Total Posts:14|Showing Posts:1-14
Jump to topic:

Non-obvious vote boming

Logical-Master
Posts: 2,538
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2013 12:20:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Just curious, but is it possible vote bomb a debate without actually making it obvious that you're vote bombing? As in give some reasoning, when your intentions are really just to vote against the guy/gal you don't like?

Your answers will be most useful!
lannan13
Posts: 23,017
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2013 12:41:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I sometimes do it, especially when people put me in those large vote on this PMs I basicly vote bomb a person without making it obvious.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2013 1:23:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Of course, it is done often and is not difficult. For the nth argument say that whoever you want to win won the argument by saying "xn", where xn is something that the person given the win said. Repeat for all n.

Most vote bombers don't have an attention span long enough to do that. If they did, they would probably vote fairly. But some do,
YYW
Posts: 36,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2013 3:16:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/23/2013 12:20:02 PM, Logical-Master wrote:
Just curious, but is it possible vote bomb a debate without actually making it obvious that you're vote bombing? As in give some reasoning, when your intentions are really just to vote against the guy/gal you don't like?

Your answers will be most useful!

It's important to draw a distinction between a vote bomb and a vote biased to such an extent that the side with which the judge disagrees could not have reasonably won. Let me be clear when I say that we all have biases that we cannot perfectly shed ourselves of, but we can cast ballots which are more or less biased. While judges have an ethical responsibility not to cast unduly biased ballots -and, specifically, not vote on debates which they are so biased on that they could not reasonably judge a given debate in a manor that affords both sides a fair opportunity to compete, whether or not individual judges hold themselves to the standard they ought to is something beyond individual debaters' control because some judges cannot be persuaded. As such, each debater must make an argument which will likely persuade the most who are persuadable and not concern themselves with those judges who are not persuadable because such a judge, even if that particular judge ethically should not vote on a given debate, is beyond the reach of the debater who advocates for a position not congruent with that of the judge in this case.
UserNameThatIsBeingTyped
Posts: 11
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2013 12:22:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/23/2013 3:16:46 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/23/2013 12:20:02 PM, Logical-Master wrote:
Just curious, but is it possible vote bomb a debate without actually making it obvious that you're vote bombing? As in give some reasoning, when your intentions are really just to vote against the guy/gal you don't like?

Your answers will be most useful!

It's important to draw a distinction between a vote bomb and a vote biased to such an extent that the side with which the judge disagrees could not have reasonably won. Let me be clear when I say that we all have biases that we cannot perfectly shed ourselves of, but we can cast ballots which are more or less biased. While judges have an ethical responsibility not to cast unduly biased ballots -and, specifically, not vote on debates which they are so biased on that they could not reasonably judge a given debate in a manor that affords both sides a fair opportunity to compete, whether or not individual judges hold themselves to the standard they ought to is something beyond individual debaters' control because some judges cannot be persuaded. As such, each debater must make an argument which will likely persuade the most who are persuadable and not concern themselves with those judges who are not persuadable because such a judge, even if that particular judge ethically should not vote on a given debate, is beyond the reach of the debater who advocates for a position not congruent with that of the judge in this case.

Interesting post YYW. I have two questions for you after reading it.

1. What objective difference is there, if any, between someone who refuses to be persuaded due to bias and someone who honestly sees all arguments for or against something as fallacious or unfounded?

2. Can you be persuaded that bestiality should be legal?
Really ADreamOfLiberty
YYW
Posts: 36,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2013 12:27:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/24/2013 12:22:49 AM, UserNameThatIsBeingTyped wrote:
At 12/23/2013 3:16:46 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/23/2013 12:20:02 PM, Logical-Master wrote:
Just curious, but is it possible vote bomb a debate without actually making it obvious that you're vote bombing? As in give some reasoning, when your intentions are really just to vote against the guy/gal you don't like?

Your answers will be most useful!

