Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

At 5/23/06 08:52 PM, Ravariel wrote:

At 5/23/06 07:41 PM, Cajunspirit wrote:

At 5/23/06 07:08 PM, Ravariel wrote: And that's just fromt he first page of my google search. But of course, you'll say it's all biased and BS, and say it's done by humans, thus it must be flawed and incorrect.

If it were so true, it would already be in law.

What? What does law have to do with this? You posted a link claiming no genetic link to homosexuality. I posted 3 links to studies done that find VERY compelling evidence to the opposite.

There is no genetic link to homosexuality. But there is a genetic link that can lead to homosexuality.

It's the difference between the words "direct" and "indirect." Or that we are examining the shadow of the actual source of homosexual existence, society.

Legal contracts will be seen as unfair and stripping people of their rights. Just as homosexuals are whining for marriage now. It is very very possible.

No, it's not. Legal contracts are there to MAINTAIN people's rights. You have no idea what you're talking about.

He's right. The reason why we have laws and legal constracts isn't to crush people of their rights, but to protect their freedom from the freedom of others. Like your freedom to live is the reason why we have the legal contract to arrest criminals. Your freedom to voice the cause of your actions or the innocence of your involvement of the crime, by having the freedom to go to court. That is a freedom that is created to protect one's self from the freedom of prosecuting someone for inacting a crime.

Show me an equation for a black hole and it's direct influx.

Lol, using technical terms now, eh?

He don't know that black holes are irrelevant.

There are variables which cannot be measured good sir.

Not a flaw of humanity, simply a function of the universe itself. Do you even have any knowledge of theoretical physics at all?

I have knowledge over theoretical physics.

Indeed we are. It's really sill why people argue aye?

Yes, we're all wrong, noone is ever right. Why, even, do we live at all since everything we do is, by definition, incorrect and, thus, evil?

No one is ever right nor ever wrong. Imperfection is a given, however it from opinions that debate a correct path.

That doesn't make her arguement more valid nor a better person. Just an immature person.

At least she has an argument. All you have are insults. Who's the better person again?

That's what I keep saying about Cajun too!

Never said it could. But you're trying to say it's always wrong, and can't explain even what it does explain.

Hahaha words in mouth again.

It's called paraphrasing... something you've failed to recognize again and again.

Well Cajun isn't as smart as he thinks he is.

It's nothing to do with "strength". It's logically impossible for free will (thus willpower, choice and faith) to exist. If an omniscient god exists, all of our actions are forseen, thus not freely chosen. If god doesn't exist, then there is nothing to break universal determinism, and again no free will. It's not about strength... it's about, again, math.

Actually there is freewill. It's a ignorance of the spirit and the individual identity in each of us that leaves one to speculate that our genes completely control what and who we are.

We are animals and yet only we have evolved in a certain way in which no other life form could ever come to, atleast on this planet. Don't you think that needs to be put into question?

What I'm saying is that humans do have a free will. The design of our minds enable us to make our own choices. Pseudo Science (your science) and Religion are nothing more than excuses. However like a plant as we mature we grow in a certain fashion. Certain things do influence us to act in a certain way. Chemical reactions in the brain, social reaction in society, so on so on so on.

However, everyone still has a soul. And a soul has a free will, but the reason why we are so well controlled by nature and society is that our energy and will is not strong enough to prevent us from being controlled by our nature and our society, except by certain few people like myself. Tee-hee

A dog can complain about being stripped of it's rights? What world do you live on?

A dog can also get along with being stripped of it's rights. Dogs have less mental energy than humans do, so they have less getting in the way of them agreeing in terms of what is plainly needed for survival. Eventually after taking away it's

What makes you think I live in a disgusting place like that?

Your every post.

I c-o-n-c-u-r-e!

My country is deeply religious.

And yet you make this thread complaining about it and the moral failings of, basically, the entire world.

My community is very ill-religious.

So who made Science? Math and English?
Who made the rules of the universe?

For me the answer is God, and He is for living a righteous life.

God made the English language? Lol, that's a new one.

Humans are god. Humans made the English language. How hard is that not to understand? However it is not just humans, all spirits together control this universe and their interaction is what creates the very laws in this universe.

Noone made the rules of the universe. They were created with the universe. Had they been any different than they are, we wouldn't be here to ask the question.

Um humans founded/establish the rules of the universe. They were there, but they weren't known till they were founded.

That's rather bigoted, narcissistic and infactual. You can never profess 100% are against me as truth

When all evidence runs asymptotically to 100% against you, I feel rather confident that it's right.

You can't 100% against someone, because you are a human, you are not a god.

This thread really is rather ironic.

If you're as smart as you claim, and i'm as dumb. Then you should just laugh at me and move on with life.

Oh believe me, I am. I laugh at nearly every ridiculous thing you post. This thread has made my day. I needed a reminder how silly people can be, how freakishly illogical, how blindingly closed-minded, how easily brainwashed. Threads like this and people like you keep me honest. I tend to overestimate humanity's intelligence, honesty, and integrity. Thank you for setting me right.

I laugh too!

---

At 5/23/06 09:21 PM, Dranigus wrote:
There is no genetic link to homosexuality. But there is a genetic link that can lead to homosexuality.

Come again? There's no link but thers is a link?

It's the difference between the words "direct" and "indirect." Or that we are examining the shadow of the actual source of homosexual existence, society.

Obviously the issue of sexuality is multi-faceted, and is influenced by several factors. One of those happens to be genetics, some others include, womb conditions, environmental factors, and behavior and development factors. However, to say that genetics has no part in it is to be wrong.

I have knowledge over theoretical physics.

Hooray! Let's talk about the Uncertainty Principle and Entanglement and M-theory and the No Boundary Proposal. I find those much more interesting than trying to explain hoe logic works to someone determined to not understand.

Actually there is freewill. It's a ignorance of the spirit and the individual identity in each of us that leaves one to speculate that our genes completely control what and who we are.

It's not about genes, it's about causality. Our minds are physical things, ruled by physical laws; chemical and electrical interactions. As such cause and effect rule. Only if our thoughts can truly break causality can we ever have free will.

