Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 5/9/12 10:12 PM, yurgenburgen wrote:

At 5/9/12 10:10 PM, bgraybr wrote: Tell us now. Just answer that one little fucking question and it will all be over.

He avoids answering questions he can't answer by using roundabout circular logic and pseudo-philosophical nonsense, all the time.

Why don't you stop being a hater and contribute like a good boy? You do not understand the reason behind my conjectures. So the fuck what. Instead of drawing accusation - put some fucking effort into it!

At 5/9/12 10:18 PM, bgraybr wrote:

I don't like riddles man. Just stop playing games and answer it directly. I'm going to keep asking it until you do so.
I bet that you don't even have an answer.

Wow! You are so fucking blind. I'd check out that myopic problem you have there, because you simply do not see how far into the rabbit hole you've gone! Holy shit! Your entire way of life rests on a void and you don't even give a fuck. I am never going to understand why people like you are so stubborn for your false happiness. Always thinking they can excuse their ridiculous claims and hope for people like YuriBurgers to back them up, because all of you are just so far up your premature asses to see the contradictory it is to live as an assumption rather than a natural person who can critically think and pieced together 2 and 2. This is absolutely astonishing! Ignorance runs so very deep - wow!

Continue convincing people that your attraction and arousal towards the same sex is any evidence to your sexual oriented theories! When it could simply be the SAME effect people get with EVERYTHING else that can arouse you. Your argument is just laughable. : )

At 5/9/12 10:19 PM, ILove2Grok wrote: You do not understand the reason behind my conjectures.

Because, as usual, you are incapable of explaining or justifying why you think the way you do, and so as usual, you plow through your routine of avoidance and vague-bullshit-regurgitation.

Accept it: You can't explain yourself because you are just not good at rational thinking, logic, sentences, words, grammar, language, facts and generally expressing ideas.

Call these "accusations", it won't make them any less accurate.

At 5/9/12 10:17 PM, ILoveToGrok wrote: Saying you are attracted to the same sex and/or aroused by them does not validate your theory of sexual orientation.

Looks like we have a confirmed retard.

At 5/9/12 10:28 PM, BumFodder wrote:

At 5/9/12 10:17 PM, ILoveToGrok wrote: Saying you are attracted to the same sex and/or aroused by them does not validate your theory of sexual orientation.

Looks like we have a confirmed retard.

Says the already confirmed retard.

At 5/9/12 10:25 PM, ILove2Grok wrote: Wow! You are so fucking blind. I'd check out that myopic problem you have there, because you simply do not see how far into the rabbit hole you've gone! Holy shit! Your entire way of life rests on a void and you don't even give a fuck. I am never going to understand why people like you are so stubborn for your false happiness. Always thinking they can excuse their ridiculous claims and hope for people like YuriBurgers to back them up, because all of you are just so far up your premature asses to see the contradictory it is to live as an assumption rather than a natural person who can critically think and pieced together 2 and 2. This is absolutely astonishing! Ignorance runs so very deep - wow!

Thanks for the wall of text. Do you know what's funny? You still didn't answer the question.
If my argument is so easy to blow out of the water, then why can't you just answer it? This is getting silly.

Continue convincing people that your attraction and arousal towards the same sex is any evidence to your sexual oriented theories! When it could simply be the SAME effect people get with EVERYTHING else that can arouse you.

Answer the question and we'll continue the discussion, thank you.

At 5/9/12 10:03 PM, ILoveToGrok wrote:

Thank you for fucking making my argument stronger!

I agree with people who are correct. Why did you assume I am trying to disagree? Tomfoolery is afoot, methinks.

What the fuck are you on about? Oh, wait. Accusations that I wasn't using the right definition! Yea! If you weren't such an idiot, you'd see that I CLEARLY stated sex in a non-procreational manner.

There is no wrong definition. They are both valid. You're arguing semantics instead of resting solidly on your point. Again, pure tomfoolery, bordering on malarchy.

No. When you CLEARLY see that their ENTIRE sexual orientation rests on that retarded interpretation of their subjective experiences. You know SOMETHING is off. It is the EXACT same problem with enlightened wannabes.

Ah, you're realizing I'm agreeing with you when you are correct. You are not used to that, are you?

I think MARRIAGES are a man-made system that needs to fuck off.

Agreed

Stop what? Stop with your ignorance of my conjecture.

The tomfoolery and malarchy, sir. The arguing of semantics again and again when your point is quite simple, purely as an excuse to insult people and act superior.

