Banner
Xtra Smileys
[Open]
We Unite Gaming
May 23, 2025, 07:56:46 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Welcome to We Unite Gaming!
Formerly Wii Unite/Wii Unite Gaming
 
  Home Help Search Arcade Gallery Youtube Channel Chatbox Staff List Login Register  

A Message to All the Homosexuals

Pages: 1 ... 23 24 [25] 26 27 ... 29   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: A Message to All the Homosexuals  (Read 6050 times)
OhioLawyer
Administrator
WU Master
*

Karma: 9003
Offline Offline

Clan: The Fatal Five
Posts: 8207


Romans 5:8


View Profile WWW
« Reply #360 on: December 13, 2010, 09:51:51 am »

But hey, it's cute that you are now moving beyond your original alleged contradiction (presumably because you know you were wrong) and are now attempting to trap me in a new contradiction with new quotes.

Why not show some class and either stick to your original claim based on the original quotes, or just admit you were wrong by calling me out originally.
Report Spam   Logged

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
Termin8or
WU Pigskin Pick'em Champion
WU Guru
*

Karma: 524
Offline Offline

Clan: WtF
Posts: 10506


View Profile
« Reply #361 on: December 13, 2010, 09:59:34 am »

No, see that is where you missed it.  In order for you to judge whether or not a statement is contradictory, you MUST evaluate it contextually.  And you haven't done that.  You cannot judge my statements without also weighing in on the gene issue.  It is simple as that and you didn't get it.  How can you say "A=B" or A=/=B" without knowing what A and B are?  That is what you are trying to do with my statements.  And that is poor logic on your part.

You're wrong. You flat out made contradictory statements that have nothing to do with context. You said that you did not say that homosexuality and heterosexuality was not genetic. But you did make those statements as I showed you. Sure we can use context there and the statements are still contradictory.

Not poor logic on my part. I can't believe that you've stooped to saying that you simply re-quoted me which is a complete and utter lie. The quotes prove it.

Again, I did not say that I didn't say that.  The quote you used to contradict that statement used the term "sexual orientation".  You keep confusing the two.  And THAT is why context is key. 

Look at what is in the brackets Ohio....(homo- and hetero-sexuality). You've either just shown that you didn't read the entire sentence or you disagree with what sexual orientation means, in which case I refer you to your previous statement about there being no gene for sexual orientation and therefore homosexuality is not genetic. In that last statement you are implying that homosexuality is part of sexual orientation. You went on to refer to heterosexuality, so again, you are implying that heterosexuality is part of sexual orientation. Hopefully you can follow that linkage and logic. That defines the context and that is the key.
Report Spam   Logged

OhioLawyer
Administrator
WU Master
*

Karma: 9003
Offline Offline

Clan: The Fatal Five
Posts: 8207


Romans 5:8


View Profile WWW
« Reply #362 on: December 13, 2010, 10:06:48 am »

You are starting to catch on.  I have already asserted many times my issues with the term sexual orientation and using it to describe both homo- and hetero-sexuality in the same way. 

By you saying "either you didn't read the sentence or you disagree with what sexual orientation means", you are finally showing that you are getting close to understanding.  I do disagree with your (and the general public's) definition of sexual orientation (as well as the whole concept itself).  And THEREIN lies the gap between our arguments.  If you will now make the next step and apply my own beliefs about the term sexual orientation to my statements, then you can see there is no contradiction.
Report Spam   Logged

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
dudedudedude for Moderator
WU Smash Yo Face
****

Karma: 65535
Offline Offline

Posts: 4310



View Profile
« Reply #363 on: December 13, 2010, 10:09:58 am »

So you disagree with a reportive definition? That's odd logic.
Report Spam   Logged
the KR3AT3R
Guest
« Reply #364 on: December 13, 2010, 10:11:47 am »

ERRONEOUS ON ALL ACCOUNTS!!
Report Spam   Logged
OhioLawyer
Administrator
WU Master
*

Karma: 9003
Offline Offline

Clan: The Fatal Five
Posts: 8207


Romans 5:8


View Profile WWW
« Reply #365 on: December 13, 2010, 10:15:37 am »

I don't disagree with the concept of a reportive definition, I am saying I disagree with this particular reportive definition.  Reportive definitions are based on common understanding in greater society.  I am certainly free to disagree with society as a whole on certain topics.  I do everyday, and so do you I'm sure. 

In this case, the only time I referred to "sexual orientation" the reportive definition that I disagree with, was to state there is no gene for it.  In making that statement, the fact that I disagree with the reportive definition is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not there is a gene for it.  It was my other statement that Term claims contradicts that statement, and in that statement, I did NOT use the term sexual orientation.  Term simply attempted to apply "sexual orientation" to my statement to find a contradiction.
Report Spam   Logged

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
Termin8or
WU Pigskin Pick'em Champion
WU Guru
*

Karma: 524
Offline Offline

Clan: WtF
Posts: 10506


View Profile
« Reply #366 on: December 13, 2010, 10:16:14 am »

You are starting to catch on.  I have already asserted many times my issues with the term sexual orientation and using it to describe both homo- and hetero-sexuality in the same way. 

