you can show me research conducted on people raised in isolation.

Presenting evidence that our brains are routed differently isn't the evidence that you think it is - EVERY learning experience 'rewires' our brains. Conditioning 'rewires' our brains. Peer group pressure is a form of conditioning, and it is common across large groups of people.

Thus - spotting differences common to the 'wiring' of male brains versus those common to female brains is only to be expected. The same stimuli, the same conditioning, applied over a spectrum of time and place, would only be expected to result in a fair amount of common result.

This is valid if you can show me research conducted on people raised in isolation.

Presenting evidence that our brains are routed differently isn't the evidence that you think it is - EVERY learning experience 'rewires' our brains. Conditioning 'rewires' our brains. Peer group pressure is a form of conditioning, and it is common across large groups of people.

Thus - spotting differences common to the 'wiring' of male brains versus those common to female brains is only to be expected. The same stimuli, the same conditioning, applied over a spectrum of time and place, would only be expected to result in a fair amount of common result.

...from birth?

Eh?

Are boys conditioned to produce more testosterone as well?

And now to address the 'meat' (such as it is) of the 'argument':


"That is of course the reason I don't respect your own label - oh, right, you don't want to label yourself, but you bitch about the label given you,


I didn't bitch about any labels. I simply pointed out that the labels you applied are wrong. It doesn't bother me, but it's deceptive to others.

In the meantime, you continuously bitch about labels I apply generically, as though they really do matter to you. Hypocrisy, much?


...because you really don't care... the point of "bisexuals" is almost incarnated in you:


This sounds like an ad hominem.


...this whole "straight today and have been all my life, might be bi or gay tomorrow, can't know until I'm dead" nonsense is what you have.


Nonsense? How do you know it for nonsense? I can't speak for you, but you can for me? Hypocrisy, again? (And - of course - this is still me you're attacking, so still ad hominem).


...You really are nothing but "straight, gay or lying". There is nothing additional to you. Only jerking people around until you go "oops, I guess I'm not straight or gay enough yet! But in my mind I can keep fooling myself that I'm neither!".


"Jerking people around". Curious. That's the second time you've referred to my sexuality as though it's some kind of 'trick', and that the problem with it is that people are somehow being led on.

I do have a sweet ass, actually - but that doesn't make all my actions cockteasing. I thought those days of "she wore a skirt, she was asking for it" were gone.

MY understanding of my sexuality is not a 'trick' to confuse you. If you want to fuck me, just ask.


You like to pretend that "labels and differences and sexualities" don't matter to you,


I like to pretend? Again - you know me better than I know myself?

I do not pretend. They do not matter to me.

Again - more ad hominem.


...so you can theoretically be attracted to and fuck any gender


There is something wrong with the theory?


... (because that's where it always remains, in theory),


And, for the second time, you attack 'sexuality' that hasn't been consumated. So - you're only gay if you actually fuck gay?


...but in the real world, you don't. Yeah, GnI - in the real world, you don't find attractive and fuck all the genders.


And again... more ad hominem (obviously - since this is your attack on me, not some presentation of facts germaine to the discussion).. and again whether or not I 'fuck' everyone is a problem. Apparently.

You might want to note though... I've not denied finding my own gender attractive. Once again, you are telling me what you think my position should be.


...You find only one attractive and fuck only that one.


A half-truth, at best. And... relevent how?


...But in the "Lala"-land of your mind, you can convince yourself that "theoretically" that could change (which it of course won't)


I convince myself of nothing. I'm just honest enough to say I really don't know.

Cute little 'lala-land' reference, though... you neatly dispose of anything psychological or theoretical by trivialising it.


...and you can also delude yourself into thinking that others are as willing to lie to themselves


I'm not lying to myself. Why would I 'delude' myself into thinking others would. Of course - from my perspective, many already ARE.


...as you are, hence your claims that everyone else is "not straight, not gay, only lying"


That sounds more like one of your quotes, to be honest.


...when, as I said, you're the one "gay, straight or lying", well, "straight and lying" actually.


Hypocrisy rears it's ugly head, again. It's bad when I do it, it's okay whn you do? Do you design American foriegn policy, by any chance?


...Such luck that what you know in this matter has been amply demonstrated not to be enough to fill even a Lilliputian thimble."

And this one - pure ad hominem. Not even a pretense. Cute... but worthless.


Since you've delivered such a wealth of ad hominem, dear boy, I'm sure you won't object to me pointing out that - the behaviour you express towards me here, would have you in some kind of catalepsy if it were a 'straight' man saying it to you. The whole thing reads just like the kind of condemnatory uber-religious gender conservatism I encounter on a daily basis... just, this time it comes wrapped in rainbow paper.

...from birth?

Eh?

Are boys conditioned to produce more testosterone as well?

Hormone differences aren't necessarily analogous to brain-wiring. Even if some dimensions of our brain material TEND to differ from male to female... well, they differ from male to male, also, no? Even if there is a real statistically significant difference in lobal weighting, it still doesn't automatically equate to anything regarding preference or practise.

If you can show that small statistical variations between lobes mean something, in isolation from other factors, you might have something.

Hormone differences aren't necessarily analogous to brain-wiring. Even if some dimensions of our brain material TEND to differ from male to female... well, they differ from male to male, also, no? Even if there is a real statistically significant difference in lobal weighting, it still doesn't automatically equate to anything regarding preference or practise.

If you can show that small statistical variations between lobes mean something, in isolation from other factors, you might have something.

Oh come on, if you think hormones have no effect on the brain then...

I don't know, hard to debate beyond this.

Here you go (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071114121316.htm)

...and hormones (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080208172104.htm)

Oh come on, if you think hormones have no effect on the brain then...

I don't know, hard to debate beyond this.

Here you go (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071114121316.htm)

...and hormones (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080208172104.htm)

I'm not sure what the point is supposed to be - I'm not denying that hormones can alter emotions (or, in prolonged cases, alter the brain response pathways)... but I don't see how that relates to - for example - making girls like pink, or boys like to play with trucks.

Here's a funny thing about sexuality, and it's not proven, this very debate shows the difficulty in proving anything about brain/body function.

That people are gay is most likely 'something' to do with genetics, which I think most people who study the issue are in agreement on, they're just not sure what.

The funny thing is that it may very well, almost likely in fact, be nothing to do with being gay per se. That is, it's may be a genetic factor, or combination [more likely] thereof, aimed at doing something else, along the lines of sickle cell anaemia, that results in a preference for the same sex.

People look for a 'gay' gene but it may be that it's something that helps defend against a certain disease or diseases - it's believed iron deficiency helped against the plague - possibly long in our past, long as in before humans.

Where a population is sick, genetic mutations arise where the body will throw out a hundred 'chances' for survival despite the risk of any mutation being harmful to an individual.

This wouldn't be a great scheme if it was just an individual but if you take a population under stress then the chances of one person having a genetic mutation that works against a disease, then that person has a good chance of survival and therefore procreation and therefore the survival of the species as a whole.

Yet any genetic mutation may have various other effects. This may be the reason for a certain % of the population being gay.

Weird world we live in, the beauty of life.

EDIT: I was clearly writing this as you posted yours GnI - as I said, the point of 'pink' was that children show preference prior to cultural impact. The girl in question was 2 and a half, not to say 'pink' is a female preference, though I wouldn't discount it statistically - not saying it is, not saying it isn't - it's simply that we have inbuilt preferences that are not cultural, these differ between male and female statistically.

Since you've delivered such a wealth of ad hominem, dear boy, I'm sure you won't object to me pointing out that - the behaviour you express towards me here, would have you in some kind of catalepsy if it were a 'straight' man saying it to you. The whole thing reads just like the kind of condemnatory uber-religious gender conservatism I encounter on a daily basis... just, this time it comes wrapped in rainbow paper.

Ridicule is the only weapon we have against self-delusional nonsense. It is apparent all you have is self-delusional nonsense and hypocrisy in that you go around telling people what they are, defining them, but when someone defines you properly, as the purveyor of such ridiculous BS and self-delusions, you go "uhm, who are you to tell me what I am? You can read my mind?" Well, here's a clue, Sherlock: anything you've been met by me here has been nothing but a mirror image of your own behaviour. Every single time you've attempted to refute it, you've vied to refute your own poppycock and BS behaviour.

That's why this is so funny - you've deluded yourself sufficiently so as not to even be able to see this. So I ridicule. Oh, how I ridicule. How could I not? It's so easy. Because throughout this thread, all your posts, filled with utter manure, have been worthy of nothing else. So, have fun in your "Lala"-land - that's the only place anyone's ever gonna buy your BS. Well, there, and where those 16-year-old girls hang out, but fortunately they'll grow out of it and discard it once they mature, so one needn't worry about them.

That's why this is so funny - you've deluded yourself sufficiently so as not to even be able to see this.
That's the part that has been confusing me so much.

"I'm not denying anyone anything, they can call themselves what they want....but I know that they are lying to themselves and that in fact, they aren't what they say they are."

Hmmm...not denying anyone anything...denying them in fact...how does one convince oneself of the first while doing the second? I mean, a person who has a shred of intellectual honesty...I know how the ordinary trollish rabble does it.

Open Letter to All You Gay Men:

I actually am all that and a bag of potato crisps. You want me, and you know, inescapably, that your desire for me burns like Fire Island sans penicillin.

Everything about my seething masculinity lures you, and I have every right to be grossed out. After all, my stunning upper frame, draped with doughy, pasty, untanned flab dotted with sparse stiff black body hair, even though it draws your eye, is actually a gift for women.

Hear that, queers? My beer gut and saggy man boobs are not for your lusts, so quit undressing me with your homogaze.

It just pisses me off when I'm at the gym, putting up 40, sometime 45 lbs of weight with what I like to call my "guns", and one of you fag types is obsessively massaging me with your eyes.

First of all, every one of you fucking people should start spending more time with the Holy Bible and a little less time imaging what it would be like to bounce gently on my expansive, creamy, cinammon colored butt, cresting and falling like a Puerto Rican body surfer in summer.

And for the guy who said "gay isn't gay if you don't fuck gay?"

Yes, that's totally true. I know because everybody tells me that. My priest, my minister, my pastor, my doctors, my wife, the other guys in my support group for eradicating "those" feelings, my priest from a different religion than my other priest...I'm not sure why they keep mentioning to me that gay feelings don't count if you don't act on them. But they mention it a lot so it must be true.

Homogazers.

Enjoyable.

~too desensitized to it because we are constantly being checked out by unattractive men?This is a fact. And it really gives me the giggles to hear straight men whine about it. Project much, guys?

The problem is, my personal experience has been that the supposed "exceptions" are actually the rule.

The "problem" to you is, your personal experiences aren't worth shit. I say as courteously as possible.

I've met very few people who actually conform to the standardized image of "maleness" or "femaleness." Most people are at least a bit of both.

And this is supposed to somehow support your argumentation in this matter where we're talking about whom people find attractive and fuck, this what is no doubt gonna be "but Johhny there doesn't just like blue, he also has nothing against magenta, so he doesn't fit a stereotype! Oh, who cares that he still only finds attractive and fucks women and identifies as a biological male as most males do! Pay no attention to that!"

It's not about claiming I don't believe in trees. It's about pointing out how stupid it is for somebody to insist that all plants are trees when they're standing in the middle of a field of wildflowers.

Actually, as I later said - insisting that all plants are trees (the genderqueer) when they are standing in a field of wildflowers (biological-gender identifying people who have a sexuality that fits into that scheme, again, most people) is what you're doing.

I don't deny that there are people who fit into the binary gender scheme, I simply think it's a stupid scheme because most people don't fit neatly into it.

Yeah, that's what I'm calling BS on, because this is probably again based on "not all girls play with Barbies, and not all boys play with GI Joes" all the while ignoring that a crushingly overwhelming majority of those girls and boys will identify as girls and boys according to the binary gender scheme and will have a sexuality that fits into it (finding either of the sexes attractive, or even both, but still sticking to them instead of some genderqueer numinous haze).

Again, to use your color analogy, I know that blue and yellow certainly exist, but they represent only a tiny fraction of the full electromagnetic spectrum. It would be stupid to refer to the electromagnetic spectrum as a Blue-Yellow dichotomy. It is, in my opinion, likewise stupid to refer to human sexuality in terms of the Male-Female dichotomy.

I think it's stupid of you to ignore, no matter what correct analogy of mine you pervert to that end, that what you're doing is using a tiny, tiny, tiny minority of people who don't fit into the binary gender system to pretend that the rest of humanity doesn't fit it - and you also do so by apparently confounding the discussion we're having about sexual orientations and biological genders with some "well, not everyone fits into a masculine, social stereotype!" as if that somehow had anything to do with them defining as biologically male or female in accordance with their biology and having a sexuality that conforms to that.

I simply think it's silly to try to define an entire population based on the characteristics of a small minority.

Haha, oh, the irony. Again, that's exactly what you're trying to do.

I've certainly never said that. That would be goofy. I know that I don't like all things, so why on Earth would I assume that everybody else does?

GnI does, and you support him. Well, supported him, but as we shall see later on, his stances may have revealed themselves too kooky for even you to defend.

I don't think I understand this. Could you clarify what you mean?

I think I've done this several times by now, but here goes: you're apparently using some experience you have with genderqueer people (if even that, the more I read of you, the more I become convinced that you're arguing something social along those "not fitting a stereotype of behaviour, even Udo can cry and Bärbel can fight in a war!" irrelevance to the discussion I was having) to ignore that most people aren't genderqueer, and that they do in fact identify with their biological gender and that they do have a sexuality based on that, i.e. fucking only the opposite or same or both genders and not some ethereal "third" one. I'm not begrudging you any of the genders you can concoct, I'm just saying that the biological two we have and the sexualities we have that conform to them are in the overwhelming amount of cases sufficient, while your genderqueer theories are peripheral and insufficient to deny the former.

I don't know if human sexuality is fluid in most cases, since I haven't been most people. I know that most of the people I've asked about this subject report that their sexuality has changed at least somewhat over time. I don't know if you want to call that "fluid," since at any given point their sexuality was what it was, and certainly wasn't anything else.

Have they "changed" their sexual orientation to another, or are you just as I suspect talking about "I didn't used to like going down, but now I don't just stare at it, I eat it like it were made by Gordon Brown!" Sure, if that's what you mean by people's sexuality changing, then mine has changed every single time I discovered something new I liked and grew bored with something old, even though I still remained a biological male identifying as such fucking others of my kind.

I think I should just bow out of this particular issue, since it looks like GnI has been more than able to talk about this with you guys already.

As I mentioned, not even you can defend it, huh? I don't blame you for that, I blame you for giving it so much shadow of a doubt for as long as you did.

