Total Posts:59|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Homophobes Die Quickly- lol

YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2014 1:44:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Poetic irony, commence:

http://www.businessinsider.com...

"Anti-gay prejudice is associated with elevated mortality risk among heterosexuals, over and above multiple established risk factors for mortality," wrote the researchers, led by Mark L. Hatzenbuehler of Columbia University."

"In fact, those who were not highly prejudiced against gay people lived an average of 2.5 years longer than those who were."
Tsar of DDO
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2014 2:00:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/20/2014 1:44:52 PM, YYW wrote:
Poetic irony, commence:

http://www.businessinsider.com...

"Anti-gay prejudice is associated with elevated mortality risk among heterosexuals, over and above multiple established risk factors for mortality," wrote the researchers, led by Mark L. Hatzenbuehler of Columbia University."

"In fact, those who were not highly prejudiced against gay people lived an average of 2.5 years longer than those who were."

lol...We have our revenge in the end.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2014 2:04:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/20/2014 2:00:09 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 2/20/2014 1:44:52 PM, YYW wrote:
Poetic irony, commence:

http://www.businessinsider.com...

"Anti-gay prejudice is associated with elevated mortality risk among heterosexuals, over and above multiple established risk factors for mortality," wrote the researchers, led by Mark L. Hatzenbuehler of Columbia University."

"In fact, those who were not highly prejudiced against gay people lived an average of 2.5 years longer than those who were."

lol...We have our revenge in the end.

Their malady, dear bsh1, is not to be had from our ranks, but in themselves.
Tsar of DDO
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2014 2:05:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/20/2014 2:04:04 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/20/2014 2:00:09 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 2/20/2014 1:44:52 PM, YYW wrote:
Poetic irony, commence:

http://www.businessinsider.com...

"Anti-gay prejudice is associated with elevated mortality risk among heterosexuals, over and above multiple established risk factors for mortality," wrote the researchers, led by Mark L. Hatzenbuehler of Columbia University."

"In fact, those who were not highly prejudiced against gay people lived an average of 2.5 years longer than those who were."

lol...We have our revenge in the end.

Their malady, dear bsh1, is not to be had from our ranks, but in themselves.

True. But we are the object of their anger. It's nice to know that every time they get mad at us, we are helping them die faster.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2014 2:06:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/20/2014 2:05:38 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 2/20/2014 2:04:04 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/20/2014 2:00:09 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 2/20/2014 1:44:52 PM, YYW wrote:
Poetic irony, commence:

http://www.businessinsider.com...

"Anti-gay prejudice is associated with elevated mortality risk among heterosexuals, over and above multiple established risk factors for mortality," wrote the researchers, led by Mark L. Hatzenbuehler of Columbia University."

"In fact, those who were not highly prejudiced against gay people lived an average of 2.5 years longer than those who were."

lol...We have our revenge in the end.

Their malady, dear bsh1, is not to be had from our ranks, but in themselves.

True. But we are the object of their anger. It's nice to know that every time they get mad at us, we are helping them die faster.

Indeed ;)
Tsar of DDO
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2014 11:09:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
http://1-media-cdn.foolz.us...
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2014 11:17:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
This doesn't surprise me.
Stress has always been bad for you.
Someone stressing out over something they can't control (others).
My work here is, finally, done.
YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2014 11:47:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/20/2014 11:17:44 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
This doesn't surprise me.
Stress has always been bad for you.
Someone stressing out over something they can't control (others).

Yup. That's why, now. I'll just smile that much wider whenever I hear of homophobic sh!t.
Tsar of DDO
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2014 12:02:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
ha... I'm assuming it has to do with a correlation with intelligence.... morons. :)
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2014 12:04:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/20/2014 11:47:33 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/20/2014 11:17:44 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
This doesn't surprise me.
Stress has always been bad for you.
Someone stressing out over something they can't control (others).

Yup. That's why, now. I'll just smile that much wider whenever I hear of homophobic sh!t.

http://brightestyoungthings.com...
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2014 9:08:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/21/2014 12:04:09 AM, Oryus wrote:
At 2/20/2014 11:47:33 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/20/2014 11:17:44 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
This doesn't surprise me.
Stress has always been bad for you.
Someone stressing out over something they can't control (others).

Yup. That's why, now. I'll just smile that much wider whenever I hear of homophobic sh!t.

http://brightestyoungthings.com...

