An Argument For Being Born Gay

But you did the exact same thing to Phat in Message 42:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Quick, where is my copy of the script? Im not sure how to tell Rrhain....

​

or exactly what to tell him either?

---

​

You can tell me, "Yeah, I fell for the stupidity of trying to insult somebody by insinuating he's gay. I'm sorry. I'll try to grow up."

​

I mean really...how many years have y'all been sniggering? Is there a reason why you can't seem to stop speculating about where it is I put my penis? If you want to ask me out, then just do it. Stop trying to rile me up. There's a fine line between "pushy bottom" and "dickwad." If you're trying to get me to treat you like the sub you really wish to be, I can understand why you'd want to try and piss me off so I'll be that much more into putting you in your place. But in the end, I will not be giving it to you in the end. Your pathetic attempts to anger me only make me pity you.

​

And I don't do pity fucks, no matter what sex the person I fuck is.

---

You're insulting him by insinuating that he's gay, as if there's something wrong if he was, or that its something he should be ashamed of.Hypocrite much?And this whole shtick of yours that people posting that they think your gay means that they want to have sex with you just doesn't follow in the slightest. Nobody is falling for it and it makes you look stupid. Uh, no. There's your behavior, and attitude, and just your demeanor in general... but most effectively, there's this:

But we can and do discuss how faggy you act without thinking about your dick. I've actually never thought about your dick. Its more about how whiny and bitchy you'd be in person, like: there's now way he'd act like this in public. You're just another member of the community, and we talk about people sometimes. Your outstanding quality just turns out to be how faggy you act. Its not about the positions you defend, but *how* you defend positions in general.

He spins your position into a more ridiculous one (that's easier to defeat), refuses to accept that he's misunderstood you (because he knows what you meant better that you yourself know what you meant), and demands that you stick to the strawman he's created (including endless repetition). He relies on using the person instead of arguing the position. "An annoying meddler".

Yeah, I get that. The problem is when reducing the argument into absurdity takes priority over actually understanding what the person is saying. I stole it from Mod:

quote:

---

You even took 'stop being a fag about it' not to mean 'stop being an annoying meddler' but to mean 'stop doing things that gay people do about the affair' and ranted about onifre's metaphorical attempt to anally rape you before impugning him for homophobia.

---

Message 200

Absolutely we can. I guess this is your hang-up: you can't accept that people can talk about something being gay without talking about sexual acts.If a dude skips into the room in a tutu with limp wrists and proclaims with a lisp how much he loves Lady Gaga, then somebody could say 'that's gay' or 'what a fag' without considering sex at all. The guy might even be heterosexual and that still wouldn't matter.So you see, this is a chance for you to learn something about the people you oppose, and to ge a chance to realize how they think and what's really going on, but instead you'd rather poison the well and insist that its all about sex. And you're not going to be able to let that go. But really, its not. They're more to considering something gay than the specifics of sexuality.And there could actually be a somewhat interesting topic here, with the whole outrage against the phrase "That's gay", and the way that the people who use it think they're being misunderstood. Your position's already a non-sequitor (that mentioning that something is gay necessitates thinking about sex), so there's no need for me to prove it wrong and, besides, that's not the only way I could prove you wrong. The fact that something can be considered gay or faggy without having anything to do with sex or sexuality proves you wrong. So even when I don't mention sexuality, you're gonna bring it back to sexuality again yourself. Now you've got circular reasoning too. Has it ever occured to you that you could be the one who alwayws brings up sex? I already did in Message 62, so there, you've been proven wrong. And now your behaving exactly how I described.

---

ABE: Are you talking about the Gender and Humor thread? Cause I just reread my posts there and its not like your describing. In fact, my first reply to you in that thread didn't mention anything about sexuality at all, so what you claim I cannot do I alread did.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

For what its worth:When I read that post of yours I though: "yeah, that does explain a lot about how young gay people could know they're gay without knowing about sex."I actually thought that Rrhain had made a good post that was informative. It wasn't until he brought it up as some sort of gay-bashing that I saw how it could have been read as:"Oh, that explains a lot (because you're gay)".So don't feel bad... from the sideline it didn't seem wrong.