Jauronimo Posted May 13, 2014 Share Posted May 13, 2014 (edited) Juron-imo – Specious.. LOL Would you care to demonstrate falsity of my hypothesis? Oh and do you expect me to believe that you really think I’m boring? Yeah ok. I’m anything but boring to you. Repugnant maybe, and I’m ok with that, but boring? Naw, if I were boring you wouldn’t have spent hours scanning the internet looking for my posting history on the subject. In spite of your arduous efforts to discredit my ideas on the subject matter, you have yet to demonstrate just how wrong I am. Still waiting on that.. But if you want to cower behind your internet terminal, I’m ok with it. Just don’t feign superiority. I have no ego to bruise; distilling your position on gay religion as somehow containing a mere ounce of validity, isn’t going to wash. Have a great and glorious day Juron-imo. I spent minutes digging up the dirt on you. You're involvement on TBD is very boring (you saved the good stuff for that hate filled cesspool I found). You're here to assist those who also don't like homos, and don't care why, in making more reasonable sounding arguments against same sex relationships so that they can't be dismissed as bigots. A truly noble endeavor. The glaring problem is that your reasons are extremely biased. You sought to disprove that homosexuality could be naturally occurring because you don't like gays and are fearful of the "homosexual agenda". You haven't seemed to question whether or not that reaction, albeit common, is based on any type of logic. As animals with limited capacity for reason, human beings naturally choose to associate with those who are similar, fear/mistrust those who are different and to react violently to certain stimuli. Acting on these impulses like a monkey probably isn't the best way to live. You keep peddling the same asinine arguments every time anything involving the subject of homosexuality comes up. You cite scientific journals. Great. Using science to justify prejudice is not particularly scientific. Choosing those arguments which suit you is not very scientific. Finally resting on a hypothesis which can neither be proven or unproven to any degree like your last resort, time to retreat to your No Gays Allowed Alamo, pre-frontal cortex hail mary, isn't scientific in the least. You reject any notion that homosexuality could be "natural", to use your terms, poking holes in any study that's been done trying to link sexuality to genetic expression but champion a viewpoint shared by very few which is just a flimsy or worse. Why would I waste anymore time than I did 2 years ago reducing your arguments to that same futile point? I'm not repulsed by homosexuality. I'm not fearful of it. I don't care whether its natural or a choice anymore than I care about what clothes you wear. The issue with you isn't really about the determinants of sexuality, but whether or not you have a scientific basis on which to dislike certain people (I even toned it down to reflect your status as a reformed hater). Regardless of the actual determinants of sexual orientation, you'll never convince me that your views are justified. I don't have to feign. Your word choice gives you away. Edited May 13, 2014 by Jauronimo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Linen Posted May 13, 2014 Share Posted May 13, 2014 You aren't very funny. At least not when you're trying to be. Your first sentence isn't structured properly. To formally stress the "not" in "You aren't very funny" it should read You're not very funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted May 13, 2014 Share Posted May 13, 2014 Thanks.. Tim- It wasn't a compliment. Add reading comprehension to the ever expanding list of things you need to work on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted May 13, 2014 Share Posted May 13, 2014 (edited) Your first sentence isn't structured properly. To formally stress the "not" in "You aren't very funny" it should read You're not very funny. I'm not accepting any style tips from someone with your worldview. What time is your fight with jboyst scheduled? Edited May 13, 2014 by Jauronimo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Landing Posted May 13, 2014 Share Posted May 13, 2014 (edited) Your first sentence isn't structured properly. To formally stress the "not" in "You aren't very funny" it should read You're not very funny. "Ain't," would've been more apropos. Can we get back to football, now? In all fairness, Sam brought that on himself. Not when he came out, but when he indulged the media circus surrounding him. If it was Sam's idea to plaster their embrace all over the media (an event which lasted all of three seconds), I hope he is getting residuals. Edited May 13, 2014 by Rocky Landing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Linen Posted May 13, 2014 Share Posted May 13, 2014 I'm not accepting any style tips from someone with your worldview. What time is your fight with jboyst scheduled? I'm not accepting any style tips from someone with your worldview. What time is your fight with jboyst scheduled? Haha, you remember that? Not my greatest moment. In full disclosure we did meet and decided to thumb wrestle. I won. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted May 13, 2014 Share Posted May 13, 2014 The horror! Imagine what that kid is learning from witnessing this clearly staged display of affection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted May 13, 2014 Share Posted May 13, 2014 The horror! Imagine what that kid is learning from witnessing this clearly staged display of affection. That needs to be taken down this instant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted May 13, 2014 Share Posted May 13, 2014 Mickey – Oh I am well aware that gay’s folks get beat up because they are gay. When I say it simply does not happen is really a play on words. What I meant was that it is simply so rare as to be insignificant, statistically. Furthermore, Michael Sam is not going to be beaten up by anyone. What was his fear of coming out? Was he afraid of being beaten up? Nice try, Mick. The narrative requires context to be validated, and YOU DON’T have context, let alone the facts. I notice you’re using the new politically correct buzz word for tranny, or shemale. Well played.. But forgive me if I continue to call them tranny’s and shedogs.. You don’t get to redefine deviance for me or anyone else. Enjoy the rest of your 21st century day. Tim- NoSaint - Yes, please do, and if there's anything you wish to debate then I'm all ears. Coward! Do you take any specific objection to anything I've stated here or anywhere else? Whatcha got, saint? Tim- if someone wants to get into it with you on this topic (or back you on it i suppose), more power to them. I just felt like suggesting they check out your documented stances, because i know they have made several around here feel like its not a discussion they want to engage. im included in that group. I spent minutes digging up the dirt on you. if that long... thats why i encourage folks to check it out before diving in. atleast they then know what they are getting into. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D521646 Posted May 13, 2014 Share Posted May 13, 2014 (edited) Jauronimo – I spent minutes digging up the dirt on you. Yeah except that it wasn’t dirt. It was an opinion consistent with the one I shared on this forum. Dirt, I suppose from your standpoint, but you’re not very adept at making appropriate distinctions between differing opinions. You're involvement on TBD is very boring (you saved the good stuff for that hate filled cesspool I found). Freerepublic has it characters and of course haters, granted, but let’s be honest, you can pretty much find that everywhere on the internet. The place also has a good amount of well educated, and informed individuals. You're here to assist those who also don't like homos, and don't care why, in making more reasonable sounding arguments against same sex relationships so that they can't be dismissed as bigots. A truly noble endeavor. Funny? Wasn’t it you that pointed out that I was correcting the hate filled bigots on FR in that “expose” you ran on me.. Didn’t I already beat you down with this before, the last time you attempted to mock or shame me? I showed you to be a liar. Don’t you remember Jauronimo? I can look that old thread back up to refresh your memory? You’re not very good at lying, and you’re especially not very good at reading people’s minds. The glaring problem is that your reasons are extremely biased. No they’re not. They’re well researched and backed by logic and to some degree the scientific method – in as much as science applies to the discipline of psychology, and psychological research. You sought to disprove that homosexuality could be naturally occurring because you don't like gays and are fearful of the "homosexual agenda". Well isn’t that actually conducting science? That is what science is. The “coz you don’t like gays” theory is you adding color in only the way that you can. Mind reading again. First off though I’d like to correct you a bit so you’re armed with at least a modicum of understanding of where I’m coming from. Anything could be considered “naturally occurring” Assuming you mean homosexuality is a product of one’s biology without choice, similar to being right handed or left handed, or eye color, or skin color, then yes, my goal is to disprove that theory. You haven't seemed to question whether or not that reaction, albeit common, is based on any type of logic. Not sure what you mean here. This sentence doesn’t seem to flow off of your previous one? Can you be more specific? As animals with limited capacity for reason, human beings naturally choose to associate with those who are similar, fear/mistrust those who are different and to react violently to certain stimuli. Acting on these impulses like a monkey probably isn't the best way to live. I see. So you “think” that my opinion or hypothesis that gays are gay because they mostly choose to be gay, is, impulsive on my part? You “think” that it is impossible to arrive at that working conclusion based on serious careful thought? Really? You keep peddling the same asinine arguments every time anything involving the subject of homosexuality comes up. You