What I'm saying is that humans do have a free will. The design of our minds enable us to make our own choices. Pseudo Science (your science) and Religion are nothing more than excuses. However like a plant as we mature we grow in a certain fashion. Certain things do influence us to act in a certain way. Chemical reactions in the brain, social reaction in society, so on so on so on.

All of that influences our minds, yes, just as billiard balls influence eachother when traveling across a table. However random their motion might seem, it is still all just cause and effect.

However, everyone still has a soul. And a soul has a free will, but the reason why we are so well controlled by nature and society is that our energy and will is not strong enough to prevent us from being controlled by our nature and our society, except by certain few people like myself. Tee-hee

See, here is where we get into iffy waters. Souls indicate some sort of "magic". I hesitate to accept this premise of magic, as there is no evidence whatsoever that it happens. People feel like they make their own choices, and their complete inability to fathom death as an experience drives us to explanations that allow our consciousness to survive past mortal bonds... but there is no actual data or evidence that this is actually the case.

Humans are god. Humans made the English language. How hard is that not to understand? However it is not just humans, all spirits together control this universe and their interaction is what creates the very laws in this universe.

Now there's an interesting thought. Not so far from what my mother believes, ironically enough. Also semi-hindu-ish. Makes for even stranger discussions on morality... o.O

Um humans founded/establish the rules of the universe. They were there, but they weren't known till they were founded.

Going on the Schroedinger's Cat theory that perception creates... and until humans could percieve the laws of physics they, essentially, didn't exist? Or just in the meta-physical sense that to US they weren't relevant until we got curious enough to try to figure them out?

You can't 100% against someone, because you are a human, you are not a god.

Obviously not, but that's why I said asymptotically. When mounds and mounds of evidence is directly in opposition to your belief, the chances of you being right dwindle away, getting closer and closer to 0... but never quite reaching there due to the infinite knowledge needed to prove anything.

Anyway, didn't you just say humans ARE god... how, then can we not be god at the same time? :P

---

At 5/23/06 09:45 PM, Ravariel wrote:

At 5/23/06 09:21 PM, Dranigus wrote:
There is no genetic link to homosexuality. But there is a genetic link that can lead to homosexuality.

Come again? There's no link but thers is a link?

It's a different kind of link than the one you were going on about.

It's the difference between the words "direct" and "indirect." Or that we are examining the shadow of the actual source of homosexual existence, society.

Obviously the issue of sexuality is multi-faceted, and is influenced by several factors. One of those happens to be genetics, some others include, womb conditions, environmental factors, and behavior and development factors. However, to say that genetics has no part in it is to be wrong.

Um... wrong...

You are completely paranoid.

womb conditions

Not a factor that generates homosexuality. But could perhaps have in a certain insignificant degree, yet still significant for a few cases in which homosexuality was eventually developed. Still homosexuality can come about without such or even with these conditions, homosexuality may not develope. So that's only a hypothetical factor.

environmental factors

That would be an independent factor. A factor that could possibly lead to homosexuality in a much more guarantee domination than that of a hypothetical factor, but it's still not the direct cause of homosexuality.

behavior and development factors

Come on say it with me, psychological. Psychological factors are the truely dependent factors that leads to the developement of homosexuality. But these are greatly influenced by genetic and environmental factors. However.... you can have homosexuality without the genetic and environmental factors, but you can't without the psychological factors. Which means society and poor parenting is to blame for how homosexuality comes about and if these factors could be managed correctly and humanely, that then you would have a sufficient smaller number of homosexuals, depending on the overall population of our species.

I have knowledge over theoretical physics.

Hooray! Let's talk about the Uncertainty Principle and Entanglement and M-theory and the No Boundary Proposal. I find those much more interesting than trying to explain hoe logic works to someone determined to not understand.

Well yeah, but it would pointless and not my best sort of environment I perfer discussing such interesting topics.

It's not about genes, it's about causality. Our minds are physical things, ruled by physical laws; chemical and electrical interactions. As such cause and effect rule. Only if our thoughts can truly break causality can we ever have free will.

But we do break causality all the time when we dream. There are some physical laws that are actually not physical laws.

What you define as a physical law is a law that confounded in that materialistic world. But matter it's self is nothing more than controlled energy. So therefore there are boundaries outside the causalistic existence.

Anyways you do know what the difference is between machine language and computer language is?

All of that influences our minds, yes, just as billiard balls influence eachother when traveling across a table. However random their motion might seem, it is still all just cause and effect.

But the cause and effect is percepted by the stronger polarity conveyed by one's will.

Flip a coin and concentrate on it's landing. Then run the same test on other people. Of course the results will differ. But let's say you perform many other tests, in which every individual was still under the same physical, mental, and psychological conditions. You'll see that the same person that got the most number desired tosts from the coin would also get the highest number of achievements through probability.

Probability is greatly controlled by the individual and the reason why it's flawwed from going 100% correct is because humans are what to say... imperfect.

See, here is where we get into iffy waters. Souls indicate some sort of "magic". I hesitate to accept this premise of magic, as there is no evidence whatsoever that it happens. People feel like they make their own choices, and their complete inability to fathom death as an experience drives us to explanations that allow our consciousness to survive past mortal bonds... but there is no actual data or evidence that this is actually the case.

Well not really magic. Think of dark matter. The thing about souls is that they don't consist of matter and therefore cannot be explained entirely rationally to every individual. Or think of black holes which work entirely out of our physical laws.

But think of how your mind is controlling your body. Can you understand that without analyzing it from another body? I can.

Anyways you can prove the existence of souls only by conveying that the interaction of matter as being under the control of spirits.

Now there's an interesting thought. Not so far from what my mother believes, ironically enough. Also semi-hindu-ish. Makes for even stranger discussions on morality... o.O

Well there are different levels of existence.

Going on the Schroedinger's Cat theory that perception creates... and until humans could percieve the laws of physics they, essentially, didn't exist? Or just in the meta-physical sense that to US they weren't relevant until we got curious enough to try to figure them out?

You need construct actual questions.