Yes... yes.... I'm terrible. I know. lol
Tsar of DDO
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2014 9:35:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Only 2.5 years difference and a correlation equals causation fallacy.

Next!
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
nummi
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2014 12:59:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Those who are against gays have the right to be so, to regard gays the way they do - their minds perceive that something is wrong, but that's it, no real cause of what exactly is wrong other than "sexuality" (doesn't apply to all, some have factors contributing). Survival "instinct" or such doing its job. Being gay is not right, it is wrong. If you did some research you should notice that whenever human diet has been more and more processed there have been more gays around. Also grains are not food - they mess directly with the brain in very many ways. Being gay aka "homosexual" is nothing but a disease or illness or disorder, take your pick. Just as obesity and autism are.
Neither does being one contribute to humanity's survival on "primal" level. They are devoid of reproductive value as they don't look toward the right gender, on "primal" level such creatures would not reproduce. Their weak traits would die. Toward humanity's survival through reproduction gays are as good as infertile. Neither are we evolved to have "worker bees" whose only purpose is to work, nor do we have those who only live for "breeding" or only care for children, etc., genetically speaking. All gays, aka homosexuals, are literally sick.

There is only one sexuality, the one dictated by genetics, and that does not include being gay. Any other behavior is a sign of illness.

You want to get better? You might want to try fixing your diet. It might work, but then might as well not, depending on the extent of damage.
YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2014 3:13:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/21/2014 12:59:11 PM, nummi wrote:
Those who are against gays have the right to be so, to regard gays the way they do - their minds perceive that something is wrong, but that's it, no real cause of what exactly is wrong other than "sexuality" (doesn't apply to all, some have factors contributing). Survival "instinct" or such doing its job. Being gay is not right, it is wrong. If you did some research you should notice that whenever human diet has been more and more processed there have been more gays around. Also grains are not food - they mess directly with the brain in very many ways. Being gay aka "homosexual" is nothing but a disease or illness or disorder, take your pick. Just as obesity and autism are.
Neither does being one contribute to humanity's survival on "primal" level. They are devoid of reproductive value as they don't look toward the right gender, on "primal" level such creatures would not reproduce. Their weak traits would die. Toward humanity's survival through reproduction gays are as good as infertile. Neither are we evolved to have "worker bees" whose only purpose is to work, nor do we have those who only live for "breeding" or only care for children, etc., genetically speaking. All gays, aka homosexuals, are literally sick.

There is only one sexuality, the one dictated by genetics, and that does not include being gay. Any other behavior is a sign of illness.

You want to get better? You might want to try fixing your diet. It might work, but then might as well not, depending on the extent of damage.

Imabench needs to see this, for the Weekly Stupid.
Tsar of DDO
imabench
Posts: 21,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2014 4:28:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/21/2014 3:13:55 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/21/2014 12:59:11 PM, nummi wrote:
Those who are against gays have the right to be so, to regard gays the way they do - their minds perceive that something is wrong, but that's it, no real cause of what exactly is wrong other than "sexuality" (doesn't apply to all, some have factors contributing). Survival "instinct" or such doing its job. Being gay is not right, it is wrong. If you did some research you should notice that whenever human diet has been more and more processed there have been more gays around. Also grains are not food - they mess directly with the brain in very many ways. Being gay aka "homosexual" is nothing but a disease or illness or disorder, take your pick. Just as obesity and autism are.
Neither does being one contribute to humanity's survival on "primal" level. They are devoid of reproductive value as they don't look toward the right gender, on "primal" level such creatures would not reproduce. Their weak traits would die. Toward humanity's survival through reproduction gays are as good as infertile. Neither are we evolved to have "worker bees" whose only purpose is to work, nor do we have those who only live for "breeding" or only care for children, etc., genetically speaking. All gays, aka homosexuals, are literally sick.

There is only one sexuality, the one dictated by genetics, and that does not include being gay. Any other behavior is a sign of illness.

You want to get better? You might want to try fixing your diet. It might work, but then might as well not, depending on the extent of damage.

Imabench needs to see this, for the Weekly Stupid.

Yeah that definitely qualifies. This is some weapons-grade-plutonium-level stupid
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2014 5:55:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/21/2014 4:28:31 PM, imabench wrote:
At 2/21/2014 3:13:55 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/21/2014 12:59:11 PM, nummi wrote:
Those who are against gays have the right to be so, to regard gays the way they do - their minds perceive that something is wrong, but that's it, no real cause of what exactly is wrong other than "sexuality" (doesn't apply to all, some have factors contributing). Survival "instinct" or such doing its job. Being gay is not right, it is wrong. If you did some research you should notice that whenever human diet has been more and more processed there have been more gays around. Also grains are not food - they mess directly with the brain in very many ways. Being gay aka "homosexual" is nothing but a disease or illness or disorder, take your pick. Just as obesity and autism are.
Neither does being one contribute to humanity's survival on "primal" level. They are devoid of reproductive value as they don't look toward the right gender, on "primal" level such creatures would not reproduce. Their weak traits would die. Toward humanity's survival through reproduction gays are as good as infertile. Neither are we evolved to have "worker bees" whose only purpose is to work, nor do we have those who only live for "breeding" or only care for children, etc., genetically speaking. All gays, aka homosexuals, are literally sick.

There is only one sexuality, the one dictated by genetics, and that does not include being gay. Any other behavior is a sign of illness.

You want to get better? You might want to try fixing your diet. It might work, but then might as well not, depending on the extent of damage.

Imabench needs to see this, for the Weekly Stupid.

Yeah that definitely qualifies. This is some weapons-grade-plutonium-level stupid

lol, I thought so too
Tsar of DDO
bubbatheclown
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2014 6:10:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/20/2014 1:44:52 PM, YYW wrote:
Poetic irony, commence:

http://www.businessinsider.com...

"Anti-gay prejudice is associated with elevated mortality risk among heterosexuals, over and above multiple established risk factors for mortality," wrote the researchers, led by Mark L. Hatzenbuehler of Columbia University."

"In fact, those who were not highly prejudiced against gay people lived an average of 2.5 years longer than those who were."

Doubtless the guy who did that "study" was paid big bucks by some gay organization.
SolarSista
Posts: 28
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2014 6:12:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/20/2014 1:44:52 PM, YYW wrote:
Poetic irony, commence:

http://www.businessinsider.com...

"Anti-gay prejudice is associated with elevated mortality risk among heterosexuals, over and above multiple established risk factors for mortality," wrote the researchers, led by Mark L. Hatzenbuehler of Columbia University."

"In fact, those who were not highly prejudiced against gay people lived an average of 2.5 years longer than those who were."

What goes around comes around. ;)
"Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people." - Carl Sagan
YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2014 6:21:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/21/2014 6:10:19 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
At 2/20/2014 1:44:52 PM, YYW wrote:
Poetic irony, commence:

http://www.businessinsider.com...

"Anti-gay prejudice is associated with elevated mortality risk among heterosexuals, over and above multiple established risk factors for mortality," wrote the researchers, led by Mark L. Hatzenbuehler of Columbia University."

"In fact, those who were not highly prejudiced against gay people lived an average of 2.5 years longer than those who were."

Doubtless the guy who did that "study" was paid big bucks by some gay organization.

Any more baseless allegations you'd like to toss out? The reason I ask is because the very fact that you made that comment tells me (1) you have no idea how social science research takes place, (2) you are predisposed to make baseless allegations that are only meant to undermine credibility without challenging results, and therefore (3) you're probably not especially bright or learned.

But please, do continue!

lol
Tsar of DDO
bubbatheclown
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2014 6:38:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/21/2014 6:21:13 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/21/2014 6:10:19 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
At 2/20/2014 1:44:52 PM, YYW wrote:
Poetic irony, commence:

http://www.businessinsider.com...

"Anti-gay prejudice is associated with elevated mortality risk among heterosexuals, over and above multiple established risk factors for mortality," wrote the researchers, led by Mark L. Hatzenbuehler of Columbia University."

"In fact, those who were not highly prejudiced against gay people lived an average of 2.5 years longer than those who were."

Doubtless the guy who did that "study" was paid big bucks by some gay organization.

Any more baseless allegations you'd like to toss out? The reason I ask is because the very fact that you made that comment tells me (1) you have no idea how social science research takes place, (2) you are predisposed to make baseless allegations that are only meant to undermine credibility without challenging results, and therefore (3) you're probably not especially bright or learned.

