4/19/2013 3:55 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/19/2013 3:52:00 PM (view original):
Would saying "Brad Pitt is a good looking dude" make one gay?
Only if you actually have sex with him. But not if you spend every single day jerking off while fantasizing about sex with him and you become nauseous at the thought of a vagina.
4/19/2013 4:03 PM
Logic says the dictionary defines what words mean. 
Let's get this straight first: The dictionary doesn't define what words mean - it merely lists commonly accepted definitions of words based upon a set of standards ("rules" if you will) it has decided to use in determining what to list. Definitions (and even whole words) are regularly added to and removed from the dictionary depending upon common use.

However, common sense logic doesn't agree with the propaganda definition, no matter what those charged with writing a particular dictionary feel about it being common enough to include in their work.

So let's be real here: I showed how logic itself dictates that actions and not intentions are what matter. Now you want to argue that since a large group of people has bought into the propaganda (resulting it in being accepted enough to get into your dictionary), then it must be true despite the fact that logic says otherwise. You can't fight the logic so you'll appeal to the masses and say "we all agree therefore we're right". Gotcha.
If I were to say the sky was blue, would you argue it's red? Based on some BS propaganda that states that it's blue?
You've got your terrible analogy backward, and even when I fix it, then it's still not a good analogy.

If you were to tell me the sky is red based upon BS propaganda that has somehow convinced you the sky is red, I would argue the sky is blue based upon observation and logic. I would maintain the sky is blue even if the dictionary said it is red because enough people bought into the propaganda saying its red that it becomes a commonly accepted definition - because despite what the masses say, they're not right when they defy all logic, as you're attempting to do.




4/19/2013 4:08 PM
Why does action have to determine your status?

Why can't attraction determine your status?



By that logic, what does action have to do with anything?

Why should anyone have to commit a crime before we arrest them and charge them with it? Why can't we just arrest people based upon the fact that they thought about doing it?

Why do I need to go to sleep? Why can't I just desire sleep and be done with it?

Why eat either? It's a waste of time. The fact that I'd like to eat is enough that I don't actually have to take the action of eating to be nourished, right?

Also, I'd like to be a billionaire, but maybe I won't do anything to earn any money. I'm attracted to money and that should be enough, because actions don't matter.
4/19/2013 4:09 PM
I have a friend who had a drunk hook-up in college with another woman. She is now married to a man and just gave birth to her first child about a month ago.

Was she ever a lesbian? If yes, for how long? Was it just that night? Was it until he had a heterosexual encounter to counteract her lesbianism? Because she will tell you she has always been straight. I know you think she's wrong. Tell me how it really is, so I can call her out on her bullshit.
4/19/2013 4:15 PM
Posted by bistiza on 4/19/2013 4:08:00 PM (view original):
Why does action have to determine your status?

Why can't attraction determine your status?



By that logic, what does action have to do with anything?

Why should anyone have to commit a crime before we arrest them and charge them with it? Why can't we just arrest people based upon the fact that they thought about doing it?

Why do I need to go to sleep? Why can't I just desire sleep and be done with it?

Why eat either? It's a waste of time. The fact that I'd like to eat is enough that I don't actually have to take the action of eating to be nourished, right?

Also, I'd like to be a billionaire, but maybe I won't do anything to earn any money. I'm attracted to money and that should be enough, because actions don't matter.
So no one is born straight?
4/19/2013 4:20 PM
Was she ever a lesbian? If yes, for how long? Was it just that night? Was it until he had a heterosexual encounter to counteract her lesbianism?

She was homosexual from the moment that encounter occurred until another romantic and/or sexual encounter occurred that established something different. If she were to go back and forth repeatedly then obviously she would be bisexual during that period of time.
Because she will tell you she has always been straight. I know you think she's wrong. Tell me how it really is, so I can call her out on her bullshit.

She can tell you whatever she wants, but obviously she had a homosexual encounter and was therefore either homosexual or bisexual at one time (depending upon the other encounters she had then).

Really, it doesn't matter what someone tells you. Anyone can say anything they want and it's often not true. A convicted killer may scream how he didn't do it despite the police and others catching him in the act, but that doesn't mean he's going to be set free. You could tell me you're the pope but that doesn't make it true.

However, it sounds as if this friend of yours wants to live in denial about her former status. The nice thing to do is probably to let her live in her denial (ignorance is bliss and you may want her to be happy), but if you want to confront her with the truth, that's up to you.



4/19/2013 4:21 PM
So no one is born straight?