> thought I used wrong definitions

There is no wrong definition

> made my argument stronger

Your argument stands on it's own merits. I don't have the power to change truth one way or the other.

> told me to stop after having total ignorance of the situation (which is the EXACT same problem the person you are defending has.) Oh boy!

I'm also defending noone. Why do you assume I am?

I am attacking your methodology. Not the what, but the why. As in, if you are correct, why are you bothering to be such a verbose pest about it? Answer: to fuck with people and make them feel inferior. Which is both unfunny and reflects poorly on your verbal wrasslin' skillz.

Making people WANT to agree with you, even when you are clearly wrong, now THAT's impressive. That's what your opponents are succeeding at, because you've chosen the wrong methods. Your making the correct position look bitter and closed-minded. OUCH.

Now stop it.

At 5/9/12 10:28 PM, yurgenburgen wrote:

At 5/9/12 10:19 PM, ILove2Grok wrote: You do not understand the reason behind my conjectures.

Because, as usual, you are incapable of explaining or justifying why you think the way you do, and so as usual, you plow through your routine of avoidance and vague-bullshit-regurgitation.

It is not vague. You people are too fucking narrow-minded and/or dense to comprehend the simplicity behind my wisdom! I dare you to copy and paste an example... : )

Accept it: You can't explain yourself because you are just not good at rational thinking, logic, sentences, words, grammar, language, facts and generally expressing ideas.

Accept what? That you are not able to understand me? So you always appear to be a dumbass, when you clearly aren't. You still are being one by assuming that everything I say is bullshit because you CAN NOT understand it! Do you know what you are, YuriBurgers? You are a small little kid watching a very complex and deep movie. Your little tiny brain span doesn't allow you to understand the movie so you call it dumb, because everything that makes the movie good, you can not fucking fathom so you become a bored brat.

Call these "accusations", it won't make them any less accurate.

Again. Provide some fucking examples, Yurg.

At 5/9/12 10:17 PM, ILoveToGrok wrote: Saying you are attracted to the same sex and/or aroused by them does not validate your theory of sexual orientation.

What about people attracted to little kids? Attracted to killing? Attracted to cars? Attracted to guns? Do you see how fucking horrible your argument is? It falls apart.

Yes. They are attracted to these things. That's it. The only difference between you, me and "these people" is they are being isolated and "cured*" because they could be harmful to society (well, except people with car fetish). Only difference. And it's as much "natural", in the sense it's caused by structure and development of human brain.
I'd like to be you, though. To have such simplistic, binary view of the universe. Real - not real. Natural - fake.
*- mental disorders don't work like diseases. They are qualified by whether they harm person/society. If not, then it's qualified as normal.

At 5/9/12 10:29 PM, ILove2Grok wrote: Says the already confirmed retard.

What kind of comeback is that?

At 5/9/12 10:29 PM, bgraybr wrote:

Thanks for the wall of text. Do you know what's funny? You still didn't answer the question.
If my argument is so easy to blow out of the water, then why can't you just answer it? This is getting silly.

Your fucking welcome. Thank you for denying the truth behind how weak your argument is.

Continue convincing people that your attraction and arousal towards the same sex is any evidence to your sexual oriented theories! When it could simply be the SAME effect people get with EVERYTHING else that can arouse you.

Answer the question and we'll continue the discussion, thank you.

Saying you are attracted to the same sex and/or aroused by them does not validate your theory of sexual orientation.

What about people attracted to little kids? Attracted to killing? Attracted to cars? Attracted to guns? Do you see how fucking horrible your argument is? It falls apart.

Heterosexual love is far more basic and natural than your twisted version of it!

At 5/9/12 10:35 PM, BumFodder wrote:

At 5/9/12 10:29 PM, ILove2Grok wrote: Says the already confirmed retard.

What kind of comeback is that?

Retarded.

YEEEAAAH

At 5/9/12 10:37 PM, shinobody wrote:

At 5/9/12 10:35 PM, BumFodder wrote:

At 5/9/12 10:29 PM, ILove2Grok wrote: Says the already confirmed retard.

What kind of comeback is that?

Retarded.

YEEEAAAH

I have to admit that was actually pretty funny.

You guys are getting trolled so hard right now ...

At 5/9/12 10:37 PM, ILoveToGrok wrote: Your fucking welcome. Thank you for denying the truth behind how weak your argument is.

You're still not answering the question, you just said "your argument is weak". Why aren't you answering it? It's extremely simple.

