The whole gay thing.
- Thread starter Ctrl
- Start date
Because it is an issue that does not lend itself to criminal behavior it is unlikely that there is such a ruling. Because something has not been ejudicated, does not mean it doesn't exist. For instance, I have not been ruled on, but I assure you I exist.
You are AGAIN asking for the EXPERT OPINION to find EXPERT OPINION. Last time... YOU ARE THE ONE REQUIRED TO FIND EXPERT OPINION THAT SUPPORTS YOUR CLAIM THAT THIS EXPERT OPINION IS "stupid".
You are AGAIN asking for the EXPERT OPINION to find EXPERT OPINION. Last time... YOU ARE THE ONE REQUIRED TO FIND EXPERT OPINION THAT SUPPORTS YOUR CLAIM THAT THIS EXPERT OPINION IS "stupid".
I agree eddo. She wasn't being asked to back up that she is an expert. She was asked to find experts that agree with her expert opinion.
It must be presumed that she is an expert based on her word, or mine, or it must be challenged.
Like I said, I am open to ideas on how to substantiate that without full disclosure of personal information. If you want to cheat and say that her unwillingness to give out her name and address means she isn't an expert, you can. There is little that can be done to argue, but I think it is a weak *** way to handle it.
It must be presumed that she is an expert based on her word, or mine, or it must be challenged.
Like I said, I am open to ideas on how to substantiate that without full disclosure of personal information. If you want to cheat and say that her unwillingness to give out her name and address means she isn't an expert, you can. There is little that can be done to argue, but I think it is a weak *** way to handle it.
http://vger.rutgers.edu/~tempest/marsupia.htm
http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Macropus_rufus.html
I would accept rutgers university professors or the University of Michigan zoologists as experts in their field. They very clearly document the mating habits of Kangas and koalas. Those would be links that I threw up to contrast your expert... you know... for instance.
http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Macropus_rufus.html
I would accept rutgers university professors or the University of Michigan zoologists as experts in their field. They very clearly document the mating habits of Kangas and koalas. Those would be links that I threw up to contrast your expert... you know... for instance.
ClassyMissFancy
New member
I don't recall ever saying such a thing. I said "Homosexuality isn't simply having an attraction toward members of the same ***. It is also... and MORE IMPORTANTLY... LACKING the EMOTIONAL ABILITY to intimately and romantically bond with the opposite ***."
Homosexuals are perfectly capable of emotional attachments. Not all emotional attachments are of an intimate and/or romantic nature. In fact... the vast majority of our emotional attachments are neither intimate nor romantic. They are familial (grandparents, cousins, aunts, uncles, parents, siblings) and casual friends. Most of us only have a few people with whom we have intimate bonds and only one with whom we are bonded both romantically and intimately.
If you have some reason you disagree with the notion that "Homosexuality isn't simply having an attraction toward members of the same ***. It is also... and MORE IMPORTANTLY... LACKING the EMOTIONAL ABILITY to intimately and romantically bond with the opposite ***."... please submit it. Twisting my statement so that it appears to paint with a broader brush than it does... so that you may then argue with your twisted version of it is nothing more than intellectual dishonesty on your part. If you want to debate with your self, please do. It would go much better for you in this type of forum, because anyone here can look back over my posts and see what I did and didn't say.
If you do not have a specific reason you disagree with the statement.. then stop asserting that it is wrong. Making those protests in absence of a real reason is transparently PC...
"I don't know WHY it is wrong... but it says people are homosexual because they LACK something... and saying that could hurt someone's feelings... so it FEELS wrong."
ClassyMissFancy
New member
Again.. I never said that.
I said "Homosexuality isn't simply having an attraction toward members of the same ***. It is also... and MORE IMPORTANTLY... LACKING the EMOTIONAL ABILITY to intimately and romantically bond with the opposite ***."
Homosexuals can form bonds with anyone.
Again... Why do you disagree?
phreakwars
New member
Hugo is a ***, don't mind him.
.
.
.
.
TooDrunkToFuck
New member
This is amusing.
ClassyMissFancy
New member
ex•pert [
ClassyMissFancy
New member
We agree on that...
I guess that makes BOTH of us experts on the subject.
When describing the mating habits of kangaroos, both articles explain, in some detail, the practices and rituals. If "most" preferred koalas, it would have been mentioned. That is how you evidence something you do not believe exists, by pointing to leading experts unbiased omission of what is proported to be a majority of a given subject doing any thing. If you would like to NOW argue that those experts are biased, you will be asked to evidence this opinion as anything other than simple conjecture. Thank you as always for playing.
Now, for the last time, I challenge you to find an article, from experts in the field, who when detailing homosexuals interactions with the opposite *** are of conflicting opinion with Classy. If you are unable to do this, under the well established rules of debate, you concede.
I never said I could not provide a link supporting it. I said the onus is on you to attempt to discredit it first. You want me to defend something that, at the moment, needs no defence. It is an issue of protocal... you remember... you were arguing about it earlier before you gave up and started calling names and implying associations.
There is no shame in losing an argument. There is, however, shame in refusing to accept it.
Kisses.
Now, for the last time, I challenge you to find an article, from experts in the field, who when detailing homosexuals interactions with the opposite *** are of conflicting opinion with Classy. If you are unable to do this, under the well established rules of debate, you concede.
I never said I could not provide a link supporting it. I said the onus is on you to attempt to discredit it first. You want me to defend something that, at the moment, needs no defence. It is an issue of protocal... you remember... you were arguing about it earlier before you gave up and started calling names and implying associations.
There is no shame in losing an argument. There is, however, shame in refusing to accept it.
Kisses.
ClassyMissFancy
New member
His experts must meet the definition of "expert" that he used to decide I am not an expert... that is... they must also provide other experts who agree with them.
It's only fair.
I already gave him a link. It apparently wasn't good enough.
princessleia985
New member
I have to say that as a lesbian this topic really upsets me and hurts me that people would talk about homosexuals that way. I bet most of you have never even met or been close to someone who is gay.
dshogan1
New member
The deal princess, is that alot of these people are not our generation, and the ones that are probably lived a sheltered lifestyle away from the masses of gay people that actually exist. They dont realize that most gay people are not the *** grabbing hornballs that they imagine. But they gay and lesbian topic is very close to you, so the smartest idea is to keep away from the threads about it.
Outlaw2747
New member
Most lesbians are attention whores or histrionic man haters.
Komrade Vostok Hazard
New member
Can't forget dumbass alterna-twits who are trying to be rebellious/different/cool and forgetting that in this post-1950's era that no one gives a rats *** if they're gay or not