'Homosexuality' or 'Disgusting and Unnatural but not a crime' or 'Rad' (4937 hits)
Category: GeneralLabels: Classics
Rating: 0.02 on 219 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by Derick B <dprime.at.hotmail.com> (View user info) at 2005-06-11 00:10:20 EDT
[Sorry, I couldn't pick which title.]
"Homosexuality is disgusting."
"It's legal to eat at Taco Bell and listen to Abba."
"Homosexuality is a disease."
"People with cancer are allowed to marry or have sex with whomever they want."
As far as genetics go, it's as unnatural as pedophilia. If you look at it, they're no different, except there's a different unnatural target with which they have no capacity to reproduce with. However, two adults should be free to make their own decisions as to what they do with their life and bodies; this isn't the case with children.
Marriage, the current issue being questioned, is some thing that shouldn't be done by the government. If people, any people, want to make a legal contract concerning their future property, insurance, and estates, they can do so however they want; the same goes for having big parties with their friends and then going to Florida for a weekend to have sex before they start living together. Religious individuals will continue to claim that this isn't marriage and only heterosexuals in a church are really getting married, leftists will claim that it's equally special, and I won't care.
Though it's obviously unnatural (just like it's unnatural to sodomize your wife,) there isn't enough evidence (Physical or Scientific and otherwise) to make an objective conclusion about what it is exactly, and how a rational individual should approach it. It's my opinion that it represents some negative things about the emotional representation of the position of a man in the world, and that any one who isn't completely gay (what percentage of 'homosexuals' this is I'm not aware of) and has the capacity to ignore it, doesn't need to embrace it to be sexually happy, and shouldn't.
The same thing goes for pedophiles except, no matter how much of one you are, you shouldn't 'embrace' it by having sex with a child.
Well, that is, unless it's Dakota Fanning. She's hot.
User Reviews
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2006-09-05 08:55:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
It is a classic.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2006-09-05 08:39:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
i support this post
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2006-09-05 08:23:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Anyone who has even a hint of not liking my belief system does so because he subconsciously like it.
Submitted by Akira (user info) at 2005-11-28 00:32:10 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Tom (user info) at 2005-11-28 00:18:38 (#)
Ranking: 0
I have a theory that people who even hint that homosexuality is disgusting or wrong are at least bisexual and compensating.
-=-=-==-=-=--==--
Overt, leather-wearing, dominatrix, perverse homosexuality is disgusting. There's no fucking doubt about it. Even between a man and a woman I'd find it disgusting.
On the other hand, two guys in love having sex may be aesthetically displeasing to me but it's not disgusting.
It depends whether the homosexuality is a genuine feeling of love and respect for others of the same sex or whether it's just part of a perverse sexual fetish.
Submitted by Tom (user info) at 2005-11-28 00:18:38 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I have a theory that people who even hint that homosexuality is disgusting or wrong are at least bisexual and compensating.
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2005-06-18 13:14:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
D,
Like I said, well stated, but one question.
When I read this, I was originally assuming you were religious. This is largely because Christians are the only ones I've heard refer to homosexuality as "unnatural" -- this based on a 2,000 year old comprehension of natural science. While I can't debate religious arguments (as they are founded in faith; not fact), and I cannot debate the concept of homosexuality as "disgusting" (as this is a personal preference), if you're not taking this from a religious perspective, I'd like to know why you think homosexuality is "unnatural". Predators like the wolf are natural, as are diseases, famine, mortal conflict, infertility, and lemmings leaping from cliffs. All of these, from a natural perspective, are means of population control. They are not evil in themselves; in fact, without them we'd be one screwed, overpopulated world. Homosexuality, in my mind, is simply a natural means of population control that doesn't harm anyone (I think that even the most devout Catholic would choose a homosexual neighbor over a bout of dysentery.) So... disgusting I can see. That's a personal preference. But unnatural?
Submitted by twentyseventy (user info) at 2005-06-18 02:40:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
dakota fanning? really?
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-06-17 23:23:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
See, I've gotten pretty tired of people assuming that I'm religous based on small, stupid things. I hate religon and its altruistic, self-sacrificial beliefs.
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-06-17 23:20:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
SHUT THE FUCK UP. IM AN ATHIEST, YOU DUMBASS.
Submitted by PatheticCapitalistFuck (user info) at 2005-06-17 23:03:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
"just like it's unnatural to sodomize your wife,"
Are you kidding me? "Unnatural" because the bible says so? If you're using the bible to decide what's natural, I suspect your girlfriend/wife/whatthefuckever is probably kept locked in the house, not allowed to speak to anyone without your permission, and other such archaic shit that was "normal" in biblical times.
Shit, how did I incorporate feminism into sodomy?
Anyway, heterosexual butt love rocks!
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-06-17 22:30:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Damn! It's off heated. Now my two friends wont be able to come and continue their arguement!
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-06-17 19:10:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
http://www.ubersite.com/m/68793
All conversation on this should switch to the above.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-06-17 18:42:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
d-prime, the fear that you may be a homo is subconcious.
You wouldn't know if you were or not (afraid)
generally, if you are anti-gay, the fear exists.
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-06-17 17:20:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Affinity: You aren't helping by commenting, you know.
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-06-17 17:20:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
(To Rad's responce about Homophobia)
Oh, it is? Well, I'm not afraid that I might be homosexual either (I know I'm not,) nor do I try to avoid homosexuals, nor do I fear them.
And, how the hell has this kept going?! I haven't been on here for days.
Submitted by BugMeNot (user info) at 2005-06-17 15:06:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
xxx
Submitted by Affinity (user info) at 2005-06-17 13:20:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
why won't this post die!
JUST DIE DAMN YOU
Submitted by mrwolf (user info) at 2005-06-17 04:38:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Draqus (user info) at 2005-06-16 11:06:37 (#)
Ranking: -1
Hahahaha.
I need say no more: what more words are needed!
Have all the last words you want: you've shot yourself in the foot for the last time.
That's all the proof I wanted to confirm my suspicions: that you're arrogant and conceited, and out for no more than your own foolish vision of pride.
I'm gone now. I don't need to say anything more. Your own words condemn you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Talk about 'not getting it'. We're done here. I won, you lost, everyone thinks you are that little bit sillier than they did before this post... I shall continue with my arrogance and leave you with these parting words.
Fuck off you rabid, cock biting, goat stabbing cum guzzling scrotum. Go drink your dads sperm then piss it out onto a spoon so you can shovel it into your rectal passage. I hope you asphyxiate with your head lodged up your ass. Please do the world a favour and expire you whimpering wrecked vagina.
Submitted by FunnyAsCancer (user info) at 2005-06-16 19:38:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Sodomy is only unnatural depending on how you look at it. If you see it as a reproductive thing, sure, unnatural. But if you look at if from a pleasure standpoint, (I guess) it makes sense. The fact that Tab A can fit into Slots B, C, or D (or E or F or G) seems to suggest maybe it's at least a slight bit natural.
Submitted by Herpes (user info) at 2005-06-16 11:17:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
The last line creeped me out, while piquing my interest. How fucked up is that?
Submitted by Dervel (user info) at 2005-06-16 11:11:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Draqus, you sir, have missed the point of the exercise.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-06-16 11:09:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
HAHAHAHAAHHA
Pock, you are arrogant and concieted.
Submitted by Draqus (user info) at 2005-06-16 11:06:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
Hahahaha.
I need say no more: what more words are needed!
Have all the last words you want: you've shot yourself in the foot for the last time.
That's all the proof I wanted to confirm my suspicions: that you're arrogant and conceited, and out for no more than your own foolish vision of pride.
I'm gone now. I don't need to say anything more. Your own words condemn you.
Submitted by Dervel (user info) at 2005-06-16 11:02:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Which guy with the moustache?
The one on the left or the one on the right?
By the way I just got send a video clip to my mobile phone. It has this old girl whinging about how women who do porn don't get shown any respect, then this guy walks in and shoves his cock in her mouth.
I laughed and laughed until my balls ached and my socks were all wet.