But please, do continue!

lol

Let's put it this way: homosexuality is a behavior that cannot produce offspring. The whole purpose of attraction and sexual activity is...you guessed it...the creation of offspring. So if a person is repelled by the kind of sexual activity that results in offspring and is attracted by the kind that cannot result in offspring, that behavior cannot be all-good. That's the thing about these kind of findings: it presents homosexuality in a completely positive light. That doesn't make sense! Even if there were a biological meaning behind it, there would be something that was negative about it, some kind of disadvantage. The fact that no such disadvantage is being reported by anybody shows that the research is biased.
If you want to prove me wrong, show me a relatively recent published finding by a respected scientist that portrayed homosexuality in a negative light. Otherwise, my contention stands.

You will probably bring up the fact that plenty of natural kinds of sexual activity cannot produce offspring. However, the natural thing is for somebody to get "touchy" with somebody of the opposite gender. Even if birth control methods are used, the act itself would normally impregnate a woman if no such interventionist methods were used. And they still are not repulsed by the opposite gender, so this doesn't really challenge my contention.

Now, I admit that I am a right-brained person. But right-brained does not equal stupid. Please do not get these two very different things mixed up.
YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2014 6:46:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/21/2014 6:38:38 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
At 2/21/2014 6:21:13 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/21/2014 6:10:19 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
At 2/20/2014 1:44:52 PM, YYW wrote:
Poetic irony, commence:

http://www.businessinsider.com...

"Anti-gay prejudice is associated with elevated mortality risk among heterosexuals, over and above multiple established risk factors for mortality," wrote the researchers, led by Mark L. Hatzenbuehler of Columbia University."

"In fact, those who were not highly prejudiced against gay people lived an average of 2.5 years longer than those who were."

Doubtless the guy who did that "study" was paid big bucks by some gay organization.

Any more baseless allegations you'd like to toss out? The reason I ask is because the very fact that you made that comment tells me (1) you have no idea how social science research takes place, (2) you are predisposed to make baseless allegations that are only meant to undermine credibility without challenging results, and therefore (3) you're probably not especially bright or learned.

But please, do continue!

lol

Let's put it this way: homosexuality is a behavior that cannot produce offspring. The whole purpose of attraction and sexual activity is...you guessed it...the creation of offspring. So if a person is repelled by the kind of sexual activity that results in offspring and is attracted by the kind that cannot result in offspring, that behavior cannot be all-good. That's the thing about these kind of findings: it presents homosexuality in a completely positive light. That doesn't make sense! Even if there were a biological meaning behind it, there would be something that was negative about it, some kind of disadvantage. The fact that no such disadvantage is being reported by anybody shows that the research is biased.
If you want to prove me wrong, show me a relatively recent published finding by a respected scientist that portrayed homosexuality in a negative light. Otherwise, my contention stands.

You will probably bring up the fact that plenty of natural kinds of sexual activity cannot produce offspring. However, the natural thing is for somebody to get "touchy" with somebody of the opposite gender. Even if birth control methods are used, the act itself would normally impregnate a woman if no such interventionist methods were used. And they still are not repulsed by the opposite gender, so this doesn't really challenge my contention.

Now, I admit that I am a right-brained person. But right-brained does not equal stupid. Please do not get these two very different things mixed up.

Imabench needs to see this too.
Tsar of DDO
bubbatheclown
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2014 6:51:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/21/2014 6:46:26 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/21/2014 6:38:38 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
At 2/21/2014 6:21:13 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/21/2014 6:10:19 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
At 2/20/2014 1:44:52 PM, YYW wrote:
Poetic irony, commence:

http://www.businessinsider.com...

"Anti-gay prejudice is associated with elevated mortality risk among heterosexuals, over and above multiple established risk factors for mortality," wrote the researchers, led by Mark L. Hatzenbuehler of Columbia University."

"In fact, those who were not highly prejudiced against gay people lived an average of 2.5 years longer than those who were."

Doubtless the guy who did that "study" was paid big bucks by some gay organization.

Any more baseless allegations you'd like to toss out? The reason I ask is because the very fact that you made that comment tells me (1) you have no idea how social science research takes place, (2) you are predisposed to make baseless allegations that are only meant to undermine credibility without challenging results, and therefore (3) you're probably not especially bright or learned.

But please, do continue!

lol

Let's put it this way: homosexuality is a behavior that cannot produce offspring. The whole purpose of attraction and sexual activity is...you guessed it...the creation of offspring. So if a person is repelled by the kind of sexual activity that results in offspring and is attracted by the kind that cannot result in offspring, that behavior cannot be all-good. That's the thing about these kind of findings: it presents homosexuality in a completely positive light. That doesn't make sense! Even if there were a biological meaning behind it, there would be something that was negative about it, some kind of disadvantage. The fact that no such disadvantage is being reported by anybody shows that the research is biased.
If you want to prove me wrong, show me a relatively recent published finding by a respected scientist that portrayed homosexuality in a negative light. Otherwise, my contention stands.