cite scientific journals. Great. Using science to justify prejudice is not particularly scientific. Peddling? Well I guess that’s all I must be doing then? I mean of course, that is the only thing I talk about on this forum. Hardly peddling, but heck sure why not. If it makes your argument sound more credible to the people who share the same opinion you do, then I’m fine with it. Remember, I have no ego brother.. Ironic though that those whom seem to share your opinion “choose to associate” with like-minded individuals such as yourself. Strange twist in the syntax there, eh jauronimo? Part Duex next! Edited May 13, 2014 by D521646 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted May 13, 2014 Share Posted May 13, 2014 Part Duex next! You already took a Duex all over this thread... no need for anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D521646 Posted May 13, 2014 Share Posted May 13, 2014 One other note I’d like to clear you up on. Science doesn’t or is not supposed to care about prejudice. Scientific conclusions that are factual have no axe to grind. Men do just fine with that. The problem with science is that those that are conducting it need to have integrity, something that seems to be lacking from both sides of this particular issue, but I assure you, not with me. If it were shown tomorrow that homosexuals have no choice is being gay, or identifying with opposite genders then I’d be the first to put on a gay pride shirt and march right alongside them. The problem that you and many others that knee-jerk the homophobe, bigot, and hater rhetoric is that, I’m not religious in any way, and I do NOT hate gays. What I do hate is people taking a position on a matter without even an ounce of thought put into why they believe the way they do. I am open to serious discussion on the subject matter, EVEN if that subject matter doesn’t mesh with me. Information is information, and data is data. The quality lies in the one collecting it, and the one’s disseminating it. Choosing those arguments which suit you is not very scientific. You nor anyone else can demonstrate this to be true. Again you’re lying, and I am pointing it out. Finally resting on a hypothesis which can neither be proven or unproven to any degree like your last resort, time to retreat to your No Gays Allowed Alamo, pre-frontal cortex hail mary, isn't scientific in the least. Well actually there is (As I have already demonstrated to you in previous engagements) a great deal of science to suggest that what I “think” might be going on, actually is going on. However, granted, it cannot be proven, yet, but I am hopeful that as we continue to map the brains higher executive functions, we will be able to demonstrate how sexuality is manifest in humans to a great degree of certainty. You know Einstein predicted several things with his theory on relativity that we are only now discovering over 100 years later. Gravitational lensing, time dilation, and the list goes on. You reject any notion that homosexuality could be "natural", More lies eh? Gee don’t you get tired of that? You have about as much street cred with me as a buffoon. Here let me put this to bed right now. I am absolutely open to the idea that homosexuality or any sexuality is completely natural (in the sense you’re using the word natural) or naturally occurring. I am totally open to the idea that homosexuality is not a choice. Do I believe it to be true, no. Do I have good reason to believe it to be true, no, but if you have something that is compelling that I am unaware of, please share it. to use your terms, poking holes in any study that's been done trying to link sexuality to genetic expression but champion a viewpoint shared by very few which is just a flimsy or worse. Why would I waste anymore time than I did 2 years ago reducing your arguments to that same futile point? Bro, you’re incapable of arguing this topic on my level. You’ve clearly demonstrated several times that you lack the knowledge to go toe-to-toe on it with me. I don’t champion ANY viewpoint from anyone and from any side of the fence. I look at the data, calculate the reliability of the data using a myriad of variables and controls, and then I form an opinion. I'm not repulsed by homosexuality. Well if you believe homosexuality is naturally occurring then science dictates that you should be repulsed by it. I don’t expect you to understand that salient point, but I thought I’d share anyway for those that are following along. I'm not fearful of it. Neither am I. The issue with you isn't really about the determinants of sexuality, but whether or not you have a scientific basis on which to dislike certain people (I even toned it down to reflect your status as a reformed hater). How sweet of you to “tone it down” for me. I don’t dislike gay’s bro. Sheesh?? Talk about thick headed. What I do not support is gays being considered as important to societies overall long term health as heterosexual marriage. I “think” that heterosexual marriage is fundamental to society’s success for a number of valid reasons. But aside from all that. I think that because I said that two gay men having sex was/is