What I'm saying is that things just don't exist to people until they are brought into the conscious existence of the mind.

You can't 100% against someone, because you are a human, you are not a god.

Obviously not, but that's why I said asymptotically. When mounds and mounds of evidence is directly in opposition to your belief, the chances of you being right dwindle away, getting closer and closer to 0... but never quite reaching there due to the infinite knowledge needed to prove anything.

Umm sorry, but would still not work. Because you can never gather an infinite amount of prood in your life time.

Anyway, didn't you just say humans ARE god... how, then can we not be god at the same time? :P

Because individually we are not. Think of how society. Society wise we are, we can move mountains, destroy the Earth, do god like things. But as a society we can.

God was created by man, because mankind is god. It's like each of us is a piece of god.

---

At 5/24/06 12:28 AM, Annunaki_Decendent wrote:

I have knowledge over theoretical physics.

Hooray! Let's talk about the Uncertainty Principle and Entanglement and M-theory and the No Boundary Proposal. I find those much more interesting than trying to explain hoe logic works to someone determined to not understand.

Well yeah, but it would pointless and not my best sort of environment I perfer discussing such interesting topics.

Can I make the observation that you actually have NO idea about theoretical physics? If you did, you would have retracted your earlier claim.

Probability is greatly controlled by the individual and the reason why it's flawwed from going 100% correct is because humans are what to say... imperfect.

Again, with all due respect, this is bollocks.

:: Umm sorry, but would still not work. Because you can never gather an infinite amount of prood in your life time.
So there is no such thing as proof? Maybe you would like to argue with Newton next time you step off a cliff, or tell Ohm that as you type a reply on your computer. I agree there canbe no such thing as 100% certainty, but that does not rule out 'proof', from an epistomological sense.

---

At 5/24/06 08:11 AM, x_Toadenalin_x wrote:

At 5/24/06 12:28 AM, Annunaki_Decendent wrote:

I have knowledge over theoretical physics.

Hooray! Let's talk about the Uncertainty Principle and Entanglement and M-theory and the No Boundary Proposal. I find those much more interesting than trying to explain hoe logic works to someone determined to not understand.

Well yeah, but it would pointless and not my best sort of environment I perfer discussing such interesting topics.

Can I make the observation that you actually have NO idea about theoretical physics? If you did, you would have retracted your earlier claim.

But wouldn't that just show your lack of understanding pertaining to theoretical physics?

You seem to forget what the term theoretical means.

Probability is greatly controlled by the individual and the reason why it's flawwed from going 100% correct is because humans are what to say... imperfect.

Again, with all due respect, this is bollocks.

No it isn't, there was a scientific experiment that found actual proof to support such. But alot of people dismiss it, even though it was supported by facts and data that lead to an uncontroversary view of the human mind and how it effects our world. And this was because they simply couldn't understand.

There is even a game out right now that uses the power of the mind.

http://www.tjohne.co..dgames.asp?section=1

You have been warned, your world will soon crumble before your very feet. The mind is after a much more amazing instrument that we have hardly any understanding of.

Umm sorry, but would still not work. Because you can never gather an infinite amount of proof in your life time.

So there is no such thing as proof?

I didn't say that. I said that you can't gather an infinite amount of proof in your life time. You are saying that you can. And I'm saying that would be humanly impossible, since no human could live long enough to research and find an infinite amount of data.

Maybe you would like to argue with Newton next time you step off a cliff, or tell Ohm that as you type a reply on your computer.

You are paranoid.

I agree there can be no such thing as 100% certainty, but that does not rule out 'proof', from an epistomological sense.

How?

---

At 5/24/06 08:31 AM, Annunaki_Decendent wrote: But wouldn't that just show your lack of understanding pertaining to theoretical physics?

You seem to forget what the term theoretical means.

Yes. It means "A theory, supported by evidence" it does not mean "unsubstansiated" or "made up". In this respect, you seem to have no idea about even the basics of two areas of quantum mechanics - Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principal and String Theory. Otherwise you would retract you claim. Either provide me with a detailed analysis of why they do not apply in this case, or agree that your statement is groundless.

Probability is greatly controlled by the individual and the reason why it's flawwed from going 100% correct is because humans are what to say... imperfect.

Again, with all due respect, this is bollocks.

No it isn't, there was a scientific experiment that found actual proof to support such.

Maybe you could link to it, rather than just expecting me to believe such blatant rubbish?

I performed my own scientific experiment - tossed a coin 100 times hoping it would be a tail every time. It came up 52 heads, and 48 tails. Does this not seem to empirically disprove your theory anyway? Anything less than about 60 tails and 40 heads could well just have been bad luck anyway.

There is even a game out right now that uses the power of the mind.

A game working on nerone impulses is TOTALLY - and I'll repeat - TOTALLY different from being able to influence the tossing of a coin with your mind.

Umm sorry, but would still not work. Because you can never gather an infinite amount of proof in your life time.

So there is no such thing as proof?

I didn't say that. I said that you can't gather an infinite amount of proof in your life time. You are saying that you can.

When I said "I agree there can be no such thing as 100% certainty" what did you think I meant?

You are paranoid.

You are retarded, but I don't make a song and dance about it.

I agree there can be no such thing as 100% certainty, but that does not rule out 'proof', from an epistomological sense.

Various ways. First way is a logical proof. I can prove that 1+1 will always equal 2, for example, since I only need to reference my own understanding of numbers.

Second way is an incontradictable proof, for example the statement "I am making this statement" or "You are reading a sentance". It is true within its own definition

Third is a scientific proof. If a hypothesis can be shown to be correct in all possible cases, it is considered proved. Since it is impossible to test every single case, a hypothesis is considered proved if it cannot be contradicted with other hypotheses, and is the simplest explaination to fit the facts available.

---

Grr, I had to write this damn response three times, because it kept getting reset when I opened other tabs >B(

At 5/24/06 12:28 AM, Annunaki_Decendent wrote:
It's a different kind of link than the one you were going on about.

Do you think I meant that there is one gene that when you have it you are gay and when you don't you are straight?

All I ever meant or implied is that genetics has an influence on sexuality. That is all. The strength of that influence is the only thing currently up for debate.