That has not been my experience, though I freely admit that I have only met a teeny tiny fraction of humanity and I might simply associate with lots of freaks.

That, and as I mentioned probably confounding the discussion.


I don't think that's remotely true. For me to say that I think the "gay" versus "straight" labels are based on a fundamentally flawed concept does NOT equate to me denying anybody's sexuality. I also try not to ever question somebody's own label of their sexuality, since I figure each person should get to identify how ever they damn well please.

Nah, you just call their sexualities "flawed". Which is so much better than denying them.

I may disagree with how a person conceptualizes sexuality, and I (obviously) enjoy debating the topic, but at the end of the day it's not my place to tell somebody how they must identify their sexuality (or their sex!). I've met biologically male individuals who identify as female, and I respect their feelings on that subject, so really it's not that hard to respect the feelings of people who identify as gay or straight or whatever! :)

Funny, the biologically male people identifying as female I've met still conformed to a binary gender system and still had a sexuality within that system - they identified as the other binary and were attracted to people of either same binary or of the opposite and wanted to become that other one, not some third option. That's not "not conforming", but that is actually doing more to conform than most people. They want so to conform, they chop their bits off so that they can and don't want to be some "third" thing, but the proper one for them of the two! In all, that speaks much, much more against you than you think it does for you.

This is a fact. And it really gives me the giggles to hear straight men whine about it. Project much, guys?

Nope, and I resent the implication.

The only projector I have in my house is used to replay old 8mm film from my days on the high school swim team, because even though I know longer compete, I need to check out my competitors.

So I can beat them.

Actually, that section of the reel snapped from being worn out, the part where the the guys would bend down in tense, clenched anticipation of the piercing whistle...I would study their form, then back the film up so they'd stand up again, then forward, study their form, back it up, down, up, down...

To win, you have to know the other guy's form. Like, really well.

Fuck you people.

Yeah, that's what I'm calling BS on, because this probably again based on "not all girls play with Barbies, and not all boys play with GI Joes" all the while ignoring that a crushingly overwhelming majority of those girls and boys will identify as girls and boys according to the binary gender scheme and will have a sexuality that fits into it (finding either of the sexes attractive, or even both, but still sticking to them instead of some genderqueer numinous haze).


Excuse me, may I interupt this nigh-intractable embrace you two are in to remind you of a little somebody named Scarlett? Or Lady J? Or Duke if you use a red crayon to draw a little lipstick on him?

There IS a middle ground here.

Funny, the most biologically male people identifying as female I've met still conformed to a binary gender system and still had a sexuality within that system - they identified as the other binary and were attracted to people of either same binary or of the opposite and wanted to become that other one, not some third option. That's not "not conforming", but that is actually doing more to conform than most people. They want so to conform, they chop their bits off so that they can and don't want to be some "third" thing, but the proper one for them of the two!


Exactly.

How did my brother first realise she was transgendered?

She liked dolls, she enjoyed painting her nails, she wanted to wear makeup in a non-goth fashion. She enjoyed the company of her female relations more than the male ones.

In short, she 'fit' into the 'traditional female' paradigm.

Frick most of the transgendered people I know are more male or female than the biologically male or female when it comes to comforming to gender norms.

But I also don't go from personal experience alone. I go by the research presented by my local transgendered support group.

The number of genderqueer people out there is absolutely an extreme minority to those who whose biological sex and gender match up quite well. Guys who wear eye liner and chicks who drive trucks don't a genderqueer person make.

Ridicule is the only weapon we have against self-delusional nonsense. It is apparent all you have is self-delusional nonsense and hypocrisy in that you go around telling people what they are, defining them, but when someone defines you properly, as the purveyor of such ridiculous BS and self-delusions, you go "uhm, who are you to tell me what I am? You can read my mind?" Well, here's a clue, Sherlock: anything you've been met by me here has been nothing but a mirror image of your own behaviour. Every single time you've attempted to refute it, you've vied to refute your own poppycock and BS behaviour.

That's why this is so funny - you've deluded yourself sufficiently so as not to even be able to see this. So I ridicule. Oh, how I ridicule. How could I not? It's so easy. Because throughout this thread, all your posts, filled with utter manure, have been worthy of nothing else. So, have fun in your "Lala"-land - that's the only place anyone's ever gonna buy your BS. Well, there, and where those 16-year-old girls hang out, but fortunately they'll grow out of it and discard it once they mature, so one needn't worry about them.

What a lot of words you use to say "I ain't got nothing". Well, nothing but bile.

You've continuously managed to avoid dealing with any actual argument, and brought it back over and over to me. I know I'm pretty, but let's leave your obvious fixation to one side for a moment, and debate the issues.

I signed up to a beauty contest many days ago...

I was the only candidate to turn up and i still lost.

Excuse me, may I interupt this nigh-intractable embrace you two are in to remind you of a little somebody named Scarlett? Or Lady J? Or Duke if you use a red crayon to draw a little lipstick on him?

There IS a middle ground here.Got yer panties in a twist?
Please do detail your objection to me pointing out how many of these guys who assume gay men are drooling over them are projecting 'cuz that's what they do to chicks.

Got yer panties in a twist?
Please do detail your objection to me pointing out how many of these guys who assume gay men are drooling over them are projecting 'cuz that's what they do to chicks.

Note...his posts have been filled to the brim with satire.

That's the part that has been confusing me so much.

"I'm not denying anyone anything, they can call themselves what they want....but I know that they are lying to themselves and that in fact, they aren't what they say they are."

Hmmm...not denying anyone anything...denying them in fact...how does one convince oneself of the first while doing the second? I mean, a person who has a shred of intellectual honesty...I know how the ordinary trollish rabble does it.

I'm not god. I finally have to admit it.

So - here's the catch - I can comment on people without it changing their implicit nature. The Word is not the Act.

So - if I say there are no 'gay' people, it makes absolutely no difference to what 'they' can call themselves. Nor does it change anyone's implicit nature - those facts are not malleable by my vocalisation.

On the other hand - they are not malleable by their own utetrances, either - and, if the fact is that there is no spectrum (just 'sexuality'), then it doesn't matetr what 'they' call themselves, either.


Do I care if someone calls himself or herself 'gay'? Not in the least. But it won't reflect on anything more than how they perceive themselves.

What a lot of words you use to say "I ain't got nothing". Well, nothing but bile.

You've continuously managed to avoid dealing with any actual argument, and brought it back over and over to me. I know I'm pretty, but let's leave your obvious fixation to one side for a moment, and debate the issues.

Oh please GnI. He laid his argument out very succinctly and clearly in that post. Quit dismissing it because his tone hurts your feelings. Very valid criticisms of your 'I'm not denying anything except I am because you're all deluded' approach have been brought up, resulting in you NOT backing them up with anything, and instead choosing to cry about 'tone' and 'you big fat meanies' and refusing to continue debate under the guise of 'agreeing to disagree'.

Note...his posts have been filled to the brim with satire.Silly me. Skimming threads again.

Got yer panties in a twist?
Please do detail your objection to me pointing out how many of these guys who assume gay men are drooling over them are projecting 'cuz that's what they do to chicks.

Yes, I do have my panties in a twist, but they aren't panties they are MEN'S silk thongs. I can't fit into the ones in the women's department. But I wouldn't buy them anyway. Trying them on was just gathering data, and I have no problem getting thrown out of a Lane Bryant store for science.

Now then: Men do not project. We don't cry, and we don't experience hormonal variation. In fact, if you owned a biochemistry book, you'd know that men don't even have a parasympathetic nervous system. Our secondary sex characteristics don't come from hormones, they come from our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, who, being a man, did not project.

Also, your use of the term "chicks" is sexist, anachronistic, and should only be used when prefaced with the word "Dixie" and followed by the words "I'd do 'em, but I don't grasp their politics".

So, on to my objection: if men were "projecting", as you say, that would imply that the male gender experiences all the same worries of inadequacy and desire to be cared for that is common to humanity, and that they are just as vulnerable to subconscious coping mechanism as anyone else.

If you believe that, you need to read Ephesians.

I'm not god. I finally have to admit it.

So - here's the catch - I can comment on people without it changing their implicit nature. The Word is not the Act.

So - if I say there are no 'gay' people, it makes absolutely no difference to what 'they' can call themselves. Nor does it change anyone's implicit nature - those facts are not malleable by my vocalisation.

Calling people 'niggers' and then saying, 'but I'm not god, me saying that doesn't make you a ******' doesn't let you off the hook. Since you're particularily obtuse in this thread, let me point out that this is an analogy used to point out how offensive it is for you to tell people they aren't actually gay or straight, and then trying to excuse yourself by saying 'but the Word is not the Act'.

On the other hand - they are not malleable by their own utetrances, either - and, if the fact is that there is no spectrum (just 'sexuality'), then it doesn't matetr what 'they' call themselves, either. Yes well you've yet to provide a shred of evidence to back up your theory of a spectrumless world. Nor do you at any point actually admit you could be wrong. You just assert we haven't caught up to your level of enlightment yet.


Do I care if someone calls himself or herself 'gay'? Not in the least. But it won't reflect on anything more than how they perceive themselves.
Right...your version of 'respecting labels' by graciously allowing people to use them while going on and on about how these labels are wrong, and people are deluded and it doesn't matter what they call themselves because they're wrong...

The version of respect that actually looks like disrespect. Right. That one.

Oh please GnI. He laid his argument out very succinctly and clearly in that post. Quit dismissing it because his tone hurts your feelings. Very valid criticisms of your 'I'm not denying anything except I am because you're all deluded' approach have been brought up, resulting in you NOT backing them up with anything, and instead choosing to cry about 'tone' and 'you big fat meanies' and refusing to continue debate under the guise of 'agreeing to disagree'.

Seriously - re-read it. It was all ad hominem.

It takes more than fass being bitchy to 'hurt my feelings', and his 'tone' is the least of the problems.

If his argument WAS laid out "very succinctly and clearly in that post"... then his whole argument is ad hominem, in which case I have no way to debate it.

On the whole "'agreeing to disagree"... concept.... it was AFTER I absented myself under that premise, that fass began his bitchy asides. Well, obviously, once I've 'agreed to disagree', it's safe to bring something that boils down to nothing more than personal attacks.

I'm not god. I finally have to admit it.


Is the election over already? What if Morgan Freeman shows up and makes you god, and the role of you is played by Javier Bardem?


So - here's the catch - I can comment on people without it changing their implicit nature. The Word is not the Act.

Actually, Acts is in the Word. Now I can't believe anything you say.


So - if I say there are no 'gay' people, it makes absolutely no difference to what 'they' can call themselves. Nor does it change anyone's implicit nature - those facts are not malleable by my vocalisation.

On the other hand - they are not malleable by their own utetrances, either - and, if the fact is that there is no spectrum (just 'sexuality'), then it doesn't matetr what 'they' call themselves, either.

Do I care if someone calls himself or herself 'gay'? Not in the least. But it won't reflect on anything more than how they perceive themselves.

Newsflash, Mr. Levay: Only Shazam is malleable by his own utterances, and he worships pagan gods and so will go to hell.

And in hell, self-labelling as a means to manage one's old self-perception is merely a subset of the habitual use of language to craft and mold one's model of reality in a broader sense.

SnakeEYes might've been a girl. And Stormshadow. You can't prove they weren't.

And for the guy who said "gay isn't gay if you don't fuck gay?"

I didn't say that. I said "gay isn't gay if you don't want to fuck gay and never do", which fits GnI to whom it was directed. He's not a celibate fag - he's someone who doesn't want to fuck gay and accordingly doesn't fuck gay, but wants to believe that he could be, if only he had those ruby slippers and knew what to do with them.

Seriously - re-read it. It was all ad hominem.

It takes more than fass being bitchy to 'hurt my feelings', and his 'tone' is the least of the problems.

If his argument WAS laid out "very succinctly and clearly in that post"... then his whole argument is ad hominem, in which case I have no way to debate it.

On the whole "'agreeing to disagree"... concept.... it was AFTER I absented myself under that premise, that fass began his bitchy asides. Well, obviously, once I've 'agreed to disagree', it's safe to bring something that boils down to nothing more than personal attacks.For someone who doesn't care, you sure respond a lot.

I thought you'd have the ability to get past your bruised feelings and see past the ad hominem into seeing how your arguments are being parodied in an attempt for you to recognise how idiotic they are. All the things you are complaining that Fass is doing you have done. That you still refuse to see that is either willfull ignorance or an amazing ability to remain deluded. I'm prone to believe the latter considering the rest of your contribution in this thread.

Calling people 'niggers' and then saying, 'but I'm not god, me saying that doesn't make you a ******' doesn't let you off the hook. Since you're particularily obtuse in this thread, let me point out that this is an analogy used to point out how offensive it is for you to tell people they aren't actually gay or straight, and then trying to excuse yourself by saying 'but the Word is not the Act'.


Actually, the parallel would be me saying there WERE no 'niggers' and that the terminology was not only wrong, but irrelevent and unhelpful.

Which rather makes me wonder why my perspective requires such vitriolic response, and why some people are apparently wanting to call themselves 'niggers' so badly.


Yes well you've yet to provide a shred of evidence to back up your theory of a spectrumless world. Nor do you at any point actually admit you could be wrong. You just assert we haven't caught up to your level of enlightment yet.


Sounds fair. In the future, we'll all be visonaries.


Right...your version of 'respecting labels' by graciously allowing people to use them while going on and on about how these labels are wrong, and people are deluded and it doesn't matter what they call themselves because they're wrong...

The version of respect that actually looks like disrespect. Right. That one.

There are people out there that claim that homsexuality is a tool of the devil. Obviously, that's a pretty dumb claim, but them saying it is so doesn't MAKE it so. That's because the way we label one another (or even ourselves) can influence how we think and even act... but doesn't change the implicit nature of the thing.

Calling sand 'snow' doesn't make it cold.

I mean, a person who has a shred of intellectual honesty...I know how the ordinary trollish rabble does it.

Yeah, that first bit? Come now...

Blah Blah Blah.
I think it is more simple than that. Its more like: I know straight men think dirty thoughts about girls. Therefore gay men must think dirty thoughts about men. I don't like the idea of gay men thinking dirty thoughts about me.

To which a women replies: Now you know what its like to be me.

For someone who doesn't care, you sure respond a lot.


I also pay my taxes a lot, and I'm not emotionally vested in that, either.


I thought you'd have the ability to get past your bruised feelings


My feelings (still) aren't bruised.

Indeed, I'm beginning to think I'm the only person involved that isn't arguing from an emotional platform.


and see past the ad hominem into seeing how your arguments are being parodied in an attempt for you to recognise how idiotic they are.


Appeal to ridicule is a fallacy. Parodying my arguments isn't a dismissal of them - even if the parody was any good, or even relevent.