Heterosexual love is far more basic and natural than your twisted version of it!

That's nice. Now tell me why it is, directly.

At 5/9/12 10:30 PM, FUNKbrs wrote:

At 5/9/12 10:03 PM, ILoveToGrok wrote:

Thank you for fucking making my argument stronger!

I agree with people who are correct. Why did you assume I am trying to disagree? Tomfoolery is afoot, methinks.

You basically called everyone's sexual orientation a PHASE. Dumbshit.

What the fuck are you on about? Oh, wait. Accusations that I wasn't using the right definition! Yea! If you weren't such an idiot, you'd see that I CLEARLY stated sex in a non-procreational manner.

There is no wrong definition. They are both valid. You're arguing semantics instead of resting solidly on your point. Again, pure tomfoolery, bordering on malarchy.

No. You accused me of using another definition of it. I used the correct context for the correct situation! Shut the fuck up about tomfoolery.

No. When you CLEARLY see that their ENTIRE sexual orientation rests on that retarded interpretation of their subjective experiences. You know SOMETHING is off. It is the EXACT same problem with enlightened wannabes.

Ah, you're realizing I'm agreeing with you when you are correct. You are not used to that, are you?

Oh no. I'm used to people agreeing with me. It is only when I get personal when people become cockroaches about it.

I think MARRIAGES are a man-made system that needs to fuck off.

Agreed
)

Stop what? Stop with your ignorance of my conjecture.

The tomfoolery and malarchy, sir. The arguing of semantics again and again when your point is quite simple, purely as an excuse to insult people and act superior.

Your accusations are not welcomed.

> thought I used wrong definitions

There is no wrong definition

> made my argument stronger

Your argument stands on it's own merits. I don't have the power to change truth one way or the other.

> told me to stop after having total ignorance of the situation (which is the EXACT same problem the person you are defending has.) Oh boy!

I'm also defending noone. Why do you assume I am?

Because. You are ACCUSING me of things.

I am attacking your methodology. Not the what, but the why. As in, if you are correct, why are you bothering to be such a verbose pest about it? Answer: to fuck with people and make them feel inferior. Which is both unfunny and reflects poorly on your verbal wrasslin' skillz.

Because, being a verbose pest feels so GOOOOOD! I'm always being patient and mellow about shit. But not this time. I'm going to express MY FRUSTRATION.

Making people WANT to agree with you, even when you are clearly wrong, now THAT's impressive. That's what your opponents are succeeding at, because you've chosen the wrong methods. Your making the correct position look bitter and closed-minded. OUCH.

Nope. : ) Not at all. Perhaps my verbose aggressiveness will scare people away, sure. Don't care though. : )

Now stop it.

Stop what!?

By the way, this guy is clearly a troll. I wouldnt suggest posting in here anymore.

At 5/9/12 10:40 PM, bgraybr wrote: more excess

heterosexual love adds up to a fundamental system of mind and body?

While your theory of sexuality is bound to topple over? And the fact you aren't even sure of it!?

Sure the intrinsic value of love is not truly real, but there is definately something there that allows us to experience love. Which is why an aware girl can stay away from people who lie about the love. There is a underlying sense of 'knowing' for heterosexuals. Being turned on by the same sex doesn't mean a DAMN thing. And you ended up mixing in your system of sensuality with your system of affection towards individuals.

Why are you not 100% sure about it all again?

oh yea...

At 5/9/12 10:44 PM, BumFodder wrote: By the way, this guy is clearly a troll. I wouldnt suggest posting in here anymore.

Shut the fuck up with your accusations.

I'm not a troll. Trolls wouldn't waste so many fucking hours and pages to argue you cunt.

At 5/9/12 10:50 PM, ILoveToGrok wrote:

At 5/9/12 10:44 PM, BumFodder wrote: By the way, this guy is clearly a troll. I wouldnt suggest posting in here anymore.

Shut the fuck up with your accusations.

I'm not a troll. Trolls wouldn't waste so many fucking hours and pages to argue you cunt.

You'd be surprised.

At 5/9/12 10:49 PM, ILoveToGrok wrote: heterosexual love adds up to a fundamental system of mind and body?

Explain how homosexual relationships don't. You still haven't told me the difference.

Being turned on by the same sex doesn't mean a DAMN thing.

I'm not merely turned on by the same sex. I've already said this multiple times.
You're assuming that homosexuality is purely sexual attraction, I did not ever suggest that.

