And none of the charm.
Note: If we’re all perverts, then why are homosexuals being perverts a problem? Should they be expected to stick to some higher standard?
Actually, *gobear, I think yguy’s assertion is not that homosexuality is a “perveresion” because he thinks it victimizes children. He’s saying that its “obvious perversion” is evident because innocent children can “see” that it’s wrong.
I’m not defending this idiot, I’m just saying that his assertion is even stupider than you thought.
I have read through this whole thread, and it has sadly amounted to nothing more than a attention-whoring troll who’s probably 13 or so waving his hands and saying “I know what’s best, because I do, that’s why!”. I think it best if everyone let it go, and resoundingly shun yguy from now on. In any case, this thread should be closed, because it is a serious waste of time.
And there was me thinking we’d finally got rid of The Ryan.
We all have faults don’t we? Is that because other people think we have them, or because they exist of themselves?
Children also know that it’s ok to play in the street, throw things a puppies, call each other names and that the world revolves around them.
Part of growing up is learning to be considerate of others, learning how the world really works, and learning to think and reason.
yguy, you cannot just make anything up and claim it as truth because you think it so. You made a specific claim that children know homosexuality is wrong. I cannot look within myself and see what the general consensus of all children is. And neither can you. You can only divine what you think.
By you “reasoning” I can posit that you are one of those high school students who thinks he has the answers to all questions. Since I thought it up it must be true.
This is really the crux of the problem, right here.
Since you’ve made no attempt to provide rational support for your assertions, Stoneburg made the charitable assumption that you are an ideologue. There’s no shame in subscribing to a particular ideology, and, generally speaking, people are more inclined to make allowances for people who hold irrational views that they have come by honestly, as a member of a group with long-held traditional beliefs.
You claim that you’re not an ideologue. That’s fair enough, but Stoneburg can hardly be blamed for mistaking you for one, since you’re clearly a related species. Let’s look at what an ideologue is, to clarify: the word has Greek roots, from idios, (pertaining to the self,) and logos, (reason.) So an ideology is a way of reasoning that is particular to a specific group.
Since your beliefs do not stem from a particular group affilation, but are your own, and you are still unwilling or unable to explain the rational process by which you have arrived at them, Stoneburg has mislabelled you.
If you hold beliefs which you have arrived at by some non-rational process other than by your embrace of an existing ideology, and you are unable to communicate your reasoning for those beliefs to anyone outside of your self, there’s a word for that too.
Idiot.
Ah, thank you for the clarification, DtC. If we are using the approval of the average child as a yardstick for “perversion,” then we must conclude that broccoli, homework, baths, and dressing up for church are all “perversions” as well.
Hmmm… my 4 and 6 year old children (who have never been abused) don’t think so.
They learned that sometimes men and women fall in love, and sometimes men and men do, and sometimes women and women do.
They don’t think it’s strange, complicated, unusual, gross or anything.
And they think it’s wrong to kill a spider, let alone a sibling!
Listen bub, the purpose of this board is fighting ignorance.
You, pulling shit out of your ass and flinging around like a mentally damaged bonobo does nothing to further this purpose.
I believe the expression I’m looking for is “Put up or Shut up.” Personally, I invite you to do both.
“Most”? Please provide a list of the sex, eating and TV exceptions to your perverted rule - I’m truly curious.
Well, seems to me that the best course of action for you is to go become a monk. Preferably somewhere far away from a modem.
Oh, wait. You’re not a Christian. Then how’s about you move to a mountain cabin far away from society (and a modem)? That way, you don’t have to be near any of society’s many perversions?
Why am I flashing on Keenan Wynn in Dr. Strangelove?
Can one assume the list of perversions includes modems?
Sure, why not? I basically just want him to stop posting here.
Give us some insight, what exactly did you argue about?
Well, actually, Stoneburg hasn’t misrepresented you at all. When you first entered the thread you linked, you implied that you were working from a strictly logical, scientific standpoint. Then you started in on all this morality stuff about the Creator, and blah-de-blah-de-blah about what you “just know”. So you misrepresented yourself, and he called you on it. He’s not done anything but humor you and your third-grade debating style.
And yes, dear, when you lay something out as fact, you have to be prepared to substantiate it if someone doesn’t believe you. It’s no crime to have an opinion, but representing your opinion as fact will generally end in you getting your ass handed to you on a plate in pretty short order around here. That’s just how a place devoted to fighting ignorance works.
Do yourself and everyone else a favor and get off your little “I’ll tell you what I want to tell you when I want to tell you” power trip. Very few people are going to wade through pages of your obfuscations and outright bullshit to find out what you think. Your threads will either sink to the bottom of the heap ignored, people will join them only to dogpile you, or the mods will close them as a ridiculous waste of time and bandwidth. The Dope does not suffer fools gladly.
To put it in terms you can truly understand, my gut tells me you’re a moronic troll who thinks he’s a brilliant debater. That’s my opinion, and until I see some evidence in the form of substantive posts, I’m sticking to it.
Part of this guy’s posts really sadden me. If you think about it, imagine he really is 13 and doesn’t know what he is saying, or doesn’t know how to answer, so he gives the answers we are reading.
yguy - I think you are being summoned for supper.
I’m afraid he assumed more than that. He claimed I was being dishonest.
If my reasoning is particular to a specific group, I don’t know what it would be, unless it would be those who respect the Judaeo-Christian ethic, and see value in much of the theology encompassed by it.
Thank you for recognizing that much, at least.
This presumes, of course, that my audience has the desire to understand my reasoning. Some here obviously don’t, for whatever reason.