5/16/2013 9:37 AM
OK trolltiza.  You go ahead and do that.
5/16/2013 9:43 AM
How about you go ahead and do THIS:

I'll challenge you to do it again right now, and anyone else if they wish: Give me one shred of REAL evidence - just one - that sexuality is somehow not based upon your choices, which is the way we define virtually everything else about people.

Anyone can try this, including you. But you won't, and neither will they, because it doesn't ****ing exist.
5/16/2013 9:48 AM

How about you go ahead and do THIS:

I'm going to go back and link to what I'm referring to and shove it right in your face because you're trying to deny it exists when you **** well know better.

I'm joking, of course.  I know you're not going to do that, because it doesn't exist.

Prove me wrong, troll.

5/16/2013 9:49 AM
Holy **** balls he's asking for evidence.

I
Row
Knee
5/16/2013 9:58 AM
This is why we make fun of him.
5/16/2013 10:14 AM
Fine.

On Page 90, BL agrees "you are whatever the hell you say you are, no matter what you do", and I counter by pointing out how illogical that is by declaring I'm a billionaire and waiting for money to fall on my head. This uses logical reasoning to show that you can't simply claim to be something - including a sexual status - and have it be true because you say so.

On Page 94, burnsy insists attraction dictates sexuality, and I explain how virtually every term we assign to people does NOT function in this manner. I even give several examples, including words such as criminal and billionaire, and state that a criminal is not innocent if they say so and I'm not a billionaire because I say so.

On Page 95, burnsy tries to sidetrack the debate into an argument over how the dictionary defines the word "homosexual", leading me to explain to him (eventually on multiple occasions) how a dictionary works and why that doesn't necessary mean a word is "correct" for the circumstance. I also explain how this means arguing from the dictionary only shows a word is commonly accepted and doesn't otherwise support an argument.

On Page 96, I ask for reasons as to WHY sexuality should be defined by attraction rather than action, and neither burnsy nor anyone else offers a single one. burnsy continues to argue over dictionary definitions instead. No one has EVER offered any REAL reason why sexuality should be defined by attraction rather than action, even to this point RIGHT NOW, which is why I'm challenging you or anyone to attempt to do it.

On Page 100, dahs rejoins the debate after a significant absence (but he later insists he was there all along) and tries to argue that some sexual attractions are physiological (based on biology) while others are psychological (based on the mind), and he tells what he thinks of several types of sexual attraction but offers no evidence to support any of his statements. I quickly point out how it is illogical to say some attractions are biology and some are in the mind based on whatever you say.

On Page 102 I address people who insist I'm a troll (as you do now) and explain how that is NOT true, even providing a link to a definition of a troll and showing how I don't fit with it. We've moved way past that point in this or any discussion, yet you're still harping about me supposedly being a troll 63 pages later because you have no real argument of your own and so you feel a need to attack me instead.

On Page 104, I offer a very specific argument as to why we define people by actions rather than choices and give MANY examples, including a lawyer, a pilot, an athlete, a criminal, and a homosexual, and explain how several of you want to define homosexual differently than you'd define virtually any other term we give to people. TO THIS POINT RIGHT NOW no one has offered a real reason as to why homosexual or any other sexual status should be defined against this logic.

Tec, you yourself - in the post immediately following mine - ignored it altogether and instead questioned me on how I made my own decisions regarding sexuality. Neither you nor anyone else has responded.

So I'm giving you the chance.

Once again:

Give me one shred of REAL evidence - just one - that sexuality is somehow not based upon your choices, which is the way we define virtually everything else about people.

Anyone can try this, including you. But you won't, and neither will they, because it doesn't ****ing exist.
5/16/2013 10:24 AM
Because the definition of homosexual is attraction to the same sex. That's what the word means, no matter what you say.
5/16/2013 10:29 AM
That's not a real reason. That's you saying so, and I say otherwise, so we're still at a stalemate - except I offered a logical reason for my definition, while you only have "because I say so" and "because other people agree" to help you, which is no help at all.

Try again. With a REAL reason this time.

5/16/2013 10:34 AM (edited)
Here you go:

http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/just-the-facts.pdf

Please refer to page 3.  I'll even quote the relevant part for you:

"Sexual orientation is not synonymous with sexual activity. Many adolescents as well as adults may identify themselves as lesbian, gay, or bisexual without having had any sexual experience with persons of the same sex.  Other young people have had sexual experiences with a person of the same sex but do not consider themselves lesbian, gay, or bisexual.  This is particularly relevant during adolescence because experimentation and discovery are normal and common during this developmental period."

This report was written by the American Psychological Association, and is endorsed by the following groups:

American Academy of Pediatrics
American Association of School Administrators
American Counseling Association
American Federation of Teachers
American Psychological Association
American School Counselor Association
American School Health Association
Interfaith Alliance Foundation
National Association of School Psychologists
National Association of Secondary School Principals
National Association of SocialWorkers
National Education Association
School SocialWork Association of America

I look forward to your inevitible claim that you are still right, and the APA and all these other groups have somehow got it all wrong.

5/16/2013 10:36 AM
This is the problem. You don't want to provide a reason - just more of the same "I'm right because people agree with me" which proves NOTHING.

We've already agreed your position is the majority position, and that isn't what's being debated here.

I don't want you showing me how others agree with you.

I want a real REASON for why sexuality should be defined differently than the way we define virtually any other word.


What you've given here ISN'T A REASON - it's just showing a group agrees with you.

Great, people agree with you. You've proven nothing and provided no reason, which is what I asked you for.



5/16/2013 10:37 AM
tec the research monkey.   For trolltiza.

That's pretty sad.
5/16/2013 10:38 AM
What's sad is that he did all of this and still couldn't show reason other than "I'm right because these people agree with me".

I don't care who or how many people agree with you. That doesn't show you're right.

Provide a real reason that can be defended logically, not with BS arguments like "because I say so" and "because people agree with me".

5/16/2013 10:42 AM
Posted by bistiza on 5/16/2013 10:36:00 AM (view original):
This is the problem. You don't want to provide a reason - just more of the same "I'm right because people agree with me" which proves NOTHING.

We've already agreed your position is the majority position, and that isn't what's being debated here.

I don't want you showing me how others agree with you.

I want a real REASON for why sexuality should be defined differently than the way we define virtually any other word.


What you've given here ISN'T A REASON - it's just showing a group agrees with you.

Great, people agree with you. You've proven nothing and provided no reason, which is what I asked you for.



So they are all wrong?
5/16/2013 10:43 AM
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/16/2013 10:37:00 AM (view original):
tec the research monkey.   For trolltiza.

That's pretty sad.
Took me two minutes, while I was waiting for a conference call to get started.
5/16/2013 10:50 AM
Making excuses for being trolltiza's research monkey.

Equally sad. 
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.