It's important to draw a distinction between a vote bomb and a vote biased to such an extent that the side with which the judge disagrees could not have reasonably won. Let me be clear when I say that we all have biases that we cannot perfectly shed ourselves of, but we can cast ballots which are more or less biased. While judges have an ethical responsibility not to cast unduly biased ballots -and, specifically, not vote on debates which they are so biased on that they could not reasonably judge a given debate in a manor that affords both sides a fair opportunity to compete, whether or not individual judges hold themselves to the standard they ought to is something beyond individual debaters' control because some judges cannot be persuaded. As such, each debater must make an argument which will likely persuade the most who are persuadable and not concern themselves with those judges who are not persuadable because such a judge, even if that particular judge ethically should not vote on a given debate, is beyond the reach of the debater who advocates for a position not congruent with that of the judge in this case.

Interesting post YYW. I have two questions for you after reading it.

1. What objective difference is there, if any, between someone who refuses to be persuaded due to bias and someone who honestly sees all arguments for or against something as fallacious or unfounded?

The difference? None, practically.

2. Can you be persuaded that bestiality should be legal?

Interesting question, ADreamOfLiberty... did you know that multi-accounting is grounds for permanent banning?
UserNameThatIsBeingTyped
Posts: 11
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2013 12:35:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/24/2013 12:27:26 AM, YYW wrote:
At 12/24/2013 12:22:49 AM, UserNameThatIsBeingTyped wrote:
At 12/23/2013 3:16:46 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/23/2013 12:20:02 PM, Logical-Master wrote:
Just curious, but is it possible vote bomb a debate without actually making it obvious that you're vote bombing? As in give some reasoning, when your intentions are really just to vote against the guy/gal you don't like?

Your answers will be most useful!

It's important to draw a distinction between a vote bomb and a vote biased to such an extent that the side with which the judge disagrees could not have reasonably won. Let me be clear when I say that we all have biases that we cannot perfectly shed ourselves of, but we can cast ballots which are more or less biased. While judges have an ethical responsibility not to cast unduly biased ballots -and, specifically, not vote on debates which they are so biased on that they could not reasonably judge a given debate in a manor that affords both sides a fair opportunity to compete, whether or not individual judges hold themselves to the standard they ought to is something beyond individual debaters' control because some judges cannot be persuaded. As such, each debater must make an argument which will likely persuade the most who are persuadable and not concern themselves with those judges who are not persuadable because such a judge, even if that particular judge ethically should not vote on a given debate, is beyond the reach of the debater who advocates for a position not congruent with that of the judge in this case.

Interesting post YYW. I have two questions for you after reading it.

1. What objective difference is there, if any, between someone who refuses to be persuaded due to bias and someone who honestly sees all arguments for or against something as fallacious or unfounded?

The difference? None, practically.
Agreed.

So then since it is impossible to tell the biased judge from the unconvinced judge it must be impossible to eliminate bias in judging no?

2. Can you be persuaded that bestiality should be legal?

Interesting question, ADreamOfLiberty... did you know that multi-accounting is grounds for permanent banning?

It would be a relief to be banned I honestly have never been so infuriated by the ignorance or lack of basic logic skills as by the people here.

You didn't answer my question by the way.
Really ADreamOfLiberty
YYW
Posts: 36,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2013 12:39:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/24/2013 12:35:23 AM, UserNameThatIsBeingTyped wrote:
At 12/24/2013 12:27:26 AM, YYW wrote:
At 12/24/2013 12:22:49 AM, UserNameThatIsBeingTyped wrote:
At 12/23/2013 3:16:46 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/23/2013 12:20:02 PM, Logical-Master wrote:
Just curious, but is it possible vote bomb a debate without actually making it obvious that you're vote bombing? As in give some reasoning, when your intentions are really just to vote against the guy/gal you don't like?

Your answers will be most useful!