Then my boss said if she caught me "laughing" in the office again she would get me arrested.
Submitted by mrwolf (user info) at 2005-06-16 10:56:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Draqus (user info) at 2005-06-16 09:55:06 (#)
Ranking: -2
How's about you show how much of a man you are by not pettily seeking the last word? Show me you're not what I think you are, and let *this* be the last.
Go on.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You'd like that wouldn't you, almost as much as you like Dervel to give it to you in the bottom.
http://home.earthlink.net/~xta.blog/images/fred_dance.jpg ... this is you guys, draqus is the bitch and dervel is... erm... the guy with the moustache.
Submitted by Dervel (user info) at 2005-06-16 10:02:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
How dare you associate me with that fool.
Incidentally if you type "pocks mum" into Google images you get this:
http://itsb.ucsf.edu/~vcr/CskinMumRetRock.gif
Mwahahahahhaha!
Submitted by Draqus (user info) at 2005-06-16 09:55:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
How's about you show how much of a man you are by not pettily seeking the last word? Show me you're not what I think you are, and let *this* be the last.
Go on.
Submitted by mrwolf (user info) at 2005-06-16 09:53:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Draqus and Dervel, funny how both start with the same letter and end with the same lack of intellect. You can both go back to your typical day and put your cocks in toasters now thankyou please.
Here's a pic of you guys, the toasters are just out of shot
http://www.clifburns.us/photos/hillbillies.jpg
Submitted by Draqus (user info) at 2005-06-16 09:42:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
What more example of your pettiness is needed?
It's not about having a debate with you. It's about "winning". It's about being "the big man". Isn't it? Even when I agree with you, you disagree.
<Insert Last Word Here>
Submitted by Dervel (user info) at 2005-06-16 09:32:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Well, allow me to retort:
http://www.uwcsea.edu.sg/bio/biology/photogallery/IMGP3356.JPG
Cuntface.
Submitted by mrwolf (user info) at 2005-06-16 09:23:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Dervel (user info) at 2005-06-16 09:14:44 (#)
Ranking: 2
Disgusting little man?
I'm 6'0" whilst you on the other hand are about 3'2" and that's whilst you're wearing your mums stilettos and standing on the coffee table.
I'm not disgusting either, my bathing habits are second to only Bob Geldofs.
Anyhow, Dervel is pronounced with a silent "Won" at the start, anyone worth their salt knows that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Very clever, and by clever I mean stupid, and by stupid I mean you are an ass spelunker. Speaking of Bob Geldof are you ever planning to release him from your basement? I heard he's needed for some show or other.
Despite my short stature I think you'll find your mum prefers me to you. And yes I'm talking shit about your mother- thought I'd stoop to your level you blasted pseudo-intellectual scrotal shag pile!
Submitted by Dervel (user info) at 2005-06-16 09:14:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Disgusting little man?
I'm 6'0" whilst you on the other hand are about 3'2" and that's whilst you're wearing your mums stilettos and standing on the coffee table.
I'm not disgusting either, my bathing habits are second to only Bob Geldofs.
Anyhow, Dervel is pronounced with a silent "Won" at the start, anyone worth their salt knows that.
Submitted by mrwolf (user info) at 2005-06-16 09:05:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Dervel (user info) at 2005-06-16 08:49:59 (#)
Ranking: 2
"Instead you told me I was gay (as early as the first reply you made), and then said the scientists said so over and over."
They scientists said you were gay? That's quite a remarkable display of intuition. I declare the scientists to be winners in their respective fields.
Quite like Somerset County Cricket Club who humbled rubbish Australia yesterday. If you watched it on t'telly you may have caught a glimpse of me looking rather splendid whilst mocking Matthew Hayden, who incidentally, I now hate more than Pricky Ponting.
Draqus - Interesting name. How is it pronounced? Is it similar to penis or more like cunt?
MrWolf - Rubbish name. I understand it's pronounced as Mr-dual-anal-cum-receptacle?
Shurrup already, you pair of mongs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ha! Dervel to rhyme with scum! You twisted little bum bumbler. You clumsy little clown heckler... stand aside before you are thwarted you disgusting little man
Submitted by mrwolf (user info) at 2005-06-16 08:59:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Draqus (user info) at 2005-06-16 08:37:15 (#)
Ranking: 0
Thought you said your penultimate would be your ultimate?
I don't need to prove my intelligence here. Nor do you, yet you still try. Demanding the last word.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When outwit- talk a la shit. Yay I can throw couplets together too! By my last comment I of course meant that I would not argue semantics with you anymore. That doesn't mean I'm going to let a buffoon like you you have the last word!
Submitted by Dervel (user info) at 2005-06-16 08:49:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
"Instead you told me I was gay (as early as the first reply you made), and then said the scientists said so over and over."
They scientists said you were gay? That's quite a remarkable display of intuition. I declare the scientists to be winners in their respective fields.
Quite like Somerset County Cricket Club who humbled rubbish Australia yesterday. If you watched it on t'telly you may have caught a glimpse of me looking rather splendid whilst mocking Matthew Hayden, who incidentally, I now hate more than Pricky Ponting.
Draqus - Interesting name. How is it pronounced? Is it similar to penis or more like cunt?
MrWolf - Rubbish name. I understand it's pronounced as Mr-dual-anal-cum-receptacle?
Shurrup already, you pair of mongs.
Submitted by Draqus (user info) at 2005-06-16 08:37:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Thought you said your penultimate would be your ultimate?
I don't need to prove my intelligence here. Nor do you, yet you still try. Demanding the last word.
Submitted by mrwolf (user info) at 2005-06-16 08:17:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
"The point of a rational debate is not to make up your own opinions and then force them down other people's throats" - Draqus 2005-06-16 07:56:04
"3)Paedophilia is *not*, *not*, *not*, *not*, *not*, genetic. It is NOT genetic. All the evidence tells us that it is NOT genetic. It is, rather, a psychological defect. That is to say, a problem of the mind, a reaction to external influences, something that is *not* genetic.
You get me yet, or you gonna feign ignorance again? " -Draqus 2005-06-11 12:32:40
-----------------
You are comical.
Please desist, this is not a game of Basketball in which competing against your superiors makes you a better player. Arguing with me will not make you more intelligent. buh-bye now.
Submitted by Draqus (user info) at 2005-06-16 07:56:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"I have come up with them without the aid of someone elses research, and therefore though your opinion is just as valid as mine your standpoint has been argued pitifully."
When you grow up, you might well learn the objective of rational debate, and the way in which to conduct it.
You have argued about proof, and apparently this has been all you have been arguing about the whole time. I have agreed with you several times that nothing can ever be entirely proved, and yet you still argue the point with me?
I am glad this is over. You should have agreed to disagree a long time ago, and yet you persisted. I did not, as I pointed out, at any time form my opinions from research. Rather, I objectively considered the subject as it was, came to my own conclusions, and then did a little bit of reading up on the subject to make an *informed* conclusion about the matter. As this *began* as a rational debate, I used evidence to back up my standpoint, something which you never did.
The point of a rational debate is not to make up your own opinions and then force them down other people's throats. It is to bring forward your ideas and use evidence to make a convincing argument that will sway listeners. We both failed in that final objective, because somewhere along the way you lost us in a mire of petty grievances.
To you, my standpoint seems not to follow; I accept this utterly and wholeheartedly. I never asked you to agree. But in trying to strike up a debate, you got lost in a sea of anger at a differing viewpoint to your own. You cannot accept another viewpoint, and maybe, when *you* grow up, you'll be accepting of the fact that other people have opinions too, and sometimes, these opinions are contrary to your own.
I am glad this is over. For me, it became a pointless exercise in stopping someone saving face a *long*, *long* time ago. I'm also sorry that you have to limp off as you do, jaded and angry. I never meant to annoy you, or anger you, but yet I managed it simply by stating my own opinion. For this I apologise.
Doesn't stop me disagreeing, though.
Submitted by mrwolf (user info) at 2005-06-16 03:47:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Draqus, this is my last comment because I can't be bothered anymore. This is no longer entertaining or amusing.
