Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 8/29/14 06:13 AM, yurgenburgen wrote: I think the reason I'm not seeing eye to eye with you is that when I talk about a human "being gay" I am referring to their basic attraction to a member of the same sex. I am not talking necessarily about acting on those impulses.

You seem to be talking about the decision whether or not to act on one's impulses, and "choosing" who you might have sex with.

I have addressed both. My thought is that the reason we're not seeing eye-to-eye is that you're used to speaking candidly from your position until the other person forfeits.

I am claiming that the attraction at its most basic and fundamental level isn't something that you get to choose.
To me it seems obvious from the amount of unrequited love in the world that humans don't get to choose who they are attracted to.

Love is a chemical release with in the brain. If you were to induce that chemical response medically, you could love anyone. Or anything. That is a choice, people just aren't willing to accept that it's equal to the learned responses (i.e. interaction with an attractive partner) we normally rely on for those chemical releases.

But if you need more convincing then fair enough, that's your prerogative.

I don't new to be convinced of anything. I got what I went after: there is a precedent within this thread to reject the common misconception that science has proven homosexuality isn't a choice and that sexual orientation is a mystical innate characteristic of all individuals.

You feel marginalized in your own life, and you are depressed. This depression paints your view of the community on newgrounds. One thread with a less-than-emphatically-positive message seems like 100% of the community. Your selective memory of posters and attitudes means that thinking back on the community brings up memories of a vast, potent, overwhelming majority of privileged misogynistic homophobic elitist racists whose opinions and argumentation are magically less intelligent than your subjective view of or your friends.

At 8/29/14 01:10 AM, DeftonesFan665 wrote: This is just...wow. The only thing you would be choosing in this scenario would be to do drugs. When you choose to do things under the influence you're not choosing to do them in your normal state of mind, making this counter argument of yours just stupid. For example, just because a girl is under the influence of a drug or alcohol and kisses her best friend doesn't mean she's bisexual or gay. If you were to choose to do drugs and not be in your normal state of mind and kiss someone of the same sex you wouldn't be gay.

Your argument went from being gay is a choice to 'I can take drugs and choose what my sexuality is under the influence of said drugs.' and it's just...wow. What you're trying to get at isn't natural. What matters is what sex you're attracted to when sober and in your normal state of mind., not 'oh, I can take drugs and fuck anyone because I'm so fucked up that I don't care or have a sense of what my real sexuality is.'

You're not even trying anymore, are you?

My argument has never been that "being gay is a choice". Don't "twist my words", troll.

Somehow in your mind, finding a partner and then injecting yourself with Oxytocin and Adrenaline is a sort of control over your own actions, but seeking out a partner who causes your body to release Oxytocin and Adrenaline in anticipation of social and sexual contact isn't under your own control.

At 8/29/14 12:10 AM, yurgenburgen wrote:

At 8/28/14 11:23 PM, Profanity wrote: If it's biological, shouldn't all of the attempts at finding a "gay gene" have succeeded over the past 20 years?

Not necessarily, and not everyone is arguing that homosexuality is genetic. And even if it isn't, that doesn't make it a "choice" by default, so I can't see how this relates to your original point.

My original point was that people are pretending their opinions are scientific fact. Specifically, the opinion that being gay is "not a choice" (quoting the video you haven't watched), or that it's an inborn trait in all adults who identify as homosexual.

I will choose to find a man, a woman, and a hermaphrodite to have sex with this September. How does that sound?

That isn't remotely what I suggested.

It's demonstrative proof of choosing to do something gay, straight, and sexually fluid. Do you know what a choice is?

You are asking for proof that homosexuality is not a choice.

No, I'm demanding that people not pretend their opinions are supported by science.

I stated clearly that you should take whatever evidence or line of reasoning you have for why your own sexuality is not a choice, and apply it to homosexuality.

I choose to chase whomever I wish.

The point was that you surely would realise that your sexual preferences are innate. You aren't 'choosing' who you are attracted to.
I cannot understand how you would misinterpret that.