You will probably bring up the fact that plenty of natural kinds of sexual activity cannot produce offspring. However, the natural thing is for somebody to get "touchy" with somebody of the opposite gender. Even if birth control methods are used, the act itself would normally impregnate a woman if no such interventionist methods were used. And they still are not repulsed by the opposite gender, so this doesn't really challenge my contention.

Now, I admit that I am a right-brained person. But right-brained does not equal stupid. Please do not get these two very different things mixed up.

Imabench needs to see this too.

Meh. I'm sure that half the stuff on the "Weekly Stupid" is simply conservative, not stupid. Imabench's bias is not very well hidden, after all.

When somebody watches porn or something, they're satisfying themselves until the day that they can engage in actual sexual activity. Therefore, it's still biologically a matter of the reproductive process.
But you still haven't answered my contention. Show me a recent published work by a respected scientist that portrays some biological aspect of homosexuality in a negative light.
YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2014 6:56:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/21/2014 6:51:29 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
At 2/21/2014 6:46:26 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/21/2014 6:38:38 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
At 2/21/2014 6:21:13 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/21/2014 6:10:19 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
At 2/20/2014 1:44:52 PM, YYW wrote:
Poetic irony, commence:

http://www.businessinsider.com...

"Anti-gay prejudice is associated with elevated mortality risk among heterosexuals, over and above multiple established risk factors for mortality," wrote the researchers, led by Mark L. Hatzenbuehler of Columbia University."

"In fact, those who were not highly prejudiced against gay people lived an average of 2.5 years longer than those who were."

Doubtless the guy who did that "study" was paid big bucks by some gay organization.

Any more baseless allegations you'd like to toss out? The reason I ask is because the very fact that you made that comment tells me (1) you have no idea how social science research takes place, (2) you are predisposed to make baseless allegations that are only meant to undermine credibility without challenging results, and therefore (3) you're probably not especially bright or learned.

But please, do continue!

lol

Let's put it this way: homosexuality is a behavior that cannot produce offspring. The whole purpose of attraction and sexual activity is...you guessed it...the creation of offspring. So if a person is repelled by the kind of sexual activity that results in offspring and is attracted by the kind that cannot result in offspring, that behavior cannot be all-good. That's the thing about these kind of findings: it presents homosexuality in a completely positive light. That doesn't make sense! Even if there were a biological meaning behind it, there would be something that was negative about it, some kind of disadvantage. The fact that no such disadvantage is being reported by anybody shows that the research is biased.
If you want to prove me wrong, show me a relatively recent published finding by a respected scientist that portrayed homosexuality in a negative light. Otherwise, my contention stands.

You will probably bring up the fact that plenty of natural kinds of sexual activity cannot produce offspring. However, the natural thing is for somebody to get "touchy" with somebody of the opposite gender. Even if birth control methods are used, the act itself would normally impregnate a woman if no such interventionist methods were used. And they still are not repulsed by the opposite gender, so this doesn't really challenge my contention.

Now, I admit that I am a right-brained person. But right-brained does not equal stupid. Please do not get these two very different things mixed up.

Imabench needs to see this too.

Meh. I'm sure that half the stuff on the "Weekly Stupid" is simply conservative, not stupid. Imabench's bias is not very well hidden, after all.

When somebody watches porn or something, they're satisfying themselves until the day that they can engage in actual sexual activity. Therefore, it's still biologically a matter of the reproductive process.
But you still haven't answered my contention. Show me a recent published work by a respected scientist that portrays some biological aspect of homosexuality in a negative light.

It has nothing to do with being liberal or conservative, but if you want to tell yourself that you're being persecuted because you're a conservative... go ahead.
Tsar of DDO
bubbatheclown
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2014 7:08:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/21/2014 6:56:26 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/21/2014 6:51:29 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
At 2/21/2014 6:46:26 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/21/2014 6:38:38 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
At 2/21/2014 6:21:13 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/21/2014 6:10:19 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
At 2/20/2014 1:44:52 PM, YYW wrote:
Poetic irony, commence:

http://www.businessinsider.com...

"Anti-gay prejudice is associated with elevated mortality risk among heterosexuals, over and above multiple established risk factors for mortality," wrote the researchers, led by Mark L. Hatzenbuehler of Columbia University."