We've been over this before. No one is born as any sexual status.
4/19/2013 4:26 PM
She was a lesbian from the period of time she had the hook-up until the time she had her next heterosexual sexual encounter.  Regardless of what her sexual feelings were before that encounter.  Gotcha.

What about dates and stuff?  What if she had a date with someone of the opposite sex, but there was no contact between the two.  She's still a lesbian then?
4/19/2013 4:48 PM
Posted by bistiza on 4/19/2013 4:21:00 PM (view original):
So no one is born straight?

We've been over this before. No one is born as any sexual status.
Perfect. No one is born straight or gay and sexuality is a choice just like preferring blondes over brunettes. So there is no difference between straight and gay. Neither is better or right, just like it isn't better or right to prefer blondes.

We certainly wouldn't restrict marriage to just men marrying blondes, even if Joe Schmo was scared that allowing men who prefer brunettes to marry might cause others to possibly think that he might be married to a brunette. Because that would be stupid. Using the same logic, we shouldn't restrict men from marrying other men just because bis is afraid people will think he's gay.
4/19/2013 4:52 PM
The one thing to remember from biz's enlightenment of us intellectual inferiors today:

Dictionaries are propaganda.  Definitions of words are not to be trusted
4/19/2013 4:57 PM
Unless the definitions are from biz.  Those are right, obviously.  
4/19/2013 5:11 PM
Well, of course.  They've passed his logic filter.
4/20/2013 6:36 AM
goodness...what a tool. Pretentious and Pendantic would be my humble assessment.
4/22/2013 8:47 AM
She was a lesbian from the period of time she had the hook-up until the time she had her next heterosexual sexual encounter.  Regardless of what her sexual feelings were before that encounter.  Gotcha.
Yes, that's right. It's nice to see you're apparently following logic now.

Her "feelings" don't matter in determining her status any more than someone's "feelings" about committing a crime change their status of  being arrested or not arrested for it.
What about dates and stuff?  What if she had a date with someone of the opposite sex, but there was no contact between the two.  She's still a lesbian then?
It doesn't have to be about physical contact. Two people can show romantic interest in one another without being physical. The question then becomes was mutual romantic interest shown. If yes, then it was a romantic encounter. If not, then it wasn't a romantic encounter and was something else, such as two friends spending time together.
Perfect. No one is born straight or gay and sexuality is a choice just like preferring blondes over brunettes. So there is no difference between straight and gay. Neither is better or right, just like it isn't better or right to prefer blondes.
Exactly. There is also no need to justify being homosexual (or any status for that matter)  by running a propaganda campaign to convince everyone the choice is somehow not a choice - yet that's being done so well it has otherwise intelligent people (and a lot of fools) hoodwinked.
We certainly wouldn't restrict marriage to just men marrying blondes, even if Joe Schmo was scared that allowing men who prefer brunettes to marry might cause others to possibly think that he might be married to a brunette.
If the laws already said men can only marry blondes and someone wanted that distinction to remain by establishing a different term for marriage to a brunette, I'd have no problem with it. There should be no problem with making distinctions.
Using the same logic, we shouldn't restrict men from marrying other men just because bis is afraid people will think he's gay.
I broke the logic down already. Beyond that, it's not about being "afraid". It's about making sure things there are necessary distinctions.
Dictionaries are propaganda.  Definitions of words are not to be trusted.
The dictionary itself is not propaganda, and I never said it was. The definitions of specific words are sometimes influenced by propaganda, because the dictionary uses commonly accepted definitions, and the common acceptance can be influenced by propaganda.

Either you're stupid and can't follow that or you're deliberately trying to twist things. If it's the former I feel sad for you, if it's the latter then you're just being ignorant.
goodness...what a tool. Pretentious and Pendantic would be my humble assessment.
Why is this your "humble assessment"?

Because I actually use logic to defend an opinion you don't agree with?

Because you can't understand how a dictionary actually defines words?

Because I tell it like it is instead of trying to be politically correct?

Maybe we could have a sensible discussion if you stopped getting angry at me just for disagreeing with you and defending my opinions. Maybe instead of making judgements and hurling insults you might just respect others right to disagree with you.

4/22/2013 9:58 AM
If the laws already said men can only marry blondes and someone wanted that distinction to remain by establishing a different term for marriage to a brunette, I'd have no problem with it. There should be no problem with making distinctions.

----------------


Separate but equal? We know how the Supreme Court feels about that.
of 358

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.