You have comletely missed the point. I have said numerous times my argument with you is that you can't prove the origins of paedophilia either way, yet once again you try to coax me into arguing my belief by asking me for proof. It was and still is you that claims to have "evidence". I have only my belief based on what I have seen and heard of paedophiles on televsion. Before you make the ovious argument "you don't beleive everything you see on tv do you?" ... No I don't, infact the TV was probably trying to convince me of your standpoint.
I have arguments based on what I have seen and heard and know to be true myself. For example- who was the first paedophile? Where did he learn this behaviour from if it truly does stem from a phsycological problem? My instincts tell me that logically that is impossible, the initial urge came from somewhere, and it can only have come from inside.
Again I put it to you that the natural urge to have sex coupled with an inability to score with chicks would not naturally lead a man to have sex with children. These are my two main and perfectly valid and arguable points of view. I have come up with them without the aid of someone elses research, and therefore though your opinion is just as valid as mine your standpoint has been argued pitifully.
"The scientists said so" does not validate your point of view unless you can back it up with your own understanding, of which you seem to have none. You simply repeat over and again the names of the scientists and that they have run tests, what tests??? Why don't you tell us all what tests? What research did these scientists carry out? You may have even swayed my opinion seeing as I really do only have my own thoughts and feeling to go on. You could have changed my mind had you answered my points of view and given me some idea as to what research was carried out, instead you told me I was gay (as early as the first reply you made), and then said the scientists said so over and over.
You have failed to convince anybody anything. And before you argue that I haven't convinced anyone of anything either I'll just point out again that my whole argument was about proof not about my belief.
"3)Paedophilia is *not*, *not*, *not*, *not*, *not*, genetic. It is NOT genetic. All the evidence tells us that it is NOT genetic. It is, rather, a psychological defect. That is to say, a problem of the mind, a reaction to external influences, something that is *not* genetic.
You get me yet, or you gonna feign ignorance again? " -Draqus 2005-06-11 12:32:40
-That was before I'd even joined the conversation, I think what you were trying to say is that it is your BELIEF that paedophilia is not genetic though there is no concrete PROOF however all available evidence from my sources have convinced me that this is the case... That was of course before the exciteable child in you started jumping up and down and accusing everyone of being ignorant.
When you grow up you'll learn to base your opinions on what feels right as well as what you have been told to be true, you'll also realise that scientists continuously through history get things wrong. I'm pretty sure once upon a time they would have told you homosexuality was not genetic too.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-06-16 02:08:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Well Rad, I didn't use your name to get hits. I used your name as an attempt (successful or unsuccessful is any one's opinion) to make a joke at your expense in the theme of Uberbadness.
==============
considering I am as queer as a three dollar bill, I find your remarks very hateful.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-06-16 02:06:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Homophobia is not the fear of homosexuals.
Homophobia is a latent fear that you may be a homosexual.
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-06-15 14:17:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Except, I'm not afraid of them, so you can't call it a phobia. You like to eat and know that eating is better than not eating, but you're not afraid of starving people. Or, if you want a less extreme example: you like vibrating chairs and big TVs and think that they're superior, but you aren't *afraid* of people without those.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2005-06-15 11:47:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Just read this now, after it being on most heated for ages, the guys homophobic for sensible reasons rather than the usual religious bollocks, thats his choice, its called freedom of speech.
Gay marriage is legal in the UK, first they sign a 'civil partenership agreement' to get the legal status and tax breaks of marriage, then they find a friendly vicar and do the whole walking down the isle bit.
Submitted by Draqus (user info) at 2005-06-15 09:45:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Audience Favour Comment:
!!!?!?!!?!??????!!!!!LEt'S HoPE hE's GonE fOR GOOd!!!?!????!!!!!!!!!!
I am not without a sense of irony.
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-06-15 09:09:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Haha. It's the last few days of school so I'm able to spend all my time in the library on the computer, not going to classes. And it seems that that's what you guys do at work.
Well Rad, I didn't use your name to get hits. I used your name as an attempt (successful or unsuccessful is any one's opinion) to make a joke at your expense in the theme of Uberbadness.
Submitted by Draqus (user info) at 2005-06-15 08:22:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
There is a logical progression to my argument, should you care to look:
I stated my opinion, and *then* found evidence to back it up.
I *do* have a mind of my own. And what that mind tells me is that I *cannot* believe that you are actually arguing with me about whether I should back up my opinions with credible research or not. It actually beggars belief. You clearly have NOT A CLUE about rational debate, nor the scientific method, though I notice that your tune on the latter note has changed.
To clarify: I made a ***philosophical point*** about "never being able to prove anything"; I realise now that this was beyond your comprehension and has merely confused you. What I have *always* said, never contradicting myself, is that I *believe* that paedophilia is non-genetic, and has a psychological basis, whilst homosexuality does have a genetic cause. To lend weight to my argument, I called scientific research into play to back up my standpoint.
You asked for "reasons behind beliefs". I'm not sure whether you're looking for my motivations or whatever, but because it is definitely immaterial and certainly inconsequential, I'll ignore it for the time being. I don't honestly care why you have the belief that you do, although it certainly distresses me that you ignore other people through arrogance.
You talk of an "adult" conversation; you talk of "audience favour"; this *seems* to suggest that you understand rational debate, yet I cannot understand *why* you have decided that using evidence to back up a viewpoint is, somehow, wrong, other than some notion of saving face.
I have never once backpedalled, in all the time I have debated with you; my standpoint (which i cannot copy and paste directly without taking every single thing I said) has remained constant throughout. I presume your confusion arose from the philosophical point I made, which I thought would bring us onto equal ground, but I realise now that what you were driving at in your denouncement of credible evidence was wholly unrelated.
You refuse to debate with me further until I can get away from "scientists said so", as you so aptly call it. But again I say to you: how can you have a scientific debate without calling scientific evidence in as backup?! I stated my views, and *then* I used credible sources to back up my views. If you cannot have a debate this way, then by all means, refuse to debate. I would be glad of it, because you passed Point Ludicrous a long time ago.
In conclusion: you ask for "proof". I say to you: I have given all the "proof" I can give, time and again. Maybe you would like to give "proof"? So far, in all our arguing, you have **not once** tried to back up your opinion. It should be time for you to give this "proof" that you demand of me so readily, but neglect to give yourself.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-06-15 02:58:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
A full 22% of d-prime's hits are from my name being in the title.
Submitted by mrwolf (user info) at 2005-06-15 02:48:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Dervel (user info) at 2005-06-14 11:27:03 (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by mrwolf (user info) at 2005-06-14 11:15:55 (#)
Ranking: 2
Draqus Dude, you know Dervel is joking when he agrees with you don't you?
---
Pfft! Say I! Pfft!
That would mean I agree with you and I would never agree with anyone who has chavish neon under-lighting on their sofa.
Your profound lack of understanding is showing again.
Well, someone's is.
Incidentally didn't you once write a post about how you hated Americans?
You're a nasty piece of work Pock and make no mistake.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ha ha ha... listen sonny. I told you; if you don't shut up I'll stop feeding you.
Submitted by mrwolf (user info) at 2005-06-15 02:46:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Who said this was over? You haven't answered my question. It's very easy to avoid answering by claiming that any answer you give will be mocked. Coward.
"Scientists said so" is all you've done throughout the whole argument, my pointing that out is not childish or trite it is an attempt to coax you into giving your own reasons behind your beliefs. Have you no mind of your own? ... I refuse to debate any further unless you can please prove you have your own opinions beyond all this so called "research" your so called "scientists" carried out.
oh and "admit he was wrong"??? Is it sensible in adult conversation to make that assumption in my absence? Sounds like a desperate plea for the audience favour, vainly hoping I wouldn't return. Now who's full of "pride-saving bullshit" you great big hypocrite.
"Scientist -> Pre-pubescent idiot -> Confused youngster -> Politician" What's wrong with that? They're all the same to me, and you seem to embody the whole deck.