"In fact, those who were not highly prejudiced against gay people lived an average of 2.5 years longer than those who were."

Doubtless the guy who did that "study" was paid big bucks by some gay organization.

Any more baseless allegations you'd like to toss out? The reason I ask is because the very fact that you made that comment tells me (1) you have no idea how social science research takes place, (2) you are predisposed to make baseless allegations that are only meant to undermine credibility without challenging results, and therefore (3) you're probably not especially bright or learned.

But please, do continue!

lol

Let's put it this way: homosexuality is a behavior that cannot produce offspring. The whole purpose of attraction and sexual activity is...you guessed it...the creation of offspring. So if a person is repelled by the kind of sexual activity that results in offspring and is attracted by the kind that cannot result in offspring, that behavior cannot be all-good. That's the thing about these kind of findings: it presents homosexuality in a completely positive light. That doesn't make sense! Even if there were a biological meaning behind it, there would be something that was negative about it, some kind of disadvantage. The fact that no such disadvantage is being reported by anybody shows that the research is biased.
If you want to prove me wrong, show me a relatively recent published finding by a respected scientist that portrayed homosexuality in a negative light. Otherwise, my contention stands.

You will probably bring up the fact that plenty of natural kinds of sexual activity cannot produce offspring. However, the natural thing is for somebody to get "touchy" with somebody of the opposite gender. Even if birth control methods are used, the act itself would normally impregnate a woman if no such interventionist methods were used. And they still are not repulsed by the opposite gender, so this doesn't really challenge my contention.

Now, I admit that I am a right-brained person. But right-brained does not equal stupid. Please do not get these two very different things mixed up.

Imabench needs to see this too.

Meh. I'm sure that half the stuff on the "Weekly Stupid" is simply conservative, not stupid. Imabench's bias is not very well hidden, after all.

When somebody watches porn or something, they're satisfying themselves until the day that they can engage in actual sexual activity. Therefore, it's still biologically a matter of the reproductive process.
But you still haven't answered my contention. Show me a recent published work by a respected scientist that portrays some biological aspect of homosexuality in a negative light.

It has nothing to do with being liberal or conservative, but if you want to tell yourself that you're being persecuted because you're a conservative... go ahead.

Most definitely a straw argument. I never claimed to be persecuted. I'm saying that a lot of studies have a liberal bias that makes them unscientific.
YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2014 7:11:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/21/2014 7:08:24 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
At 2/21/2014 6:56:26 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/21/2014 6:51:29 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
At 2/21/2014 6:46:26 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/21/2014 6:38:38 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
At 2/21/2014 6:21:13 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/21/2014 6:10:19 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
At 2/20/2014 1:44:52 PM, YYW wrote:
Poetic irony, commence:

http://www.businessinsider.com...

"Anti-gay prejudice is associated with elevated mortality risk among heterosexuals, over and above multiple established risk factors for mortality," wrote the researchers, led by Mark L. Hatzenbuehler of Columbia University."

"In fact, those who were not highly prejudiced against gay people lived an average of 2.5 years longer than those who were."

Doubtless the guy who did that "study" was paid big bucks by some gay organization.

Any more baseless allegations you'd like to toss out? The reason I ask is because the very fact that you made that comment tells me (1) you have no idea how social science research takes place, (2) you are predisposed to make baseless allegations that are only meant to undermine credibility without challenging results, and therefore (3) you're probably not especially bright or learned.

But please, do continue!

lol

Let's put it this way: homosexuality is a behavior that cannot produce offspring. The whole purpose of attraction and sexual activity is...you guessed it...the creation of offspring. So if a person is repelled by the kind of sexual activity that results in offspring and is attracted by the kind that cannot result in offspring, that behavior cannot be all-good. That's the thing about these kind of findings: it presents homosexuality in a completely positive light. That doesn't make sense! Even if there were a biological meaning behind it, there would be something that was negative about it, some kind of disadvantage. The fact that no such disadvantage is being reported by anybody shows that the research is biased.
If you want to prove me wrong, show me a relatively recent published finding by a respected scientist that portrayed homosexuality in a negative light. Otherwise, my contention stands.

You will probably bring up the fact that plenty of natural kinds of sexual activity cannot produce offspring. However, the natural thing is for somebody to get "touchy" with somebody of the opposite gender. Even if birth control methods are used, the act itself would normally impregnate a woman if no such interventionist methods were used. And they still are not repulsed by the opposite gender, so this doesn't really challenge my contention.

Now, I admit that I am a right-brained person. But right-brained does not equal stupid. Please do not get these two very different things mixed up.

Imabench needs to see this too.

Meh. I'm sure that half the stuff on the "Weekly Stupid" is simply conservative, not stupid. Imabench's bias is not very well hidden, after all.

When somebody watches porn or something, they're satisfying themselves until the day that they can engage in actual sexual activity. Therefore, it's still biologically a matter of the reproductive process.
But you still haven't answered my contention. Show me a recent published work by a respected scientist that portrays some biological aspect of homosexuality in a negative light.

It has nothing to do with being liberal or conservative, but if you want to tell yourself that you're being persecuted because you're a conservative... go ahead.

Most definitely a straw argument.

I didn't make an argument, I made a statement. Learn the difference, and don't use words or terms you clearly don't know the meaning of.

I never claimed to be persecuted. I'm saying that a lot of studies have a liberal bias that makes them unscientific.

This is the point where I stop giving a sh!t about what you have to post. If you actually are 28, and think that, I don't think there's much I can say to you that would be productive.
Tsar of DDO
bubbatheclown
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2014 7:18:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/21/2014 7:11:29 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/21/2014 7:08:24 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
At 2/21/2014 6:56:26 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/21/2014 6:51:29 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
At 2/21/2014 6:46:26 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/21/2014 6:38:38 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
At 2/21/2014 6:21:13 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/21/2014 6:10:19 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
At 2/20/2014 1:44:52 PM, YYW wrote:
Poetic irony, commence:

http://www.businessinsider.com...

"Anti-gay prejudice is associated with elevated mortality risk among heterosexuals, over and above multiple established risk factors for mortality," wrote the researchers, led by Mark L. Hatzenbuehler of Columbia University."

"In fact, those who were not highly prejudiced against gay people lived an average of 2.5 years longer than those who were."

Doubtless the guy who did that "study" was paid big bucks by some gay organization.

Any more baseless allegations you'd like to toss out? The reason I ask is because the very fact that you made that comment tells me (1) you have no idea how social science research takes place, (2) you are predisposed to make baseless allegations that are only meant to undermine credibility without challenging results, and therefore (3) you're probably not especially bright or learned.

But please, do continue!

lol

Let's put it this way: homosexuality is a behavior that cannot produce offspring. The whole purpose of attraction and sexual activity is...you guessed it...the creation of offspring. So if a person is repelled by the kind of sexual activity that results in offspring and is attracted by the kind that cannot result in offspring, that behavior cannot be all-good. That's the thing about these kind of findings: it presents homosexuality in a completely positive light. That doesn't make sense! Even if there were a biological meaning behind it, there would be something that was negative about it, some kind of disadvantage. The fact that no such disadvantage is being reported by anybody shows that the research is biased.
If you want to prove me wrong, show me a relatively recent published finding by a respected scientist that portrayed homosexuality in a negative light. Otherwise, my contention stands.

You will probably bring up the fact that plenty of natural kinds of sexual activity cannot produce offspring. However, the natural thing is for somebody to get "touchy" with somebody of the opposite gender. Even if birth control methods are used, the act itself would normally impregnate a woman if no such interventionist methods were used. And they still are not repulsed by the opposite gender, so this doesn't really challenge my contention.

Now, I admit that I am a right-brained person. But right-brained does not equal stupid. Please do not get these two very different things mixed up.

Imabench needs to see this too.

Meh. I'm sure that half the stuff on the "Weekly Stupid" is simply conservative, not stupid. Imabench's bias is not very well hidden, after all.

When somebody watches porn or something, they're satisfying themselves until the day that they can engage in actual sexual activity. Therefore, it's still biologically a matter of the reproductive process.
But you still haven't answered my contention. Show me a recent published work by a respected scientist that portrays some biological aspect of homosexuality in a negative light.

It has nothing to do with being liberal or conservative, but if you want to tell yourself that you're being persecuted because you're a conservative... go ahead.

Most definitely a straw argument.

I didn't make an argument, I made a statement. Learn the difference, and don't use words or terms you clearly don't know the meaning of.

I never claimed to be persecuted. I'm saying that a lot of studies have a liberal bias that makes them unscientific.

This is the point where I stop giving a sh!t about what you have to post. If you actually are 28, and think that, I don't think there's much I can say to you that would be productive.

True, I'm not actually 28. But even if I were, it wouldn't make me unintelligent for thinking this. Anyhow, you're the one who never gave a reply to what I said: if the research is unbiased, show me negative findings towards the biology of homosexuality. I admit that nothing you say can change my view on homosexuality, but if you answer my contention you could at least make me look foolish.
YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2014 7:23:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/21/2014 7:18:43 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
At 2/21/2014 7:11:29 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/21/2014 7:08:24 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
At 2/21/2014 6:56:26 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/21/2014 6:51:29 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
At 2/21/2014 6:46:26 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/21/2014 6:38:38 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
At 2/21/2014 6:21:13 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/21/2014 6:10:19 PM, bubbatheclown wrote:
At 2/20/2014 1:44:52 PM, YYW wrote:
Poetic irony, commence:

http://www.businessinsider.com...

"Anti-gay prejudice is associated with elevated mortality risk among heterosexuals, over and above multiple established risk factors for mortality," wrote the researchers, led by Mark L. Hatzenbuehler of Columbia University."

"In fact, those who were not highly prejudiced against gay people lived an average of 2.5 years longer than those who were."

Doubtless the guy who did that "study" was paid big bucks by some gay organization.

Any more baseless allegations you'd like to toss out? The reason I ask is because the very fact that you made that comment tells me (1) you have no idea how social science research takes place, (2) you are predisposed to make baseless allegations that are only meant to undermine credibility without challenging results, and therefore (3) you're probably not especially bright or learned.

But please, do continue!

lol

Let's put it this way: homosexuality is a behavior that cannot produce offspring. The whole purpose of attraction and sexual activity is...you guessed it...the creation of offspring. So if a person is repelled by the kind of sexual activity that results in offspring and is attracted by the kind that cannot result in offspring, that behavior cannot be all-good. That's the thing about these kind of findings: it presents homosexuality in a completely positive light. That doesn't make sense! Even if there were a biological meaning behind it, there would be something that was negative about it, some kind of disadvantage. The fact that no such disadvantage is being reported by anybody shows that the research is biased.
If you want to prove me wrong, show me a relatively recent published finding by a respected scientist that portrayed homosexuality in a negative light. Otherwise, my contention stands.

You will probably bring up the fact that plenty of natural kinds of sexual activity cannot produce offspring. However, the natural thing is for somebody to get "touchy" with somebody of the opposite gender. Even if birth control methods are used, the act itself would normally impregnate a woman if no such interventionist methods were used. And they still are not repulsed by the opposite gender, so this doesn't really challenge my contention.

Now, I admit that I am a right-brained person. But right-brained does not equal stupid. Please do not get these two very different things mixed up.

Imabench needs to see this too.

Meh. I'm sure that half the stuff on the "Weekly Stupid" is simply conservative, not stupid. Imabench's bias is not very well hidden, after all.

When somebody watches porn or something, they're satisfying themselves until the day that they can engage in actual sexual activity. Therefore, it's still biologically a matter of the reproductive process.
But you still haven't answered my contention. Show me a recent published work by a respected scientist that portrays some biological aspect of homosexuality in a negative light.

It has nothing to do with being liberal or conservative, but if you want to tell yourself that you're being persecuted because you're a conservative... go ahead.

Most definitely a straw argument.

I didn't make an argument, I made a statement. Learn the difference, and don't use words or terms you clearly don't know the meaning of.

I never claimed to be persecuted. I'm saying that a lot of studies have a liberal bias that makes them unscientific.

This is the point where I stop giving a sh!t about what you have to post. If you actually are 28, and think that, I don't think there's much I can say to you that would be productive.

True, I'm not actually 28. But even if I were, it wouldn't make me unintelligent for thinking this.

Some studies have a political bias. Not ones that come out of Columbia University. You failed to offer even a single reason (coherent or otherwise) in support of your claim that the study was biased -which is why I'm being so dismissive with you. As first impressions go, you've fvcked this one up.

And if you're not 28, then how the fvck old are you?
Tsar of DDO
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2014 7:25:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/21/2014 7:23:34 PM, YYW wrote:

And if you're not 28, then how the fvck old are you?

I'm guessing 14
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2014 7:27:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/21/2014 7:25:13 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/21/2014 7:23:34 PM, YYW wrote:

And if you're not 28, then how the fvck old are you?

I'm guessing 14

That would make sense... maybe 15.
Tsar of DDO