Fass' whole 'argument' has been to insult me, cry about how mean I am being to him as a 'gay' man, and complain about me not following through on the sexual advances of some hypothetical booty-seekers.

All the things you are complaining that Fass is doing you have done.


I don't think so. I've seen no parallel between his consistent personal attacks on me, and my general commentary about the nature of human sexuality. Which - if it is 'personal' to him, is ONLY personal, because he chooses to make it so.

That you still refuse to see that is either willfull ignorance or an amazing ability to remain deluded. I'm prone to believe the latter considering the rest of your contribution in this thread.

Is there a reason why human sexuality is NOT less constrained than a binary system with occassional blips?

To ridicule the argument to make it go away is completely uneffective.

Yeah, that first bit? Come now...

Lame, fass. Lame.

There are people out there that claim that homsexuality is a tool of the devil. Obviously, that's a pretty dumb claim, but them saying it is so doesn't MAKE it so. That's because the way we label one another (or even ourselves) can influence how we think and even act... but doesn't change the implicit nature of the thing.

Calling sand 'snow' doesn't make it cold.

Interestingly, In my hometown there are a lot of people who say gay is the work of the devil. And all the gay people I knew dressed in black and wore goth makeup. In a more modern city where there isn't as much of that religious homophobia the gays don't dress gothic.

Lame, fass. Lame.

The truth of you is, yes. So much is apparent.

Sounds fair. In the future, we'll all be visonaries.
I have accused you of being unable to admit you could be wrong, and of completely failing to provide any support for your position, while claiming that position to be absolute fact. You accept all this.

I think at this point, the person who is not worth debating, is you. So far you haven't brought a shred of anything resembling debate to the table. Only 'GnI knows your sexuality better than you do, but go ahead deluded one, call yourself what you will.'

You are an unapologetic, unsubstantiated bigot in this regard. It's really quite something to see.

The truth of you is, yes. So much is apparent.

Ad hominem is all you have?

Did I touch a nerve or something?

Yeah, that first bit? Come now...

I was being extremely generous. I retract that statement. There is nothing either intellecutal or honest about GnI's 'arguments' (and I use that term very loosely) in this thread.

To ridicule the argument to make it go away is completely uneffective.

1. Ineffective.
2. You have no argument. That's what I'm ridiculing. That's what's so funny that you don't get.

Interestingly, In my hometown there are a lot of people who say gay is the work of the devil. And all the gay people I knew dressed in black and wore goth makeup. In a more modern city where there isn't as much of that religious homophobia the gays don't dress gothic.

In several towns I've lived in, I've noticed the same phenomenon, also including those who indulge in 'fetish' lifestyles. The goth scene is quite inclusive, and maybe, in a room where anyone might wear makeup of somewhat 'feminine' fashions, people feel more comfortable about (what are perceived as) counterculture sexualities.

Ad hominem is all you have?

Even if it were, it's still barrels more than what you've had so far.

Did I touch a nerve or something?

The tickle nerves, yes. I've laughed profusely, at least.

1. Ineffective.
2. You have no argument.

This.

All you have, GnI, is your personal opinion, stated as fact, without a shred of proof, research or otherwise to back yourself up. He who asserts must prove.

Instead, you cling to every post Fass, or I make, and prattle about being the only unemotional one.

Newsflash. Lack of emotional attachment to the issue (not evinced by your behaviour in any case) does not equal logic, sense, or anything resembling an argument.

I was being extremely generous.

Aye, that has been to your detriment in more occasions than this.

I retract that statement. There is nothing either intellecutal or honest about GnI's 'arguments' (and I use that term very loosely) in this thread.

Isn't it funny how it takes you all this time to get to that conclusion, when that's been my stance all along? Lesson to you for the future is: listen to me, feeble woman! You know I'm right.

Aye, that has been to your detriment in more occasions than this.

Isn't it funny how it takes you all this time to get to that conclusion, when that's been my stance all along? Lesson to you for the future is: listen to me, feeble woman! You know I'm right.

You know that hoping against hope is a flaw of mine I haven't been able to overcome :P But even I, at some point, must admit that someone is completely hopeless and there is no point in further 'discussion'.

In several towns I've lived in, I've noticed the same phenomenon, also including those who indulge in 'fetish' lifestyles. The goth scene is quite inclusive, and maybe, in a room where anyone might wear makeup of somewhat 'feminine' fashions, people feel more comfortable about (what are perceived as) counterculture sexualities.

Or maybe because religious people say kinky sex is evil the people who like kinky sex think that means they are evil and decide to dress accordingly. They are making the statement: Stop telling me I am evil I already acknowledge and embrace it.

I have accused you of being unable to admit you could be wrong, and of completely failing to provide any support for your position, while claiming that position to be absolute fact. You accept all this.

I think at this point, the person who is not worth debating, is you. So far you haven't brought a shred of anything resembling debate to the table. Only 'GnI knows your sexuality better than you do, but go ahead deluded one, call yourself what you will.'

You are an unapologetic, unsubstantiated bigot in this regard. It's really quite something to see.

I'd say you should withdraw yourself from your passionate responses, isolate yourself from the debate, and actually look at what I've done.


I have said that our sexuality is isolated from how we choose to describe ourselves.

I have said that neither my comments, nor those of others, 'make it so'.

I have said that (basically) human sexuality is not easily or accurately defined by a binary (them and us) mentality.


At heart - that's been my premise. But - that's not what gets debated. Which is a shame, because I think there's an interesting debate in there.

I was being extremely generous. I retract that statement. There is nothing either intellecutal or honest about GnI's 'arguments' (and I use that term very loosely) in this thread.

Whether or not you think I'm being 'honest' is up to you. I am, but that's almost irrelevent.

I appreciate your comments when they are being constructive. This isn't on topic, and is just indulging fass in his ad hominem diversions.

But, in case you were actually trying to discuss the topic - how is it 'intellectually dishonest'?

1. Ineffective.


Spelling? That's your technique now?

Either is actually acceptable.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/uneffective


2. You have no argument. That's what I'm ridiculing. That's what's so funny that you don't get.

Your inability to debate my argument doesn't mean it isn't there.

At least you are now admitting you aren't trying to debate, and are instead merely trolling.

This.

All you have, GnI, is your personal opinion, stated as fact, without a shred of proof, research or otherwise to back yourself up. He who asserts must prove.

Instead, you cling to every post Fass, or I make, and prattle about being the only unemotional one.

Newsflash. Lack of emotional attachment to the issue (not evinced by your behaviour in any case) does not equal logic, sense, or anything resembling an argument.

You keep saying I'm whining or crying or whatever... but I have looked back over my posts, and I really don't see it.

Unless you include "you said x", "no I said y" as being whining...?

You make a good point, though - he who asserts bears the onus of proof. Which rather makes me wonder why you've indulged Fass in his policy of abuse, rather than relying on the actual rules of debate.

Of course - even without evidence (which I haven't provided objective sources for, but which doesn't mean tyhere isn't any), the argument can stil;l stand as a 'thought experiment'. Debating it in that context... would it actually get a response, or just more of Fass saying I'm not gay enough, and you accusing me of dishonesty?

I didn't say that. I said "gay isn't gay if you don't want to fuck gay and never do", which fits GnI to whom it was directed. He's not a celibate fag - he's someone who doesn't want to fuck gay and accordingly doesn't fuck gay, but wants to believe that he could be, if only he had those ruby slippers and knew what to do with them.

They're pumps, not slippers. And I use them in my theater group that I'm eventually going to start.

Spelling? That's your technique now?

Now? I always try to educate and correct the incorrect. Mocking your lack of argument in this thread has been in that vein. Why should I have stopped when it comes to such a blatant grammatical error?

Either is actually acceptable.

http://www.askoxford.com/results/?view=dict&freesearch=uneffective&branch=13842570&textsearchtype=exact

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/uneffective

Oh, neither of the largest, proper dictionaries, instead of some fourth-rate Internet-one, list it? What a coincidence, eh? Take it from me, honey (if you don't trust Oxford or Webster), who's had to actually take the time to learn this language and memorise the illogical way it makes use of negative prefixes: "uneffective" is erroneous, just like "unlogical" or "unrespective" would be. But don't just stop there! Let's look at usage:

http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=ineffective&word2=uneffective

Ah, will you look at that? 12,2 million hits versus 60 thousand. I'm not sorry to have to break it you, but you shouldn't trust Internet-only dictionaries.

Your inability to debate my argument doesn't mean it isn't there.

Your claim that you have an argument here is as, well, all your claims in this thread so far. And you know pretty much what I think they are.

I can't stand people who do that. What makes them think they're hot enough for anyone to check them out? And, shouldn't you just be flattered if someone thinks you're attractive?

Homophobic idiots.

My sentiments exactly...

Eee! I hope that was praise....

Well, I call it praise...

I'm incredibly attractive to gay men. I'm black, have a 14 inch penis, drive a ferrari, and date supermodels.

This is the internet, of course it is true.

I didn't say that. I said "gay isn't gay if you don't want to fuck gay and never do", which fits GnI to whom it was directed. He's not a celibate fag - he's someone who doesn't want to fuck gay and accordingly doesn't fuck gay, but wants to believe that he could be, if only he had those ruby slippers and knew what to do with them.

I'm not really sure what else is going on here, but I think that GnI might not be so far off on this particular point. Maybe he's just open to the idea that he might, at some point, find a man he wants to fuck?

I used to hang out with a lesbian who - once in her life - found a man she wanted to be with. It was all women before him and all women after him, but there was that one man. She was open to the idea that she could possibly be attracted to men, but it only really happened in that one instance.

It's also interesting to note that many people who unflinchingly categorize themselves as straight have sometimes found members of the same sex that they were attracted to and did have sexual experiences with.

In the end, the labels we place on sexuality come down to self-categorization. A man might categorize himself as straight or gay despite attraction and/or action with the less frequent sex. Another might consider himself bisexual because of a single instance of attraction/action with the less frequent sex. Another might be unable to list a single instance of such attraction.

The problem with labels isn't in the labels. It's in the stock we put in them. Any time we try to fit human beings into neat little boxes, we're going to find people who don't fit. The neater you try to make the box, the fewer people that will fit. It's better, in my mind, to see labels for what they are - vague generalities. If you really want to know about Suzy's sexuality, you're going to have to go much deeper than "straight, gay, or bi". But if you just want a vague idea, those labels will likely do.

Now? I always try to educate and correct the incorrect. Mocking your lack of argument in this thread has been in that vein. Why should I have stopped when it comes to such a blatant grammatical error?


Mockery is all you've had. The 'argument' to which you might suggest it relates is irrelevent to your mockery of it.

You've carefully avoided actually debating the issue, and have instead resorted to just these kinds of weak distractions.


For the record - Using online dictionaries: Hyperdictionary, WordWeb, Answers.com, the Farlex "Free Dictionary" and Wordreference.com all suggest uneffective as synonyms of ineffective. WordNet (created by Princeton University) similarly cites 'uneffective'.

Your pretense that it is a grammatical error is just another weak diversion. But - such quibbling has to be easier than addressing the actual issues, I assume.


Your claim that you have an argument here is as, well, all your claims in this thread so far. And you know pretty much what I think they are.

Yes, I know. And you can only imagine how that pains me, valuable as your opinion is.

All you have, GnI, is your personal opinion, stated as fact, without a shred of proof, research or otherwise to back yourself up. He who asserts must prove.

Not doubting the burden of proof issue, but in what way is the straight/gay dichotomy any more than your personal opinion?

I'd say we are are prone to these binary oppositions mostly due to the way our language has developed the terms to describe it, not necessarily because it accurately describes everything about it.

Not doubting the burden of proof issue, but in what way is the straight/gay dichotomy any more than your personal opinion?

I'd say we are are prone to these binary oppositions mostly due to the way our language has developed the terms to describe it, not necessarily because it accurately describes everything about it.

I've even admitted the burden of proof thing.

On the other hand, I've not actually seen any 'proof' for the binary model, either.

Your pretense that it is a grammatical error is just another weak diversion. But - such quibbling has to be easier than addressing the actual issues, I assume. Ugh. GnI, instead of pretending you are so above such assinine quibbling, you might demonstrate it by not engaging in at every single opportunity. Wallowing actually.

Ugh. GnI, instead of pretending you are so above such assinine quibbling, you might demonstrate it by not engaging in at every single opportunity. Wallowing actually.

Come on, I know you and Fass are buddies, but be real. He's attacking my spelling, and you're backing him?

Incidentally - re: the burden of proof thing.

I didn't come to my position arbitrarily - I have spent a lot of time reading around the subject.

The problem is, the resources I would need aren't really available online - or maybe I just lack the web skills to locate them.

Example: I can find an abstract for something I saw, that deals in passing with gender definitions:

"This article aims to demystify the notion of a gay vibe from a femme queer woman's perspective. It contextualizes the author's experience of being read by the queer community as straight and of doing femme as a means for placing oneself on the gaydar screen while questioning the role of signifiers in creating a myth that sexuality is always concrete and permanent. This article goes further to argue that femme sexuality, because of its occasional invisible state, has the potential to move between ideological positions in order to destabilize them."

from the article: "Gee, I Didn't Get That Vibe from You Articulating My Own Version of a Femme Lesbian Existence"

in the "Journal of Lesbian Studies".


But - I don't have access to the article, and I'm not about to spend $40 to obtain it... not that that would help, because I couldn't link it anyway.

Come on, I know you and Fass are buddies, but be real. He's attacking my spelling, and you're backing him?

No, I'm saying that for someone who claims to be unemotional, you sure are investing a lot of time in petty bickering.

Not so far 'above it all' are you.

I am a bit peeved about a thing that happened today. I was in the sauna at my gym and there were these two guys, apparently straight, talking about gay men. Their conversation went along the lines:

"I don't mind gay men, but I don't want them checking me out."

Ugh! They were both among the most unattractive men I have had the misfortune of seeing naked, but they are so indicative of a certain stratum of straight men - the ones who like to flatter themselves by thinking they're desirable to gay men.

Gay men! Gay men who are surrounded by other gay men who take care of their bodies and spend countless hours at the gym because they're not conceited enough to think they'd be automatically desirable to anyone just because they happen to have a cock! Gay men who have to fight a constantly escalating struggle of being the hottest piece of tail in order to get the hottest piece of tail - they're supposed to go: "Oh, well, screw all that, he's straight!"

Bah!

So, how attractive do the straight men here think they'd be a gay man?

Well, I know at least one gay guy who was attracted to me :) And the total amount of gay men I know is 5.