Please simply copy and paste one argument that you have previously posted that *proves* your standpoint, and then furthermore explain why you said "nothing can ever truly be proved, and to that end, I agree entirely with you". Backpeddling walking contradiction that thou art.
Failiure to do so will only bring us all to the logical conclusion that you are a big douche.
Submitted by Draqus (user info) at 2005-06-14 16:32:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I meant mrwolf: he described me variously as those four things, sometimes in the space of a single post. He made the progression that didn't follow.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-06-14 15:27:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
if d-prime says it, it is usually pubescent angsty bullshit.
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-06-14 12:22:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Who did you mean when you were talking about the crazy progression!?
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-06-14 12:20:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I owe you two things.
1. To get a post of yours attention one day
2. To thank you for making this interesting.
Thanks!
Submitted by Draqus (user info) at 2005-06-14 12:15:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
This would never have got the heat it did without me.
Nor the views, for that matter.
You owe me, d_prime.
Submitted by Draqus (user info) at 2005-06-14 12:00:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Has he finally given up? Can he, after so long, admit he was wrong?
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-06-14 11:56:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Ah, the era seems to finally be over!
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-06-14 11:30:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I am defeate as in who can go on with the inaneocity of this for longer=P
I say inaneocity becuase I'm not sure that inaneness is a word and it's a more manly thing to do to make one up instead of making an actual mistake.
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-06-14 11:28:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"Submitted by Draqus (user info) at 2005-06-14 11:26:00 (#)
Ranking: 0
And I like the progression:
Scientist -> Pre-pubescent idiot -> Confused youngster -> Politician.
You're a riot."
Who are you talking about? I'm personally each of those and many other things in a 15-minute period, along with race car driver and giant-laser-design-specialist.
Submitted by Draqus (user info) at 2005-06-14 11:28:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
d_prime: i'm fedup with saying the same thing to the same thing.
There is no more rational debate here. mrwolf began by making a valid argument, but it quickly devolved into pride-saving bullshit. I'm willing to have a rational argument forever.
Submitted by Dervel (user info) at 2005-06-14 11:27:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by mrwolf (user info) at 2005-06-14 11:15:55 (#)
Ranking: 2
Draqus Dude, you know Dervel is joking when he agrees with you don't you?
---
Pfft! Say I! Pfft!
That would mean I agree with you and I would never agree with anyone who has chavish neon under-lighting on their sofa.
Your profound lack of understanding is showing again.
Well, someone's is.
Incidentally didn't you once write a post about how you hated Americans?
You're a nasty piece of work Pock and make no mistake.
Submitted by Draqus (user info) at 2005-06-14 11:26:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
And I like the progression:
Scientist -> Pre-pubescent idiot -> Confused youngster -> Politician.
You're a riot.
Submitted by Draqus (user info) at 2005-06-14 11:24:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Translation: please make a non-valid point, so that I can lord it over you and feel better about myself.
When you're having an argument over a scientific point (genetic basis for sexual "pervesions", yay or nay), what kind of point can you make that is not related to scientific research?!
"Scientists said so" is a two-year-old's over simplification. Stop being petty and trite.
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-06-14 11:24:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I think Draqus has admitted defeate! That is, defeate from you, Mr. Wolf. Just like the Germans didn't exactly 'surrender' to the French.
Submitted by mrwolf (user info) at 2005-06-14 11:15:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Draqus Dude, you know Dervel is joking when he agrees with you don't you?
Are you a polotician? You still didn't answer my question, you just skirted round it and continued to refer to the "numerous" points you had "previously" made. Can you do me a favour? can you give me one argument in favour of your standpoint that is not...
A. The scientists said so (followed by lots of names that no one cares about, cause I've already told you: I like to question my peers, but in their absense you seem to think you're qualified to back their argument).
or B. The scientists said so (I refuse to repeat myself)
You are contradictory because you claim to have been baited into continually repeating yourself, yet then continuously refuse to repeat yourself. let me make it easy for you. Just copy and paste one fucking point that is not either of the above. Then everyone can vote whether it falls into category A, or category B. Or you could just continue to claim that I'm ignorant the whole time completely ignorant to the fact that the people agreeing with you are actually laughing at you.
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-06-14 11:05:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Hahahahahhahahaha. The posts I put a lot of work into don't get 2000 hits. This was originally an innocent responce to a comment on my Xanga, and now it has touched the lives of so many.
Submitted by mrwolf (user info) at 2005-06-14 11:02:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Dervel (user info) at 2005-06-14 10:57:41 (#)
Ranking: 2
Oh right. I suppose you think that it's unnatural for a man to love a tractor too.
Well he can. And it is natural. And you can prove it with genetics, well, with a red diesel test.
But you wouldn't be able to comprehend this as you show a profound lack of understanding.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm trying to restrain my sobbing laughter because I've got a frigging CEO next to me listening to my neighbours calls... But I must say my old chum- Bravo!
I bless the unholy union of you and your tractor simply for that comment.
Submitted by Draqus (user info) at 2005-06-14 11:00:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
That's actually longer than the original post. Lol.
Look what you do to me, mrwolf, with your petty ignorances and arrogances.
Submitted by Draqus (user info) at 2005-06-14 10:59:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
mrwolf: you know what? Just do this:
<insert everything I've said here>
I've explained myself over and over again too many times to be bothered writing it out one more time for you to read. I'll do something new, for a change; I'll catalogue your retardedness:
1)Inability to read ("you haven't once given a single shred of evidence to back your claim and educate me further"); Just look below, look at the sources, look at everything I've said, time and time again.
2) Inability to comprehend a rational argument ("That doesn't mean to say that you haven't contradicted yourself with the arguments"); I would actually love for you to tell me where I have contradicted myself, although since you havent explicitly said it already, I doubt you can; if you do, I'll be happy to help you with the long words.
3) Inability to read- again ("The inability to hold a rational debate with me stems from your lack of points to substantiate your argument"); I have made so many points I've lost track of the number; they're all there for you to read, if you can manage it. They begin around about the beginning of the replies and end around about my last post, in case you need help pinpointing them.
4) Capacity to write drivel ("Your crackpot theories could be applied to homosexuals if homosexuality was publicly outlawed. Give me an answer or shut the hell up"); my theories have never once talked about legality or moral standing, only ever the origins, be the psychological or genetic, for the two "perversions" in question.
5) Capacity to write bullshit ("Everything you have said will continue to NOT "hold true" and continue to "contradict" until you explain how the ***ONLY*** theory you have come up with for the entire argument can also apply to homosexuality"); I'm not sure whether this is supposed to be a point for me or against me; what the hell are you even saying? apparently, *I*, rather than the scientific community, have come up with a *single* theory that "explains" paedophilia and homosexuality? In what terms? You mean in terms of "one fucks kids" and "one fucks the same sex", or what? Help me out here.
6) Capacity to defeat your own standpoint ("Finally any argument I have inadvertently brought to the table to back up my "baseless opinion" has indeed come out of my own head"); so you're actually admitting that your opinions have no foundation? Way to go! That's the spirit! Admit you're talking crap!
7) Inability to understand scientific research ("All research conducted by your scientist-friends also came out of their heads"); well, I guess this *really* doesn't need any kind of explanation whatsoever; it's blatantly obvious how retarded this is.
8) Inability to recognise when you have failed in the debate ("You haven't backtracked yet, and your standpoint has remained the same"); this is a rather telling point; for all your posturing, and getting angry, and refusing to read, and coming up with, apparently oh-so-logical counter-arguments, I'm still here, I'm still saying the same thing, I'm still waiting for something new to be said, I'm still waiting to be trounced, and yet I'm not.
9)Inability to understand what's really going on ("Why continue to argue with me and then admit "I have *never* proved my point (on this, I entirely agree with you; I know I can't)" when this was, is, and always has been my entire argument???"); i refer you back to something, wait for it, that i wrote earlier (quel surprise), about philosophically never being able to "prove" anything, etc.