repulsive you infer that I hate gays, opining without even a quick thought as to the reasons that might be. Regardless of the actual determinants of sexual orientation, you'll never convince me that your views are justified. I don't have to feign. Your word choice gives you away. I’m not hiding or trying too. You’re just not very good at mind reading over the internetz, and a terrible liar to boot. Have a golden evening Jauronimo. Tim- You already took a Duex all over this thread... no need for anymore. Hey thanks. You've been very supportive thus far sparky. Tim- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Landing Posted May 13, 2014 Share Posted May 13, 2014 Trying to make a story where there is none is pretty annoying IMO. Is that not what sports journalists do in the offseason? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted May 13, 2014 Share Posted May 13, 2014 Hey thanks. You've been very supportive thus far sparky. Tim- I can hear your mouth breathing from the west coast. Here's something for your Christmas card. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D521646 Posted May 13, 2014 Share Posted May 13, 2014 hehehe... I believe in you, man. Tim- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted May 13, 2014 Share Posted May 13, 2014 The horror! Imagine what that kid is learning from witnessing this clearly staged display of affection. The truly disgusting thing is that Brent Musberger took this picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Landing Posted May 13, 2014 Share Posted May 13, 2014 There are a handful of NFL executives that might not want him because he is gay; the other 95% of GM's and coaches are just looking at his football readiness for the NFL. The media, including the NFL network, are doing what they always do: hype a story. As for us, the fans, I think it breaks the same as NFL executives, a handful don't want him or don't like him because he is gay, most of us don't care one way or the other but want to know if he can play. Then there are probably a few gay people, NFL executives, players and some fans, that are rooting for him because he is gay. "Not that there is anything wrong with that." I'm not gay, but I gotta say, I'm kinda rooting for the kid. I hope he can play. GMs are also looking to sell tickets, merchandise, and product sponsorship. And, considering that Sam has the #2 top selling jersey, (as a 7th round pick!), I would guess that will give him a leg up on making the final roster, IMO. The NFL is, after all, a business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted May 13, 2014 Share Posted May 13, 2014 I can hear your mouth breathing from the west coast. Here's something for your Christmas card. I haven't been following your quarrel with D48579 so I don't know the context, but I see nothing wrong with someone not wanting to see the pic you put up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted May 13, 2014 Share Posted May 13, 2014 (edited) One other note I’d like to clear you up on. Science doesn’t or is not supposed to care about prejudice. Scientific conclusions that are factual have no axe to grind. Men do just fine with that. The problem with science is that those that are conducting it need to have integrity, something that seems to be lacking from both sides of this particular issue, but I assure you, not with me. If it were shown tomorrow that homosexuals have no choice is being gay, or identifying with opposite genders then I’d be the first to put on a gay pride shirt and march right alongside them. The problem that you and many others that knee-jerk the homophobe, bigot, and hater rhetoric is that, I’m not religious in any way, and I do NOT hate gays. What I do hate is people taking a position on a matter without even an ounce of thought put into why they believe the way they do. I am open to serious discussion on the subject matter, EVEN if that subject matter doesn’t mesh with me. Information is information, and data is data. The quality lies in the one collecting it, and the one’s disseminating it. You nor anyone else can demonstrate this to be true. Again you’re lying, and I am pointing it out. Well actually there is (As I have already demonstrated to you in previous engagements) a great deal of science to suggest that what I “think” might be going on, actually is going on. However, granted, it cannot be proven, yet, but I am hopeful that as we continue to map the brains higher executive functions, we will be able to demonstrate how sexuality is manifest in humans to a great degree of certainty. You know Einstein predicted several things with his theory on relativity that we are only now discovering over 100 years later. Gravitational lensing, time dilation, and the list goes on. More lies eh? Gee don’t you get tired of that? You have about as much street cred with me as a buffoon. Here let me put this to bed right now. I am absolutely open to the idea that homosexuality or any sexuality is completely natural (in the sense you’re using the word natural) or naturally occurring. I am totally open to the idea that homosexuality is not a choice. Do I believe it to be true, no. Do I