It's important to draw a distinction between a vote bomb and a vote biased to such an extent that the side with which the judge disagrees could not have reasonably won. Let me be clear when I say that we all have biases that we cannot perfectly shed ourselves of, but we can cast ballots which are more or less biased. While judges have an ethical responsibility not to cast unduly biased ballots -and, specifically, not vote on debates which they are so biased on that they could not reasonably judge a given debate in a manor that affords both sides a fair opportunity to compete, whether or not individual judges hold themselves to the standard they ought to is something beyond individual debaters' control because some judges cannot be persuaded. As such, each debater must make an argument which will likely persuade the most who are persuadable and not concern themselves with those judges who are not persuadable because such a judge, even if that particular judge ethically should not vote on a given debate, is beyond the reach of the debater who advocates for a position not congruent with that of the judge in this case.

Interesting post YYW. I have two questions for you after reading it.

1. What objective difference is there, if any, between someone who refuses to be persuaded due to bias and someone who honestly sees all arguments for or against something as fallacious or unfounded?

The difference? None, practically.
Agreed.

So then since it is impossible to tell the biased judge from the unconvinced judge it must be impossible to eliminate bias in judging no?

It is impossible to eliminate bias from anything other than empirical facts. Anything subjective is necessarily biased -and DDO exists in the realm of the subjective. There are some who would like to dogmatically make stupid arguments about the possibility of casting a perfectly unbiased vote -a claim which is itself reflective of a pernicious bias one holds because almost all believe themselves to be unbiased. I, at least, am humble enough to admit that on a host of things I am more or less biased. I'm also honest enough to admit that I don't give a sh!t how other people feel about my voluminous biases.

2. Can you be persuaded that bestiality should be legal?

Interesting question, ADreamOfLiberty... did you know that multi-accounting is grounds for permanent banning?

It would be a relief to be banned I honestly have never been so infuriated by the ignorance or lack of basic logic skills as by the people here.

Ask Airmax, and it shall be given.

You didn't answer my question by the way.

Deal with it.
UserNameThatIsBeingTyped
Posts: 11
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2013 1:16:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/24/2013 12:39:56 AM, YYW wrote:
At 12/24/2013 12:35:23 AM, UserNameThatIsBeingTyped wrote:
At 12/24/2013 12:27:26 AM, YYW wrote:
At 12/24/2013 12:22:49 AM, UserNameThatIsBeingTyped wrote:
At 12/23/2013 3:16:46 PM, YYW wrote:
1. What objective difference is there, if any, between someone who refuses to be persuaded due to bias and someone who honestly sees all arguments for or against something as fallacious or unfounded?

The difference? None, practically.
Agreed.

So then since it is impossible to tell the biased judge from the unconvinced judge it must be impossible to eliminate bias in judging no?

It is impossible to eliminate bias from anything other than empirical facts.

What of deductive logic? Induction based on standardized probability curves?

Anything subjective is necessarily biased -and DDO exists in the realm of the subjective. There are some who would like to dogmatically make stupid arguments about the possibility of casting a perfectly unbiased vote -a claim which is itself reflective of a pernicious bias one holds because almost all believe themselves to be unbiased. I, at least, am humble enough to admit that on a host of things I am more or less biased.

People who build that wall of subjectivism, they are so keen on protecting themselves from the objective certitude of external arguments they forget to notice that the wall is impassable both ways. Their arguments are all dust in the wind to anyone who takes their claim of subjectivity seriously.

I'm also honest enough to admit that I don't give a sh!t how other people feel about my voluminous biases.

If you don't give a sh!t about how other people feel, can you think of a good reason why they should give a sh!t about how you feel?

Oh another question, do you realize the ! in those words is only there because you are trying to circumnavigate the language filter?

2. Can you be persuaded that bestiality should be legal?

Interesting question, ADreamOfLiberty... did you know that multi-accounting is grounds for permanent banning?

It would be a relief to be banned I honestly have never been so infuriated by the ignorance or lack of basic logic skills as by the people here.

Ask Airmax, and it shall be given.
hehe, that's not how it works. Let me give you the 101 on my neurotic little mind. I can't sleep at night unless I think I've done what I can to 'change the world.'

If I decided to stop I could just stop I wouldn't need to be banned, getting myself banned on purpose violating a justified rule is just a dishonorable way to quit.

However, being banned for reasons I consider unjustified frees me of the responsibility of preaching in the (as cit puts it) overwrought fashion of mine to you people.

So even though it would be a relief in that I could sleep and wouldn't punch the wall thinking of you, I can't do it myself. It's a source of great ironic humor to me that being a zoosexual (something that appears in the DSM last time I checked) hasn't caused me any social or psychological problems (so far) in life but wanting to do something about how it is condemned may be a real threat to my contentment.

You didn't answer my question by the way.

Deal with it.

My neurotic little brain 102, that kind of cowardly dodging makes me smile. No matter what you may be to your friends, family, and workplace. To me, here, you are just an living statistic; an empty assertion worse than the most primitive animal instinct you are inanimate.

Every time someone makes that choice, decides that silence is the more noble path; acts like their assertions do not need support even though they signed up to a 'debate' site, that is my victory. I was only telling half the truth above. I want to change the world, I need to see that it is not changing because people like you, like writchriw, like imabench, and even like roy latham don't care.

I can live in a world where evil prospers because good men do nothing (or more accurately men do no good) but I can't tolerate one where we are all trying our best but it still turns to ash in our mouths.

Above you spoke of being honest with yourself. Why are you here, on this site supposedly dedicated to debate?
Really ADreamOfLiberty
YYW
Posts: 36,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2013 1:32:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/24/2013 1:16:48 AM, UserNameThatIsBeingTyped wrote:
At 12/24/2013 12:39:56 AM, YYW wrote:
At 12/24/2013 12:35:23 AM, UserNameThatIsBeingTyped wrote:
At 12/24/2013 12:27:26 AM, YYW wrote:
At 12/24/2013 12:22:49 AM, UserNameThatIsBeingTyped wrote:
At 12/23/2013 3:16:46 PM, YYW wrote:
1. What objective difference is there, if any, between someone who refuses to be persuaded due to bias and someone who honestly sees all arguments for or against something as fallacious or unfounded?

The difference? None, practically.
Agreed.

So then since it is impossible to tell the biased judge from the unconvinced judge it must be impossible to eliminate bias in judging no?

It is impossible to eliminate bias from anything other than empirical facts.

What of deductive logic? Induction based on standardized probability curves?

I don't think you understand what I meant. Google the term for further clarification.

Anything subjective is necessarily biased -and DDO exists in the realm of the subjective. There are some who would like to dogmatically make stupid arguments about the possibility of casting a perfectly unbiased vote -a claim which is itself reflective of a pernicious bias one holds because almost all believe themselves to be unbiased. I, at least, am humble enough to admit that on a host of things I am more or less biased.

People who build that wall of subjectivism, they are so keen on protecting themselves from the objective certitude of external arguments they forget to notice that the wall is impassable both ways. Their arguments are all dust in the wind to anyone who takes their claim of subjectivity seriously.

lol that's sort of like an intellectual mirage you've created for yourself, there.

I'm also honest enough to admit that I don't give a sh!t how other people feel about my voluminous biases.

If you don't give a sh!t about how other people feel, can you think of a good reason why they should give a sh!t about how you feel?

How others feel about me is not something I'm especially inclined to be concerned with.

Oh another question, do you realize the ! in those words is only there because you are trying to circumnavigate the language filter?

Is stating obvious things how you would like this conversation to go? If so, here are a few obvious things. The sky is at times varying shades of blue. Most people have ten fingers. France is a country. Heroin is a drug that some people take. Shall I go on? Right, then. Dobermans are a breed of dog. Blue fin tuna are endangered. Crystal meth can cause cardiac arrest. Bestiality is morally debase. Any more? Or, have I proven my point.

2. Can you be persuaded that bestiality should be legal?

Interesting question, ADreamOfLiberty... did you know that multi-accounting is grounds for permanent banning?

It would be a relief to be banned I honestly have never been so infuriated by the ignorance or lack of basic logic skills as by the people here.

Ask Airmax, and it shall be given.
hehe, that's not how it works. Let me give you the 101 on my neurotic little mind. I can't sleep at night unless I think I've done what I can to 'change the world.'