10) Inability to read on ("Why continue to argue with me and then admit "I have *never* proved my point (on this, I entirely agree with you; I know I can't)" when this was, is, and always has been my entire argument???"); On the same note as before, if you had read on, you would have seen why I said this: I've given evidenced and backed my points up with genuine research; you've given no evidence and backed up your points with sheer egotistical i'm-the-only-one-who's-right arrognace (like a fucking two year old child).
11) Inability to admit you're wrong ("as large as the number of scientists vs the 'ignorant' minority might be my opinion will a) not be swayed"); this doesn't even need an explanation.
It appears, through the comments of others, that I have the weight of popular opinion on my side. You can persist in having your own opinion if you want, and if it pleases you to decide that you are the only person that is right, which you have said in terms in your last reply, then so be it. But why continue arguing? Surely other people's opinions don't matter? And, since it seems that I need to say everything twice:
<insert my argument, all found below, and much reiterated, here>
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-06-14 10:59:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I love tractors. They're hot.
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-06-14 10:57:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Oh, I'm not saying that my proper view of man is just my opinion, but that homosexuality doesn't reflect it at all is.
Submitted by Dervel (user info) at 2005-06-14 10:57:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Oh right. I suppose you think that it's unnatural for a man to love a tractor too.
Well he can. And it is natural. And you can prove it with genetics, well, with a red diesel test.
But you wouldn't be able to comprehend this as you show a profound lack of understanding.
Submitted by mrwolf (user info) at 2005-06-14 10:50:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Dervel (user info) at 2005-06-14 10:42:47 (#)
Ranking: 2
I will not shut up.
You can't go around stifling peoples (better peoples I should add) opinions just because you show a profound lack of understanding.
Thicko.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stop it, he'll think you're serious you backwards tractor loving gobshite!
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-06-14 10:43:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Things are unnatural. This doesn't mean that we have to use that term to senseless justify things, especially when we call something unnatural based on our 'faith.'
Also, the 19th centurty was the most productive and free period in human history.
The difference, to me, between unnatural sex between two opposite genders just for pleasure and the same with the same sex is that it doesn't seem to reflect my view of man (humanity) in the universe i.e. pride, ego, self etc. which is just an opinion.
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2005-06-14 10:42:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Solid.
Submitted by Dervel (user info) at 2005-06-14 10:42:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I will not shut up.
You can't go around stifling peoples (better peoples I should add) opinions just because you show a profound lack of understanding.
Thicko.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-06-14 10:31:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I have to say that MrWolf argued a good argument, Draq's arguments seem to contradict one another and appear to lack focus and cohesion. I do, however, take issue with the whole use of the term 'unnatural'. Quite frankly I think the term 'unnatural' is beneath us, it makes any discussion look like an extract from some kind on 19th century pamphlet on onanism.
If your going to talk about 'unnatural' then we wander into the forest of ignorance, with only a few crumbs common sense to guide us. I mean what's next, outrage at a wife sucking of her husband because 'it provides no benefit to procreation, 'tis unnatural and unbecoming of a ladie'?
Now if we assume for a moment that it's acceptable for a girl to suck a fellow of, purely for the purpose of sexual gratification, then surly we must say it's alright for a bloke to suck a fellow off, purely for the purpose of sexual gratification. Or indeed do him in 'da pooper.
If we're going to use the tired argument of 'think of the children (or lack of)' we have to think about the ramifications of such a statement. Are we going to ban birth control because it stops kiddies? If your concerned about the sanctity of the family unit, are we then going to ban divorce?
There are no right or wrong answers, but it is important to know where you stand before you go wading into an issue like this.
Submitted by mrwolf (user info) at 2005-06-14 10:28:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Dervel (user info) at 2005-06-14 09:29:25 (#)
Ranking: 0
"mrwolf, you show a profound lack of understanding"
I agree with that statement.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shut up you.
Submitted by mrwolf (user info) at 2005-06-14 10:28:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
1. You have not answered my questions not because you "refuse to backtrack" but because you don't have an answer. Your crackpot theories could be applied to homosexuals if homosexuality was publicly outlawed. Give me an answer or shut the hell up.
2. I am "ignorant" to the science behind your belief that paedophilia is a state of mind because contrary to your statements you haven't once given a single shred of evidence to back your claim and educate me further. You have produced one or two re-hashed questionable theories that you have READ (not come to yourself through your own re-search). Will you believe anything you're told if it comes from a reputable source? I prefer to question my peers.
3. The "larger scientific community" can bite me, might does not make right, and as large as the number of scientists vs the 'ignorant' minority might be my opinion will a) not be swayed, and b) be no less valid
Everything you have said will continue to NOT "hold true" and continue to "contradict" until you explain how the ***ONLY*** theory you have come up with for the entire argument can also apply to homosexuality.
The inability to hold a rational debate with me stems from your lack of points to substantiate your argument.
Why continue to argue with me and then admit "I have *never* proved my point (on this, I entirely agree with you; I know I can't)" when this was, is, and always has been my entire argument???
Finally any argument I have inadvertently brought to the table to back up my "baseless opinion" has indeed come out of my own head. Seeing as all arguments for and against my opinion are naturally theoretical anyway I fail to see your point. All research conducted by your scientist-friends also came out of their heads, or have they been sticking needles in their paedophiles to establish their "facts"?
You haven't backtracked yet, and your standpoint has remained the same; that you hold the belief that paedophilia is not genetic. That doesn't mean to say that you haven't contradicted yourself with the arguments behind your standpoint (I wasn't the only person that noticed), and it doesn't mean you shouldn't backtrack.
Please go away.
Submitted by Draqus (user info) at 2005-06-14 10:03:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
mrwolf:
If I can't produce an "intelligent enough" argument to convince you that you're wrong, then so be it, but your stance, regardless of how much you want to argue with me, defies that of the larger scientific community. I have told you, more times than I can count, and in several different ways, how the scientific method works and how we decide upon things, and your wilfull ignorance of the subject is typified by your comment: "There is a fair ammount[sic] more evidence to suggest my jumper is blue than there is to suggest paedophilia is just a state of mind."
Would you were more aware of the way things are, you would realise that the exact opposite is actually true, but this is a side-debate and I won't go off-topic more than this.
To answer: "Finally one more point in favour of my opinion. Couldn't the same conclusions reached in these experiments also be applied to the gay community? Are we now to believe that being gay is just a state of mind?"
I refuse to say *again* what I've been saying the whole time. The answer to this question, should you care to look and actually think, rather than arguing for the sake of argument and pride, is answered by everything that I have previously said. Your demand for me to back-pedal is non-sensical as everything that I have said holds, and doesn't contradict.
I return, once again, to the scientific method. You are, in essence, denying it in its entirety. If you wish to persist in doing this, which you clearly do, then there is nothing that I can say that will *ever* pull you out of your ignorance, because you refuse to acknowledge anything except what you believe, in your own mind, to be true. As such, it is *impossible* to have a rational debate with you, as has clearly been shown.
I refuse to repeat myself over and over again, and yet I find myself doing it. I'll say this, as I said before, something which sums up my argument entirely, ties in with yours, and which you *ceaselessly* ignore: paedophilia *may well* be genetic, but ALL AVAILABLE EVIDENCE points to a non-genetic, psychological basis; similarly, homosexuality *may well* be psychological, but ALL AVAILABLE EVIDENCE points to a genetic cause. Until research shows otherwise, then you must either continue, as you do, in blissful ignorance and arrogant self-absorption, to persist in your own *baseless* opinions, or else you must agree, as I do, with all available evidence.
I have *never* contradicted myself; I have *never* used any "laws of thinking" that are contrary to the scientific method, or rational debate; I have *never* proved my point (on this, I entirely agree with you; I know I can't), but NEITHER HAVE YOU, and I *have* used evidence to back my point up, evidence that is from reputed scientific sources, that is concise, clear, and conforms to the scientific demand that it can be repeated with similar results, whereas you have used NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER to back yourself up other than what goes on in your own head; I have *no need* to backtrack.