I'm attracted to lawn furniture. Oh god how I love lawn furniture porn.

http://bp0.blogger.com/_v5OXULt5n4g/Rp7ePlgCvrI/AAAAAAAAABk/I-ZcfZsRrBo/s1600-h/0900631b81204a9bM.jpg
*gets a chubby*

Everyone could easily see how sexually attractive lawn furniture is if they just would try lying down on it naked and caress it a little.

Same goes for any sexual preference. Ask anyone into scat.

How come I keep getting hit on by old queens. uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuugh.

Plus, I love when gay men hit on me. I never understood the attraction though.

Okay, I don't really agree with GnI here, but I can see what point he's making.

We've all had the discussion about how race is a construct that's not particularly of value. It seems he's making a similar argument about the delineation of sexuality.

My nephews have a black father and white mother. What race are they? Depends on who you ask. If you ask them, they'd say black. In comparison to GnI's argument, they're welcome to call themselves that, but it doesn't change that many of us would disagree that race works that way.

I think that's part of what he's getting at. That the lines aren't as clear as we tend to hold. I think he's going to far along that line, but certainly there would be some fairly severe disagreement on what qualifies as gay, or straight, or bisexual.

*yes, the comparison doesn't entirely work, but I'm trying to pull us away from quibbling. I think there is an interesting discussion here and lots of people who have fairly unique insight into it.

No, I'm saying that for someone who claims to be unemotional, you sure are investing a lot of time in petty bickering.

Not so far 'above it all' are you.

I didn't say I was above it. I said I was unemotional about it - that doesn't mean I can't point out to Fass that his attacking my spelling is the height of pointless quibble-wankery.

And, if responding to people who responded to me is 'investing' too much time, I'm not sure where that leaves me. In between the last two of your posts I responded to - I played with my family, played an online MMORPG, fed the kids, talked to two funeral directors, and watched "The Incredibles". I also did a little bit of my writing, and took a shower. Way too much information, perhaps... but it's hardly like telling Fass his ad hominem arguments are a pointless waste of time is taking up my whole day.

The humourous thing, from my point of view... is that somehow it's bad for me to respond to Fass attacking my spelling... but not for him to attack my spelling, or attack me for responding to him for it.

Double standards?

Incidentally - did you do that 'removing yourself from the argument' thing, or are we just skipping that post?

I notice, since I presented a peer-reviewed source that a) agrees with the gist of my argument, b) represents the 'intellectual' opinion of the 'gay' community, and c) disagrees with the entirely anecdotal beliefs of one vociferously opinionated 'gay' generalite... there has been no response.

Given that the strongest 'rebuttal' prior to that was quibbling spelling, I'm none too surprised. It does show the counter-argument for what it really is, though.

I notice, since I presented a peer-reviewed source that a) agrees with the gist of my argument, b) represents the 'intellectual' opinion of the 'gay' community, and c) disagrees with the entirely anecdotal beliefs of one vociferously opinionated 'gay' generalite... there has been no response.

Given that the strongest 'rebuttal' prior to that was quibbling spelling, I'm none too surprised. It does show the counter-argument for what it really is, though.

Or it could be that it's early morning in Europe. Nah, that couldn't be it.

I notice, since I presented a peer-reviewed source that

Oh, how pathetic; not at your beck and call at 2.50 in the morning are we? How remiss of me!

Let's look at your "peer-reviewed" "source" from the oh, so prestigious and scientifically paramount "Journal of Lesbian Studies".

"This article aims to demystify the notion of a gay vibe from a femme queer woman's perspective. It contextualizes the author's experience of being read by the queer community as straight and of doing femme as a means for placing oneself on the gaydar screen while questioning the role of signifiers in creating a myth that sexuality is always concrete and permanent. This article goes further to argue that femme sexuality, because of its occasional invisible state, has the potential to move between ideological positions in order to destabilize them."

So, it's an "abstract" of one "femme queer woman's" opinion piece in the "Journal of Lesbian Studies"? This is what you would call a "peer-reviewed" source - a source not even present in full text so that it can be analysed and weighted from an EB perspective, a source that we can't even see as anything else but the anecdotal opinion piece (seemingly not even a lowly objective case report) this formally rigorous (haha, "demystify the notion of a gay wibe" - hilarious, it's like parody of a poorly written draft manuscript, only you're presenting it as authentic!) "abstract" outright states it to be?

Oh, honey, baby, sweety. You would get eaten alive in my Evidence-Based Medicine study group. Well, laughed out actually, but seeing as the other people in it give me a run for my money when it comes to sheer cruelty when having seen such weakness of method, your skin would burn with blushing over your embarrassment.

Nope, and I resent the implication.

The only projector I have in my house is used to replay old 8mm film from my days on the high school swim team, because even though I know longer compete, I need to check out my competitors.

So I can beat them.

Actually, that section of the reel snapped from being worn out, the part where the the guys would bend down in tense, clenched anticipation of the piercing whistle...I would study their form, then back the film up so they'd stand up again, then forward, study their form, back it up, down, up, down...

To win, you have to know the other guy's form. Like, really well.

Fuck you people.It's also important to check his speedo, to see if different fits cause different amounts of drag and water resistance. Especially in the front.

It's also important to check his speedo, to see if different fits cause different amounts of drag and water resistance. Especially in the front.

Exactly.

After all, the coefficient of friction is largely a function of texture...smooth, slightly pink texture...

I'm straight!!! Straight!

Exactly.

After all, the coefficient of friction is largely a function of texture...smooth, slightly pink texture...

I'm straight!!! Straight!

And also evil:

Posts: 666

And also evil:

I am Christian and therefore purged of evil by virtue of having benefited from the torturous blood sacrifice of an innocent man.

That's the way all REAL forgiveness happens.

I am Christian and therefore purged of evil by virtue of having benefited from the torturous blood sacrifice of an innocent man.

That's the way all REAL forgiveness happens.

Also, your postcount isn't 666 anymore.

It's also important to check his speedo, to see if different fits cause different amounts of drag and water resistance. Especially in the front.

Oddly enough, Speedo have been behind the record breaking 'something' games that are currently going on. They have a new bodysuit and the issue is that those sponsored by competitor products are coming out to say 'fuck this, I'm wearing Speedo and I don't care who sponsors me'.

They'll be fined around $5, 000 for wearing Speedo at the Olympics if they choose to do so but many are saying they don't care.

Oddly enough, Speedo have been behind the record breaking 'something' games that are currently going on. They have a new bodysuit and the issue is that those sponsored by competitor products are coming out to say 'fuck this, I'm wearing Speedo and I don't care who sponsors me'.

They'll be fined around $5, 000 for wearing Speedo at the Olympics if they choose to do so but many are saying they don't care.

Wow...wish my junk was sufficiently spectacular to be worth paying out five large to wear a speedo...

Also, your postcount isn't 666 anymore.

Here is wisdom: the mark of the beast is a number, and the number cannot be expressed as the ratio of two integers, for it is the the square root of two.

Here is wisdom: the mark of the beast is a number, and the number cannot be expressed as the ratio of two integers, for it is the the square root of two.

I would have thought it would be the square root of -1. I might be slightly biased into thinking that, however, as imaginary numbers make my head hurt.

It may also be 0/0, as this sows confusion amongst anyone who thinks about it too long: Is it 1? Is it 0? Or is it undefined? No one knows!

Wow...wish my junk was sufficiently spectacular to be worth paying out five large to wear a speedo...

Oh, don't sell yourself short.

Or it could be that it's early morning in Europe. Nah, that couldn't be it.

Possibly. I presented my post at about... what... 1am Euro time? I don't know, that wouldn't be an unusual hour for me, if I'm online.

Apologies for going slightly on topic...

This obsession people have with not labeling anyone anything is funny because it's often pushed by those who tend not to be labeled anyway, as if it's some badge of honour they wear in terms of identifying with their fellow human - that they're one with gay people, black people, disabled people - hey man, we're all the same.

In a way it's an insult to those who are labeled, who have to suffer the trials and tribulations of being labeled every day.

Skin colour doesn't matter man - well actually it does if you don't have the right skin colour and to brush that aside, to pretend it doesn't exist can be very irritating to those for whom it really does matter.

We have Black Pride, Gay Pride for a reason, we should celebrate our differences, who we are because a world of variety is so much more interesting that one homogeneous blob - it's also a nod the the fights of the past, the people who suffered for who they were.

Labeling can be important - it certainly shouldn't be used as a basis for discrimination but it shouldn't be buried under liberal inclusiveness either.

I would have thought it would be the square root of -1. I might be slightly biased into thinking that, however, as imaginary numbers make my head hurt.

It may also be 0/0, as this sows confusion amongst anyone who thinks about it too long: Is it 1? Is it 0? Or is it undefined? No one knows!

Jesus knows. He can divide by zero because Jesus is magic.

I would have thought it would be the square root of -1. I might be slightly biased into thinking that, however, as imaginary numbers make my head hurt.

It may also be 0/0, as this sows confusion amongst anyone who thinks about it too long: Is it 1? Is it 0? Or is it undefined? No one knows!

I think it's indeterminate. In fact, I'm positive it's indeterminate, just as positive as 0/0 is.

Apologies for going slightly on topic...

This obsession people have with not labeling anyone anything is funny because it's often pushed by those who tend not to be labeled anyway, as if it's some badge of honour they wear in terms of identifying with their fellow human - that they're one with gay people, black people, disabled people - hey man, we're all the same.

In a way it's an insult to those who are labeled, who have to suffer the trials and tribulations of being labeled every day.

Skin colour doesn't matter man - well actually it does if you don't have the right skin colour and to brush that aside, to pretend it doesn't exist can be very irritating to those for whom it really does matter.

We have Black Pride, Gay Pride for a reason, we should celebrate our differences, who we are because a world of variety is so much more interesting that one homogeneous blob - it's also a nod the the fights of the past, the people who suffered for who they were.

Labeling can be important - it certainly shouldn't be used as a basis for discrimination but it shouldn't be buried under liberal inclusiveness either.

Middle class American white straight male between the ages of 18 and 25: Completely unlabelable. Also the highest insurance rates and lowest number of available scholarships.

Jesus knows. He can divide by zero because Jesus is magic.

So can Chuck Norris. Also, he can count to infinity.

Oh, how pathetic; not at your beck and call at 2.50 in the morning are we? How remiss of me!

Let's look at your "peer-reviewed" "source" from the oh, so prestigious and scientifically paramount "Journal of Lesbian Studies".


That would be 'poisoning the well'.


"...in creating a myth that sexuality is always concrete and permanent. ...."


That would be the pertinent part. It's simple existence suggests I did not invent the 'myth' argument from the top of my own head.


So, it's an "abstract" of one "femme queer woman's" opinion piece in the "Journal of Lesbian Studies"? This is what you would call a "peer-reviewed" source


It's not peer-reviewed?

As you showed, where?

As to the specific nature of the article within the source, surely even you realise that i irrelevent, when all I had to do was show that the idea discussed went beyond my own head.


- a source not even present in full text so that it can be analysed and weighted from an EB perspective


Reading comprehension a problem? The very post you are 'responding' to (and dignifying it with that appellation is a kindness) explains that I presented only an abstract, and explained why.

I can find you a link to an online abstract, if you wish to spend the $40 I already cited, to review the material for yourself. Otherwise, I can't find it online, but I did give you the abstract, article name, and publication.

Absent an online resource, I presented you all the information for the evidence you could need.


, a source that we can't even see as anything else but the anecdotal opinion piece (seemingly not even a lowly objective case report) this formally rigorous (haha, "demystify the notion of a gay wibe" - hilarious, it's like parody of a poorly written draft manuscript, only you're presenting it as authentic!) "abstract" outright states it to be?


You reject a citation as not authentic, without even reviewing it?


Oh, honey, baby, sweety.


Your understandable infatuation with me is becoming a little embarrassing.


You would get eaten alive in my Evidence-Based Medicine study group.


Maybe they would have the intellectual honesty to actually review sources. To actually address the issues. To debate without resort to nothing but fallacy and ad hominem. All the things... well, that you didn't do.


Well, laughed out actually, but seeing as the other people in it give me a run for my money when it comes to sheer cruelty when having seen such weakness of method, your skin would burn with blushing over your embarrassment.

Strangely, bullies don't elicit that response in me. If that's your best recommendation for them, being 'reviewed' by your study group sounds mildly less threatening than playing Barbies with my daughter.

Middle class American white straight male between the ages of 18 and 25: Completely unlabelable. Also the highest insurance rates and lowest number of available scholarships.

:)

Fair enough, labeling certainly works both ways.

Given you, a complete menace to society, I'm not surprised you require the highest insurance rates.

Skin colour doesn't matter man - well actually it does if you don't have the right skin colour and to brush that aside, to pretend it doesn't exist can be very irritating to those for whom it really does matter.


Skin colour doesn't matter. And, if someone makes it matter, they are undermining any efforts that might make things truly equal. Your little picture relies on the idea that there IS a 'right skin colour', and, conversely, wrong ones.

If the only one perpetuating that division is you, and you have the 'wrong skin colour' by your reckoning, then you are the problem.

Apologies for going slightly on topic...

This obsession people have with not labeling anyone anything is funny because it's often pushed by those who tend not to be labeled anyway, as if it's some badge of honour they wear in terms of identifying with their fellow human - that they're one with gay people, black people, disabled people - hey man, we're all the same.

In a way it's an insult to those who are labeled, who have to suffer the trials and tribulations of being labeled every day.

Skin colour doesn't matter man - well actually it does if you don't have the right skin colour and to brush that aside, to pretend it doesn't exist can be very irritating to those for whom it really does matter.

We have Black Pride, Gay Pride for a reason, we should celebrate our differences, who we are because a world of variety is so much more interesting that one homogeneous blob - it's also a nod the the fights of the past, the people who suffered for who they were.

Labeling can be important - it certainly shouldn't be used as a basis for discrimination but it shouldn't be buried under liberal inclusiveness either.

That's the main joke in http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.wordpress.com/: that those who feel they are beyond labels are actually just as easy to label as the next guy. And that's not necessarily a bad thing.

Skin colour doesn't matter. And, if someone makes it matter, they are undermining any efforts that might make things truly equal. Your little picture relies on the idea that there IS a 'right skin colour', and, conversely, wrong ones.

If the only one perpetuating that division is you, and you have the 'wrong skin colour' by your reckoning, then you are the problem.

Tell that to a black person, tell him skin colour doesn't matter and wait for the response.

Tell that to a black person, tell him skin colour doesn't matter and wait for the response.

Okay.

That it?

That's the main joke in http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.wordpress.com/: that those who feel they are beyond labels are actually just as easy to label as the next guy. And that's not necessarily a bad thing.

I charge people money to label me, surprisingly, business hasn't been that good. I am also consequently adrift in a labeless void, snatching at stray stereotypes likes pieces of driftwood in a never-ending tide of politically correct verbiage.