Um... wrong...

You are completely paranoid.

What? Where do you get paranoia from that?

womb conditions

Not a factor that generates homosexuality. But could perhaps have in a certain insignificant degree, yet still significant for a few cases in which homosexuality was eventually developed. Still homosexuality can come about without such or even with these conditions, homosexuality may not develope. So that's only a hypothetical factor.

There is no single factor that determines sexuality. Hormone levels in the mother, her intake of food, drink and drug, all have significant effect on the fetus. In fact, there are studies which find a great deal of correlation between hormonal imbalances in the mother and gender dismorphia in the child.

That would be an independent factor. A factor that could possibly lead to homosexuality in a much more guarantee domination than that of a hypothetical factor, but it's still not the direct cause of homosexuality.

There is no one single cause of homosexuality.

Come on say it with me, psychological. Psychological factors are the truely dependent factors that leads to the developement of homosexuality. But these are greatly influenced by genetic and environmental factors. However.... you can have homosexuality without the genetic and environmental factors, but you can't without the psychological factors. Which means society and poor parenting is to blame for how homosexuality comes about and if these factors could be managed correctly and humanely, that then you would have a sufficient smaller number of homosexuals, depending on the overall population of our species.

Patently false. Perfectly normal, nuclear, loving families produce gay offspring all the time. There is also no corellation between societal influences and homosexuality. Only if there were, and only if such "normal" families didn't produce gay offspring would your claim be true.

Well yeah, but it would pointless and not my best sort of environment I perfer discussing such interesting topics.

Ah... backing out now? Afraid I've called your bluff?

But we do break causality all the time when we dream. There are some physical laws that are actually not physical laws.

Whut? How do dreams break causality? And what physical laws aren't physical laws? Evidence prz.

What you define as a physical law is a law that confounded in that materialistic world. But matter it's self is nothing more than controlled energy. So therefore there are boundaries outside the causalistic existence.

Energy is bound by causality. The rest of that is metaphysical BS.

Anyways you do know what the difference is between machine language and computer language is?

What does that have to do with anything?

But the cause and effect is percepted by the stronger polarity conveyed by one's will.

Lol. Quit trying to toss around BS buzzwords to make yourself look smart.

Probability is greatly controlled by the individual and the reason why it's flawwed from going 100% correct is because humans are what to say... imperfect.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Every study ever done on the ability of a person to determine probability that has shown results has never been reproduced. Once you show me reproducable evidence that it happens, then we'll talk.

Well not really magic. Think of dark matter. The thing about souls is that they don't consist of matter and therefore cannot be explained entirely rationally to every individual. Or think of black holes which work entirely out of our physical laws.

It's magic. Dark matter is till bound by the laws of the universe. We just don't know how it reacts to them yet. And Black Holed behave perfectly according to the laws of our universe. It just so happens we can't determine how they change within the event horizon. Doesn't mean it's not bound by physical laws... just that we don't know what those laws are. There is a difference.

Anyways you can prove the existence of souls only by conveying that the interaction of matter as being under the control of spirits.

Lol, whatever. Show me where physical law is subverted by "spirit", please.

Well there are different levels of existence.

You are a fan of the non-sequitur, aren't you?

You need construct actual questions.

What I'm saying is that things just don't exist to people until they are brought into the conscious existence of the mind.

So, is it relevance or actuality? Does perception PHYSICALLY create, or does it just bring the law into relevance to the observer?

Umm sorry, but would still not work. Because you can never gather an infinite amount of prood in your life time.

Do you know what "asymptotically" means?

---

Cajun, I'll lay it to you straight. The reason people think you're stupid is that you're challenging "Conventional thinking" with nothing to back it but an extremist version of yet another form of "Coventional thinking".

This is NOTHING to do with opinion. This is everything to do with factual evidence. Nobody here has to do any effort to prove homosexuality is valid. They shouldn't have to. You are the one opposing it, you are aware there are mountains of evidence against you. The facts are there. There is no definite proof homosexuality is genetic - but that doesn't matter. It could be homronal, or something entirely new and different. What it is not, is a choice. How can you just say out of the air "Yes it is" because we control our brains? How much do you know about brains? If we can control it, why have there been absolutely no long term gay to straight conversions, and no evidence that it's possible?

And first and foremost, some of the people you are arguing with are homosexuals. You can't "Indirectly" call them less than human and have a hissy fit when people have a problem with you being an asshole.

No doubt this will be met with more insults and reversal of our "Hatemonger" argument since you lack the capability to come up with your own. Nobody is hating you for who you were born as or who you're fucking. They're hating you because of the sheer lack of respect you show to other people. Your arguments may seem valid to you, but not everything is relative. There are facts; like that some things only have a negative effect no matter what, and should be universally considered wrong. Your extreme rampant homophobia is one of them.

I suggest you take two steps back from your computer screen and realise why people are saying the things they're saying. Nobody is trying to change what you think, but the vast majority of people would consider you heavily detatched from reality.

Instead of just insulting me back, using logical fallacies, or being generally impossible to argue with, just take a step back and look at what you're doing. There ARE rules for debating, and there ARE such things as scientific facts. Maybe you can choose not to believe in them, but if you want any hope of relating to other human beings you have to respect and observe them. They're there for a reason. Especially since you seem so big on the idea of conformity, I don't see why you have such a problem with this.

You aren't going to convince most people here, but there is a danger more impressionable people could be swayed more to your side. If they turn out to be more violent than you, what then? Some gay guy gets beaten up in the street. It sounds unrealistic, but it has to start somewhere. This is why "Free Speech" isn't an excuse for everything. You're given a right, and you have to be responsible with it.

Instead of trying to convince other people the world is horrible and get them to change it, why not try and look at the positive things in life? Look at all the positive things homosexuals have done for instance - actors like Sir Ian McKellen are just as good as any other actor,

Whatever you say, we know homosexual people, or are homosexuals. While there are some minor problems with "Gay Culture" it's not much different from "Straight Culture". They stand out more since you're looking for them.

Gay people don't want to hate you like you want to hate the way they live their lives. And whatever you say, you cannot hate the sin and not the sinner in this case. Homosexuality is too much a part of someone's life. Homosexuality is NOT just fucking guys. It's men loving men, and women loving women. Real, wonderful love. And I can tell you I have felt reason

What right have you to say it's not as valid as yours, when nothing except your preconcieved notions tell you I'm "confused"?

And gay marriage. If you deny Gay Marriage, it seems like "Upholding a Tradition", but it's not. If you look at all the dog fuckers and the like, Gay Marriage is the only one that's truly analogous to Straight Marriage. You have to look at where straight marriage came form to begin with - it's not just about kids or benefits - it's about two people sealing their romantic love for one another. So why can't gay people marry? How would it damage the existence of straight marriage? If it all "fell apart" wouldn't people only start to consider the less ridiculous marriages valid anyway?

That's about the best I can say. You'll be a very lonely person if you keep living life in the reality there in. There are many people of differing religions, viewpoints, and sexualities that might like to be their friend if only you didn't hold so much hatred towards them.

We're all in this together. Nothing is gained through blind prejudice in the name of justice.

---

At 5/24/06 08:26 PM, Penal_Disturbance wrote: Cajun, I'll lay it to you straight. The reason people think you're stupid is that you're challenging "Conventional thinking" with nothing to back it but an extremist version of yet another form of "Coventional thinking".

This is true. However, denuncing someone's intelligence because it does not coincide with yours is not nice :(

What it is not, is a choice. How can you just say out of the air "Yes it is" because we control our brains? How much do you know about brains?

There is no scientific evidence proving it is not a choice.

If we can control it, why have there been absolutely no long term gay to straight conversions, and no evidence that it's possible?

If some can do it, all can do it

And first and foremost, some of the people you are arguing with are homosexuals. You can't "Indirectly" call them less than human and have a hissy fit when people have a problem with you being an asshole.

It wasn't even indirect. I said question and made a comparrison, There is a difference.

No doubt this will be met with more insults

Never did that.

They're hating you because of the sheer lack of respect you show to other people.

And where did you show me respect?

Your arguments may seem valid to you, but not everything is relative.

That's what makes it mine.

I suggest you take two steps back from your computer screen and realise why people are saying the things they're saying. Nobody is trying to change what you think, but the vast majority of people would consider you heavily detatched from reality.

Indeed. I never tried to change anyone's views either.

:There ARE rules for debating, and there ARE such things as scientific facts.

Maybe you did'nt see this, or chose to ignore it. Second to last post.

but if you want any hope of relating to other human beings you have to respect and observe them.

How bold of you to say I do not.

You aren't going to convince most people here

I never thought I would

but there is a danger more impressionable people could be swayed more to your side. If they turn out to be more violent than you, what then?

I would not encourage violence, that's against the law.

Instead of trying to convince other people the world is horrible and get them to change it, why not try and look at the positive things in life?

I'm a pessimist, sue me =P

Look at all the positive things homosexuals have done for instance - actors like Sir Ian McKellen are just as good as any other actor,

When I saw his interview on CNN, I was shocked and appauled. I have voiced that I had no more respect for him.

And whatever you say, you cannot hate the sin and not the sinner in this case.

Yes one can. Can you hate a thief for stealing a towel to bandage someone's wound?
Sometimes one has to pick the lesser evil.

Homosexuality is too much a part of someone's life. Homosexuality is NOT just fucking guys.

My views on lesbian is the same as faggots. When did I make it subjective to one sex?

Real, wonderful love.

I have great difficulty coming to terms with seeing this as possible. But c'est la vie.

What right have you to say it's not as valid as yours, when nothing except your preconcieved notions tell you I'm "confused"?

Hey you made it personal. I was just returning the favour. This thread has changed my understanding a great deal.

And gay marriage. If you deny Gay Marriage, it seems like "Upholding a Tradition", but it's not. If you look at all the dog fuckers and the like,

My view of it is a Christian one. It's subjected to that.
You can have your union, just please don't call it marriage.

That's about the best I can say. You'll be a very lonely person if you keep living life in the reality there in.

It's my choice to be this way.

We're all in this together. Nothing is gained through blind prejudice in the name of justice.

Justice is all that should matter :/

---

There is no scientific evidence proving it is not a choice.

Actually, there's plenty.

There are some references here to studies you can read up on -

http://myweb.lsbu.ac..flag/genebiblio.html

There's also a more readable analysis here -

http://allpsych.com/..l/homosexuality.html

There's plenty analysis. Just because it's not concrete does not make it false. We assume this is true until we have overwhelming evidence that says otherwise, that's how science works. Which makes sense if you think about it, because this has more backing than someone who ocmes along and claims homosexuality is caused by the effects of electromagnetic radiation on the brain.

It wasn't even indirect. I said question and made a comparrison, There is a difference.

No, you specifically said that because they were reverting to mamiliam insticts and impulses, they were less human than those that don't.

And where did you show me respect?

As soon as you start showing me some. You were the one who came forth with an argument that showed little regard for homosexuals or the psychologists and biologists that research them. People aren't required to show you respect after the way you acted.

Maybe you did'nt see this, or chose to ignore it. Second to last post.

That doesn't have anything to do with the rules of debate. In general, that was someone backing down against you. He didn't HAVE to do that because of how disrespectful your argument was to begin that. If we all did that, we'd be arguing on your terms, which is impossible, but seemingly what you want.

How bold of you to say I do not.

Not in this case, no. If you chose to refute common protocol, then you cannot relate to other people on an equal level.

I would not encourage violence, that's against the law.

But that's always the danger of prejudiced view points. Tell a man to go punch someone in the face, and you get arrested and so does he. Spread hatred towards that particular group, and you have plenty of people punching other people in the face, and nobody can touch you.

If someone were to have the same opinions and you, and was violent, they could cause a lot of harm. A lot of violent people are also very impressionable, so if you do spout off your "beliefs" to a lot of people, someone will eventually take it to heart. It's not impossible; how do you think things like the crusades and witch burning ended up happening?