If I decided to stop I could just stop I wouldn't need to be banned, getting myself banned on purpose violating a justified rule is just a dishonorable way to quit.

All this talk of honor... you wouldn't know the concept if you were immersed in a culture characterized by it.

However, being banned for reasons I consider unjustified frees me of the responsibility of preaching in the (as cit puts it) overwrought fashion of mine to you people.

How very interesting.

So even though it would be a relief in that I could sleep and wouldn't punch the wall thinking of you, I can't do it myself. It's a source of great ironic humor to me that being a zoosexual (something that appears in the DSM last time I checked) hasn't caused me any social or psychological problems (so far) in life but wanting to do something about how it is condemned may be a real threat to my contentment.

My degree of interest is practically beyond description.

You didn't answer my question by the way.

Deal with it.

My neurotic little brain 102, that kind of cowardly dodging makes me smile. No matter what you may be to your friends, family, and workplace. To me, here, you are just an living statistic; an empty assertion worse than the most primitive animal instinct you are inanimate.

Oh, my. Please, tell me more.

Every time someone makes that choice, decides that silence is the more noble path; acts like their assertions do not need support even though they signed up to a 'debate' site, that is my victory. I was only telling half the truth above. I want to change the world, I need to see that it is not changing because people like you, like writchriw, like imabench, and even like roy latham don't care.

I'm so definitely not ambivalent to what you're trying to tell me. Do, go on!

I can live in a world where evil prospers because good men do nothing (or more accurately men do no good) but I can't tolerate one where we are all trying our best but it still turns to ash in our mouths.

Ok.

Above you spoke of being honest with yourself. Why are you here, on this site supposedly dedicated to debate?

There are many reasons. Some days some reasons apply more or less than others on other days. But I think your effort to understand me, if your purpose is to draw similarities between you and I, will perpetually drive you into the same kind of madness that you so vocally lament above. The reason is because talking with me can be like peering into darkness. And if you stare long enough into the darkness, the darkness also peers into you. Though that is only if I choose not to stand behind the light...
YYW
Posts: 36,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2013 1:39:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
It's funny how the pupils react to darkness. They widen, and become more sensitive to even the slightest ray of light. In near total darkness, then human eye can actually see the light of a single candle as far as ten miles away. And yet, after having existed in total darkness for an extended period of time, even a light that burns with the intensity of a table lamp can be blinding -so blinding in fact that most would turn away. So, I am not shocked, Liberty, that you run from the light. I would be more surprised if you changed your mind...

Although I still have hope that yours is a troll account; that yours is an account meant to illustrate the patent and manifest absurdity of the positions you hold... that one day you will do what Anti-Athiest did and proclaim that your true purpose was not to advocate the moral permissibility of sexual depravity, but to show by example how vile and disgusting -yet entirely banal arguments as such can be. That is my hope, at least. That is surely my hope.
UserNameThatIsBeingTyped
Posts: 11
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2013 2:02:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/24/2013 1:32:29 AM, YYW wrote:
At 12/24/2013 1:16:48 AM, UserNameThatIsBeingTyped wrote:
What of deductive logic? Induction based on standardized probability curves?

I don't think you understand what I meant. Google the term for further clarification.

I think I got the concept well in hand thank you.

Anything subjective is necessarily biased -and DDO exists in the realm of the subjective. There are some who would like to dogmatically make stupid arguments about the possibility of casting a perfectly unbiased vote -a claim which is itself reflective of a pernicious bias one holds because almost all believe themselves to be unbiased. I, at least, am humble enough to admit that on a host of things I am more or less biased.

People who build that wall of subjectivism, they are so keen on protecting themselves from the objective certitude of external arguments they forget to notice that the wall is impassable both ways. Their arguments are all dust in the wind to anyone who takes their claim of subjectivity seriously.

lol that's sort of like an intellectual mirage you've created for yourself, there.

Not from my point of view, only from yours ;)

I'm also honest enough to admit that I don't give a sh!t how other people feel about my voluminous biases.