:)

Fair enough, labeling certainly works both ways.

Given you, a complete menace to society, I'm not surprised you require the highest insurance rates.

Never said middle class American white male between the ages of 18 and 25 described me. It's the two speeding tickets that jack up my insurance and a 2.7 graduating GPA that destroy any chances of scholarships.

The point, regardless of my description (or lack thereof), was that labels do serve a purpose. If you don't want to be labeled, that's fine, but you should reap the benefits of a label.

Poor Native American lesbian females...they get all the good shyte.

I charge people money to label me, surprisingly, business hasn't been that good. I am also consequently adrift in a labeless void, snatching at stray stereotypes likes pieces of driftwood in a never-ending tide of politically correct verbiage.

Same here, although right now I'm trying to invent a mechanical person labeler. You know those things that have a roll of stickers you can can personalize and then stick on stuff? It would be like that, but for cultures and individuals.

Same here, although right now I'm trying to invent a mechanical person labeler. You know those things that have a roll of stickers you can can personalize and then stick on stuff? It would be like that, but for cultures and individuals.

I'd buy stock in that company and some of the physical stock as well. I could finally place a label on those depressed teens who wear dark coloured clothing and tend to write horrible whiny poetry.

Same here, although right now I'm trying to invent a mechanical person labeler. You know those things that have a roll of stickers you can can personalize and then stick on stuff? It would be like that, but for cultures and individuals.

In my head I'm watching that one episode of Dexter's Lab...

"The Dexter is a mess, the Deedee is off the hook, and did anyone remember to walk the Dexter!?"

Your little picture relies on the idea that there IS a 'right skin colour', and, conversely, wrong ones.

No it doesn't, it simply relies on the idea that people think there are.

In order to demonstrate discrimination, one has to label to some extent - it's hard to show discrimination against gay people when there's those who say that gay people don't exist, or against black people when there are those who say they don't see colour.

That's why Fass calls you an enabler, or at least why I would. Aside from buying into NARTH, that being gay is simply a choice, your idea that there are no gay people creates the question: then how is there discrimination?

As others point out, we cannot escape from labels, there's nothing wrong with recognising them, ensuring there's no discrimination due to them and celebrating differences.

That would be 'poisoning the well'.

No, that would be accounting for the impact factor of a journal as a quick guide to quality. But, you have no idea what impact factor is, do you? *waits for you to google or wiki, just like you probably did with the 'abstract' you furnished and thought, 'goody - I found something online without actually finding it in something that has journal in its title - that's bound to impress them unless they're educated' about*

That would be the pertinent part. It's simple existence suggests I did not invent the 'myth' argument from the top of my own head.

Yeah, I already told you 16-year-old girls were way ahead of you in this department - you were trying to prove to me what I already knew?

It's not peer-reviewed?

As you showed, where?

That's not up to me to show. That's up to you. And there are tonnes of "peer-reviewed" papers that are shit. That why universities require us to take classes in scientific methodology - because "peer-reviewed" in some papers means a whole different thing than it does in others. Just going "it's peer-reviewed" is not enough, especially in such a low-impact as to not even be listed anywhere I've looked and insignificant journal.

As to the specific nature of the article within the source, surely even you realise that i irrelevent, when all I had to do was show that the idea discussed went beyond my own head.

So, "it is irrelevant how useless and unscientific a source I come up with is, I just have to show without actually showing that other people have the same kooky ideas I do". Yeah, again - I know others share your ideas - there are a lot of kooks and 16-year-olds out there.

Reading comprehension a problem? The very post you are 'responding' to (and dignifying it with that appellation is a kindness) explains that I presented only an abstract, and explained why.

I can find you a link to an online abstract, if you wish to spend the $40 I already cited, to review the material for yourself. Otherwise, I can't find it online, but I did give you the abstract, article name, and publication.

So basically you didn't do any work, haven't even read your source, but would like it to count and for me to do your work for you and take seriously something you haven't even read, but whose abstract already is sub-par and states it's nothing but an anecdotal opinion piece, in a journal one can't even find in the usual lists of impact factors? Riight.

Here's what I'm doing: I'm dismissing your abstract, because the abstract itself is shit. I can only dismiss what you've brought. So, while I can't dismiss the article completely without having read it, I can dismiss the abstract, which is all you've got since you haven't read the article, or at least cannot in anyway convince me that you have because you can't present it. So, you haven't actually accomplished anything with this "source" of yours, other than to show that you probably need to take a course in EBM or an equivalent methodology.

Absent an online resource, I presented you all the information for the evidence you could need.

I'm not in need of evidence. You are.

You reject a citation as not authentic, without even reviewing it?

I reject the abstract, which I have read - not because it's "inauthentic", that bit was about how poorly written it was that it was reminiscent of a parody, which I was surprised at that it seems authentic and not indeed a parody of a flaky social-sciences 'article'. I've seen better-written abstracts by 2nd year nursing students. You furnish a citation that you haven't read and can't actually furnish, and want it taken seriously? Yeah, keep dreaming.

Your understandable infatuation with me is becoming a little embarrassing.

Ah, you'd claim to be a masochist too, it seems, what with mistaking my condescension for infatuation. How creepy.

Maybe they would have the intellectual honesty to actually review sources.

As opposed to not having read your own?

To actually address the issues. To debate without resort to nothing but fallacy and ad hominem. All the things... well, that you didn't do.

Face it - you came with a shitty abstract. I dismissed your shitty abstract. You've nothing better.

Strangely, bullies don't elicit that response in me. If that's your best recommendation for them, being 'reviewed' by your study group sounds mildly less threatening than playing Barbies with my daughter.

In academia we know to be embarrassed if we should ever show a display reminiscent of yours here when presenting a "source", and know the scathing critique we would face. I forget that you're so out of your league, you don't even know to be embarrassed. That's OK, I can still laugh at it.

No, that would be accounting ...


No, that would be poisoning the well. That would be a logical fallacy.


That's not up to me to show. That's up to you.


That would be shifting the burden. That would be a logical fallacy.


So basically you didn't do any work,


That would be ad hominem. That would be a logical fallacy.

Add to which - you know no such thing.


...haven't even read your source,


Again - a claim you can't support.


...but would like it to count and for me to do your work for you and take seriously something you haven't even read...


Again - a claim you can't support.


Here's what I'm doing: I'm dismissing your abstract,


To do so would be intellectually dishonest.


I'm not in need of evidence. You are.


That would be shifting the burden again. Still a logical fallacy.


I've seen better-written abstracts by 2nd year nursing students.


Actually, I have seen better written abstracts, too. But, it's irrelevent.

You don't get to discount sources because you don't like them.


Ah, you'd claim to be a masochist too, it seems, what with mistaking my condescension for infatuation. How creepy.


You've constantly bitched about how my faux-bisexuality (according to you) tricks you into not knowing whether I'd fuck you or not. Now you're laying on the sweet nothings, what's a boy to think. I assumed we were just going from the overbearing lecher who calls girls 'frigid' because they think he's a pig, to the creepy perv in the polyester suit.


Face it - you came with a shitty abstract. I dismissed your shitty abstract. You've nothing better.


I came up with an abstract. Poisoning the well is a logical fallacy. You've got nothing.


In academia we know to be embarrassed if we should ever show a display reminiscent of yours here when presenting a "source",


An appeal to authority? The hits keep on coming.

I have been an academic, myself. You're appeal is both a logical fallacy AND a waste of time.


...and know the scathing critique we would face. I forget that you're so out of your league, you don't even know to be embarrassed.


A pure ad hominem fallacy.


That's OK, I can still laugh at it.

This would be an appeal to ridicule. That would be another logical fallacy.


So - all in all, I presented a source that agreed (loosely) with what I said (making my argument NOT insupportable), and your entire response was logical fallacy - except for a few off-topic prevarications.

The source has been presented. You don't get to 'refuse' sources because you don't like them, don't value them, or don't like the manenr in which they were written. The simple existence of the source makes all the argument I needed to satisfy the onus of proof on me, the 'quality' is actually irrelevent.

That being your argument - that it was insupportable - I had expected you to debate the actual argument itself.

You haven't. You've compiled logical fallacies. That smacks of intellectual dishonesty.

I consider this to be your admission of defeat.

The problem with labels isn't in the labels. It's in the stock we put in them. Any time we try to fit human beings into neat little boxes, we're going to find people who don't fit. The neater you try to make the box, the fewer people that will fit. It's better, in my mind, to see labels for what they are - vague generalities. If you really want to know about Suzy's sexuality, you're going to have to go much deeper than "straight, gay, or bi". But if you just want a vague idea, those labels will likely do.
Well put.

I'm incredibly attractive to gay men. I'm black, have a 14 inch penis, drive a ferrari, and date supermodels.

This is the internet, of course it is true.

Damn, you would've been hot if it weren't for the fact it simply wasn't true. No self-respecting rich black man with a 14 inch cock would date a girl without a booty. ;)

No, that would be poisoning the well. That would be a logical fallacy.

As I thought. You don't know what impact factor is. Wouldn't it be nice if you had that academic education you lie about soon now? It would be nice if pigs could fly as well...

That would be shifting the burden. That would be a logical fallacy.

The burden is upon you.

That would be ad hominem. That would be a logical fallacy.

No, that would be correctly assessing that you didn't do any work.

Add to which - you know no such thing.

You haven't read your own source.

Again - a claim you can't support.

It's not up to me to support anything here. It's your "source". You're supposed to be able to account for it. You can't. Because you haven't read it.

Again - a claim you can't support.

It's not up to me to support anything here. It's your "source". You're supposed to be able to account for it. You can't. Because you haven't read it.

To do so would be intellectually dishonest.

No, to do so is to dismiss a shitty abstract that doesn't even count as a source as a support for the veracity of your claims.

T[hat would be shifting the burden again. Still a logical fallacy.

The burden is upon you.

Actually, I have seen better written abstracts, too. But, it's irrelevent.

When the "abstract" is all you have, that is very much relevant. And it is a very shitty "abstract" indeed, to an opinion piece.

You don't get to discount sources because you don't like them.

I get to discount them because they're shit, don't count as sources, and because you can't account for the actual "article", but all you have is a shitty "abstract". You don't get to pull out a shitty "abstract" and pretend it's a valid source that supports you in proving something uncontested. And even if it supported you in this Don Quixote task of your, the shittiness of it makes it quite dismissable indeed.

You've constantly bitched about how my faux-bisexuality (according to you) tricks you into not knowing whether I'd fuck you or not.

It doesn't trick me into anything - I know you're straight. I know you wouldn't fuck me even if the thought didn't repulse me and I tried to make you fuck me, because I have a cock, and you don't like cock. You don't have sex with men. Whom does it trick? Oh, the potential men in a club who might buy your nonsense for a while thinking they can get into your pants - they'll see soon enough though you don't like cock.

Now you're laying on the sweet nothings, what's a boy to think. I assumed we were just going from the overbearing lecher who calls girls 'frigid' because they think he's a pig, to the creepy perv in the polyester suit.

Nah, we moved from me condescending to you and you not knowing to pick up on it. As usual.

I came up with an abstract.

Which is shit.

Poisoning the well is a logical fallacy.

Still don't know what impact factor is? Oh, you really need to take that methodology course before you think you can play with the big boys and throw around what are to you just buzzwords like "peer-reviewed" and "source".

You've got nothing.

I don't need anything. It's your shitty "abstract". You're the one in need of an actual source - you know, one that counts as a source, and one that isn't shit. What do you need that source for? To convince me for some reason of something I already know - that there are 16-year-old girls and kooks out there. Futile, but for some reason you think that'll accomplish something.

An appeal to authority? The hits keep on coming.

Again, you want to throw around academic-sounding buzzwords and play with the big boys, but you don't have the clout or ability to do it. Education in this is not an authority - it is a requisite you amply lack.

I have been an academic, myself. You're appeal is both a logical fallacy AND a waste of time.

This is where I yet again don't believe you, because if you have been an academic and you still despite that make a display like this of wanting to claim a really shitty "abstract" in a not even impact rated "journal" as a source? Well, that's just a failure beyond words. And I'd like to give you more credit than that (I really don't know why, though, I guess it's the humanist in me, after all, my field is not strictly within natural sciences but also somewhat in the social humanities), so I'll just assume you're lying, again.

A pure ad hominem fallacy.

A statement of fact. You're way out of your league.

This would be an appeal to ridicule. That would be another logical fallacy.

Not when it is as ridiculous as this. Again, a statement of fact.

So - all in all, I presented a source

Nope, that you failed with. Epically.

The source has been presented.

Nope. You presented nothing that counts as a source. In fact, you don't even have access to what could be construed as a source, if it isn't as shitty as its abstract.

You don't get to 'refuse' sources because you don't like them

I get to refuse shit.

That being your argument - that it was insupportable - I had expected you to debate the actual argument itself.

Insupportable? Again, I've told you - I know there are 16-year-old girls and kooks out there who agree with you. You don't even need to fail in coming up with a source to corroborate that as you already have done so embarrassingly - I've granted you that! Several times! Yet for some reason you still insist on sticking to your shitty non-source in a failed attempt to prove something that isn't contested. It's gone beyond the ridiculous now - it's outright bonkers.

You haven't. You've compiled logical fallacies. That smacks of intellectual dishonesty.

You have no argument. Your non-source was shit. You wanted to "prove" something not contested, and failed even at that. That doesn't smack of "intellectual dishonesty" - that smacks of loony.

I consider this to be your admission of defeat.

In the "lala"-land of your mind it probably is, but you've shown what that place is like and what little, though nonsensical, it contains, so I can easily ignore it.

When you wrestle with a pig, you get mud all over you.

When you wrestle with someone who likes anal sex, you get shit all over you.

No sense in wrestling here...

When you wrestle with a pig, you get mud all over you.

When you wrestle with someone who likes anal sex, you get shit all over you.

No sense in wrestling here...

Sigh.

As I thought...I can easily ignore it.

Excuse me if I cut out everything except.... well, if I cut out everything.

The logical fallacies were catalogued.

I have nothing to prove to you (although there are actually a couple of people on this forum who know my academic credentials), because it really doesn't matetr to me what you think. It would be irrelevent to the debate anyway, as is your own posturing.

I presented an argument which you COULD have dealt with as a thought-experiment, but you refused to - pretending, instead, that it was somehow an attack on your sexuality. (Which would, of course, be beyond debate).

You refused to deal with it as an actual debate, because it was insupportable. I supported it. The actual nature of the source is truly irrelevent, all I need do is show 'support'.

Instead - once again, ad hominems and a host of other logical fallacies (which, by the way, doesn't have anything to do with being 'academic'... just having the first clue about formal debate) and a continued refusal to address the issue.


The argument made is: there is no 'gay' or 'straight'. Attaching labels to sexuality doesn't make it concrete, nor do the terms necessarily reflect the actual reality of sexuality.

Now, quit chucking your dummy, enough of the puerile prattle. Either argue it, or don't - but stop your little flame war.

I've carefully catalogued your logical fallacies, and carefully marked out your refusal to engage.

Anyone looking at this thread can easily see your evasion, and underhanded tactics, if they choose... so now the onus really IS on you. Put up, or shut up.

The argument made is: there is no 'gay' or 'straight'. Attaching labels to sexuality doesn't make it concrete, nor do the terms necessarily reflect the actual reality of sexuality.

Of course there is, other wise there would be no such thing as a gay pride march.

What you mean is you don't like the labels, or the labels don't work for you, or the labels are not true or some such nonsense. In reality though if enough people agree to what a label means, then that is what it means.

There is nothing wrong in using the label 'gay' for a man that is sexualy attracted to another man, is there?

The logical fallacies were catalogued.

In "lala"-land, yes.

I have nothing to prove to you

Good, since you have nothing. I know.

I presented an argument

No, you have no argument. Still.

You refused to deal with it as an actual debate, because it was insupportable.

For the tenth time - I have granted that you have many kooks who support you.

The argument made is: there is no 'gay' or 'straight'. Attaching labels to sexuality doesn't make it concrete, nor do the terms necessarily reflect the actual reality of sexuality.

Here again you don't have an argument - you have your BS that you state as truth and that I ain't buying. Just stating BS does not an argument make, especially when the BS reeks so.

Put up, or shut up.

I don't need to put anything up. Your BS is your BS. You reiterate it until you're blue in the face, it won't change the simple fact that gay and straight people do exist and no, they don't cease to no matter how much you delude yourself into thinking you can make BS claims that we don't. I'm not buying your outright poppycock.

Of course there is, other wise there would be no such thing as a gay pride march.

What you mean is you don't like the labels, or the labels don't work for you, or the labels are not true or some such nonsense. In reality though if enough people agree to what a label means, then that is what it means.

There is nothing wrong in using the label 'gay' for a man that is sexualy attracted to another man, is there?

That rather depends.

A man attracted to another man... isn't necessarily NOT attracted to a woman. Or maybe that man is not attracted to women... except for ONE woman. Or maybe that man isn't actually attracted to 'men'... just to one or two people that happen to be men.

One method of ascertaining actual incliniation is studies on paedophilia, is to scientifically measure an actual genital response to paedophilic erotica. Compared against the CLAIMED arousal (even of admitted paedophiles) this method shows a marked difference between what people claim about their own sexuality, and what their sexual responses actually trigger to.

How many peole do you know that have ever undergone that kind of assessment of their 'gay' versus 'straight' sexuality.

The methodology is obviously flawed - one could be aroused by one gender occassionally (which wouldn't necessarily show up on that kind of testing), one could be aroused by one gender only under certain conditions (ranging from level of arousal, to extent of recent abstinence, to 'fetish' sexuality), or one could only be aroused by SPECIFIC members of one (or either, even) gender - in which case the testing would be almost entirely irrelevent. Or maybe everyone generates SOME response to either gender?

But - even with those flaws inherent, it would still give a more empirical measure of sexuality than any amount of self-profession.

With the empirical data (theoretically) available, using terms as ambivalent as 'gay' and 'straight' to refer to self-identified sexuality makes no sense.

The terms are rendered meaningless.

I'm sure you'll forgive me for cutting out everything that was off-topic ranting, or just clear denial of observable history.


Here again you don't have an argument


Yes, I still do. Claiming it's no argument doesn't make it go away.

"The argument made is: there is no 'gay' or 'straight'. Attaching labels to sexuality doesn't make it concrete, nor do the terms necessarily reflect the actual reality of sexuality."

That's not really an unreasonable argument.

If it's "BS"... why?


I don't need to put anything up.

No, you don't. Hence the "shut up" option.

I'll accept that as your official position on the matter.

With the empirical data (theoretically) available, using terms as ambivalent as 'gay' and 'straight' to refer to self-identified sexuality makes no sense.

The terms are rendered meaningless.

Perhaps, if you think too much about it, it does make no sense. But if I talk to a gay man about his sexuality and he says gay, then I'm likely to take him at face vaule.

Ultimatly there are only three choices, you like men, you like wome, or like both. It's not that hard, and yes of course there are always exceptions to the rule, which just means a stretching of the labels difinition, or the creation of a new label.

For everyday, folk, and for everyday useage the word gay adequtetly conveys what the majority of us mean by it, I think you are in a tiny minority here, and so until that changes, the labels certianly do have meaning.

That rather depends.

A man attracted to another man... isn't necessarily NOT attracted to a woman. Or maybe that man is not attracted to women... except for ONE woman. Or maybe that man isn't actually attracted to 'men'... just to one or two people that happen to be men.

One method of ascertaining actual incliniation is studies on paedophilia, is to scientifically measure an actual genital response to paedophilic erotica. Compared against the CLAIMED arousal (even of admitted paedophiles) this method shows a marked difference between what people claim about their own sexuality, and what their sexual responses actually trigger to.

How many peole do you know that have ever undergone that kind of assessment of their 'gay' versus 'straight' sexuality.

The methodology is obviously flawed - one could be aroused by one gender occassionally (which wouldn't necessarily show up on that kind of testing), one could be aroused by one gender only under certain conditions (ranging from level of arousal, to extent of recent abstinence, to 'fetish' sexuality), or one could only be aroused by SPECIFIC members of one (or either, even) gender - in which case the testing would be almost entirely irrelevent. Or maybe everyone generates SOME response to either gender?

But - even with those flaws inherent, it would still give a more empirical measure of sexuality than any amount of self-profession.

With the empirical data (theoretically) available, using terms as ambivalent as 'gay' and 'straight' to refer to self-identified sexuality makes no sense.

The terms are rendered meaningless.

One thing is clear, you are so not gay, otherwise you wouldn't be making these ridiculous theoretical claims.

You've actually made no attempt to provide any backing for these aside from a small paragraph written as part of a collection of essays, a small paragraph devoid of context.

How you can presume to know the minds of people different to yourself, as though your brain is representative of world thought, is probably quite insulting to those who are, quite simply, different.

This idea that we're all some homogenous whole, each containing the entirety of human experience, I'm sorry but it smacks of enormous arrogance in the sense that it implies that you yourself contain the entirety of human experience. You simply don't.

There's entirely different patterns between male and female homosexuality alone, to think that there's no difference between heterosexuality and homosexuality aside from 'circumstance' is simply...I don't even know the word for it.

You can complain that this is unsubstantiated but, I'm afraid, so is every one of your theoretical claims.

Ultimately, the proof lies only in someone who's gay to tell you that they're simply that, it's not a choice, it's not a whim, it's not something they're trying out to be different - it's fact and you are certainly not someone to tell them otherwise.

Perhaps, if you think too much about it, it does make no sense. But if I talk to a gay man about his sexuality and he says gay, then I'm likely to take him at face vaule.


Why? I've known people that were 'straight' right up until they had a 'gay' relationship. Nothing noticably changed about those people, except for who they considered as a potential partner.


Ultimatly there are only three choices, you like men, you like wome, or like both. It's not that hard, and yes of course there are always exceptions to the rule, which just means a stretching of the labels difinition, or the creation of a new label.


You forgot those that aren't sexually attracted to anyone.

But - did you see what you did there? You stated that there are categorically only three options... plus exceptions. See how that falls apart?

Creating new labels might be a good idea, except are they going to be scientific labels, or self-identification? Are we still going to insist on binary/trinary sexuality?


For everyday, folk, and for everyday useage the word gay adequtetly conveys what the majority of us mean by it, I think you are in a tiny minority here, and so until that changes, the labels certianly do have meaning.

They will always have meaning to those who use them. They won't have any deeper significance, though.

Yes, I still do.

Nope. You can claim there is no Sun how much you want, it's still there in the sky. You can claim meatballs don't exist. Still won't change what I had for lunch today. Well, my lunch-date had meatballs, I had a really nice wok. But still. And you can claim gay and straight men don't exist until you've made as much a fool of yourself as you have already actually, we're still here. Calling you on your BS. And we won't be going away.

I'll accept that as your official position on the matter.

Again, in the "lala"-land of your mind.

Apologies for using a film but this entire thread reminds me of this..

Sean: So if I asked you about art, you'd probably give me the skinny on every art book ever written. Michelangelo, you know a lot about him. Life's work, political aspirations, him and the pope, sexual orientations, the whole works, right? But I'll bet you can't tell me what it smells like in the Sistine Chapel. You've never actually stood there and looked up at that beautiful ceiling; seen that. If I ask you about women, you'd probably give me a syllabus about your personal favorites. You may have even been laid a few times. But you can't tell me what it feels like to wake up next to a woman and feel truly happy. You're a tough kid. And I'd ask you about war, you'd probably throw Shakespeare at me, right, "once more unto the breach dear friends." But you've never been near one. You've never held your best friend's head in your lap, watch him gasp his last breath looking to you for help. I'd ask you about love, you'd probably quote me a sonnet. But you've never looked at a woman and been totally vulnerable. Known someone that could level you with her eyes, feeling like God put an angel on earth just for you. Who could rescue you from the depths of hell. And you wouldn't know what it's like to be her angel, to have that love for her, be there forever, through anything, through cancer. And you wouldn't know about sleeping sitting up in the hospital room for two months, holding her hand, because the doctors could see in your eyes, that the terms "visiting hours" don't apply to you. You don't know about real loss, 'cause it only occurs when you've loved something more than you love yourself. And I doubt you've ever dared to love anybody that much. And look at you... I don't see an intelligent, confident man... I see a cocky, scared shitless kid. But you're a genius Will. No one denies that. No one could possibly understand the depths of you. But you presume to know everything about me because you saw a painting of mine, and you ripped my fucking life apart. You're an orphan right?
[Will nods]
Sean: You think I know the first thing about how hard your life has been, how you feel, who you are, because I read Oliver Twist? Does that encapsulate you? Personally... I don't give a shit about all that, because you know what, I can't learn anything from you, I can't read in some fuckin' book. Unless you want to talk about you, who you are. Then I'm fascinated. I'm in. But you don't want to do that do you sport? You're terrified of what you might say. Your move, chief.

...and I'll bet you're not fucking Matt Damon either.

*nod to Sarah*

There's entirely different patterns between male and female homosexuality alone, to think that there's no difference between heterosexuality and homosexuality aside from 'circumstance' is simply...I don't even know the word for it.

I'll help you: "bullshit".

Yes, Yes, It's all a rich tapestry and everyone's sexuality exists on a continuum, not so much as a point but as a section of that continuum, and can be fluid, and can shift, and really doesn't even matter that much anyway unless you're their partner/love interest/sexbuddy (not sure what the rules on "f**k" are) or potential partner/love interest/sexbuddy.

One thing is clear, you are so not gay, otherwise you wouldn't be making these ridiculous theoretical claims.


You know why that's funny? Because I make the same claim about both 'gay' AND 'straight'. By your 'logic', then, I must not be 'straight' either, because "otherwise you wouldn't be making these ridiculous theoretical claims".


You've actually made no attempt to provide any backing for these aside from a small paragraph written as part of a collection of essays, a small paragraph devoid of context.


So - I have made some attempt to provide some backing, then?


How you can presume to know the minds of people different to yourself, as though your brain is representative of world thought, is probably quite insulting to those who are, quite simply, different.


Totally missing the point. The whole 'scientific' thing? We have the capacity to emasure (to an extent) whether self-claimed sexuality matches in strong corrolation with actual sexual response... and if there can be seen to be even a slight deviation between the self-professed and the measurable responses, there is a strong argument for the errancy of the current terms, yes?

I don't have to 'know the minds' of people.


This idea that we're all some homogenous whole, each containing the entirety of human experience, I'm sorry but it smacks of enormous arrogance in the sense that it implies that you yourself contain the entirety of human experience. You simply don't.


I didn't say that. Any of it. I said that we have a 'sexuality' which is done a disservice by reference to a trinary or binary calibration. I don't believe anyone is purely 'gay' or purely' straight' - that's in no way akin to each of us "containing the entirety of human experience".


There's entirely different patterns between male and female homosexuality alone, to think that there's no difference between heterosexuality and homosexuality aside from 'circumstance' is simply...I don't even know the word for it.


Okay. What is the difference, then? If a person likes sex with a person of their own 'gender', and a person of the opposite 'gender', what is the "difference"? Technique?


You can complain that this is unsubstantiated but, I'm afraid, so is every one of your theoretical claims.


Okay - as I said to Fass, it's possible to carry out as a thought-experiment alone. I can indulge your conjecture even without sources.


Ultimately, the proof lies only in someone who's gay to tell you that they're simply that, it's not a choice, it's not a whim, it's not something they're trying out to be different


For some people, at some times, it is.

Also... why someone who is 'gay'? Wouldn't someone 'straight' be just as much of an opinion on this - given the construction of my argument? Wouldn't someone 'bisexual' or 'asexual'?


- it's fact and you are certainly not someone to tell them otherwise.

I'm not telling someone that they don't want to have sex with who they think they want to have sex with. I'm not trying to alter how a person self-identifies. I'm saying the terms we use are insufficient, and the whole binary (sometimes trinary) model fails.

Nope. You can claim there is no Sun how much you want, it's still there in the sky.


It could be a valid argument - especially if you and I had the capacity to mean something different by 'sun'.

It's entirely off topic, of course. You still evade.


And you can claim gay and straight men don't exist


Men? Why only men? Sexism, Fass?

I think the problem here is that you can't view the argument objectively. You don't appear to be able to separate the intellectual pursuit from your own sexuality.

That's your failing - not a failing in my argument.


until you've made as much a fool of yourself as you have already actually, we're still here. Calling you on your BS. And we won't be going away.


Ooh, another ad hominem.


Again, in the "lala"-land of your mind.

So, you choose the 'put up' option? Or - are you content to just ignore the topic of debate, and make thinly veiled attacks on me, now?

I'll help you: "bullshit".

"it is a tale
...full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing."

Also... why someone who is 'gay'? Wouldn't someone 'straight' be just as much of an opinion on this - given the construction of my argument? Wouldn't someone 'bisexual' or 'asexual'?


Indeed, speak to Chandelier [I think it's Chandelier, apologies if wrong here]

Speak to Kirsensitt...whatever, despite my suspicions they're a puppet, regardless, there are many people who would simply never consider sex with their own. Even if they did 'consider' it as a flight of fancy, they'd absolutely do nothing about it.

