Homosexuality

[fr0d0]

Fuck off telling me what to do will you. Do you think you're my Mum or what?? WTF

[Eilonnwy]

Fuck off telling me what to do will you. Do you think you're my Mum or what?? WTF

No, I think I'm a moderator of this forum.

[fr0d0]

You said it before you were a moderator. Your debating style appears to be: here's my point, now shut the fuck up with your refutation of that (assumed = because I have no answer).

Your staff status has fuk all to do with your comment.

[Tiberius]

You said it before you were a moderator. Your debating style appears to be: here's my point, now shut the fuck up with your refutation of that (assumed = because I have no answer).

There are some situations where you simply have to do this because people are arrogant and won't drop their point even though it has been thoroughly refuted.

Would you honestly continue arguing with a man who kept on telling you that the sky was made of cheese? Maybe you'd try to convince him for a while, but if he kept on repeating the same arguments that have been refuted time and time again, you would eventually lose interest in the debate. It's like talking to a brick wall.

[fr0d0]

I was happy to leve it with Eilonnwy, even given her abusive style. You mentioned it again so I felt I needed to respond.

Of course if someone blindly and illogically states something despite you having obviously proved it wrong, then yes, that's unacceptable. This isn't the case here. Unfortunately, unless Anto returns, the kudos remains with him for what I consider to be a spurious set of points.

[Edwardo Piet]

Because you can be aroused with the right stimulus even if you're not attracted to that person.

Yeah I can understand that. I just don't know how you could be willing to go along with it. I'm not saying 'therefore it is incorrect' remember. So I'm not comitting a fallacy here.

And how do I know Gay men have been married? Because guys come out all the time.
http://gaylife.about.com/od/lovesexadvic...arried.htm
http://gaylife.about.com/od/gaysexadvice...tation.htm

Yeah, but does that mean they necessarily weren't at least subconsciously attracted enough to the opposite sex to engage in intercourse with them?

Once again I'm not saying you're wrong. I just don't get it.

EvF

[Kyuuketsuki]

I was happy to leve it with Eilonnwy, even given her abusive style. You mentioned it again so I felt I needed to respond.

And with her "abusive style" she's pissing you off so she can't be all that bad ... I like Eilonnwy

Kyu

[fr0d0]

Haha! Indeed Kyu

[Dotard]

Because you can be aroused with the right stimulus even if you're not attracted to that person.

I call bullocks. I've tried to force some arousal with someone I was not attracted to a few times. Never worked.

If it does 'work' I call a sexual attraction. That's my opinion, I could be wrong. I just don't think I am.

If I have truely offended you with my off-color giggity giggity jokes I am truely sorry you interpreted it as sexism. Sexism t'was not the intention.

---

There are some situations where you simply have to do this because people are arrogant and won't drop their point even though it has been thoroughly refuted.

Would you honestly continue arguing with a man who kept on telling you that the sky was made of cheese? Maybe you'd try to convince him for a while, but if he kept on repeating the same arguments that have been refuted time and time again, you would eventually lose interest in the debate. It's like talking to a brick wall.

Someone please tell Jon Paul that.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

And with her "abusive style" she's pissing you off so she can't be all that bad ... I like Eilonnwy

Snap


Abusive style? Eilonnwy?


Translation: Context: "abusive" = "doesn't suffer fools".


I think a certain little Hobbit needs to think about leaving its sheltered life in the Shire.