When I saw his interview on CNN, I was shocked and appauled. I have voiced that I had no more respect for him.

Why? What was so shocking?

Yes one can. Can you hate a thief for stealing a towel to bandage someone's wound?

Sometimes one has to pick the lesser evil.

That's an irrelevant example as it puts a normally undesirable behavioural pattern into being a desirable one.

My views on lesbian is the same as faggots. When did I make it subjective to one sex?

That wasn't my point, and you just called gay people "faggots" - another instance of disrespect - not your opinion, just needless disrespect.

I have great difficulty coming to terms with seeing this as possible. But c'est la vie.

Maybe that's your problem, then. If you could see it as possible, you really would uphold the mantra of "c'est la vie".

---

At 5/25/06 05:56 PM, Penal_Disturbance wrote: No, you specifically said that because they were reverting to mamiliam insticts and impulses, they were less human than those that don't.

Seriously, it was just a comparrison

And where did you show me respect?

As soon as you start showing me some.

You made it personal to yourself. I never intended for that to be so :/

Maybe you did'nt see this, or chose to ignore it. Second to last post.

That doesn't have anything to do with the rules of debate.

It was an apology for not recognising the modus operandi.
I said I was new a few posts before, people just love to abuse the newbie.

If someone were to have the same opinions and you, and was violent, they could cause a lot of harm. A lot of violent people are also very impressionable, so if you do spout off your "beliefs" to a lot of people, someone will eventually take it to heart. It's not impossible

Yes, you are a testament to this.

Why? What was so shocking?

An elderly man whom I held in high esteem for his work, had choosen a path a disagree with.

That's an irrelevant example as it puts a normally undesirable behavioural pattern into being a desirable one.

The example was meant to drive the theme having to pick the lesser evil. Sometimes we can't always see the good choice but only evil ones.

My views on lesbian is the same as faggots. When did I make it subjective to one sex?

That wasn't my point, and you just called gay people "faggots" - another instance of disrespect - not your opinion, just needless disrespect.

No I was making a male to female comparrison with words i'm familiar with. If there is a non offensive male term, by all means tell me.

I have great difficulty coming to terms with seeing this as possible. But c'est la vie.

Maybe that's your problem, then. If you could see it as possible, you really would uphold the mantra of "c'est la vie".

Indeed it is my problem. I'm sorry if I offended you and I would like to extend my thanks to you for opening my eyes to certain truths amongst your kind.

---

At 5/20/06 05:58 PM, Cajunspirit wrote: Where whores and homosexuals are glorified and looked upon as role models.

what planet are you on? dont bash homosexuals jesus fukka, clearly you dont know what you're talking about.

homosexuals and whores are terribly mistreated.

you dont know shit

---

the guy who started this post has "i like smirnoff and hot chicks" as his subscript. Thus he is a hyprocryte. You think that atheists are bad, we have done a whole lot less killing then the religious. Second off, if there is a god maby this is his way of punishing us. He has delvered us aids and we constantly have sex until everyone has it and then we all die. Your just another wanker preaching on morals that we have created for ourselves.

---

At 5/25/06 09:37 PM, Costa-K wrote: the guy who started this post has "i like smirnoff and hot chicks" as his subscript. Thus he is a hyprocryte.

It's spelt hypocrite. So what if that's my signature. Just because I like it doesn't mean I over indulge.

You think that atheists are bad, we have done a whole lot less killing then the religious.

Excuse me but I never stated that.

Your just another wanker preaching on morals that we have created for ourselves.

Whether or not we created them is irrelevant. What is relevant is if you believe them as productive to ahear to.

At 5/25/06 09:32 PM, fallen_son wrote:

Where whores and homosexuals are glorified and looked upon as role models.

what planet are you on? dont bash homosexuals jesus fukka,

That's very offensive.

clearly you dont know what you're talking about.

And you do?

homosexuals and whores are terribly mistreated.

Tell that to Paris Hilton, Elton Jon and the lads from Queer Eye for the straight guy

you dont know shit

Why thank you/

---

At 5/25/06 09:48 PM, Cajunspirit wrote:

That's very offensive.

thats why i said it dip shit

clearly you dont know what you're talking about.

clearly, read on

Tell that to Paris Hilton, Elton Jon and the lads from Queer Eye for the straight guy

oh so some gay guys get a show and automatically all gays ar elike them? oh so one whore is on tv and automatically all whors are rich?

you prooved my point, you do not know what you speak of.

Why thank you/

fuck you

you like smirnof and hot chicks? fuckin poser christian "ya even tho the bible sais i cant get smashed i can still do it and maintain christianity, and also i i look at skantily clad women! WWJD MOTHER FUCKER!"

the bible sais that suicide bombers are better than poser christians like you. its not the exact words, but i heard it form a minister, so go read your bible and improove.

---

At 5/25/06 09:55 PM, fallen_son wrote:

Tell that to Paris Hilton, Elton Jon and the lads from Queer Eye for the straight guy

oh so some gay guys get a show and automatically all gays ar elike them? oh so one whore is on tv and automatically all whors are rich?

you prooved my point, you do not know what you speak of.

Haha, I never said they were all like that. I was just protesting that they are glorified and looked up as rolemodels. You completely switched the arguement.

Nice spelling by the way.

Why thank you/

fuck you

Hahahaa

you like smirnof and hot chicks? fuckin poser christian "ya even tho the bible sais i cant get smashed i can still do it and maintain christianity, and also i i look at skantily clad women! WWJD MOTHER FUCKER!"

LMAO
I've never been drunk and my signature is to catch attention. You claim to know me rather well for someone on the internet.

the bible sais that suicide bombers are better than poser christians like you. its not the exact words, but i heard it form a minister, so go read your bible and improove.

Poser? hahahaha

Do have a nice day, my good sir.

---

At 5/25/06 08:34 PM, Cajunspirit wrote:
Seriously, it was just a comparrison

Just apologize and quit backpedaling already.

You made it personal to yourself. I never intended for that to be so :/

If I insulted fundamentalist Orthodox Catholicism, would YOU be offended?

I said I was new a few posts before, people just love to abuse the newbie.

Yet it took you dozens of posts on multiple threads to catch on. Methinks you need to survey the land before you start leaping around.

An elderly man whom I held in high esteem for his work, had choosen a path a disagree with.

So? I don't have less respect for Charlton Heston, Mel Gibson or Tom Cruise because they hold views differing from my own. See, this is exactly why we call you a bigot... because you treat people who think differently with little to no respect. You disregard everything you've ever liked about a person (McKellan) just because he turned out to be different than you had thought.

No I was making a male to female comparrison with words i'm familiar with. If there is a non offensive male term, by all means tell me.

"Gay" works... as does "homosexual". Y'know... those words the rest of us have been using the entire time.

Indeed it is my problem. I'm sorry if I offended you and I would like to extend my thanks to you for opening my eyes to certain truths amongst your kind.

That sounds awfully like a "you people" type of statement. I dare you to make it to the black community.

At 5/25/06 09:48 PM, Cajunspirit wrote:

homosexuals and whores are terribly mistreated.

Tell that to Paris Hilton, Elton Jon and the lads from Queer Eye for the straight guy

Because we all know that they make up the vast majority of the "whore" and "homosexual" population... -_-;

---

At 5/25/06 11:22 PM, Ravariel wrote:

You made it personal to yourself. I never intended for that to be so :/

If I insulted fundamentalist Orthodox Catholicism, would YOU be offended?

This board is full of such comments. I've grown to ignore them.

Yet it took you dozens of posts on multiple threads to catch on. Methinks you need to survey the land before you start leaping around.

Hey I dived in headfirst, no one is perfect.

An elderly man whom I held in high esteem for his work, had choosen a path a disagree with.

See, this is exactly why we call you a bigot... because you treat people who think differently with little to no respect. You disregard everything you've ever liked about a person (McKellan) just because he turned out to be different than you had thought.

Oh I show them respect. However, my esteem for them would be different.

Indeed it is my problem. I'm sorry if I offended you and I would like to extend my thanks to you for opening my eyes to certain truths amongst your kind.

That sounds awfully like a "you people" type of statement. I dare you to make it to the black community.

Going off and judging me again. Did you ever stop to consider that I might be black?
No
You just write me off as whatever your mind pleases.

At 5/25/06 09:48 PM, Cajunspirit wrote: Tell that to Paris Hilton, Elton Jon and the lads from Queer Eye for the straight guy

Because we all know that they make up the vast majority of the "whore" and "homosexual" population... -_-;

Again missing my point that they are in the spotlight and being followed as rolemodels.

---

God I am honestly starting to hate this liberal shit. They'd sacrafice a baby to save a tree, and anyone who doesn't agree with homosexuality is automatically a 'homophobe'. You have to admit, the state of the world IS pretty sad. This 'New-Age' thinking is getting old to, there's no need to re-invent the wheel, I think by now, most would have got the thinking part down, but ya never know. :/

---

At 5/26/06 12:27 AM, Sonicgamer00 wrote: God I am honestly starting to hate this liberal shit. They'd sacrafice a baby to save a tree, and anyone who doesn't agree with homosexuality is automatically a 'homophobe'.

Truly ridiculous no...

You have to admit, the state of the world IS pretty sad. This 'New-Age' thinking is getting old to, there's no need to re-invent the wheel,

Yes, I agree in totality

I think by now, most would have got the thinking part down, but ya never know. :/

Now they will come in shouting insults at all those who don't agree with them :(

---

At 5/26/06 12:19 AM, Cajunspirit wrote:
This board is full of such comments. I've grown to ignore them.

You didn't answer the question... but then again that seems to be what you do.

Hey I dived in headfirst, no one is perfect.

3600+ posts != diving in headfirst. Y'need to work on your learning curve.

Oh I show them respect. However, my esteem for them would be different.

How is that different than what I wrote?

Going off and judging me again. Did you ever stop to consider that I might be black?
No
You just write me off as whatever your mind pleases.

I read your profile when you first started posting in this thread. I've been working you up to that one for a while now. Whose writing who off as he pleases now?

At least I finally said something that seemed to get through your thick skull. Dare I hope you take the lesson?

Again missing my point that they are in the spotlight and being followed as rolemodels.

They are not adequate examples of their respective communities. It's like saying all businessmen are corrupt because Enron is in the spotlight. The gay marriage issue got GW reelected, so thinking that our entire country (when, according to your profile, you don't even live here) loves homosexuality only shows your ignorance.

Grow up a bit, get a few years of real life under your belt, STUDY the world around you, especially those parts you feel such disdain for... then come back and we can talk about what is and is not right with the world.

---

at least we're not in a pointless war because of religion and greed....oh yeah.....

---

At 5/26/06 12:27 AM, Sonicgamer00 wrote: God I am honestly starting to hate this liberal shit. They'd sacrafice a baby to save a tree, and anyone who doesn't agree with homosexuality is automatically a 'homophobe'. You have to admit, the state of the world IS pretty sad. This 'New-Age' thinking is getting old to, there's no need to re-invent the wheel, I think by now, most would have got the thinking part down, but ya never know. :/

I love how exagerrations of neo-cons at least have some level of truth, yet "liberal" exagerrations are nearly always either exagerrations of those who are already extremists to begin with, or just completely pulled out of a cow's ass.

And how often the "doesn't agree with homosexuality" gets thrown around(especially if they insist at some point they're not drones). Doesn't agree with the idea of "Prejudice" more like. There's nothing to agree or disagree about an inborn behaviour. It's like disagreeing with people born with a slight limp, since it's "Behavioural". Ridiculous. Though I expect I'll get some BS that completely ignores any level of

There's a reason people don't respect Homophobic arguments, you know, and why the term gets coined so often. There's practically no ground to them.

---

At 5/20/06 05:58 PM, Cajunspirit wrote: We live in a world today where moral and values are rarely found.

Morality is nothing but the judgement of others..suck it

Where whores and homosexuals are glorified and looked upon as role models.

Wait...I thought you liked butt secks?

Where money and power is the driving force towards success.

Damn fuckin' straight, money is power in the modern world, deal.