I have, and I forget the name, the phenomenon of standing in high places and having the urge to leap, to see what that energy rush would feel like - I'd never do it [I hope]. It's a natural factor of having a curious brain, we all have the ability to theorise without it meaning anything whatsoever in terms of what we do, who we are.

You fail to realise that there's many many factors that cause someone to be attracted sexually to their own or not, whether inexclusively or exclusively, it may be an extremely high sex drive coupled with many other things, it may be genetic factors, it may be cultural influences, it may be a combination.

There's just no denying that a section of people:

a: are predominately if not exclusively attracted to their own sex
b: describe themselves as gay

You can have your pet theories as to the multi-sexuality of all people but that's all they are, theories and to tell someone that they're not what they know themselves to be is, as I said, arrogant.

It could be a valid argument

Which just shows again that "valid" and "argument", along with "source" and "peer-reviewed" are nothing but buzzwords to you, buzzwords you don't understand.

Men? Why only men? Sexism, Fass?

"There are no 'straight' men." (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13599462&postcount=51)

I think the problem here is that you can't view the argument objectively.

No, the problem is you don't know what an argument is. Oh, and that you're reiterating bullshit as if enough repetition would hide the stink.

You don't appear to be able to separate the intellectual pursuit....

Bwahahahaha! "Intellectual pursuit". Hilarious.

That's your failing - not a failing in my argument.

You don't have an argument. Us straight and gay men are still here. Even women. And we're not going away so you can in the "lala"-land of your mind think you ever spouted anything else but pure BS here.

Why? I've known people that were 'straight' right up until they had a 'gay' relationship. Nothing noticably changed about those people, except for who they considered as a potential partner.

Why? Coz I don't make a habvit of just not beliveing people during normal conversation.


You forgot those that aren't sexually attracted to anyone.

But - did you see what you did there? You stated that there are categorically only three options... plus exceptions. See how that falls apart?

No not really, there are always exceptions.


Creating new labels might be a good idea, except are they going to be scientific labels, or self-identification? Are we still going to insist on binary/trinary sexuality?

I guess a bit of both. I mean we already have homosexual, fag, gay, bender, puff, queen, and many more, I guess we'll keep on applying labels, it's what we do in order to communicate huh.



They will always have meaning to those who use them. They won't have any deeper significance, though.

Meh thats just the way it is I suppose, we all use language according to our own experiance and knowledge.

You can have your pet theories as to the multi-sexuality of all people but that's all they are, theories and to tell someone that they're not what they know themselves to be is, as I said, arrogant.

Not merely arrogant. Delusional.

Not merely arrogant. Delusional.

Well, possibly - I'm not entirely sure GnI actually, deeply believes what he's saying, I cannot speak for him though, ironically.

Anyway, personally, I'm not seeing the value of continuing this.

As you point out, we could all sit on the Internet and deny the sun for days - whoopee for us.

So, how attractive do the straight men here think they'd be a gay man?

I think I would be attractive a gay man.

Well, possibly - I'm not entirely sure GnI actually, deeply believes what he's saying, I cannot speak for him though, ironically.

The thing about delusions is there is usually very little to no awareness of pathology.

As you point out, I can sit on the Internet and deny the sun for days - whoopee for me.

The thing is, GnI does the equivalent of that, but he thinks that if he gets the last word - if he just spouts his delusional BS often enough to tire everyone else from just rebutting - he will have somehow managed to substantiate and argue and even "win" a discussion with his BS. You can see that when a post of his went unanswered by me for a couple of hours because it was 2.50 in the morning in Europe, he squealed like a schoolgirl and claimed "victory" with the shittiest excuse for a "source" to corroborate something I didn't even contest I've seen since Eutrusca's antics.

You can also see that with his "lala"-land statements of "I'll take that as [x] by you". He needs to think that if he can only keep it up until he's the last one standing, he will have had an argument. Well, tough noogies for him that I have a tonne of really, really boring paper work to procrastinate and not even GnI gets to be more of a bore than this my other chore. And I have days, perhaps even a week, of it in store.

I think I would be attractive a gay man.

Postpix, kthnx.

The thing about delusions is there is usually very little to no awareness of pathology.



The thing is, GnI does the equivalent of that, but he thinks that if he gets the last word - if he just spouts his delusional BS often enough to tire everyone else from just rebutting - he will have somehow managed to substantiate and argue and even "win" a discussion with his BS. You can see that when a post of his went unanswered by me for a couple of hours because it was 2.50 in the morning in Europe, he squealed like a schoolgirl and claimed "victory" with the shittiest excuse for a "source" to corroborate something I didn't even contest I've seen since Eutrusca's antics.

You can also see that with his "lala"-land statements of "I'll take that as [x] by you". He needs to think that if can only keep it up until he's the last one standing, he will have had an argument. Well, tough noogies for him that I have a tonne of really, really boring paper work to procrastinate and not even GnI gets to be more of a bore than this my other chore. And I have days, perhaps even a week, of it in store.

You can lead a bore to water but you can't make it think.

You can lead a bore to water but you can't make it think.

I can whip it, though. Whip it good.

Postpix, kthnx.

k.

http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk292/bilgerj/untitled.jpg

Indeed, speak to Chandelier [I think it's Chandelier, apologies if wrong here]

Speak to Kirsensitt...whatever, despite my suspicions they're a puppet, regardless, there are many people who would simply never consider sex with their own.


That doesn't mean they have no sexual attraction towards their own gender, either active or latent.


Even if they did 'consider' it as a flight of fancy, they'd absolutely do nothing about it.


That's Fass's definition of 'homosexuality' - you're only 'gay' if you fuck. I don't buy it... and neither, one would assume, do people like Stephen Fry.


You fail to realise that there's many many factors that cause someone to be attracted sexually to their own or not, whether inexclusively or exclusively, it may be an extremely high sex drive coupled with many other things, it may be genetic factors, it may be cultural influences, it may be a combination.


I don't fail to realise that, at all. Indeed - you're listing of a number of things that actually support my conculsion, rather than arguing against it.


There's just no denying that a section of people:

a: are predominately if not exclusively attracted to their own sex
b: describe themselves as gay


That's funny. In your example you have exactly the phenomenon I'm talking about - people self-identifying as one thing, whilst actually not 'conforming' to it. (Example: Your conjectured "predominantly... attracted to their own sex" person who might "describe themselves as gay").


You can have your pet theories as to the multi-sexuality of all people but that's all they are, theories and to tell someone that they're not what they know themselves to be is, as I said, arrogant.

Good job I've never told anyone that. Call yourself 'gay' or 'straight' all you want, it won't affect what you ARE.

k.

[IMG]:( all the cute ones are gay.

:( all the cute ones are gay.

or bi.....

or bi.....

or not....:D

Which just shows again that "valid" and "argument", along with "source" and "peer-reviewed" are nothing but buzzwords to you, buzzwords you don't understand.


More ad hominem?


"There are no 'straight' men." (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13599462&postcount=51)


Cute. Of course (of course) you play that as though it is attributable to me - when I'm clearly only using your own terms in a reply.

Dishonest.


No, the problem is you don't know what an argument is. Oh, and that you're reiterating bullshit as if enough repetition would hide the stink.


Saying it isn't an argument doesn't make it so.

If the argument is so weak, you'd easily defeat it. Instead you hide.


Bwahahahaha! "Intellectual pursuit". Hilarious.


Not really.


You don't have an argument. Us straight and gay men are still here. Even women. And we're not going away so you can in the "lala"-land of your mind think you ever spouted anything else but pure BS here.

You think you'd 'go away' if the terms were removed? And yet you claim I'm the delusional one?

Do you have to turn the lightswitch on and off 37 times otherwise your family will die?

or not....:D

whatever you want to believe peepe.

k.

http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk292/bilgerj/untitled.jpg

This new evidence in mind, I must acknowledge that your assumption was right.

That's funny. In your example you have exactly the phenomenon I'm talking about - people self-identifying as one thing, whilst actually not 'conforming' to it. (Example: Your conjectured "predominantly... attracted to their own sex" person who might "describe themselves as gay").

Aghh - you can read your own opinion into what I'm writing but, in a bizarre twist of fate if not a tedious trait, you're completely missing the point, you're simply interpreting to fit your theory.

Even if someone who is gay sleeps with the opposite sex, that does not make them heterosexual. The physical ability to do something does not equal their sexuality.

Even if someone who is gay sleeps with no one at all, that again does not mean they're not gay.

You then entirely miss those who exclusively sleep with the opposite sex, who will tell you they're gay, will act gay and are, in fact, to no one but your own surprise, gay.

Why? Coz I don't make a habvit of just not beliveing people during normal conversation.


You shouldn't attach the value of gospel to common conversation, if that's what you mean. But I think you're missing the point - people demonstrably self-identify in conflict with their actual arousal.... believing is all well and good, but assumes that the person you are talking to is a) telling you the truth, and b) aware of the truth, themselves.


No not really, there are always exceptions.


Then there are no absolutes. My argument.


I guess a bit of both. I mean we already have homosexual, fag, gay, bender, puff, queen, and many more, I guess we'll keep on applying labels, it's what we do in order to communicate huh.


You think that - since there are a lot of (mostly derogatory) terms already in use, all of which share the same inherent error - that we don't need more accurate terminology?


Meh thats just the way it is I suppose, we all use language according to our own experiance and knowledge.

This we do. Of course, the cute thing about a comment like that is - it means only a 'gay' person can use the word 'gay' accurately - which makes it objectively meaningless.

This new evidence in mind, I must acknowledge that your assumption was right.

Here (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1412136189483067043&q=online&total=714064&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0&hl=en)

Aghh - you can read your own opinion into what I'm writing but, in a bizarre twist of fate if not a tedious trait, you're completely missing the point, you're simply interpreting to fit your theory.

Even if someone who is gay sleeps with the opposite sex, that does not make them heterosexual. The physical ability to do something does not equal their sexuality.

Even if someone who is gay sleeps with no one at all, that again does not mean they're not gay.

You then entirely miss those who exclusively sleep with the opposite sex, who will tell you they're gay, will act gay and are, in fact, to no one but your own surprise, gay.

You said Predominantly attracted to, to be fair. And he went with that. That means they are attracted to the opposite sex not just sleeping with them.

Meanwhile, let me ask. Say I'm 33 and have never been attracted to a man sexually. I self-identify as heterosexual. Am I right?

More ad hominem?

More sad, sad facts for you.

Cute. Of course (of course) you play that as though it is attributable to me - when I'm clearly only using your own terms in a reply.

Dishonest.

Yeah, I put the words in your mouth and I posted a link so people could read them themselves in an attempt to make them somehow unable to read them for themselves. How dishonest of me, and how in tune with your "logic" to claim so.

Saying it isn't an argument doesn't make it so.

You not having an argument makes it so.

If the argument is so weak, you'd easily defeat it. Instead you hide.

One cannot defeat the non-existent.

Not really.

Oh, really. I laughed quite heartily.

You think you'd 'go away' if the terms were removed? And yet you claim I'm the delusional one?

No, you claim gay and straight men don't exist. I'm telling you we aren't going nowhere, no matter how many times you repeat that nonsense.

Do you have to turn the lightswitch on and off 37 times otherwise your family will die?

Only in the "lala"-land of your mind.

Here (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1412136189483067043&q=online&total=714064&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0&hl=en)

I can't access the video at the moment.

or bi.....

fun!

Here (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1412136189483067043&q=online&total=714064&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0&hl=en)

I think this (http://youtube.com/watch?v=fbGkxcY7YFU) one is better.

(You will be surprised to find that that is not actually a rickroll.)

Not merely arrogant. Delusional.

"it is a tale
...full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing."

One thing is clear, you are so not gay, otherwise you wouldn't be making these ridiculous theoretical claims.

You've actually made no attempt to provide any backing for these aside from a small paragraph written as part of a collection of essays, a small paragraph devoid of context.

How you can presume to know the minds of people different to yourself, as though your brain is representative of world thought, is probably quite insulting to those who are, quite simply, different.

This idea that we're all some homogenous whole, each containing the entirety of human experience, I'm sorry but it smacks of enormous arrogance in the sense that it implies that you yourself contain the entirety of human experience. You simply don't.

There's entirely different patterns between male and female homosexuality alone, to think that there's no difference between heterosexuality and homosexuality aside from 'circumstance' is simply...I don't even know the word for it.

You can complain that this is unsubstantiated but, I'm afraid, so is every one of your theoretical claims.

Ultimately, the proof lies only in someone who's gay to tell you that they're simply that, it's not a choice, it's not a whim, it's not something they're trying out to be different - it's fact and you are certainly not someone to tell them otherwise.

Hear hear.

Trilling, 'logical fallacies! I win!' makes you no less an arrogant, bigoted, delusional claimer of unsubstantiated bullshit, GnI. In fact, the trilling seems quite desperate.

And then going on to say 'waaaa...no on is debating me the way they should...'

Well, you can't debate an argument that hasn't been made. What you've done cannot be classified as an argument...yet you've filled pages and pages with your tripe, simply restating again and again...

"You're all wrong about your sexuality. You might think you know what your orientation is, but you're deluding yourselves. Because I say so."

That assertion gets the respect it deserves.

Not a whit.

"it is a tale
...full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing."

Along the way
an old oak branch
becomes a walking stick

The thing about delusions is there is usually very little to no awareness of pathology.



The thing is, GnI does the equivalent of that, but he thinks that if he gets the last word - if he just spouts his delusional BS often enough to tire everyone else from just rebutting - he will have somehow managed to substantiate and argue and even "win" a discussion with his BS. You can see that when a post of his went unanswered by me for a couple of hours because it was 2.50 in the morning in Europe, he squealed like a schoolgirl and claimed "victory" with the shittiest excuse for a "source" to corroborate something I didn't even contest I've seen since Eutrusca's antics.

You can also see that with his "lala"-land statements of "I'll take that as [x] by you". He needs to think that if he can only keep it up until he's the last one standing, he will have had an argument. Well, tough noogies for him that I have a tonne of really, really boring paper work to procrastinate and not even GnI gets to be more of a bore than this my other chore. And I have days, perhaps even a week, of it in store.

What a lot of words you use to say "I have nothing to bring to the table, so I'll attack the messenger, AGAIN".

You lost, Fass. Your argument was nothing but hurt feelings converted into insults against me.

I've been continuing the debate because I think there's something important in the argument, and - while you apparently lack the intellectual honesty to engage - it is possible someone else might get something from it.

Believe it or not, the universe doesn't revolve around you. You can act like a prima donna, but that doesn't make you the prima donna.

