GUNWOUNDS Posted June 29, 2004 Posted June 29, 2004 I'm so tempted to test your theory by posting some gay porn.
GUNWOUNDS Posted June 29, 2004 Posted June 29, 2004 Edit: added quote for context: With such associations (the existence of which I won't deny), your stance seems to predict that the physical alone gives rise to the emotional, and that the emotional cannot exist without it. Is this your stance?no that prediction would be incorrect.
danielsh Posted June 30, 2004 Posted June 30, 2004 ok so you are saying that naked men cause hetero-men to go "Ugh" and halt their masturbatory process ?Well this isnt true due to the fact that hetero-porn
SurlyPIG Posted June 30, 2004 Posted June 30, 2004 Is it just me or did the smuttyness factor of this forum just jump a point or two?Ace , I agree that facial symmetry is something that everyone universally finds attractive but facial symmetry is asexual.
danielsh Posted June 30, 2004 Posted June 30, 2004 So Gunwounds, you refuse to admit that there can not only be bisexuals, but bisexuals who are attracted to each sex in varying degrees? You really do perceive sexuality as completely binary?
GUNWOUNDS Posted June 30, 2004 Posted June 30, 2004 So Gunwounds, you refuse to admit that there can not only be bisexuals, but bisexuals who are attracted to each sex in varying degrees?
nemafakei Posted June 30, 2004 Posted June 30, 2004 Returning to the pheremones question (because if I were still a moderator, I would lock and dungeonise this topic now), Gunwounds, would you not say that a mis-production or reception of pheremones could be far more directly linked to genetics than any psychological question - a learned behaviour?Also, please confirm your answer the question before last.
GUNWOUNDS Posted June 30, 2004 Posted June 30, 2004 Returning to the pheremones question (because if I were still a moderator, I would lock and dungeonise this topic now), Gunwounds, would you not say that a mis-production or reception of pheremones could be far more directly linked to genetics than any psychological question - a learned behaviour?Also, please confirm your answer the question before last.I dont think it is possible for a man to produce female pheremone... and that is something a female produces during her ovulation.
Dante Posted June 30, 2004 Posted June 30, 2004 Note to those who may be interested, and just for the heck of it those who aren't as well:The reason I'm not replying to this anymore is because I hate idiocy with the same fervour that other people hate murderers, or paedophiles. Ergo, Gunwounds' 'arguments' are enough to make me despair for the human species even more, and I'm getting tired of reading the same strains of monotonous [censored]. Returning to the pheremones question (because if I were still a moderator, I would lock and dungeonise this topic now)...You're not? Dammit, now someone else will have to lock it...
TMA_1 Posted June 30, 2004 Posted June 30, 2004 sorry for not posting in awhile, it usually works that way on fed2k that if you leave for a day everything flies by.lolanyways I think it was a tad unfair to label me with hitler acriku. I mean it is one of those things that should not be said, though you have every right to say it I just dont think it was the right thing to say.Also there is a difference between being a race, which doesnt require actions or beliefs in order to fulfill it. I cannot be black, because there is no way to "act" black, unless you are a bigot who thinks that black people act a certain way. No race does.Now if you are a homosexual, you have the choice to act on those feelings, like a heterosexual. But since homosexuality is inherently deviant in a sense not of morality, but of simple fact that a penis doesnt belong in a rectum or a mouth, than it is a huge difference than saying it is wrong to be a race, or to be a woman, or to be a man. You dont make choices to be a man or a woman or a person of african descent or of an asian descent. But homosexuality is a different matter as I said before. You may have feelings but you can have a choice to act on those feelings.do you see what I mean now?
GUNWOUNDS Posted June 30, 2004 Posted June 30, 2004 sorry for not posting in awhile, it usually works that way on fed2k that if you leave for a day everything flies by.lolanyways I think it was a tad unfair to label me with hitler acriku. I mean it is one of those things that should not be said, though you have every right to say it I just dont think it was the right thing to say.Also there is a difference between being a race, which doesnt require actions or beliefs in order to fulfill it. I cannot be black, because there is no way to "act" black, unless you are a bigot who thinks that black people act a certain way. No race does.Now if you are a homosexual, you have the choice to act on those feelings, like a heterosexual. But since homosexuality is inherently deviant in a sense not of morality, but of simple fact that a penis doesnt belong in a rectum or a mouth, than it is a huge difference than saying it is wrong to be a race, or to be a woman, or to be a man. You dont make choices to be a man or a woman or a person of african descent or of an asian descent. But homosexuality is a different matter as I said before. You may have feelings but you can have a choice to act on those feelings.do you see what I mean now?Excellent points !!
nemafakei Posted June 30, 2004 Posted June 30, 2004 "no more idiotic, one-liner, ad hominem, offtopic, enraged sputtering, poorly thought-out replies"Only because you'll find no-one to direct them at.Since I've mostly been trying to clarify things and suggest viewpoints rather than make a full-blown case one way or another in this thread (and I'm not about to do that), and most of one side has given up in disgust (for which I do not blame them), I reckon there'll be no point me posting either (it's not as if I'll make any headway with anyone, and I'd only bring more bigotry out). Someone please banish this thread...Oh, by the way, food for thought, from the Rules section..."Harassing, threatening, intimidating, or discriminating remarks toward other members will not be tolerated"
GUNWOUNDS Posted July 1, 2004 Posted July 1, 2004 Since I've mostly been trying to clarify things and suggest viewpoints rather than make a full-blown case one way or another in this thread (and I'm not about to do that), and most of one side has given up in disgust (for which I do not blame them), I reckon there'll be no point me posting either (it's not as if I'll make any headway with anyone, and I'd only bring more bigotry out). Someone please banish this thread...Oh, by the way, food for thought, from the Rules section..."Harassing, threatening, intimidating, or discriminating remarks toward other members will not be tolerated"Most of one side has given up because their poor ideas couldnt hold up under pressure... thus they cracked.
danielsh Posted July 1, 2004 Posted July 1, 2004 Dust Scout and I cite research and personal experience to contradict your view, you cite nothing.In fact, it would be impossible for you to do so. As noted in this Wikipedia article:Some people, primarily Christians and most often fundamentalists, advocate the view that people's sexual orientation follows from their behavior: e.g., if they try homosexual acts, they might like them and thereby acquire a homosexual orientation. In fact some also believe that a heterosexual orientation is formed in the same way, and that the only genetic element is in the basic underlying sexual desire. Some people who share this view operate prayer ministries and 12-step programs to help people change from homosexuality to heterosexuality.There is no independent research that validates the views or methods of these advocates. In addition, most psychologist and most major mental health groups warn of the potential harm done by attempting to "change" a person's sexual orientation. [Emphasis mine.]If you read the rest of the article, you'll be acquainted with the viewpoints and research of trained professional psychiatrists and psychologists, backed by research and experimentation. So what more can we say? I know this isn't going to make a dent in your viewpoint, but your viewpoint---because it is backed by nothing---is pretty much dent-proof. So congratulations!In other news, I now believe that the sky is green. Anyone who contradicts that viewpoint is a biased researcher from the liberal media, just trying to perpetuate the Blueist agenda.
GUNWOUNDS Posted July 1, 2004 Posted July 1, 2004 Dust Scout and I cite research and personal experience to contradict your view, you cite nothing.In fact, it would be impossible for you to do so.
GUNWOUNDS Posted July 1, 2004 Posted July 1, 2004 Sure you can cite wikipedia and all the psychologists you want.
exatreide Posted July 1, 2004 Posted July 1, 2004 So gunwounds your not 1% gay? Your not .5% gay? your 100% hetrosexual and have never doubted it right?
danielsh Posted July 1, 2004 Posted July 1, 2004 To borrow a term from O'Reilly, this should be a "no-spin zone."I dont say shit like... "oh people can be 1% gay"
GUNWOUNDS Posted July 1, 2004 Posted July 1, 2004 So gunwounds your not 1% gay? Your not .5% gay? your 100% hetrosexual and have never doubted it right?My stance on sexuality is more complex than that.how do you define 1% gay?you can have a gay man be hornier than another gay man.but you cant have another man be "gayer"think that thru a few times and see if you can understand that.a bisexual is not 40% hetero
exatreide Posted July 1, 2004 Posted July 1, 2004 So basicly you see it inblack and whitegood and evilNo shades of gray eh?
GUNWOUNDS Posted July 1, 2004 Posted July 1, 2004 So basicly you see it inblack and whitegood and evilNo shades of gray eh?I see it as Correct and incorrect.... there is a correct way to turn on your computer.. by pressing the power button. Now there may be several other "wrong" ways to turn it on... such as throwing it in your pool outside... or running over it with your car... or setting it on fire.... these are all wrong ways to turn on your computer... yet we dont try to classify all the wrong ways of doing things and give them their own seperate entity.... we just classify them as "incorrect"
Recommended Posts