And you ended up mixing in your system of sensuality with your system of affection towards individuals.

Nice. Do you have any evidence to back up that claim?

At 5/9/12 10:42 PM, ILoveToGrok wrote:

You basically called everyone's sexual orientation a PHASE. Dumbshit.

The entire process of life is a phase.

No. You accused me of using another definition of it. I used the correct context for the correct situation! Shut the fuck up about tomfoolery.

There are multiple definitions. They are not mutually exclusive.

Oh no. I'm used to people agreeing with me. It is only when I get personal when people become cockroaches about it.

The monkey parts of their brains are making them play politics even when they don't realize it. That's what makes them so knee-jerk: theydon't know the difference between stating an alliance with a social group and a logical argument

This is why they are stupid. Why are you not pointing this out? Tomfoolery, that's why. If you cut to the chase, the game ends.

Your accusations are not welcomed.

I note you didn't say they weren't correct.

I'll take that as agreement. You owe me a couple at this point.

Because. You are ACCUSING me of things.

That's an attack, not a defense. Polar opposites, those.

Because, being a verbose pest feels so GOOOOOD! I'm always being patient and mellow about shit. But not this time. I'm going to express MY FRUSTRATION.

You're not making enlightenment look very appealing. Your methodology is making people WANT to be stupid, just to be less like you politically. ouch.

Nope. : ) Not at all. Perhaps my verbose aggressiveness will scare people away, sure. Don't care though. : )

I've never seen this work in the past. Generally you just get people playing the compassion card and winning even more social brownie points even as they say dumber and less logical rhetoric

Stop what!?

Your malarchy and tomfoolery, sir. I am accusing you of engaging in malarchy and tomfoolery.

now watch this dog chase it's own tail. Look how excited he is! He thinks he's chasing another dog!

At 5/9/12 10:50 PM, ILoveToGrok wrote: Shut the fuck up with your accusations.

I'm not a troll. Trolls wouldn't waste so many fucking hours and pages to argue you cunt.

Yes they would, so stop bumping your shitty troll thread. That goes for everyone else too.

At 5/9/12 10:55 PM, bgraybr wrote:

At 5/9/12 10:49 PM, ILoveToGrok wrote: heterosexual love adds up to a fundamental system of mind and body?

Explain how homosexual relationships don't. You still haven't told me the difference.

You loving another guy is to a person loving their God. You use faith to stitch up what little you have to validate your own sexuality.

Being turned on by the same sex doesn't mean a DAMN thing.

I'm not merely turned on by the same sex. I've already said this multiple times.
You're assuming that homosexuality is purely sexual attraction, I did not ever suggest that.

I wasn't implying that. I am telling you that using it for the argument is irrelevant.

And you ended up mixing in your system of sensuality with your system of affection towards individuals.

Nice. Do you have any evidence to back up that claim?

No, I do not. BUT I still tell you that there is a whole new spectrum of factors that create the illusion of your sexuality. I've mentioned plenty of things that can cause it. People can fall in love with dolls for christ's sake. T?here is alot more to attraction than you can possibly imgaine. : )

At 5/9/12 10:59 PM, BumFodder wrote:

At 5/9/12 10:50 PM, ILoveToGrok wrote: Shut the fuck up with your accusations.

I'm not a troll. Trolls wouldn't waste so many fucking hours and pages to argue you cunt.

Yes they would, so stop bumping your shitty troll thread. That goes for everyone else too.

Oh, shut the fuck up.

Until you provide evidence. You are the troll.

At 5/9/12 11:03 PM, ILove2Grok wrote: You loving another guy is to a person loving their God. You use faith to stitch up what little you have to validate your own sexuality.

What validates heterosexual relationships?

I am telling you that using it for the argument is irrelevant.

I didn't use it.

No, I do not.

Exactly.

BUT I still tell you that there is a whole new spectrum of factors that create the illusion of your sexuality. I've mentioned plenty of things that can cause it.

Possibility is not proof.

People can fall in love with dolls for christ's sake.

Relevance?

T?here is alot more to attraction than you can possibly imgaine. : )

That's a patronizing statement that contributes absolutely nothing to your argument.

At 5/9/12 11:05 PM, ILove2Grok wrote:

At 5/9/12 10:59 PM, BumFodder wrote:

At 5/9/12 10:50 PM, ILoveToGrok wrote: Shut the fuck up with your accusations.

I'm not a troll. Trolls wouldn't waste so many fucking hours and pages to argue you cunt.