*Stop* arguing for the sake of argument. I am saying the same thing, over and over again, and you persist in coming back with half-baked ideas: my stance has not changed in the whole time I have debated with you, because you have no rational argument with which to defeat it. *Stop* going on with foolish ideas and ignorance. I have not backtracked once, I have never needed to, and my argument still stands, as it was originally after all this time.
GIVE UP.
Submitted by Dervel (user info) at 2005-06-14 09:29:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"mrwolf, you show a profound lack of understanding"
I agree with that statement.
Submitted by mrwolf (user info) at 2005-06-14 08:44:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Why in the hell I am still arguing with you I don't know.
If you scroll down the page you'll see that I never argued the point that paedophilia is genetic, you were just too busy arguing your own point to realise. I was arguing for this entire ridiculous discourse that you can not prove your point. Thyere will never be any proof that paedophilia is caused by one thing or another because it is part of human nature either way. The colour of my jumper is not part of human nature, and it is and always will be blue, for that is the name that has been given to the colour that the entire non-visually impaired human race percieves when they see my jumper. There is a fair ammount more evidence to suggest my jumper is blue than there is to suggest paedophilia is just a state of mind.
Which leads to my next point. You can not say that because there is evidence to suggest something that it "must be the accepted viewpoint", because there is evidence to suggest that the computer I am typing at is mine. It is covered in my finger prints, I use it on a daily basis, and it has my pen balanced precariously on the tower. However this PC belongs to my employer, I think they're pretty glad your laws of thinking don't govern the universe.
In summary it is my belief that there never will be enough evidence to suggest paedophilia is a mental condition and not genetic. Similiarly you haven't presented an intelligent enough argument to convince me otherwise.
Finally one more point in favour of my opinion. Couldn't the same conclusions reached in these experiments also be applied to the gay community? Are we now to believe that being gay is just a state of mind? ...
If being gay was illegal and you caught one of these gay men I think you could quite accurately describe them as...
"timid, isolated, dependent, submissive, effeminate, sexually inhibited, and generally not adequate to the task of competition with other men for hetero-sexual adult conquests." - Draqus 2005-06-12
Now to use one of your own narrow minded two dimensional tactics- Either admit that you think gay people "feel unable to satisfy this natural urge in a natural way." and therefore turn to other effeminate sexually inhibited timid men, or admit that you are a confused young man that can't stop contradicting himself.
You have some back tracking to do... I'll hold.
Submitted by Draqus (user info) at 2005-06-14 06:26:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
below directed to mrwolf, cos I forgot to say.
Submitted by Draqus (user info) at 2005-06-14 06:25:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
There is no possible way to answer ignorance like that. And yet I'll try.
*Nothing* is *ever* solid proof: this is why I brought up the point on philosophy, in my previous post. You don't *know* that your t-shirt is blue. Not really. You only perceive it to be blue. The earliest scientists (believe it or not) figured that one out for you. When you were a child, your parents worked on the basis of the earliest thinking of mankind and *told* you it was blue. Being young, you've believed it to this day, but you never deduced it for yourself. So it isn't a fact; who knows, maybe one day, we'll discover otherwise.
But that point is non-sensical. The crux of the matter is that you are telling me you can't "prove" the origins of paedophilia. Then to you, I pose this question:
why the hell did you even begin to argue it in the first place?
For the moment, I shall assume an answer. Everything is always theory, and nothing can ever truly be proved, and to that end, I agree entirely with you: it's not that I don't "see" this most revelatory of points, but that *you* miss the matter after the fact.
The best we can *ever* do, whether it be deducing the origins of paedophilia, or decided that your jumper is blue, is by going with whatever available evidence we have at the time. And by evidence, I mean all those things we've mentioned before: observation, statistics, gene markers, etc.
No-one can "prove" that the Big Bang happened, but all available evidence points to it.
No-one can "prove" that our genes define our characteristics, but all available evidence points to it.
No-one can "prove" that the Earth exerts a gravitational pull on other objects, but all available evidence points to it.
And so it is with paedophilia. All available evidence points to a psychological basis for paedophilia, with no genetic basis whatsoever. It *could* be wrong, I concede that as readily as i breathe, but until any *evidence* comes up, it has to be the accepted viewpoint.
(PS: This never would have got heat without me. I rule. I'll continue to be a pre-pubescent, nonsense-thinking scientist, shall I? Or is there an oxymorom in there somewhere?)
Submitted by WhatDoesThisButtonDo (user info) at 2005-06-14 06:19:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
-2 for calling homosexuality "unnatural"
+1 for not making up facts, as many people on both sides of the spectrum like to do
-1 for the bad Dakota Fanning joke
Submitted by mrwolf (user info) at 2005-06-14 03:46:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Draqus...
Are you a scientist? Is that why you're getting hot under the collar? Your first point about women getting pregnant is stupid, whether you're talking about religious figures or not you are talking about early-day scientists.
Second point, there is a distinction between research and fact. You don't need to do any research to know that my jumper is blue- you can see it as plain as day, it is a fact. Research is about running comprehensive diagnostic tests which in the case of the origins of paedophilia is completely pointless anyway because there is no solid way to prove either argument. Why can you not see this? D_prime just proved that point by throwing in yet another factor. The problem with this whole argument is that there are so many factors to consider some of which can not be PROVED via any test, only HYPOTHESISED.
"correlated data; statistical analysis; common characteristics; lack of hereditary paedophilia; lack of common genetic markers. " Not a single one of these is solid PROOF.
You Said... "So, you are stating that it is impossible to deduce anything in psychology, or genetics? By this, you're also inferring that it is impossible to discover anything at all, ever, or even make any form of informed theory based on rational evidence" ... No, you cunt. Don't put words in my mouth because you can't give me solid proof. Informed theory based on rational evidence is fucking right mate. It is a THEORY (look the word up, no really because I'm pretty sure if you contradict yourself one more time you're going to be made a laughing stock) Theory is not proof, theory is always debateable, theory is not concrete in any way shape or form, the THEORY that paedophilia is genetic is not concrete and neither is the THEORY that paedophilia is nuture not nature.
To answer your moronic 2 dimensional statement that I either believe in nothing science has ever told us or I must concede to being a hypocrite, well my answer is thus, I believe only the things science can PROVE; how many times must I spell this out for you- Proof vs Theory, proof vs Theory, Proof vs Theory, you got it yet you pre-pubescent nonsense thinker?
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2005-06-14 03:33:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
draqus wins
Submitted by Rads_wife (user info) at 2005-06-14 00:28:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
http://www.ubersite.com/m/68315
WINNER!!!
Submitted by knucklesnelson (user info) at 2005-06-13 23:09:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
retarded
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-06-13 15:46:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
The only reason this drivel got any attention is because you used my username in the title.
You are such a heat whore.
Submitted by Affinity (user info) at 2005-06-13 14:43:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
is this still going on.
kin'ell
Submitted by Draqus (user info) at 2005-06-13 14:36:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
d-prime: you're right about the social ineptitude possibly being caused by the same gene as paedophilia. This could well be true.
The litmus test for this hypothesis is to see whether there paedophilia is hereditary, and to date there has been no evidence for this.
But you make a good point. Pity that's your final response, all the same, after so much time, and me here, waiting, hoping.
Submitted by NOWorNEVER (user info) at 2005-06-13 13:42:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
the only reason i'm not rating this a -2 is because i have seen stuff on here that is way more illogical and poorly written. i read through a good portion af the reviews, and there are a few things that i think need to be said--
first of all, because humans (at least in the US) are so comfortable and technologically advanced, there are plenty of genes that are being passed down that aren't necessarily the best for evolution... because of medical science, people with heart disease or diabetes can have kids and pass on those bad genes, which theoretically should be getting weeded out. secondly, there is no reason that this argument should be used to deny people marriage, because we still allow men and women with reporoductive problems to marry even though they can't have children either. and on a side note, is it really so bad if there are happy, loving couples that will adopt all of the unwanted kids out there?
second of all, until it is the norm for everyone to have a civil union and "marriage" is reserved for only those extra special religious people, separate is not equal, sorry.
i can't remember what else i wanted to respond to, but i think these were the biggest points...
