|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: An Argument For Being Born Gay | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
See, there you go again, trying to piss me off so that I will rise in anger against you, as if being a bottom were a bad thing, somehow less of a man. But you did the exact same thing to Phat in Message 42:
quote:quote: 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.
And the only reason anybody has ever had to "suspect" me is because I adamantly defend the pro-gay position. Uh, no. There's your behavior, and attitude, and just your demeanor in general... but most effectively, there's this:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
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.
So out with it: If it isn't because you want me to fuck the living shit out of you, why do you keep bringing it up? 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.
quote:quote: Isn't that what I just said? Clearly to your mind, only a gay person would defend the pro-gay position as strongly as I do. Which only proves my point. Its not about the positions you defend, but *how* you defend positions in general.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
It seems to me that he defends positions by asking hard questions of people and then doggedly insisting that they answer those questions rather than letting them change the subject or ignore the points he's raised. 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.
That doesn't seem particularly "faggy" to me. Of course, since you seem to be using the term "faggy" in a way that has nothing to do with sexuality, cigarettes or starting a fire, I guess I haven't a clue what you mean. "An annoying meddler".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Perhaps sometimes. Sometimes that simply called making a reductio ad absurdum argument. Sometimes that's simply showing the ridiculousness that isn't always readily apparent in a position at first blush. Yeah, I get that. The problem is when reducing the argument into absurdity takes priority over actually understanding what the person is saying.
"An annoying meddler". Hmmmm, never heard that use of "faggy" before. You know, it sounds to me like you just threw out the first pejorative you could think of, one that was on your mind because of the thread topic, and didn't bother to think of some other term that might accurately convey the message you were trying to get across. I stole it from Mod:
quote: Message 200
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
quote:No, you can't. 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.
And I don't mean that as a response to the pathetic claim that "fag" doesn't mean, you know, "fag," but rather to the fact that every single time you decide to go there, it's to specifically talk about my sexuality. 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.
Prove me wrong. Let's see if you can go a year without making any comments about my sexuality. 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.
quote: Like a "fag," right? And we're back to the comments about my sexuality again. 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 seriously doubt you can do it. You honestly can't relate to me except through your vision of my sexuality. Every time you respond, you immediately go to thoughts of my dick. You certainly can't explain your reaction without that crutch or you would have done so by now. I already did in Message 62, so there, you've been proven wrong. And now your behaving exactly how I described. ABE:
You really don't remember, do you? Onifre called me a douche, you egged him on, and suddenly the two of you are wallowing in my sexuality. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
When I said "This explains a lot" I was referring to my own sexual feelings...not yours. 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024