have good reason to believe it to be true, no, but if you have something that is compelling that I am unaware of, please share it. Bro, you’re incapable of arguing this topic on my level. You’ve clearly demonstrated several times that you lack the knowledge to go toe-to-toe on it with me. I don’t champion ANY viewpoint from anyone and from any side of the fence. I look at the data, calculate the reliability of the data using a myriad of variables and controls, and then I form an opinion. Well if you believe homosexuality is naturally occurring then science dictates that you should be repulsed by it. I don’t expect you to understand that salient point, but I thought I’d share anyway for those that are following along. Neither am I. How sweet of you to “tone it down” for me. I don’t dislike gay’s bro. Sheesh?? Talk about thick headed. What I do not support is gays being considered as important to societies overall long term health as heterosexual marriage. I “think” that heterosexual marriage is fundamental to society’s success for a number of valid reasons. But aside from all that. I think that because I said that two gay men having sex was/is repulsive you infer that I hate gays, opining without even a quick thought as to the reasons that might be. I’m not hiding or trying too. You’re just not very good at mind reading over the internetz, and a terrible liar to boot. Have a golden evening Jauronimo. Tim- Thirdly, I have not done any 180 on the issue. I have evolved over time, yes, but my core belief that homosexuality is, one, preventable, and two, a mostly conditioned phenomenon stays the same. My tolerance level for some things gay has changed, granted, but I am still a firm believer that homosexuality should not be embraced or institutionalized in our schools, where I believe children are at their most vulnerable. By the way, I stopped posting on FreeRepublic a couple of years ago, although I was never really a big poster there anyway because of how vitriolic the anti-gay sentiment was. I have no use for hatred from ignorance, however, I do appreciate a good debate on fascinating topics such as the one involving sexuality. I could teach a first year college course on genetics with all that I’ve learned over the years, and I find when people on both sides appreciate the others viewpoints the debate topic can be quite rewarding. Now, ya got anything else, or are we done? All you’ve managed to accomplish is waste my time on this thread. I know you think you’re being super intellectual with your trap questions, and snide comments hoping to induce me into some gay bashing tirade but you’re wasting my and everyone else’s time for doing so. Save the bandwidth, or contribute in a positive and mutually understanding tone, and you’ll see that it will be reciprocal. Well let’s see, ok you’re of the belief that homosexuality is a normal, biological outcome, yet you dismiss that a natural aversion to homosexuality could be equally natural, or biological. That’s an interesting perspective, however inconsistent as it appears, I’ll leave you to your senses. I do have an agenda, I think that’s blatantly obvious. My agenda is to educate people who have a natural aversion to homosexuality, among other things, but argue from a religious standpoint (God doesn’t like it) and to teach them that any religious argument will not be convincing enough. I also do not want homosexuality to become mainstream in our society not because I care if adults practice it, but because I don’t want it lofted upon unsuspecting children who do not possess the critical thinking ability to avoid it. You don't dislike gays. My mistake. You just have an aversion and continue to crusade about homosexuality on a f@#$ing football website at every opportunity. Its your contention that this natural aversion is normal. I've stated several times that all manner of prejudice are normal, but we should strive to do better rather than to rationalize our shortcomings. Looks like you've either done even more evolving since you posted this 3 months ago or perhaps you're just a tad inconsistent. How would you characterize your separation of schools and homosexuality viewpoint since you object to the word fear? Mistrust? Suspicion? Do you often attribute fear, mistrust, suspicion, pick your own term, with groups of people who you're totally cool with, bro? I conjecture that you haven't changed one bit since the days when abhorrent would have been your word of choice, but now you know that in order to further your agenda you have to turn down the rhetoric. Do your best to seem reasonable. I don't believe that someone with your posting record and obvious fixation on this subject goes from FreeRepublic to its all good in four years. Perhaps I'm just cynical. Keep calling me a liar. I'll just respond with more of things you didn't post. Your memory isn't as strong as mine judging by your recollection of how the last dance ended. Edited May 13, 2014 by Jauronimo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Landing Posted May 14, 2014 Share Posted May 14, 2014 ^^^You two should get a room.^^^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts