4/22/2013 12:47 PM
Sexuality isn't the same as a crime.

I never said it was.

You're now using another fallacy of logical argument by attempting to attack something I never said. I'm beginning to wonder if you can even argue one point by actually using logic.
You can define your sexuality long before you take any action.
No. You can say what your preferences are before you take action. You can't define anything by those, however, because anyone can choose something contrary to their preferences.

This is a logical concept which works across the board. Here are examples to demonstrate that: I can prefer blondes but choose a brunette. I can prefer cake but choose ice cream. I can prefer Burger King but go to McDonald's. I can prefer women but have sex with a man.
You can define your sexuality and never have any romantic encounters with anyone else.
So how do you define your sexuality without those encounters?

You've previously indicated it is done by attraction, but that reasoning has been shown to be illogical.

I think people just WANT to define things by attraction even though the reasoning behind it doesn't make logical sense.
I don't hate you. You're just wrong about this.
Logic says otherwise. Unless you'd like to demonstrate a line of reasoning that applies across the board and shows your opinion to be logical.

I'm all ears for that, because I'm sure it doesn't exist. I'm also sure you're not even going to try.


4/22/2013 12:49 PM
If you'd like to be a billionaire, I'd say you're attracted to the idea of being a billionaire.  If you're homosexual, it means you're attracted to people of the same sex.

The point is that being attracted to money and therefore liking to be a billionaire and actually having all that money and therefore BEING  billionaire are two different things.

In the same way, being attracted to someone of the same sex and therefore having a preference for someone of the same sex and actually having romantic and/or sexual encounters of someone with the same sex and therefore BEING a homosexual are two different things.
4/22/2013 12:57 PM
Posted by bistiza on 4/22/2013 12:47:00 PM (view original):
Sexuality isn't the same as a crime.

I never said it was.

You're now using another fallacy of logical argument by attempting to attack something I never said. I'm beginning to wonder if you can even argue one point by actually using logic.
You can define your sexuality long before you take any action.
No. You can say what your preferences are before you take action. You can't define anything by those, however, because anyone can choose something contrary to their preferences.

This is a logical concept which works across the board. Here are examples to demonstrate that: I can prefer blondes but choose a brunette. I can prefer cake but choose ice cream. I can prefer Burger King but go to McDonald's. I can prefer women but have sex with a man.
You can define your sexuality and never have any romantic encounters with anyone else.
So how do you define your sexuality without those encounters?

You've previously indicated it is done by attraction, but that reasoning has been shown to be illogical.

I think people just WANT to define things by attraction even though the reasoning behind it doesn't make logical sense.
I don't hate you. You're just wrong about this.
Logic says otherwise. Unless you'd like to demonstrate a line of reasoning that applies across the board and shows your opinion to be logical.

I'm all ears for that, because I'm sure it doesn't exist. I'm also sure you're not even going to try.


It's not illogical to define sexuality by attraction. It's very logical.

I knew I was straight long before I ever did anything with a girl. When did you know you were straight?
4/22/2013 1:09 PM
It's not illogical to define sexuality by attraction. It's very logical.
Explain how it's logical, because I've certainly made quite a case that it isn't.
I knew I was straight long before I ever did anything with a girl.
How did you know you were straight? You're going to need to say something other than mere attraction, because that only defines a preference, not an actual decision.
When did you know you were straight?
When I made a decision to be with women in romantic and/or sexual encounters.

Sure, I was more attracted to women than to men, but that didn't establish anything, as I hadn't yet made a choice.

Anyone can make a choice to be with someone that isn't necessarily their preference, and in fact, most people are with someone who doesn't possess every single attribute they'd prefer.

4/22/2013 1:18 PM (edited)
Posted by bistiza on 4/22/2013 1:09:00 PM (view original):
It's not illogical to define sexuality by attraction. It's very logical.
Explain how it's logical, because I've certainly made quite a case that it isn't.
I knew I was straight long before I ever did anything with a girl.
How did you know you were straight? You're going to need to say something other than mere attraction, because that only defines a preference, not an actual decision.
When did you know you were straight?
When I made a decision to be with women in romantic and/or sexual encounters.

Sure, I was more attracted to women than to men, but that didn't establish anything, as I hadn't yet made a choice.

Anyone can make a choice to be with someone that isn't necessarily their preference, and in fact, most people are with someone who doesn't possess every single attribute they'd prefer.

I was sexually attracted to girls and not boys. Logically, I knew I was straight. I didn't have to actually have sex (or kiss or whatever) to define my sexuality. My sexual attraction defined my sexuality.

How old were you when you made that decision?
4/22/2013 1:25 PM
I was sexually attracted to girls and not boys.

Okay, so you established your attraction more to women over men. That's not the same as establishing a status, as you hadn't yet made a choice to be with women. Until you make the choice, no one knows for sure what you may do.
Logically, I knew I was straight.
You "felt" you were straight based only upon your attraction.

Logically, you hadn't acted on that attraction, so you hadn't done anything.