You shouldn't attach the value of gospel to common conversation, if that's what you mean. But I think you're missing the point - people demonstrably self-identify in conflict with their actual arousal.... believing is all well and good, but assumes that the person you are talking to is a) telling you the truth, and b) aware of the truth, themselves.

I shouldn't belive people when they talk to me? What sort of a paroniod world would we live in if we all done that?



Then there are no absolutes. My argument.


Including' there are no absolutes'?



You think that - since there are a lot of (mostly derogatory) terms already in use, all of which share the same inherent error - that we don't need more accurate terminology?

No you miss the point. Words mean what we say they mean. If the majority of people agree what the word gay means, then that is what it means.


This we do. Of course, the cute thing about a comment like that is - it means only a 'gay' person can use the word 'gay' accurately - which makes it objectively meaningless.

Rubbish. It is clear that the word gay means somthing to the majority here, and that is that, try as hard as you like but you won't change it.

We can dump the word gay and instead use the word, ummpininig, and as long as enough people agree to the definition of the word ummpininig, then that's it case closed, argument over.

I can whip it, though. Whip it good.

If by 'whip it', you mean 'offer nothing but insults', yes. You 'whip it good'.

You said Predominantly attracted to, to be fair. And he went with that. That means they are attracted to the opposite sex not just sleeping with them.

Meanwhile, let me ask. Say I'm 33 and have never been attracted to a man sexually. I self-identify as heterosexual. Am I right?

Indeed, I also said exclusively knowing he'd leap on predominately - at which point I could ask for a definition of what 'attraction' implies - could it mean 'always' aside from a moment of doubt, possibly bought on by cultural pressures? An attraction to the idea of being heterosexual, or the attraction of simple curiosity - the fact is that I really put predominately to cover off those people who have tried the opposite sex, realised it wasn't what they were into and that they're gay. Attracted has multiple meanings.

As to the other question, I don't know, are you? I'm guessing you'll put forward the idea that you just haven't met the right kind of man although, in all honesty, by those definitions, and if you self-identify as heterosexual, then I guess you are.

You might leap in and say 'but ah, I am attracted to female sheep so in fact I'm a beastial...bestiali...animal-fucker'.

Along the way
an old oak branch
becomes a walking stick

This is a story,
of love and compassion,
only heroes can tell! (http://youtube.com/watch?v=GZsLgwcWXpQ)

Aghh - you can read your own opinion into what I'm writing but, in a bizarre twist of fate if not a tedious trait, you're completely missing the point, you're simply interpreting to fit your theory.

Even if someone who is gay sleeps with the opposite sex, that does not make them heterosexual. The physical ability to do something does not equal their sexuality.

Even if someone who is gay sleeps with no one at all, that again does not mean they're not gay.

You then entirely miss those who exclusively sleep with the opposite sex, who will tell you they're gay, will act gay and are, in fact, to no one but your own surprise, gay.

So - your definition of 'gay' doesn't require that someone be only sexually attracted to their own gender, only have sex with their own gender - but they MUST be sexually active?

Curious about what 'act gay' means, too.

This is a story,
of love and compassion,
only heroes can tell! (http://youtube.com/watch?v=GZsLgwcWXpQ)

Such is as it was and always will never be. (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6377855743675143177&q=numa+numa&total=55178&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1&hl=en)

You lost, Fass.

In the "lala"-land of your mind. Again. You can proclaim those imagined "victories" of yours until the cows come home - just like your claims that gay and straight men don't exist - the "lala"-land of your mind has nothing to do with reality. A reality in which you clamour for the last word so you can proclaim that "victory" where no one will be left to tell you where it holds its fake existence. And, as I said, tough noogies for you that that is a far, far way off.

If by 'whip it', you mean 'offer nothing but insults', yes. You 'whip it good'.

No, I can deny you the last word you squealed like a schoolgirl for when you thought you'd finally had it while I was taking a short nap. That way I can whip it, whip good.

More sad, sad facts for you.


No, Fass. It's just an insult. Nothing more.


Yeah, I put the words in your mouth and I posted a link so people could read them themselves in an attempt to make them somehow unable to read them for themselves. How dishonest of me, and how in tune with your "logic" to claim so.


Yes. You put the words into my mouth, to trick me into... what? They were your words the first time too.

Dishonest?


You not having an argument makes it so.


I've presented the argument a number of times. You've never yet actually dealt with it.


One cannot defeat the non-existent.


Your integrity is bulletproof.


Oh, really. I laughed quite heartily.


Yes.


No, you claim gay and straight men don't exist. I'm telling you we aren't going nowhere, no matter how many times you repeat that nonsense.


I don't claim 'they' don't exist - I claim that they are not 'gay' or 'straight'.

Even you cannot believe that something ceases to exist simply because you use a different word to describe it.


Only in the "lala"-land of your mind.

An ad hominem rather than an argument... and a gradeschool ad hominem, at that.

You leave me quaking in my stylish, yet affordable, boots.

You can have your pet theories as to the multi-sexuality of all people but that's all they are, theories and to tell someone that they're not what they know themselves to be is, as I said, arrogant.



Good job I've never told anyone that. Call yourself 'gay' or 'straight' all you want, it won't affect what you ARE.


Oh you unmitigated ass.

Seriously, would you cut the shit?

"I never told anyone that..."

Yes, yes you have. Repeatedly. All throughout this thread. Over and over and over ad nauseum. You are saying it right now, unless we are supposed to be reading "Call yourself 'gay' or 'straight' all you want, it won't affect what you ARE" as though it's in invisible ink...or perhaps you want to make some cute point about how you're not speaking, you're 'writing', or some other pathetic shite like that.

You are gracious enough in your omnipotentence to say 'go ahead say what you like'. Ahhh...thank you oh great one. But you don't get to then deny that you are TELLING OTHERS WHAT THEY ARE when you continue on and say 'but it doesn't change what you are/you're delusional/no one is gay or straight'.

For once. For once in this thread have a shred of intellecutal honesty. I know it's asking a lot from someone who has comported himself so poorly. You ARE doing exactly what we have accused you of, and in every denial you actually confirm it once again that yes, you are telling people what they are. Not proposing it as a theory, as a possibility...over and over you are stating it as fact.

As FACT. Not opinion.

And as a statement of FACT, it is you who needs to put up, or shut up. Or admit, "you know, this is just my opinion." At least that. Because you have yet to admit you could be wrong. In fact, when presented with that possibility, you deny that you could be.

Whatever delusion you are under as to the validity or worth of your argument (and I know you'll skip everything that has been said and focus only on my 'tone' or 'ad hominem' because you are incapable of actually admitting what you've done), you need to step back and see your statements for what they are. The unsubstantiated, and arrogant natterings of someone who is deeply confused about the difference between truth and opinion.

Such is as it was and always will never be. (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6377855743675143177&q=numa+numa&total=55178&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1&hl=en)

"Lyssna och lär, missa inte chansen!" (http://youtube.com/watch?v=UX6e7sO1ss0)

Trilling, 'logical fallacies! I win!' makes you no less an arrogant, bigoted, delusional claimer of unsubstantiated bullshit, GnI. In fact, the trilling seems quite desperate.


The failures of my 'opposition' to make an argument, is not a sign of weakness in my argument.

The fact that the best some can offer is ad hominem and logical fallacy, is not a sign of weakness in my argument.


My argument has been presented. It has been pretty crystalline and consistent throughout - and yet it hasn't actually receivd more than a gesture of actual response.

That's okay - I appreciate that it might not be something people are wanting to debate. But then - simply not debating it would have been acceptable. Filling pages with ad hominem is never going to be an acceptable form of debate.

"Lyssna och lär, missa inte chansen!" (http://youtube.com/watch?v=UX6e7sO1ss0)

Holy shyte, you are the coolest gay guy ever.

*Hands Neesika a biscuit* Eat that, it will make you all happy and glowy inside!

Believe it or not, the universe doesn't revolve around you. You can act like a prima donna, but that doesn't make you the prima donna.

Says the man who insists on getting in the last word.

Hilarious.

Yes, you are so OBVIOUSLY the better man here.

*Hands Neesika a biscuit* Eat that, it will make you all happy and glowy inside!

It'd better have hash in it.

No you miss the point. Words mean what we say they mean. If the majority of people agree what the word gay means, then that is what it means.


The 'majority' here can't even agree on a universal meaning for 'gay'. Let alone show that it is empirically meaningful.

It'd better have hash in it.

Of course!:D

So - your definition of 'gay' doesn't require that someone be only sexually attracted to their own gender, only have sex with their own gender - but they MUST be sexually active?


Slow down, take a breath, read things carefully before you respond.

Even if someone who is gay sleeps with no one at all, that again does not mean they're not gay.

Did you miss this - it was the 2nd example.

You added 'sexually' to attracted where I've already written that 'attracted' doesn't necessarily just imply 'sexually'.

You're missing things.

Curious about what 'act gay' means, too.

According to you, it's whatever you tell me it means.

Life is good, life is sweet, but the darkness comes so quickly to the old oak tree (http://thekickback.com/rickroll/rickroll.php)

Oh you unmitigated ass.

Seriously, would you cut the shit?

"I never told anyone that..."

Yes, yes you have. Repeatedly. All throughout this thread. Over and over and over ad nauseum. You are saying it right now, unless we are supposed to be reading "Call yourself 'gay' or 'straight' all you want, it won't affect what you ARE" as though it's in invisible ink...or perhaps you want to make some cute point about how you're not speaking, you're 'writing', or some other pathetic shite like that.

You are gracious enough in your omnipotentence to say 'go ahead say what you like'. Ahhh...thank you oh great one. But you don't get to then deny that you are TELLING OTHERS WHAT THEY ARE when you continue on and say 'but it doesn't change what you are/you're delusional/no one is gay or straight'.


You miss the point. If 'gay' is an empirically meaningful term, then calling yourself 'gay' doesn't change your orientation. If 'gay' is shown to NOT be an empirically meanigful term, then calling yourself 'gay' STILL doesn't change your orientation.

You can self-identify how you like - it still has no impact on what you ARE.

That isn't me being arrogant, or even actually directly linked to my argument - it's a simple statement that, no matter what YOU or I call ourselves or one another, we are still just exchanging terminologies, which might or might not refelct an actual truth, and which will not affect that actual truth.

The 'majority' here can't even agree on a universal meaning for 'gay'. Let alone show that it is empirically meaningful.

Bwhahah you mean you can't? Since when has language and how we use it had anything to do with empiric knowledge?

No, Fass. It's just an insult. Nothing more.

The truth is an insult to you, I know.

Yes. You put the words into my mouth, to trick me into... what? They were your words the first time too.

Dishonest?

My words when I made you write them. My words when you repeated over and over and over. My words when you still repeat me. And I did it all by somehow clandestinely making you do that! How dishonest of me. How delusional of you.

I've presented the argument a number of times. You've never yet actually dealt with it.

As I said, you have no argument, and something you don't have cannot be dealt with.

Your integrity is bulletproof.

Your integrity as another ting that's non-existent.

I claim that they are not 'gay' or 'straight'.

And thus you claim that they don't exist, just like you wrote from the beginning.

Even you cannot believe that something ceases to exist simply because you use a different word to describe it.

You're the only one here who thinks there are no straight or gay men. You and the kooks in your "sources". I know that no matter the BS you spout, gay and straight men will exist.

You leave me quaking in my stylish, yet affordable, boots.

More delusions from you - "affordable" is another word for "crap only fit for the poor".

Indeed, I also said exclusively knowing he'd leap on predominately - at which point I could ask for a definition of what 'attraction' implies - could it mean 'always' aside from a moment of doubt, possibly bought on by cultural pressures? An attraction to the idea of being heterosexual, or the attraction of simple curiosity - the fact is that I really put predominately to cover off those people who have tried the opposite sex, realised it wasn't what they were into and that they're gay. Attracted has multiple meanings.

As to the other question, I don't know, are you? I'm guessing you'll put forward the idea that you just haven't met the right kind of man although, in all honesty, by those definitions, and if you self-identify as heterosexual, then I guess you are.

You might leap in and say 'but ah, I am attracted to female sheep so in fact I'm a beastial...bestiali...animal-fucker'.

Well, actually, my point was that, if some day I am attracted to a man, I think we'd both agree that I was wrong. This lends itself to the point that regardless of how one self-identifies, there is the potential that one is incorrect.

I happen to not agree with GnI here, but I think it's gotten so petty that who can tell who agrees with what. It's not like a reasoned debate is occurring. Not even in the nuances.

As far as the self-identification and being wrong is concerned, however, my self-identification is based on all the evidence I have. As such is it is both entirely reasonable and entirely accurate within the bounds of our human limitations. I don't require any designation to be infallible, why would I require it of the terms for sexuality. GnI has not demonstrated in any way a likelihood that people who are and will be exclusively attracted to men throughout their lives do not exist and likewise for women.

The failures of my 'opposition' to make an argument, is not a sign of weakness in my argument.
I finally get it!

You really don't understand!

All this time you think we've been arguing with you?

My god man you really give yourself more credit than you could possibly be due.

You haven't made an argument. Ever. All you've done is try to pass your opinion off as fact. As with any n00b or fool who attempts to do this on NSG, we have been ridiculing you for it ever since.

You don't get arguments. You don't deserve them. You get scorn.

You leave me quaking in my stylish, yet affordable, boots.

See, now I really have to object. I've met you in person. I don't for a moment believe your boots are particularly stylish. :p

Holy shyte, you are the coolest gay guy ever.

Naturally, since I exist, no matter crazed claims to the contrary. :)

Slow down, take a breath, read things carefully before you respond.

Did you miss this - it was the 2nd example.

You added 'sexually' to attracted where I've already written that 'attracted' doesn't necessarily just imply 'sexually'.

You're missing things.


Slow down, take a breath, read things carefully before you respond. I think you missed a key operator.


According to you, it's whatever you tell me it means.

That doesn't even make sense. I've never even suggested a context of 'acting gay'. That was your terminology, and I'm really not sure what you mean by it.

You get scorn.

And cake! Grumblecake.

Naturally, since I exist, no matter crazed claims to the contrary. :)

But are you? Because if you aren't then you don't exist and therefore couldn't have, and so never did or was, no matter highly intelligent or completely retarded claims to the contrary.

Slow down, take a breath, read things carefully before you respond. I think you missed a key operator.

Can I offer something here to both of you? I missed the "key operator" too, when I first read it. The purpose of language is to communicate. Perhaps, you should make an effort to do so more clearly. I can appreciate that you might find the current discussion frustrating, but there is no value to confusing the issue with strangely formed sentences.

As with any n00b or fool who attempts to do this on NSG, we have been ridiculing you for it ever since.

Precisely. If I were taking anything of what he says seriously... well, that'd put me on par with GnI, and that's just a sad, sad place to be in.