Submitted by Gnome (user info) at 2005-06-13 13:20:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
well, you made your point. and it was a good one. but you put so much other crap in the way of it to try ruffling some feathers along the way that it took away from it.
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-06-13 12:40:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"Submitted by Zoidberg (user info) at 2005-06-11 03:13:41 (#)
Ranking: 1
extremely weak attempt at most heated though"
Hahahahahahahahaha! PWND! Not only was it not an attempt at most heated, it was also a successful one.
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-06-13 12:36:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"Oh the almighty "they" have researched the possibility of a genetic basis for paedophilia?" Hahahahahaha...
Actually, if it was genetic (I'm trolling here and would hope to gain a definitive stand by the end,) it would be caused by a genetic mistake in their sexual instincts, which would mean that they're also fucked up in other ways. So, the cause for being a pedophile could also be the cause of them being socially inept, instead of the social ineptitude leading to the peadophila.
Oh... and... you're so stupid I'd rather have sex with a retarded male while speaking about the works of Kant than argue with you.
Submitted by Draqus (user info) at 2005-06-13 12:36:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
And I've never read the kinsey report, nor am I a walking contradiction (if either of those comments are directed at me).
Submitted by Draqus (user info) at 2005-06-13 12:35:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
mrwolf:
priests and other religious figures told us that the sun orbited the earth; we believed that women got pregnant before scientists of the early times realised otherwise. You call me "ignorant" and "a walking contradiction", but you are a damn hypocrite for claiming these thing towards me.
You keep making a distinction between research and fact; how do you think we discover things in the first place? As i have said (twice now, i think, and a third time yet again), you are being wilfully ignorant of the scientific method. It becomes tiresome to say the same thing over and over again, in different words to the same person. Here are some interesting words: correlated data; statistical analysis; common characteristics; lack of hereditary paedophilia; lack of common genetic markers.
You said: "Unless you're a paedophile then you are not qualified to say that it is or is not genetic, and therefore my other point still stands that it is DEBATEABLE, you can't PROVE either argument."
So, you are stating that it is impossible to deduce anything in psychology, or genetics? By this, you're also inferring that it is impossible to discover anything at all, ever, or even make any form of informed theory based on rational evidence: this is why I brought my point in about the sun orbiting the earth et al, in my previous post. Either you have to concede that you trust in *nothing* that science has told us ever, or else you must concede to being a hypocrite.
I state again, that you are being either mentally retarded, or willfully ignorant of the scientific method. Concede your hypocrisy or concede your ignorance. Your call.
(PS: Let's talk philosophy; there is a point of view that states that we can never know anything, truly. You seem to subscribe to this philosophy, saying things like "such a thing can't be proved", but the other side of *that* philosophical coin is that you can never hold a viewpoint on anything, and you can never rationally debate anything, or deduce anything, etc. You clearly do all this, however ill-informed you might be. How interesting.)
Submitted by thaumaturge (user info) at 2005-06-13 12:00:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Totally must have just read the Kinsey report.
Submitted by mrwolf (user info) at 2005-06-13 11:41:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Draqus (user info) at 2005-06-13 10:54:35 (#)
Ranking: 0
I refer you down a wee bit in the reviews to my sources.
Proof is proof. If you refuse to acknowledge scientific research, then you're more retarded than a rooster on valium.
I *have* proved I'm right, by referring to legitimate scientific sources and reputed theorists in the field of human sexuality. You, on the other hand, have simply decided that you know what you're talking about, and are guilty of the most gross hypocrisy.
And I'm sorry you're so above me: obviously by "above", you mean that you like nothing more than to make unqualified statements, ignore genuine research (which you can't even seem to comprehend in procedural terms), and decry scientific fact because it clashes with your own plucked-out-of-the-air opinion.
You *didn't* defeat my supported hypothesis that paedophiles are poor sexual mates: you did raise a very valid point, i'll agree, in that the research is, presumably, only based on convicted paedophiles. But this means nothing as far as the research goes and far from defeats the argument as a whole.
And if we want to talk about high-profile celebrity figures who have been, or are about to be (maybe), convicted as paedophiles, then there is plenty of evidence that either ties in with what I have already said, or that brings up another motivation towards paedophilia: that of stress and pressure. And I'm talking extreme stress, caused by unrelenting fame.
Either retract your hypocrisy by backing up your own opinions with fact, or concede that my "opinions" are in fact backed up with logical, cold, hard (steady) facts. If you want to see the sources, as I said, look below. Or do you deny all scientific research? Do you still believe that the sun orbits the earth and women get pregnant from eating certain plants? No?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You. Are an idiot.
It was the scientists that said the sun orbits the earth and that women get pregnant from eating plants. You just destroyed your entire argument all by yourself. Incase you didn't catch it- that is what MickGinny means by walking contradiction.
Your argument is backed up not by fact, but by research. What research did they conduct? Do you even know? My point still stands and gets stronger with every idiotic statement you make that: Unless you're a paedophile then you are not qualified to say that it is or is not genetic, and therefore my other point still stands that it is DEBATEABLE, you can't PROVE either argument.
Such a thing can not be "proved" you fucking gimp.
I don't have any 'proof' that paedophilia is genetic, it is just my belief. That wasn't my argument. My argument is that you can't prove someone is a paedophile because of nurture rather than nature anymore than I can prove that tonight I really want sausages for tea. There's no test you can carry out. Though I'm sure your 'scientists' would tell you otherwise, but as you pointed out- they thought the sun orbited the earth.
No more arguing please, you're too stupid to banter with.
Submitted by MickGinny (user info) at 2005-06-13 10:57:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
you are a walking contradiction.
Submitted by Draqus (user info) at 2005-06-13 10:54:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I refer you down a wee bit in the reviews to my sources.
Proof is proof. If you refuse to acknowledge scientific research, then you're more retarded than a rooster on valium.
I *have* proved I'm right, by referring to legitimate scientific sources and reputed theorists in the field of human sexuality. You, on the other hand, have simply decided that you know what you're talking about, and are guilty of the most gross hypocrisy.
And I'm sorry you're so above me: obviously by "above", you mean that you like nothing more than to make unqualified statements, ignore genuine research (which you can't even seem to comprehend in procedural terms), and decry scientific fact because it clashes with your own plucked-out-of-the-air opinion.
You *didn't* defeat my supported hypothesis that paedophiles are poor sexual mates: you did raise a very valid point, i'll agree, in that the research is, presumably, only based on convicted paedophiles. But this means nothing as far as the research goes and far from defeats the argument as a whole.
And if we want to talk about high-profile celebrity figures who have been, or are about to be (maybe), convicted as paedophiles, then there is plenty of evidence that either ties in with what I have already said, or that brings up another motivation towards paedophilia: that of stress and pressure. And I'm talking extreme stress, caused by unrelenting fame.
Either retract your hypocrisy by backing up your own opinions with fact, or concede that my "opinions" are in fact backed up with logical, cold, hard (steady) facts. If you want to see the sources, as I said, look below. Or do you deny all scientific research? Do you still believe that the sun orbits the earth and women get pregnant from eating certain plants? No?
Submitted by mrwolf (user info) at 2005-06-13 09:46:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Draqus (user info) at 2005-06-13 07:32:14 (#)
Ranking: 0
mrwolf, you show a profound lack of understanding of scientific research procedures.
Do you not think they haven't investigated the possibility of a genetic basis for paedophilia?
No evidence has been found for a genetic basis, even though they've looked.
However, the research clearly points out character traits that are symptomatic and universal amongst paedophiles, which I've named twice, below.
You also show a disturbing lack of understanding of the human psyche. To you, who is *seemingly* rational, your point regarding looking for adult porn *seems* perfectly reasonable.
BUT, the paedophile does not have a rational state of mind. He sincerely believes that fully grown adult women are out of his league. And thus his focus changes to weaker targets. This doesn't happen on the internet: he doesn't say to himself, "i suck; let's look at kiddie porn." Rather, he begins viewing children as potential targets in the real world, and looking at sources of underage pornography in other media stems from this.