By you saying "either you didn't read the sentence or you disagree with what sexual orientation means", you are finally showing that you are getting close to understanding.  I do disagree with your (and the general public's) definition of sexual orientation (as well as the whole concept itself).  And THEREIN lies the gap between our arguments.  If you will now make the next step and apply my own beliefs about the term sexual orientation to my statements, then you can see there is no contradiction.

Hold on a second. This page is the first time you've stated that you don't feel homosexuality and heterosexuality are part of sexual orientation. Go ahead and state that. I understand your beliefs and disputing your beliefs is stupid as they are your beliefs. I can try to show you holes in your beliefs but that's as far as I will go.

Now, go back to the statements that you made before I even made a comment to you. Back on page 12:

um, not true.

they mapped the entire human gene.  you might be referring to the sequencing of the gene.  They completed 95% of the genetic sequence to 99.99% accuracy in 2003, but the mapping and identification of the genes was completed in 1994, early on in the project.

Obviously, genetic and biological are two very different terms.  There is NO gene for sexual orientation, so you can't call homosexuality genetic.  The human genome project has sparked many other research projects into biological effects of the genes, but that doesn't change the fact that homosexuality is not genetic, only leaves open the door for biological factors (which no one has still yet to make any connection to homosexuality).

That statement implies that homosexuality is part of sexual orientation. You can state that you don't feel it is, but that is a change in your previous stance and that is why there is a contradiction. You have never stated to the contrary until now. You have made contradictory statements (which I have shown), but never stated your definition of sexual orientation.
Report Spam   Logged

OhioLawyer
Administrator
WU Master
*

Karma: 9003
Offline Offline

Clan: The Fatal Five
Posts: 8207


Romans 5:8


View Profile WWW
« Reply #367 on: December 13, 2010, 10:20:29 am »

Not the case, Term.  I can hold my own beliefs and then also utilize common understandings of words and concepts when relaying them to people who don't hold my beliefs.  My stating that there is no sexual orientation gene and that homosexuality is not genetic does not have any bearing on my personal views on the subject of sexual orientation.

And also, re-read the many times I referred to heterosexuality and homosexuality as NOT part of sexual orientation but rather that heterosexuality is "sexuality" and homosexuality is a deviation from that norm.  So don't try to claim this is the first time I am bringing this up.  This has been my point the whole time.  You are just now starting to get what my point has been.

But at least now you are starting to understand that my statements are made in the context of my beliefs and therefore it is stupid of you to continue to argue them.
Report Spam   Logged

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
dudedudedude for Moderator
WU Smash Yo Face
****

Karma: 65535
Offline Offline

Posts: 4310



View Profile
« Reply #368 on: December 13, 2010, 10:35:10 am »

I don't disagree with the concept of a reportive definition, I am saying I disagree with this particular reportive definition.  Reportive definitions are based on common understanding in greater society.  I am certainly free to disagree with society as a whole on certain topics.  I do everyday, and so do you I'm sure. 

In this case, the only time I referred to "sexual orientation" the reportive definition that I disagree with, was to state there is no gene for it.  In making that statement, the fact that I disagree with the reportive definition is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not there is a gene for it.  It was my other statement that Term claims contradicts that statement, and in that statement, I did NOT use the term sexual orientation.  Term simply attempted to apply "sexual orientation" to my statement to find a contradiction.

Sexual orientation is something that is not up for debate. It's a scientific term defining which sex an individual is interested in. If homosexuality is not a sexual orientation, what is it? 
Report Spam   Logged
OhioLawyer
Administrator
WU Master
*

Karma: 9003
Offline Offline

Clan: The Fatal Five
Posts: 8207


Romans 5:8


View Profile WWW
« Reply #369 on: December 13, 2010, 10:38:53 am »

it is not scientific at all.  It is social.  what makes you think it is scientific?  Do you know what science is?
Report Spam   Logged

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
OhioLawyer
Administrator
WU Master
*

Karma: 9003
Offline Offline

Clan: The Fatal Five
Posts: 8207


Romans 5:8


View Profile WWW
« Reply #370 on: December 13, 2010, 10:40:18 am »

not to mention that I disagree with a lot of what "science" says.  it is sad that you are such a blind sheep that you will consider a topic "not up for debate" simply because a scientific establishment says it is so.
Report Spam   Logged

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
Termin8or
WU Pigskin Pick'em Champion
WU Guru
*

Karma: 524
Offline Offline

Clan: WtF
Posts: 10506


View Profile
« Reply #371 on: December 13, 2010, 10:46:41 am »

Not the case, Term.  I can hold my own beliefs and then also utilize common understandings of words and concepts when relaying them to people who don't hold my beliefs.  My stating that there is no sexual orientation gene and that homosexuality is not genetic does not have any bearing on my personal views on the subject of sexual orientation.