If you don't give a sh!t about how other people feel, can you think of a good reason why they should give a sh!t about how you feel?

How others feel about me is not something I'm especially inclined to be concerned with.
So you don't care what they feel about you and you don't think they should care what you feel about them? [he poises over his notepad ready to write down response]

France is a country.
A great country.

Any more?
That last one was wrong, actually whining about tuna was too. Salmon are better anyway.

Or, have I proven my point.
I think you missed the point.

2. Can you be persuaded that bestiality should be legal?

Interesting question, ADreamOfLiberty... did you know that multi-accounting is grounds for permanent banning?

It would be a relief to be banned I honestly have never been so infuriated by the ignorance or lack of basic logic skills as by the people here.

Ask Airmax, and it shall be given.
hehe, that's not how it works. Let me give you the 101 on my neurotic little mind. I can't sleep at night unless I think I've done what I can to 'change the world.'

If I decided to stop I could just stop I wouldn't need to be banned, getting myself banned on purpose violating a justified rule is just a dishonorable way to quit.

All this talk of honor... you wouldn't know the concept if you were immersed in a culture characterized by it.

Honor is now a part of my character and identity more so than sexual orientation could ever be. It is a necessity of my moral structure since I respect no authority. It is a necessity my philosophy since it is in essence believing in honest recognition of reality.

At least my wild claims about people are based on what little they choose to show on these sites, what could you possibly base that claim on?

My degree of interest is practically beyond description.
It's good then that you didn't try to describe it.

Oh, my. Please, tell me more.
I'm so definitely not ambivalent to what you're trying to tell me. Do, go on!
Ok.
Glad we got that straightened out :o

Above you spoke of being honest with yourself. Why are you here, on this site supposedly dedicated to debate?

There are many reasons. Some days some reasons apply more or less than others on other days. But I think your effort to understand me, if your purpose is to draw similarities between you and I, will perpetually drive you into the same kind of madness that you so vocally lament above. The reason is because talking with me can be like peering into darkness. And if you stare long enough into the darkness, the darkness also peers into you. Though that is only if I choose not to stand behind the light...

I was fishing for a spark of humanity, so in a way I was hoping for a similarity between you and I.

Unlike you I cannot ignore that which I do not wish to see, you exist whether I stare into the darkness of your faults or not. Were the universe fair there are so many noble non-humans who would deserve the gift of reason far more than you.
Really ADreamOfLiberty
UserNameThatIsBeingTyped
Posts: 11
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2013 2:26:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/24/2013 1:39:08 AM, YYW wrote:
It's funny how the pupils react to darkness. They widen, and become more sensitive to even the slightest ray of light. In near total darkness, then human eye can actually see the light of a single candle as far as ten miles away. And yet, after having existed in total darkness for an extended period of time, even a light that burns with the intensity of a table lamp can be blinding -so blinding in fact that most would turn away. So, I am not shocked, Liberty, that you run from the light. I would be more surprised if you changed your mind...

What is the light this light that I am running away from? Why should I change my mind about anything?

Although I still have hope that yours is a troll account; that yours is an account meant to illustrate the patent and manifest absurdity of the positions you hold... that one day you will do what Anti-Athiest did and proclaim that your true purpose was not to advocate the moral permissibility of sexual depravity, but to show by example how vile and disgusting -yet entirely banal arguments as such can be. That is my hope, at least. That is surely my hope.

Hoping that I am lying will not illustrate that absurdity, calling the arguments banal is just as surely an insult to its opponents as to its originator if they cannot defeat them.

As for your disgust, it is a monument to the human capacity for hypocrisy. Same gender attractions, these are no more natural than different species attractions; thinking they are is a delusion of normalcy grasped all the more tightly because those who would condemn both can see the delusion for what it is.

You enjoy freedom now only because so many fought desperately for a society which did not validate or enforce disgust on minorities. Yet you trust your own disgust so easily. Ever man becomes complacent and takes his rights for granted so that he may not be bothered to grant them to his brothers.
Really ADreamOfLiberty