Yes they would, so stop bumping your shitty troll thread. That goes for everyone else too.

Oh, shut the fuck up.

Until you provide evidence. You are the troll.

Maybe if you cleaned up your language a little bit we wouldn't have to assume that you were a troll.

At 5/9/12 10:58 PM, FUNKbrs wrote:

At 5/9/12 10:42 PM, ILoveToGrok wrote:

You basically called everyone's sexual orientation a PHASE. Dumbshit.

The entire process of life is a phase.

Subjective.

No. You accused me of using another definition of it. I used the correct context for the correct situation! Shut the fuck up about tomfoolery.

There are multiple definitions. They are not mutually exclusive.

you fucking accused me of using the wrong context of the word. We aren't arguing about semantics!

Oh no. I'm used to people agreeing with me. It is only when I get personal when people become cockroaches about it.

The monkey parts of their brains are making them play politics even when they don't realize it. That's what makes them so knee-jerk: theydon't know the difference between stating an alliance with a social group and a logical argument

More like dress up with their own fucking lives.

This is why they are stupid. Why are you not pointing this out? Tomfoolery, that's why. If you cut to the chase, the game ends.

If you use that fucking term one more time...

Your accusations are not welcomed.

I note you didn't say they weren't correct.

I note that you imply for your own favor like a faggot.

I'll take that as agreement. You owe me a couple at this point.

Do I? All you've done is say something, than twist words. Then accuse me of things and agree with something irrelevant to the entirety of this fucking argument.

Because. You are ACCUSING me of things.

That's an attack, not a defense. Polar opposites, those.

Accusing me is neither attack or defense. It you being a dick.

Because, being a verbose pest feels so GOOOOOD! I'm always being patient and mellow about shit. But not this time. I'm going to express MY FRUSTRATION.

You're not making enlightenment look very appealing. Your methodology is making people WANT to be stupid, just to be less like you politically. ouch.

You are essentially a dumbass who uses some school of thought as a measure for their vox. Well done, my good sir. you are a fucking shit head who needs to drop the foolish act -hypocrite. I'd suggest you not to take any school of thought into any significant level. Always take ideas with less than a grain of salt. Dumbshit.

Nope. : ) Not at all. Perhaps my verbose aggressiveness will scare people away, sure. Don't care though. : )

I've never seen this work in the past. Generally you just get people playing the compassion card and winning even more social brownie points even as they say dumber and less logical rhetoric

Did it ever occur to you that I'm fine where I am right now? I can handle their rhetorical bullshit!?

Stop what!?

Your malarchy and tomfoolery, sir. I am accusing you of engaging in malarchy and tomfoolery.

now watch this dog chase it's own tail. Look how excited he is! He thinks he's chasing another dog!

There is no MALARKEY there is only a KEY that people can not fucking fathom. :) Get the fuck off with your tomfoolery BS.

At 5/9/12 11:13 PM, LordJaric wrote:

Maybe if you cleaned up your language a little bit we wouldn't have to assume that you were a troll.

I'm sorry, sir. Excuse my dashing belligerence. I do apologise profusely. : )

At 5/9/12 11:07 PM, bgraybr wrote:

At 5/9/12 11:03 PM, ILove2Grok wrote: You loving another guy is to a person loving their God. You use faith to stitch up what little you have to validate your own sexuality.

What validates heterosexual relationships?

Simply because heterosexual love 'FITS' into place. While yours is questionable and very, very, VERY vague.

I am telling you that using it for the argument is irrelevant.

I didn't use it.

I could've sworn that you did. Maybe it was that other bitch that makes you much more preferable to talk by a long shot.

No, I do not.

Exactly.

Neither do you! You have absolutely no evidence to fill in the blanks of your conjecture.

BUT I still tell you that there is a whole new spectrum of factors that create the illusion of your sexuality. I've mentioned plenty of things that can cause it.

Possibility is not proof.

I agree with this, but I do not agree with you thinking it means nothing in the end. Use Ockham's Razor.

People can fall in love with dolls for christ's sake.

Relevance?

People can be attracted to a wild assortment of things? So your attraction to guys is...?

T?here is alot more to attraction than you can possibly imgaine. : )

That's a patronizing statement that contributes absolutely nothing to your argument.

Oh, no. It is me saying that you do not understand how abstract it is. That your vague interpretation could be sucked right up by this abstract attraction and you can see it under a whole new light - in which the light I argue for you to see.