And also, re-read the many times I referred to heterosexuality and homosexuality as NOT part of sexual orientation but rather that heterosexuality is "sexuality" and homosexuality is a deviation from that norm.  So don't try to claim this is the first time I am bringing this up.  This has been my point the whole time.  You are just now starting to get what my point has been.

But at least now you are starting to understand that my statements are made in the context of my beliefs and therefore it is stupid of you to continue to argue them.

You are wrong Ohio. You can't state that homosexuality is part of sexual orientation, which is what your statement was, and then state that you don't believe homosexuality is part of sexual orientation. That makes your statement invalid. If homosexuality is not part of sexual orientation, which is what you are stating now, then the fact that there is no sexual orientation gene has no bearing on whether or not homosexuality is genetic. That means your statement was incorrect. You can't have it every which way from Sunday Ohio.

Also, this is the first time you are making the statement around sexual orientation and homo- hetero-sexuality. I figured that was where you were heading in the last couple of pages or so in order to try and elude the contradictions and that's why I listed the commonly accepted definition of sexual orientation. Just wanted to draw that out and I was successful. Like I said, that's fine, but you are now just being silly.
Report Spam   Logged

dudedudedude for Moderator
WU Smash Yo Face
****

Karma: 65535
Offline Offline

Posts: 4310



View Profile
« Reply #372 on: December 13, 2010, 10:52:33 am »

it is not scientific at all.  It is social.  what makes you think it is scientific?  Do you know what science is?

Feel free to ask any doctor, or anyone with a biology background and they will tell you, that sexual orientation is the attraction towards a particular sex. For some reason, you feel this is not so.

not to mention that I disagree with a lot of what "science" says.  it is sad that you are such a blind sheep that you will consider a topic "not up for debate" simply because a scientific establishment says it is so.

What is there to be debated? If you disagree with sexual orientation ,you believe it's impossible for anyone to be attracted to each other.
Report Spam   Logged
OhioLawyer
Administrator
WU Master
*

Karma: 9003
Offline Offline

Clan: The Fatal Five
Posts: 8207


Romans 5:8


View Profile WWW
« Reply #373 on: December 13, 2010, 10:54:49 am »

LOL so you just begun understanding what I was saying the last few pages (even though I've been saying it since this started) and I'm the one being silly?  LOL

But no, I am not wrong.  Debating a person using a reportive definition so that they understand it does not render my own beliefs invalid.  Sorry, you are wrong.  I can choose to debate you using terms that you will understand and still preserve the fact that I disagree with those terms.  I chose to use the phrase "sexual orientation" when stating there was no gene for it, so that the reader would know what I was speaking of, rather than posting an entire treatise on why I don't believe in sexual orientation as commonly understood. 

Maybe when dealing with an argumentative prick like yourself who is just out to attempt to catch people in false, and perceived contradictions, rather than add anything useful to the actual topic at hand, I should resort to writing such lengthy responses rather than simplify for the reader.

But then again, prior to your ignorant statements attempting to call me out, you had not interjected yourself into this discussion, so how could I have possibly predicted your response and crafted my phrasing just for you anyway? 
Report Spam   Logged

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
OhioLawyer
Administrator
WU Master
*

Karma: 9003
Offline Offline

Clan: The Fatal Five
Posts: 8207


Romans 5:8


View Profile WWW
« Reply #374 on: December 13, 2010, 11:01:11 am »

it is not scientific at all.  It is social.  what makes you think it is scientific?  Do you know what science is?

Feel free to ask any doctor, or anyone with a biology background and they will tell you, that sexual orientation is the attraction towards a particular sex. For some reason, you feel this is not so.

not to mention that I disagree with a lot of what "science" says.  it is sad that you are such a blind sheep that you will consider a topic "not up for debate" simply because a scientific establishment says it is so.

What is there to be debated? If you disagree with sexual orientation ,you believe it's impossible for anyone to be attracted to each other.

Since when is a doctor an expert on lexicon?  Further, a doctor is a human that will give their opinion on a subject if asked, that doesn't mean what they say is scientifically proven.  If I were to ask a doctor what sexual orientation means, and he were to give me your definition, I can followup requesting his scientific data.  At that point, no doubt, he would state that he has none.  So what good would asking him be?

And again, as to your second point, I thought you didn't want to debate the substance of sexuality, just logic?  Because you would have to subscribe to an argument about the substance to debate this with me.  As I have stated, I believe the ONLY sexual desire that is natural in mankind is heterosexuality.  So therefore I can easily believe in attraction and still reject the modern concept of sexual orientation as a whole.  I believe homosexual attractions are the result of sin and deviance from nature. So no, rejecting your definition of sexual orientation does not have the result you think it does, because I do not simply ignore the concept of sexuality, simply replace the common perception with what I believe is truth.
Report Spam   Logged

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
Pages: 1 ... 23 24 [25] 26 27 ... 29   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
© 2008-2014 We Unite Gaming, Wii Unite Gaming, Wii Unite
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum

Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy