Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2016 11:01:14 GMT 5
You can try to clear wash it by claiming I am "attacking minority" as much as you want, thought I would like an evidence to show, that the fundamental animal behavior is for two of the same gender to practice disease transmitting, instead of the opposite gender, giving birth to increase the number of its species, anyway I have much important then be naive, and daydream somethings become wise, so I will stop wasting time. The point in this is basically that the natural way is reproduction with a male and a female. Might be irrelevant to the thread of course, but that's about it because there is no denying this is how human reproduction works. Don't know what's so hard to get in this post, the only problem is that it doesn't really hold much relevance here. Anyway whoever is against gays because it is not a natural way of reproduction should also quit masturbation and be against porn. |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Mar 5, 2016 16:16:47 GMT 5
Sees some very interesting comments, one very senseless attempt is comparing, infertile to Anti-Normal, This was intended to be a reductio ad absurdum of the argument "They cannot reproduce, therefore, it is wrong". Of course, your arguments are so incoherent that I cannot understand what you actually meant. thought because an actual answer for "born that way" do not appear, then it means no, they are not born that way, and it means that point is not even worth answering! *Sigh* Comprehension lesson my friend:I did in no way say that homosexuals are not born that way. I merely stated that there are people who think that and others who don't think that. It is currently disputed to what extent homosexuality is genetic, but biology surely plays a role, most attempts to cure gays fall in the realm of quackery. As for others, the last one reminds me of Jap and Germany propaganda in WW2,  and I will take the "P.S" as an amusement. So, you are not aggressive due to being over-emotional, you just enjoy being condescending? Nice to know. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Mar 5, 2016 17:05:41 GMT 5
Sees some very interesting comments, one very senseless attempt is comparing, infertile to Anti-Normal It was you who equated a sexual relationship that can not result in reproductive success to "Anti-normal" (of course ignoring the fact that sex has biological purposes other than reproduction), nobody else made that association. Of course the logical questions your treatment of a childless relationship as some sort of abomination are A: What about infertile people? B: What about people who don’t want children? and C: Does this mean we all have to listen to the pope and stop using contraception now? An answer can only appear to a question. "Born that way" is a statement, or at least part thereof. There’s no answer to that. The prevalent opinion seems to be that homosexuality isn’t something that can be cured or changed though. Damn, I sure wish you’d write in a manner that people, normal and anti-normal alike, can understand. I don’t know what the hell it is you are referring to. Once again, what the hell are you talking about? Nobody suggests smallpox are harmless, that’s why they were effectively whiped out decades ago. I think everybody would happily do the same to HIV if we had the capabilities to do so, and nobody sane contracts it willingly or in the belief that it is harmless (although it causes nowhere near the amount of panic nowadays that it caused when it first appeared). And yes, AIDS is most commonly transmitted in Africa through normal interaction. Namely sexual ones. If it were just transmitted among homosexuals we’d expect the highest percentage of homosexuals in the world to live in sub-saharan Africa. Funny then that those are among the countries with the highest birth rates… Homophobic people accusing other people’s arguments to look like Nazi propaganda tend to make a bit of an aggressive impression. |
|
|
|
Post by An Goldish Jade on Mar 6, 2016 7:52:59 GMT 5
The comments are still amusing, as for how is Jinfengopteryx theory is similar to Jap and Germany propaganda used to whitewash they war crime, Jinfengopteryx says because that normal interaction also transmits HIV, so anti-normal vector is not worth mentioning, similar to today Jap likes to say because "Allies have commited war crimes, and were not charged" so Jap war crime is nothing, Germany sure enough would also use this tactic, and by other of his logic, such as infertility, this logic means an murder could say on court "An person have Schizophrenia is not charged for murder, so murder should be legal" as for the answer for born that way, do not answer it with, they born to want to do it, is them doing that, unpreventable since they were born? As saying "they born to want to do it" is clearly not equivalent to "they born like that", since they anatomy is capable of reproducing, but the same do not happen for infertility, so an person with infertility cannot reproduce, but an anti-normal thing dont want do, which is why saying "infertility is not anti-normal, so why is LGBT?" is the same as "An person have Schizophrenia is not charged for murder, so murder should be legal".
When one says that I am unable to understand Comprehension, when they cannot understand comparing, is very interesting, theropod says now smallpox is not an severe disease, but is it because it is not severe, or because it do not have chance?
The same is also said with HIV, USA instead of Africa is an much more accurate example, to show HIV vector, as in Africa, anti normal behavior, is resulted in penalty, so just like smallpox, they don't have high chance of spreading, and in USA the US government fails to know, that anti-normal is anti-normal, we are talking about, when the chance of spreading is equal, not when one side have almost no chance, so clearly afert all the anti-normal is anti-normal.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Mar 6, 2016 15:47:32 GMT 5
The comments are still amusing, as for how is Jinfengopteryx theory is similar to Jap and Germany propaganda used to whitewash they war crime, It is hilarious that YOU need to invoke WWII Germany and Japan. Do you even have the slightest clue what Hitler thought about homosexuality? You should be the last one to make Nazi comparisons. Jinfengopteryx says because that normal interaction also transmits HIV, so anti-normal vector is not worth mentioning, similar to today Jap likes to say because "Allies have commited war crimes, and were not charged" so Jap war crime is nothing THIS WAS NOT MY ARGUMENT AT ALL!! Read my damn quote and actually try to comprehend it! The argument is that lack of sexual education due to homophobia makes teenagers do things they shouldn't do, you still have not learned how to read my friend. Germany sure enough would also use this tactic, and by other of his logic, such as infertility, this logic means an murder could say on court "An person have Schizophrenia is not charged for murder, so murder should be legal" as for the answer for born that way, do not answer it with, they born to want to do it, is them doing that, unpreventable since they were born? As saying "they born to want to do it" is clearly not equivalent to "they born like that", since they anatomy is capable of reproducing, but the same do not happen for infertility, so an person with infertility cannot reproduce, but an anti-normal thing dont want do, which is why saying "infertility is not anti-normal, so why is LGBT?" is the same as "An person have Schizophrenia is not charged for murder, so murder should be legal". Your analogy is a complete joke, people with schizophrenia do get into prison: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2755284/And you once again refuse to define what anti-normal means (I once thought I understood it, but it seems like I was wrong). Is your definition "The refusal to engage in normal behavior despite being able to do so"? Please answer because if you don't define your cool, provocative terms, it is not possible to discuss with you as you can shift goalposts whenever you need. Your initial argument was in fact "and could you name an method this type of malicious behavior could benefit society?", it is not my fault if you change your criteria whenever you need to do so. My challenge to you now is that you name your criteria which are necessary in order to judge if sexual behavior is acceptable or not. When one says that I am unable to understand Comprehension, when they cannot understand comparing, is very interesting. I apologize for not being able to understand your non-sequiuturous, offensive, contextless and inconsistent babbling. It is hard to give coherent replies to incoherent ideas. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Mar 6, 2016 15:59:17 GMT 5
The comments are still amusing, as for how is Jinfengopteryx theory is similar to Jap and Germany propaganda used to whitewash they war crime, Jinfengopteryx says because that normal interaction also transmits HIV, so anti-normal vector is not worth mentioning, similar to today Jap likes to say because "Allies have commited war crimes, and were not charged" so Jap war crime is nothing, Germany sure enough would also use this tactic, and by other of his logic, such as infertility, this logic means an murder could say on court "An person have Schizophrenia is not charged for murder, so murder should be legal" as for the answer for born that way, do not answer it with, they born to want to do it, is them doing that, unpreventable since they were born? As saying "they born to want to do it" is clearly not equivalent to "they born like that", since they anatomy is capable of reproducing, but the same do not happen for infertility, so an person with infertility cannot reproduce, but an anti-normal thing dont want do, which is why saying "infertility is not anti-normal, so why is LGBT?" is the same as "An person have Schizophrenia is not charged for murder, so murder should be legal". Well, apart from how ridiculous it is to compare tolerance towards homosexuality to legalizing murder, is it really possible you don’t even get the irony in all of that? Do I need to spell it out for you? This is a disgrace. Well, I didn’t say you were unable to understand, I said it was impossible to understand you. Though judging by what I do understand of your latest comment, the former is definitely the case too. In all seriousness, I think you are the one who cannot understand his own comparisons, or perhaps just doesn’t want to. You just compared homosexuality to murder for frack’s sake, and you compared a challenge to your idea of "anti-normal" to Nazi propaganda! WTF? I wrote this: "Nobody suggests smallpox are harmless, that’s why they were effectively whiped out decades ago." HIV has nothing to do with smallpox. Smallpox are extinct, and they weren’t a sexually transmitted disease to begin with. Nobody is denying that they were a severe disease, they just aren’t related to the subject matter. Strange enough then that HIV is most common in Africa, not the US. Isn’t it funny how 68% of all HIV cases occurr in a region that is generally less tolerant towards homosexuality? This demonstrates how poverty and ignorance is a much higher risk factor for HIV. That means people who either don’t have access to condoms, or are too stupid or superstitious to use them when they do. In fact, since you consider sexuality that does not result in reproduction to be "anti-normal", you must be considering use of contraceptives "anti-normal" too. In other words, you consider the best measures against STDs "anti-normal", yet at the same time ramble on about homosexuality and its connection to HIV. Talk about someone not understanding comparisons… |
|
|
|
Post by An Goldish Jade on Mar 7, 2016 13:19:37 GMT 5
The results are still interesting, the replies do not say whether at an environment were both normal and anti-normal have equal chance to spread disease, if anti-normal have lower chance or not, but instead just saying, in an case were anti-normal do not have equal chance of spreading, normal make up most of the percentage, and because the quote "in a region that is generally less tolerant towards homosexuality" thus it means that when those things do get disease, they will not tell the truth, so the accuracy of the percentage is worth question, and yes I did say "and could you name an method this type of malicious behavior could benefit society?" which show that I consider it to be anti-normal because of it been unbeneficial, the question is ludicrous argument comes from which side? As one side compared something beneficial to something unbeneficial, and the other logic is that infertility is the same as anti-normal, if we consider that infertility is unpreventable, as one with infertility have anatomy that is incapable to do so, and anti-normal anatomy is capable of reproduction, it is just because they don't want to, the logic means, one who cannot control them self, commits a crime, and not guilty because they cannot control them self, so one who commits a crime because they want to should be freed, the logic means cannot control and want to do is the same.
As for smallpox, they don't to become plagues in USA today because they don't have chance, just like anti-normal don't have chance to being efficient disease vector in Africa, because they don't have chance.
In USA they have chance, and the result is very obvious.
And the other "theory" what caused teenager to do vulgar behaviors? the answer they want is "resisting anti-normal" thought the actual answer would obviously be different, because now-days teenager or so-called "young adults" lack the actual ability to know that anti-normal is vile, I mean, who think some copy and paste, would makes me unable to remember what I see in my life?
|
|
|
|
Post by Ceratodromeus on Mar 7, 2016 13:33:44 GMT 5
do you always ramble nonsense?
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Mar 7, 2016 20:03:16 GMT 5
An Goldish JadeAlright, give me a definition of anti-normal. You should at least tell us what your cool weasel words mean, otherwise it is impossible to respond to your nonsense in any meaningful manner.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Mar 7, 2016 21:09:22 GMT 5
There’s so literally not even a trace of a single coherent argument in that guy’s reply that I wouldn’t even know what to respond to.
I can only repeat the obvious in the hopes that he might understand it if he sees it spelled out often enough.
–Homosexuality isn’t a pandemic, it doesn’t seem like it can be cured or vaccinated against, and at any rate it certainly doesn’t cause any harm. How sick would someone have to be to compare the treatment of homosexuals in certain countries to vaccinations used to wipe out an infectious disease?
–As I wrote, 68% of all HIV cases worldwide occur in Sub-Saharan Africa. I have never claimed anything about how much of that is among homosexuals, and whether that’s more or less than in other countries. The point was simply that the virus is overwhelmingly more common in that region than in any other. So if treatment of gay people there were a functional preventative measure against HIV, like vaccination was against smallpox (I wanna make sure credit for that disgusting comparison goes to goldfish, not me), how come HIV incidents are so much more common there, not less common as one would expect?
|
|
|
|
Post by An Goldish Jade on Mar 9, 2016 13:53:31 GMT 5
The answer for theropods question is simple, how do "give them rights" in Africa, reduces the numbers of HIV in Africa? And by that logic, if Anti-normal behaviors do not transmit it more then normal, then it becomes question, why there is an greater chance of finding reactionary things infected with AID in USA(19% of the total number of reactionary things in USA) then precentages of finding it almong normal humans(12.5%) in Zambia? As logically USA have enhanced medical treatment, and "it is harmless" and "ignorance is greater factor"?
Since the "logic" here are amusing, as for definition, criteria is not changed, by Goldish Jade, but instead by "accurate" "unbiased" ones, such as when one deliberately fabricated the definition, by claiming it means "contraceptives are anti-normal"
And because that thing actually admitted that anti-normal behaviors are an risk factor, because it tried to diminish anti-normal by saying poverty is bigger risk factor, which while is still an method of clear-wash it, at least it admitted that it is an risk factor, but now it tries to deny it by saying it is harmless, so who is actually "changing" it is worth questioning.
|
|
|
|
Post by Venomous Dragon on Mar 9, 2016 14:07:21 GMT 5
The answer for theropods question is simple, how do "give them rights" in Africa, reduces the numbers of HIV in Africa? And by that logic, if Anti-normal behaviors do not transmit it more then normal, then it becomes question, why there is an greater chance of finding reactionary things infected with AID in USA(19% of the total number of reactionary things in USA) then precentages of finding it almong normal humans(12.5%) in Zambia? As logically USA have enhanced medical treatment, and "it is harmless" and "ignorance is greater factor"? Since the "logic" here are amusing, as for definition, criteria is not changed, by Goldish Jade, but instead by "accurate" "unbiased" ones, such as when one deliberately fabricated the definition, by claiming it means "contraceptives are anti-normal" And because that thing actually admitted that anti-normal behaviors are an risk factor, because it tried to diminish anti-normal by saying poverty is bigger risk factor, which while is still an method of clear-wash it, at least it admitted that it is an risk factor, but now it tries to deny it by saying it is harmless, so who is actually "changing" it is worth questioning. higher hiv rates have much more to do with not practicing safe sex and logically without the risk of pregnancy its much more tempting to forgo the use of condoms. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Mar 9, 2016 18:21:32 GMT 5
The answer for theropods question is simple, how do "give them rights" in Africa, reduces the numbers of HIV in Africa? And by that logic, if Anti-normal behaviors do not transmit it more then normal, then it becomes question, why there is an greater chance of finding reactionary things infected with AID in USA(19% of the total number of reactionary things in USA) then precentages of finding it almong normal humans(12.5%) in Zambia? As logically USA have enhanced medical treatment, and "it is harmless" and "ignorance is greater factor"? Since the "logic" here are amusing, as for definition, criteria is not changed, by Goldish Jade, but instead by "accurate" "unbiased" ones, such as when one deliberately fabricated the definition, by claiming it means "contraceptives are anti-normal" And because that thing actually admitted that anti-normal behaviors are an risk factor, because it tried to diminish anti-normal by saying poverty is bigger risk factor, which while is still an method of clear-wash it, at least it admitted that it is an risk factor, but now it tries to deny it by saying it is harmless, so who is actually "changing" it is worth questioning. Firstly, does this mean we are all going to address each other as "it" and "thing" now, or is that just an expression of the same problem that has been keeping you from writing in complete and coherent sentences since the beginning of this discussion? Secondly, what are "reactionary things"? Thirdly, who said anything against HIV being more common among homosexuals. But what transmits it more than normal is failure to use a condom, irrespective of the sex of the participants. Diseases are transmitted between people, they do not care whether those people are of the same sex or not. HIV is more prevalent among homosexuals, yes. I’ll wager that homosexuals tend to have more sex with each other (and as correctly pointed out, may be less likely to use condoms, which is something that can be changed) than with heterosexuals. Had the disease first occurred among heterosexuals, it would probably be the other way around. And as demonstrated by your own example, Africa, intolerance against homosexuality does not seem to reduce the overall prevalence of the virus. Quite the contrary, since the thing intolerance correlates most with is lack of education, including about HIV. Fourthly, "it should stop talking of itself in the third person!". Fifthly, there’s no "clear-washing" of "fabricating" anything here (except for your very creative interpretation of what a proper sentence structure should look like). You have repeatedly failed to respond to inquiries as to what you define as anti-normal, so don’t complain if people resort to inferring it from the nature of your "arguments". Of course those "arguments" are so utterly ridiculous that there’s no such thing as internal logic to follow, but that’s not my fault. So if you want to enlighten us with your definition of "Anti-normal" now, be my guest. Otherwise, you’ll have to live with me trying to decipher the meaning of your babbling without your assistance. Sixthly, where the hell did I say anything about anything being harmless? |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Mar 9, 2016 21:43:15 GMT 5
Since the "logic" here are amusing, as for definition, criteria is not changed, by Goldish Jade I'll make my task simple. Complete the following sentence: "Anti-normal things among humans are defined as …" |
|
|
|
Post by Life on Mar 9, 2016 23:15:09 GMT 5
Consider this a warning; if the two camps cannot discuss this topic amicably then expect from me to close this thread without notification. I might even delete this thread. I won't issue another warning after this one.
|
|