If you take it from a personal viewpoint, did you discover you like ghey menz off the internet? No. You realised it after you sat drooling over the steamy man-hunk in the seat opposite you in nursery school. Ghey menz porn came afterwards.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh the almighty "they" have researched the possibility of a genetic basis for paedophilia? Well that must mean that "they" are right, being paedophiles and all... What qualification do you, or "they" have to make that distinction? Furthermore exactly what proof do "they" have? I've already quite succesfully refuted your previous argument that "they all look a bit wimpy", wouldn't it be sporting of you to think up another THEORY... god I hate theory, it means nothing.
Unless you were GENETICALLY attracted to children in the first place I don't see why you would one day decide "I'm horny, I'm not worthy of woman, nor am I worthy of man or my dog so I think I'll bum a child"... You can't prove you are right so shut up nob. Opinion is opinion nothing more.
As for the ghey comment; I'm not even going to entertain the idea of entering into a beratement contest with you, you're not worthy. I'd rather have a battle of wits with an egg.
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2005-06-13 09:43:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Who fucking cares?
Submitted by Draqus (user info) at 2005-06-13 07:32:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
mrwolf, you show a profound lack of understanding of scientific research procedures.
Do you not think they haven't investigated the possibility of a genetic basis for paedophilia?
No evidence has been found for a genetic basis, even though they've looked.
However, the research clearly points out character traits that are symptomatic and universal amongst paedophiles, which I've named twice, below.
You also show a disturbing lack of understanding of the human psyche. To you, who is *seemingly* rational, your point regarding looking for adult porn *seems* perfectly reasonable.
BUT, the paedophile does not have a rational state of mind. He sincerely believes that fully grown adult women are out of his league. And thus his focus changes to weaker targets. This doesn't happen on the internet: he doesn't say to himself, "i suck; let's look at kiddie porn." Rather, he begins viewing children as potential targets in the real world, and looking at sources of underage pornography in other media stems from this.
If you take it from a personal viewpoint, did you discover you like ghey menz off the internet? No. You realised it after you sat drooling over the steamy man-hunk in the seat opposite you in nursery school. Ghey menz porn came afterwards.
Submitted by mrwolf (user info) at 2005-06-13 05:18:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I refuse to accept the argument that paedophilia is not genetic based on the stature and public standing of the men that have been caught.
You can't claim that 99% of all paedophiles are ugly social retards and therefore unable to attract women...
Point 1. Why would a sad case with no ability to attract a woman get on his computer and start looking for kiddie porn? He wouldn't, he would look for adult porn, just because he can't attract a fully grown woman would not automatically make him fancy little boys and girls any more than it would make him attracted to his dog.
Point 2. The people that will get caught out as paedophiles will be the desperate sad sacks with little to lose. The paedophiles who do not get caught will be the men who have wives, jobs, children and a social standing. They will beat off quietly in their locked studies whilst wifey makes dinner in the kitchen wondering why they can't stop thinking about children. They will not be the folks that go out and abduct little jonny and sodomise him.
99% of all CAUGHT paedophiles are socially inept. Whether paedophilia is genetic or not is debateable, but to say it is not genetic just because those that have been caught are weak men with no girlfriend prospects is ludicrous.
Submitted by shitfuck (user info) at 2005-06-13 03:02:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Pounding a chick in the ass is hilarious.
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2005-06-12 18:51:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
this has a perfect zero rating. kewl.
Submitted by Draqus (user info) at 2005-06-12 18:37:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
In the "natural", "biological", "evolutionary" way of things, heterosexuality, as we define it today,is just as bizarre and unnatural as homosexuality.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-06-12 16:15:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I'm sure glad you have all the answers there.
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-06-12 16:01:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
And, I still think that the government should not be involved with the concept of marriage and in a my lassies-faire capitalist society people could make any contracts they want. There would be no word 'marriage' in the eyes of the government, while religous people would have their ceremonies.
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-06-12 15:59:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I'm bored of this topic, because I'm not gay nor am I a Christian nor do I think homosexuals are going to hurt me. This isn't a cop-out because I've realized that I shouldn't have an objective opinion on some thing of this kind. Some one on Xanga asked me about this and I made this a week before it was on Uber, and I don't remember why I put it on Uber. By unnatural, I didn't mean that homosexuality was contradictory to reality and doesn't exist, but that it wasn't part of the natural process of evolution, was a 'flaw' in it, just like down syndrome or wearing a condom is 'unnatural' (though the sex-instinct its self that caused you to do it isn't.) The comparisons to peadpophila, in the context I originally had them, would seem less ignorant because someone asked me what my curret idea was, and this is an example of the mistake of posting non-fiction that was written for something else on Uber (which I don't do any more.) I'll admit that being a ped isn't genetic and that it's usually some thing different altoghether. Homosexuality as I imagine it DOES represent negative things about my egoist view of man in existence, but that leads to a different discussion altogether.
And, for the love of God, my global warming post is ten times as rational as this.
Submitted by Affinity (user info) at 2005-06-12 15:57:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
that doesn't make any sense
-2 for you
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-06-12 15:51:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"What do you think fetishes are.
For example, you seem to have a fetish for posting ill informed
shite then getting your peers to take the piss out of you. "
Submitted by Affinity (user info) at 2005-06-12 15:50:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Affinity, you've made better arguements than sexual references. Please.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-06-12 15:48:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Affinity, you've made better arguements than sexual references. Please.
Submitted by Affinity (user info) at 2005-06-12 15:39:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
You Mr Draqus, are also a Brit I assume?
Brighton by way of Yorkshire
Submitted by Affinity (user info) at 2005-06-12 15:30:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
God Bless the Queen.
Then take her purse....................
Submitted by Draqus (user info) at 2005-06-12 15:29:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
where you from, affinity?
Submitted by Affinity (user info) at 2005-06-12 15:22:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-06-12 14:46:22 (#)
Ranking: 0
how can being sexually attracted to children not be genetic? Can you explain to me how it works in relation to normal sex instincts (if sex was completely ungenetic there would be people choosing to be attracted to chairs.)
===================================================================================================
there are you eejit!
What do you think fetishes are.
For example, you seem to have a fetish for posting ill informed
shite then getting your peers to take the piss out of you.
No genes for that i'm afraid.
Submitted by Nator (user info) at 2005-06-12 15:20:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I am going to rape you.
Submitted by Draqus (user info) at 2005-06-12 15:13:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
Psychological profiling of paedophiles shows that the vast majority (we're talking 99% here) are, according to a survey from which I have based some of my data,
"timid, isolated, dependent, submissive, effeminate, sexually inhibited, and generally not adequate to the task of competition with other men for hetero-sexual adult conquests."
Now, having taken this into consideration, it is obvious to see why paedophiles do what they do; lacking the abilities, in their minds, of being able to satisfactorily gain a "normal" mate, they seek out children to satisfy their sexual urges.
Why?
Because children are weaker, more easily susceptible to the strength of older men, easier to dominate mentally, etc. Paedophilia is a coping mechanism whereby "weak" males satisfy their urges.
There is a genetic desire within all of us to use sex, as an instrument for social bonding, for procreation, for recreation; the paedophile feels unable to satisfy this natural urge in a natural way.
Does that answer it?
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-06-12 14:46:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
What's ironic is how much more respect and attention this post has gotten than my global-warming one, even though this is the one that people are able to rationally argue with and I've backed up the least.
If we can refrain from getting emotional...
Draqus (actual questions,) how can being sexually attracted to children not be genetic? Can you explain to me how it works in relation to normal sex instincts (if sex was completely ungenetic there would be people choosing to be attracted to chairs.)
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-06-12 14:41:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Affinity, noted (I'm only certain that I disagree about that we NEED unhappiness to balance out happiness, if that's what you said.) Draqus.. uh, kind of noted. Shlongy, I never explicitly said that I was a genius or that it should heavily concern you that I hate you. That you're petulantly refering to me as a genius shows that you think I'm smart and therefore think I'm arrogant (which I am, but I don't need to vocalize that to justify it.)
Submitted by Draqus (