4/25/2013 3:17 PM
Posted by bistiza on 4/25/2013 2:54:00 PM (view original):
When someone says they're homosexual, it's a word commonly used to describe that they're attracted toward the same sex.  If you don't like it, oh well.

It's not about who likes it or doesn't like it.

If you are fine with believing a lie based upon propaganda, have at it. Believe whatever you want.

As for me, I will continue to use logical reasoning to test what other people say, and when it doesn't measure up but people keep pushing it anyway because it forwards their own agendas, I'll call it out for being the BS propaganda it is.
As for me, I will continue to use logical reasoning to test words that people use, and when the word doesn't measure up to my logic, I'll call it out for being the BS propaganda that it is.  

Down with "colonel." 
4/25/2013 3:19 PM
The situations aren't the same. Apply the logic equally doesn't matter because the situations are different.
They both involve asking the same fundamental question, that being, "should someone legally be allowed to marry (fill in the blank)". The same reasoning can be applied to answer the question no matter what you fill in the blank with. That's how logic works.

So once again, the reasoning you gave justifies the legality of marriage to children, animals, and even inanimate objects. I'd like you to either verify you agree with those things as the reasoning suggests you should. If you disagree with those things, then you need to amend your reasoning to reflect that.
4/25/2013 3:25 PM
If you want to believe scientists, the largest part of sexual attraction is driven by pheromones.  Males and females give off different pheromones, and there is at least a very good chance that biological sexual preference is largely determined by which sort of pheromone receptors happen to predominate in a particular individual.  Children don't give off a separate or unique pheromonal signature, only a weaker one.  Animals and inanimate objects release no human pheromones whatsoever.  So now the scenario isn't the same anymore, and the logic doesn't have to be the same.  There is a common biological reality in which people are naturally programmed to be attracted to same-sex or, more commonly, opposite-sex human beings.  There is no biological mechanism driving attraction to children or inanimate object, that is entirely a psychological construct.  Not the same scenario at all.  Trying to defeat psychology and trying to defeat biology are totally different battles.
4/25/2013 3:30 PM
Posted by bistiza on 4/25/2013 3:19:00 PM (view original):
The situations aren't the same. Apply the logic equally doesn't matter because the situations are different.
They both involve asking the same fundamental question, that being, "should someone legally be allowed to marry (fill in the blank)". The same reasoning can be applied to answer the question no matter what you fill in the blank with. That's how logic works.

So once again, the reasoning you gave justifies the legality of marriage to children, animals, and even inanimate objects. I'd like you to either verify you agree with those things as the reasoning suggests you should. If you disagree with those things, then you need to amend your reasoning to reflect that.
But you're missing step one. The first question is, is the relationship itself legal. If the answer is no, then you stop there because there is no point in debating the merits of allowing marriage if the relationship itself isn't allowed.

Is man/man sex legal? Yes. Move to question 2, should gays be allowed to marry?

Is man/child sex legal? No. No need for question 2.
4/25/2013 3:31 PM
Rather than arguing semantics about whether this man is homosexual or heterosexual, can we just agree that this man is probably less happy than he could be because he's forcing himself to have "romantic and sexual encounters" with the gender to whom he is less attracted?
Maybe he's not less happy. I'm sure he has his reasons for choosing to be with the people he is with, which could be for happiness. We don't know. The point is there are more factors than simple attraction which can affect people's decision of romantic and/or sexual partners.
I know that if for some reason I was prompted to have relationships with men instead of women I would be substantially less happy.
That's fine for you. The problem comes when you try to say it would be that way for everyone, which isn't true.
And to extend the thought experiment, let's consider WHY this man is having romantic and sexual encounters with people of the gender to which he is less attracted.
You don't know why he's choosing the partners he is. Why is there this need to justify his decisions?
You can and have argued that you, personally, treat homosexuals the same as heterosexuals, but if you're really honest with yourself the only reason you bother to come up with this grandiose justification for an alternative definition of homosexuality is to provide some sort of groundwork to continue to reduce the rights of homosexuals relative to heterosexuals.
The logical way of defining sexuality actually provides for EQUAL treatment, while the commonly accepted propaganda-based definition seeks to justify the choices we as humans make in our sexuality by claiming attraction reduces it to something less than a choice.

If anyone looks to reduce rights through their definition of sexuality, it is those who feel the need to justify people's choices in sexuality. I say no choices need justification, and they certainly don't need to be justified by claiming it's somehow not a choice at all.
Somewhere inside you are clearly homophobic, and any argument to the contrary is going to ring hollow. 
Your name calling doesn't phase me. I get that I can't challenge your commonly accepted but illogical term without being insulted in equally illogical ways.

What you are saying might actually mean something without the insults, but with them, it is your argument that is ringing hollow, for the insults scream out "I disagree with you but can't find a better way to articulate myself than to call you names".









4/25/2013 3:37 PM
Children don't give off a separate or unique pheromonal signature, only a weaker one.  Animals and inanimate objects release no human pheromones whatsoever.  So now the scenario isn't the same anymore, and the logic doesn't have to be the same.

There is no biological mechanism driving attraction to children or inanimate object, that is entirely a psychological construct.
You can't logically argue that some people's sexual attractions are physiological while others of your choosing are psychological.

I've heard people try to justify all sorts of sexual attractions by saying they are only psychological (including homosexuality) and in almost all cases they have been shown to be wrong at a later time.
But you're missing step one. The first question is, is the relationship itself legal. If the answer is no, then you stop there because there is no point in debating the merits of allowing marriage if the relationship itself isn't allowed.
Apparently YOU were "missing step one" because this isn't what you said before. You made no argument about a relationship being legal. Your only argument was that since people can't control their attraction they should be able to marry whomever they wish.

I'm fine with you changing your argument. Just realize that's what you've done - don't pretend like you said it all along when you didn't.

4/25/2013 3:39 PM
Posted by bistiza on 4/25/2013 3:37:00 PM (view original):
Children don't give off a separate or unique pheromonal signature, only a weaker one.  Animals and inanimate objects release no human pheromones whatsoever.  So now the scenario isn't the same anymore, and the logic doesn't have to be the same.

There is no biological mechanism driving attraction to children or inanimate object, that is entirely a psychological construct.
You can't logically argue that some people's sexual attractions are physiological while others of your choosing are psychological.

I've heard people try to justify all sorts of sexual attractions by saying they are only psychological (including homosexuality) and in almost all cases they have been shown to be wrong at a later time.
But you're missing step one. The first question is, is the relationship itself legal. If the answer is no, then you stop there because there is no point in debating the merits of allowing marriage if the relationship itself isn't allowed.
Apparently YOU were "missing step one" because this isn't what you said before. You made no argument about a relationship being legal. Your only argument was that since people can't control their attraction they should be able to marry whomever they wish.

I'm fine with you changing your argument. Just realize that's what you've done - don't pretend like you said it all along when you didn't.

Go back and look. That's not what I said at all. I didn't say people should be allowed to marry whoever they wish. I said gay people should be allowed to marry.
4/25/2013 3:41 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 4/25/2013 11:25:00 AM (view original):
Ok. How about this?

You've agreed that attraction is not a choice. You've agreed that most people are only attracted to one gender or the other.

Lets make it legal for people to marry whatever gender they want because they don't have a choice in what gender they are attracted to.

See. They can marry whatever gender they want.
4/25/2013 3:51 PM
Go back and look. That's not what I said at all. I didn't say people should be allowed to marry whoever they wish. I said gay people should be allowed to marry.

No, HERE is what you said:

Lets make it legal for people to marry whatever gender they want because they don't have a choice in what gender they are attracted to.

You argued people "don't have a choice in what...they are attracted to", and I simply replaced gender with something else and made the same argument you did.

You've been backpedaling ever since. First you tried to add in an argument about legal versus illegal relationships, and now you're trying to claim you never made the argument at all, but it's right there for all to see.

Again, I'm fine with you changing what you said. You screwed up and wanted to fix it. Fine. Just stop backpedaling and let's move forward with things.
4/25/2013 3:54 PM
Posted by bistiza on 4/25/2013 3:51:00 PM (view original):
Go back and look. That's not what I said at all. I didn't say people should be allowed to marry whoever they wish. I said gay people should be allowed to marry.

No, HERE is what you said:

Lets make it legal for people to marry whatever gender they want because they don't have a choice in what gender they are attracted to.

You argued people "don't have a choice in what...they are attracted to", and I simply replaced gender with something else and made the same argument you did.

You've been backpedaling ever since. First you tried to add in an argument about legal versus illegal relationships, and now you're trying to claim you never made the argument at all, but it's right there for all to see.

Again, I'm fine with you changing what you said. You screwed up and wanted to fix it. Fine. Just stop backpedaling and let's move forward with things.
Hey ******* that ellipsis is omitting one word: gender. That's an important qualifier in this discussion.
4/25/2013 3:55 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 4/25/2013 3:41:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 4/25/2013 11:25:00 AM (view original):
Ok. How about this?

You've agreed that attraction is not a choice. You've agreed that most people are only attracted to one gender or the other.

Lets make it legal for people to marry whatever gender they want because they don't have a choice in what gender they are attracted to.

See. They can marry whatever gender they want.
There's my quote in it's entirety.
4/25/2013 3:58 PM
Hey ******* that ellipsis is omitting one word: gender. That's an important qualifier in this discussion.

You're missing the point, which is that the logical reasoning you're using can be applied not just using the word "gender" but to any sexual attraction.

Please stop the backpedaling. You made an argument that didn't work the way you wanted it to, and when I pointed it out, you realized that.

Just make a better argument and move on already.

4/25/2013 4:02 PM
Posted by bistiza on 4/25/2013 3:59:00 PM (view original):
Hey ******* that ellipsis is omitting one word: gender. That's an important qualifier in this discussion.

You're missing the point, which is that the logical reasoning you're using can be applied not just using the word "gender" but to any sexual attraction.

Please stop the backpedaling. You made an argument that didn't work the way you wanted it to, and when I pointed it out, you realized that.

Just make a better argument and move on already.

It obviously can't be applied to all situations (and doesn't need to be).

Illegal sexual relationships are irrelevant. You can't debate the merits of allowing marriage unless the relationship itself is legal.

Do you not get that?
4/25/2013 4:05 PM
That's it. I'm blocking bis. He's the very definition of a troll. He gets off on the attention and makes no attempt to argue in good faith.
4/25/2013 6:10 PM
I dunno, I think he's just stupid/deluded enough to actually believe that everything he thinks and says is "logical" and makes sense and nothing anyone else says or thinks that contradicts his own beliefs could possibly be rational or credible.  Which explains why he consistently dismisses counterarguments essentially out of hand but insists the explanations exist, sometimes even that he's given them when he clearly hasn't.  Trolling has to be intentional.  I still think bistiza isn't a troll, he's just horribly deluded.
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.