We have bad parenting, where children get their way. Hence they grow up to do what they want and are subsequentially jailed or disregarded for it.

Do something about it.

Where we have an incredible increase in sexaul activity, further increasing the spread of Sexual Transmitted diseases and the Human Immunodeficiency Virus.

What can I say...people are horny (including me)

Where youth are disrespectful and ingrateful.

Wait....you're 17 and you're crying about kids calling their teachers bitches?...k..

Where people bash religions in narrow mindedness from something they hear or have seen.

People aren't entitled to their opinions now ehh?

Where all our information comes from a box emitting pretty pictures and audio. Which we never question.

Mmmmm I get my shit from the newspaper and shit I read..

People no longer think for themselves, but only follow the crowd. Those with antithesis are thrown to the side and insulted.

Wait....didn't you just fuckin' say that people can't have their own opinion?...fucking hypocrit.

Children bear children, because they were usually not brought up properly. Hence their sins and ill knowledge of the world is passed on to the next generation further increasing the mass idiocy we see everywhere.

People are horny...including you

These are what I can think of at the moment. I would like to learn of others, please post your theories or comments on what has been referenced here.

Here's my theory : You're a whiney bitch.

---

At 5/26/06 12:32 PM, Ravariel wrote: You didn't answer the question... but then again that seems to be what you do.

It would disturb me, however, I would not go ranting on and on cursing them and calling their intelligence of a lesser class.

3600+ posts != diving in headfirst. Y'need to work on your learning curve.

I meant the polotics forum. Most of my stuff is in general and flash.

How is that different than what I wrote?

I used wrong wording. Lesser esteem doesn't necesarily mean less respect.

Again missing my point that they are in the spotlight and being followed as rolemodels.

They are not adequate examples of their respective communities. It's like saying all businessmen are corrupt because Enron is in the spotlight.

I'm not saying all are like them. I'm saying that the ignorant and mindless drones in who watch them, will without second thought emulate them for social acceptance.
Monkey see, monkey do.
You cannot deny the mass ignorance that exists in this world. Especially in America.

The gay marriage issue got GW reelected,

That's why I supported him.

so thinking that our entire country (when, according to your profile, you don't even live here) loves homosexuality only shows your ignorance.

Where the hell did I say that?

then come back and we can talk about what is and is not right with the world.

I'd like that but I doubt you or I will meet around then, even on the bbs.

---

That's why I supported him.

That's amazing. And also a pristine example of forcing your will on other people through voting.

---

At 5/26/06 10:31 PM, Cajunspirit wrote:
It would disturb me, however, I would not go ranting on and on cursing them and calling their intelligence of a lesser class.

How you would react isn't the point. It's how you would feel. You would be insulted because I insulted the organization/community you belon to and feel a great deal of connection to. The same thing applies here. You don't see me dropping the N-bomb at you do you?

I used wrong wording. Lesser esteem doesn't necesarily mean less respect.

Orly? Lessee shall we?

es·teem Audio pronunciation of "esteem" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-stm)
tr.v. es·teemed, es·teem·ing, es·teems

1. To regard with respect; prize.

http://dictionary.re...com/search?q=esteem

They are not adequate examples of their respective communities. It's like saying all businessmen are corrupt because Enron is in the spotlight.

I'm not saying all are like them. I'm saying that the ignorant and mindless drones in who watch them, will without second thought emulate them for social acceptance.
Monkey see, monkey do.

Hence metrosexuals. How, again, is this a bad thing? Other than them being mindless drones, of course. I mean, god forbid these drones watch Jerry Falwell or the 700 club of FNC... they might actually elect a C-average coke-snorting neocon as president. Ohwait...

so thinking that our entire country (when, according to your profile, you don't even live here) loves homosexuality only shows your ignorance.

Where the hell did I say that?

At 5/20/06 05:58 PM, Cajunspirit wrote:
Where whores and homosexuals are glorified and looked upon as role models.

There.

---

At 5/20/06 06:49 PM, GunCrave wrote:

At 5/20/06 06:47 PM, marc_murray wrote: are you a homophobe?if so....why?

Homophobe = Buzz word for liberals so they can call people who disagree with their ideals on same sex marriage.

uhhh no homophobe is some one that is scared of gays and who cares if some one is gay ? should it be illegal is that what you want isnt it immoral to go arround bashing gays and keep telling them its wrong how bout this :

You stupid fucking straight people stop having you little retard babies and aid babies you just adding to the over population problem!

---

At 5/28/06 09:17 PM, user001b wrote:

At 5/20/06 06:49 PM, GunCrave wrote:

At 5/20/06 06:47 PM, marc_murray wrote: are you a homophobe?if so....why?

Homophobe = Buzz word for liberals so they can call people who disagree with their ideals on same sex marriage.

uhhh no homophobe is some one that is scared of gays and who cares if some one is gay ? should it be illegal is that what you want isnt it immoral to go arround bashing gays and keep telling them its wrong how bout this :

Homophobe is a word pioneered by leftwing lysenkoism fanatics so they can enforce a sort of one-mindedness. By making up the word "homophobe" and making it seem like being anti-gay is a thing that is as bad as racism. This way people will not oppose leftwing puppetmasters in their agenda of sodomy in fear of being considered a hatemonger.

Personally I couldn't give less of a shit of being a "homophobe," but most people are afraid of the world because lefties have indoctrinated people into believing such a thing is a sign of intolerance. Do you actually believe that stupid word existed fifty years ago? It's a B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T M-A-D-E-U-P word.

You stupid fucking straight people stop having you little retard babies and aid babies you just adding to the over population problem!

Contract AIDs and drop dead, you fucking faggot.

---

first off dumbass that word has been around long before "left-wingers" second off im not gay..

third only some arrogant bastard would whine like a little girl beacause some guys getting a blowjob with some guy giving if you have some sex you'll stop caring so much ya dumbass spend more time getting you edumacation(thats your people say it right) and less time butting your nose in other peoples buissness i could care less if you hate gays i say more power to you but if your hate infringes on there rights i hope you get strung up in the next revoloution