I can choose to take a Viagra and have sex with anyone. I can pop a Molly and love anything. I could inject myself with oxytocin and a few ml of adrenaline and fall madly in love with anyone. Not so immutable, is it?

I never said you were doing that. I said you should watch the video.

So when you said:
"Love how you will, but don't parade opinion around as scientific fact to gain support for your beliefs."

That wasn't intended for myself? Even though you posted it in reply to my post? And didn't state that it was intended for any other recipient? Okay.

You're confused.

Does anyone else grin a bit too much whenever Xenomit tries to position himself to the right of the Bell curve before his ignorant genocidal rants?

At 8/28/14 10:37 PM, Cabbster wrote: bite the hand that feeds.
supporting an instigator, an egotist, an exploiter, adolescent-minded, ungrateful, teenager.

Great points. People (not you Majormel, I see you there champ) seem to be ignoring the fact that he was ungrateful and disrespectful toward his father. I would also mention that his boyfriend has set up a GoFundMe site which raised nearly $40,000 for 'living expenses' when this video started to go viral.

He doesn't seem like the sort to value the work of adults, and if he's coddled by the LGBTQ community as a minor celebrity, his new found fame might do more harm to his development in the long run.

At 8/28/14 11:09 PM, yurgenburgen wrote: What exactly would you accept as evidence?

Comprehensive study and scientific consensus which derives a method by which homosexuality and other forms of sexuality can be turned on and off in a mammalian research model.

If it's biological, shouldn't all of the attempts at finding a "gay gene" have succeeded over the past 20 years? Maybe that's a breakthrough we'll see in our lifetimes.

Why aren't straight people expected to "prove" that they don't choose who they are attracted to?

They are. Straight people in most cultures are barraged by attempts to question their sexuality, chosen partners, etc.

If you are straight, take whatever proof you have that your heterosexuality isn't a choice and apply it to homosexuality.

I will choose to find a man, a woman, and a hermaphrodite to have sex with this September. How does that sound?

There's all the "proof" you deserve.

Well?

Love how you will, but don't parade opinion around as scientific fact to gain support for your beliefs.

When was I doing that?

I never said you were doing that. I said you should watch the video.

At 8/28/14 10:59 PM, DeftonesFan665 wrote:

At 8/28/14 10:53 PM, yurgenburgen wrote:

At 8/28/14 10:43 PM, Profanity wrote: or even that it is "not a choice" an individual makes.

gay men and women suffer violence and general abuse their whole lives. Only total masochists would "choose" for that to happen

^ Finally someone else gets it. Never knew it was so hard for some people to realize that nobody would choose to be a certain way just to be ridiculed or inferior.

But again, no proof of the assertion that it isn't a choice. It may be a bad choice in some cultures, like any of the myriad of bad choices a person can make.

Love how you will, but don't parade opinion around as scientific fact to gain support for your beliefs.

RE: science facts as lib'rul hogwash

There is no scientific explanation for homosexuality, and no consensus on whether it is biological, psychological, social, cultural, or even that it is "not a choice" an individual makes. Typically, when someone is talking about homosexuality as a choice, it's important to be clear about whether you are referring to the trait of being attracted to the same sex or acting on that attraction.

At 8/28/14 10:31 PM, yurgenburgen wrote: I'm not going to watch this, because I just woke up and from what I've read it is just going to make me angry.

You ought to watch it after lunchtime. Sometime in the early afternoon.

At 8/28/14 09:42 PM, Rad wrote: Come on dude, the guy just lost his entire family in one afternoon because they can't accept him liking other guys.

No, he was kicked out and he responded by disowning his family and then claiming they were disowning him. Would you like to watch the video again?

My prediction:

In a week,this thread will be 10+ pages of people refusing to look at this from any of the three parents' perspectives. Anyone who does will be called a troll, a bigot, a homophobe, or anything from the magic bag of insults.

At 8/28/14 07:47 PM, Nickisabi wrote: I remember back in 07' we used to have like 760 users on at one time.

Imagine the shitposting to reg. posting ratio.

The ratio was decent back then. We had several entire threads with actual discussions, logical arguments, debates, all wherein work was done by each post. Shitposters would all stay in shitty threads which would be allowed to run through a couple of shitty pages before they were locked.

It wasn't 95% shitposters the way it is these days. And we actually had a reason to keep this many moderators around back then.

Oh good, he's been a backseat mod and bootlicker for what seems like years. Not much in the way of intellect or argumentation, (misguided ideas on logic in particular). He will smoothen a few rough edges.

Pip pip.

38.

There was a time in NG history when the forum averaged near 1,000 people at any given time.

And you couldn't post a thread in General without it being bumped onto the second page in a few minutes.

At 8/26/14 07:32 PM, SCTE3 wrote: Tim is an admin, Timmy is a moderator, it works.

Are you trying to tell me Mod Tim is a timmy timid timlike timoid whose timmosity, timmibility, and timship is somehow less timulous than Admin Tim? Truly he has timmed enough for truer timhood. His timmic timmity is unbound timative timian timness of a tremendous timmese timmer. Frankly, I don't have the time.

can never have enough mods with usernames ending in -y

Snooty elitist swine.

At 8/26/14 06:55 PM, Sheizenhammer wrote: Nobody will EVER be Tim enough.

Ever.

Also, deliberately ignoring the unfunny intended irony of this thread.

That wasn't very She-is-an-HA-Merry, Crapmallet.

What might make a person so unsure of himself that he labels himself to be --y? Are these NGers not Tim enough? Inadequately Zachar? Are they too Tigerkittish or Murræsque?

At 8/25/14 04:28 PM, wildfire4461 wrote: And I'll be driving down the highway in my 100% computer free car, passing all of those idiots who are now stuck in a ditch thanks to that.

Paying thousands of dollars more in your insurance per year because you don't qualify for the self-driving car insurance discounts.

Driving 30-50 mph less than self-driving cars because human operators are not allowed to use the left lanes.

Begrudgingly blaming the government for your own refusal to adapt to a beneficial new technology.

Talking about how "back in my day" the police had cars instead of unmanned autonomous drones patrolling overhead at 100-300 mph along with delivery traffic.

And probably driving like an asshole near bicyclists, which is something I expect from your sort.

7. Be deposed by a new coup d'état financed by much wealthier nations whose media have demonized your actions and painted you as an immanent threat to national security.

8. Be paraded around in handcuffs on international news media as the new figurehead's hand-picked judges decide which punishment is most suitable for the thirty-somethingth paragraph of an abridged 21st century history book.

9. Get word from your kangaroo court-appointed lawyers that your closest friends have been drone striked because they had been marked as terrorists for the time they texted you the link to a news article.

At 8/25/14 02:06 PM, Ejit wrote:

At 8/25/14 04:52 AM, WrightOnTarget wrote: maybe they fucked up a take and were embarrassed at their poor cinematography

Along these lines, The ISIS Guys clearly want to be taken seriously and perceived as an organised, competent threat (see: transatlantic aircraft bombing plot of 2006). Lopping a dude's head off with a steak knife, on the other hand, is a bit different from peeling an orange in one go.

What these two fellows said sounds right.

These ISIS organizers are westernized. Rumor has it that some of them are trained by American military intelligence for Egyptian, Syrian, Iraqi operations. They know that the production value of their propaganda needs to meet certain criteria to shape the political optics of the state in western media.

At 8/25/14 11:50 AM, Makakaov wrote:

At 8/25/14 11:33 AM, Profanity wrote: If you think graphene and polymer based mechanical computation systems have any merit in this discussion then you must be brain dead. And there is not a snowball's chance in hell that you're going to make a computerless car competitive against modern vehicles with a computer system even if the frame is compact honeycomb fairy dust and it runs on unicorn piss.

Look bitch, just because you're growin up in era of electronics it doesn't mean mechanics is ancient and unable to compete or beat electronics. In fact nowadays electronics are just additional control components to mechanics which are still backbone of machines like cars. You sure can make physical logical gates, so electronics is just a fun addition for children for real game. Like cap guns to real guns. Just go read a fucking book and realise how wrong you are.

Mechanics are nothing more than simple computers made from load bearing components. Literally everything you can do with any mechanical system can be done using a computer to replace all the dead weight and add several orders of magnitude more potential action. Literfuckingally everyfuckingthing. Show me a mechanical system made with lightweight components and I will knowingly remind you that an electron is infinitely more versatile and a trillion trillion times less massive. Hey shit for brains, how does it feel defending something you know is wrong?

At 8/25/14 11:18 AM, Makakaov wrote:

At 8/25/14 11:14 AM, Profanity wrote:

At 8/25/14 11:07 AM, Makakaov wrote: All you stupid fuckers and your switching to electrotechnics instead of developing mechanics.

What you just said is dumb as fuck.

How do you expect any car manufacturer to add mechanical mass to a car, robbing the gas tank for every new piece of equipment, instead of using a half ounce computer system which can do more work at the cost of electricity?

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought we're all educated here

No you did fucking not. You know as well as anyone that this community is full of special people.

and we all know such terms as graphen and polymers.

If you think graphene and polymer based mechanical computation systems have any merit in this discussion then you must be brain dead. And there is not a snowball's chance in hell that you're going to make a computerless car competitive against modern vehicles with a computer system even if the frame is compact honeycomb fairy dust and it runs on unicorn piss.

At 8/25/14 11:07 AM, Makakaov wrote: All you stupid fuckers and your switching to electrotechnics instead of developing mechanics.

What you just said is dumb as fuck.

How do you expect any car manufacturer to add mechanical mass to a car, robbing the gas tank for every new piece of equipment, instead of using a half ounce computer system which can do more work at the cost of electricity?

At 8/25/14 12:43 AM, koopahermit wrote: Couldn't terrorists easily hack viruses into thousands of cars and cause major accidents? If this ever happens, I hope they only stick the viruses into priuses.

Nope. Unless by "easily" you mean "years of research which includes corporate espionage".

Hacking is about to get a lot harder over the next 4-6 years as the current generation of military grade network defense algorithms begin to enter the public sphere.

At 8/21/14 09:34 PM, KevinButtchin wrote: actually it doesnt matter

What doesn't matter?

The answer to your question lives in the global access to knowledge, a comprehensive education, and the speed of dissemination of new knowledge. Currently, the rate of religiosity within differing strata of first world society decreases from a majority in the general populace to a minority in the educated populace. And at the doctoral level, it diminishes to a minority lesser than 10%.

Has this changed with time as more people sought higher education? Is there a cause for religiosity which prevents most religious people from seeking a higher education? Of course not. Religiosity is just inversely proportionate to intelligence, and scholarship is proportionate to intelligence and hard work.

More than likely, religions will cease to exist only when mental illness and flawed mental states cease to exist.

You motherfuckers don't even know.

Y'all need to scroll down and recognize.

Bow to @vastcool (and click his profile to see his work)

While it is pretty hilarious the way this guy has been slathering his posts in "please mod me" rhetoric for the past year, let's not forget that there actually are idiotic self-serving pricks just like him (and worse) on the mod squad.

Considering that the United States of America was founded through British colonization of the western hemisphere and has subsequently claimed the atom bomb, world economy, built a global intelligence conduit, a global military hegemony, set foot on the moon, placed several rovers on Mars and other extraterrestrial bodies, and even sent two probes outside the solar system; I don't think it's fair to mention the USA in any discussion about the reach and magnitude of civilizations throughout history without taking a dissertation level amount of regularization of data into account. America is off the charts in most regards. The British Empire might take credit for much of America's success as well.

The Fulp Brothers

The Brothers Fulp