Again, it would be like being arrested and convicted for a crime because you admitted to police you had thought about committing a crime but you never actually did anything.
I didn't have to actually have sex (or kiss or whatever) to define my sexuality.
You're confusing what you "felt" with what actually happened and wanting to make them the same thing.

You "felt" you were straight and thought that defined your sexuality, but logically, it didn't. You just "felt" it did, and that's not the same thing.
How old we're you when you made that decision?
I don't actually remember how old I was when I had my first romantic interaction with a woman. The point is that until that happened, while I felt more attracted to women than to men, I could have made a different decision - the same as anyone else can.

Just because you are more interested in one gender doesn't absolutely prohibit you from choosing the other one, as much as you might feel otherwise.




4/22/2013 1:28 PM
Sure you could have made a different decision. But you didn't. Because you were straight.

You have sex with women because you are straight. You are not straight because you have sex with women.
4/22/2013 1:33 PM
Posted by bistiza on 4/22/2013 12:24:00 PM (view original):
No. That's YOUR logic and YOUR definition.

Wrong. Logic is not subjective. That's why it's logic.

As such, there is no such thing as "my" logic, or "your" logic.

Logic dictates the definition, as I've explained many times. Stop getting angry at me because I'm the one that decided to enlighten you that YOUR definition of the word doesn't fit with logic.
My logical definition of homosexual is someone who is attracted to those of the same sex.
If your definition was logical, the reasoning behind it would hold up across the board. In case after case, however, we find that it doesn't do any such thing. I gave several examples, but the simplest one I gave was how we do not arrest people for thinking about committing a crime, but we might if they take action to commit a crime. If your definition was logical, we would be arresting people for merely considering a crime.

Calling your definition logical is just showing you don't understand what logic is.
I disagree. Who you are attracted is what defines your sexuality. That's the logical definition.

This shows you also do not understand the concept of logic.

Logic is not what makes sense to you personally, as you seem to think. 

Logic is not subjective. One aspect of logical means you can apply the same reasoning behind the opinion to other situations and have the same result.

As I already stated, that doesn't work with your opinion, because the reasoning behind it doesn't apply to other situations. In fact, your reasoning is so illogical it's essentially a joke.  Here, I'll make fun of it again, just as I already did:

Your logic says people's "feelings" are what matters, while what they do is irrelevant to their status. I'll just go ahead and apply that same line of reasoning elsewhere:

Why should anyone have to commit a crime before we arrest them and charge them with it? Why can't we just arrest people based upon the fact that they thought about doing it?

Why do I need to go to sleep? Why can't I just desire sleep and be done with it?

Why eat either? It's a waste of time. The fact that I'd like to eat is enough that I don't actually have to take the action of eating to be nourished, right?

Also, I'd like to be a billionaire, but maybe I won't do anything to earn any money. I'm attracted to money and that should be enough, because actions don't matter.

Again, don't hate me just because I'm the one who took the time to enlighten you to the fact that your reasoning isn't logical.




What seems "logical" to one person may not necesarily seem "logical" to somebody else. 

Would you agree?
4/22/2013 1:56 PM
Sure you could have made a different decision. But you didn't. Because you were straight.

The problem is that you don't get cause and effect.

I was straight BECAUSE of my decision to be with women and not men, not the other way around.

I made the decision for a number of reasons, including being more attracted to women, but it wasn't pre-determined as you seem to be suggesting.
You have sex with women because you are straight. You are not straight because you have sex with women.

Wrong.

I am straight because I choose to be with women only.  Without that choice, there is no way to establish I am straight to begin with.

Again, you seem to not understand cause and effect.
What seems "logical" to one person may not necesarily seem "logical" to somebody else.  Would you agree?

Absolutely not. That's completely ridiculous.

Logic isn't subjective. In other words, there is no difference in logic from person to person. If it "seems" like there is, at least one of them isn't using logic.
4/22/2013 2:01 PM
HOW MUCH IS YOUR DICTIONARY
4/22/2013 2:03 PM (edited)
No, you have sex with women because you are straight. Not the other way around.
4/22/2013 2:01 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 4/22/2013 2:00:00 PM (view original):
No, you have sec with women because you are straight. Not the other way around.
NO. HIS DICTIONARY SAYS OTHERWISE.
4/22/2013 2:01 PM
His dictionary also says you're a whore if you have sex with 2 women in your life.
4/22/2013 2:04 PM
Does it say that? Has he only had sex with one woman? No wonder he's so confused about sexuality.
4/22/2013 2:06 PM
What seems "logical" to one person may not necesarily seem "logical" to somebody else.  Would you agree?

Absolutely not. That's completely ridiculous.

Logic isn't subjective. In other words, there is no difference in logic from person to person. If it "seems" like there is, at least one of them isn't using logic.

So if you say something is "logical", and somebody else doesn't agree, then the other person is wrong.

Likewise, if somebody else asserts that something is "logical", and you don't agree, then the other person is wrong.

Is that about right?
of 358

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.