Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 68 (9101 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: sensei
Post Volume: Total: 904,466 Year: 1,347/14,231 Month: 271/1,076 Week: 4/376 Day: 4/78 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   New York Gay Marriage
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 196 of 284 (627468)
08-02-2011 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by Ohruhen
08-02-2011 2:45 PM


You're still using the General Reply at the top but you're typing in second person. There's a little reply button in the bottom right corner of each individual post that will link your reply to that post and then you will be addressing someone specifically.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Ohruhen, posted 08-02-2011 2:45 PM Ohruhen has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 1985 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 197 of 284 (627469)
08-02-2011 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by bluegenes
08-02-2011 2:35 PM


Re: Closet bisexuals.
Who's getting the most attention on this thread by far, and who is behaving in a bizzare and contradictory manner that could be well explained by attention seeking?
The only other thing that I can think of that might explain your extraordinary behaviour would be the hypothesis that you're a closet bisexual in denial.
Are you?
Nah, but I will admit that I am getting the most attention. I never claimed I wasn't interested in attention. I'm not trying to present an argument about how I'm _not_ seeking attention.
I'm just responding to people who are claiming that they don't want attention by posting messages about how important it is that they don't want attention.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by bluegenes, posted 08-02-2011 2:35 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by bluegenes, posted 08-02-2011 3:11 PM Nuggin has replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 1985 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 198 of 284 (627471)
08-02-2011 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by Straggler
08-02-2011 2:33 PM


You started it!
I don't know what it is about this topic that gets you so emotional.....
But you have lost absolutely all perspective here.
Hey man, you started it! You were the one that posted the first bi comment in a jokey manner. I replied in kind.
Then my participation ended for 4 days until I was told I didn't get to have an opinion because I'm straight.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by Straggler, posted 08-02-2011 2:33 PM Straggler has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 1985 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 199 of 284 (627472)
08-02-2011 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by Dr Adequate
08-02-2011 2:33 PM


You will have to make your question more explicit.
I thought we were just playing "who gets in the last word". It seems like all your responses have been reduced to "and that one" over and over again.
I figured you had given up on communication and just wanted attention.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-02-2011 2:33 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-02-2011 3:06 PM Nuggin has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 1985 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 200 of 284 (627473)
08-02-2011 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by Ohruhen
08-02-2011 2:45 PM


If a straight person were to argue with you, would you fob them off as just another straight guy who wants attention?
If a straight guy were to spend three days posting messages about how he didn't want attention, then HELL YES I WOULD.
Someone who didn't want attention wouldn't be posting.
I still can't find where someone said that you can't have an opinion
And after I directly quoted it in my response. Funny how hard it is for you to find it.
ask yourself how can a debate honestly continue if the integrity of a debator is in question. If you can't answer that last question, I can only conclude that everything you've written since was attention seeking.
This debate NEVER had integrity.
It was 4 DAYS of gay rape jokes before one or more of the gays decided that it was important to inform the "straight boy" that his opinion didn't count.
From there it was me pointing out that the self described bi guys wanted attention and them demanding that attention be paid.
You can claim it was me running the train off the rails, but I'm the one that WALKED AWAY when it was all about rape.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Ohruhen, posted 08-02-2011 2:45 PM Ohruhen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-02-2011 3:08 PM Nuggin has replied
 Message 206 by Ohruhen, posted 08-02-2011 3:19 PM Nuggin has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 544 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 201 of 284 (627478)
08-02-2011 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by Nuggin
08-02-2011 2:57 PM


I thought we were just playing "who gets in the last word". It seems like all your responses have been reduced to "and that one" over and over again.
I figured you had given up on communication and just wanted attention.
Was any of that sincere?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Nuggin, posted 08-02-2011 2:57 PM Nuggin has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 544 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 202 of 284 (627479)
08-02-2011 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by Nuggin
08-02-2011 3:01 PM


If a straight guy were to spend three days posting messages about how he didn't want attention, then HELL YES I WOULD.
Someone who didn't want attention wouldn't be posting.
And after I directly quoted it in my response. Funny how hard it is for you to find it.
This debate NEVER had integrity.
It was 4 DAYS of gay rape jokes before one or more of the gays decided that it was important to inform the "straight boy" that his opinion didn't count.
From there it was me pointing out that the self described bi guys wanted attention and them demanding that attention be paid.
You can claim it was me running the train off the rails, but I'm the one that WALKED AWAY when it was all about rape.
How about that one?
I've asked you nicely, would you please highlight those parts of your posts that you believe to be true? Thank you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Nuggin, posted 08-02-2011 3:01 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by Nuggin, posted 08-02-2011 3:13 PM Dr Adequate has replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 1970 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(1)
Message 203 of 284 (627481)
08-02-2011 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by Nuggin
08-02-2011 2:54 PM


Re: Closet bisexuals.
Nuggin writes:
Nah...[to being a closet bisexual]
How can we take your word for it? That's the trouble. You've given us the opinion that "out" bisexuals are an attention-seeking subset of gays, which means you're really judging them as having a distorted view of what they really are.
And for all we know, the same sort of thing could apply to you. A bisexual in denial wouldn't really know what he was, and would be expected to reply "nah" to my question.
Nuggin writes:
.....but I will admit that I am getting the most attention. I never claimed I wasn't interested in attention.
Ah! A clue. Perhaps you're an attention seeking closet "gay" who would call himself a bisexual if he wasn't in double denial.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Nuggin, posted 08-02-2011 2:54 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by Nuggin, posted 08-02-2011 3:17 PM bluegenes has replied
 Message 265 by Chuck77, posted 08-03-2011 12:58 AM bluegenes has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 1985 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 204 of 284 (627482)
08-02-2011 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by Dr Adequate
08-02-2011 3:08 PM


I've asked you nicely, would you please highlight those parts of your posts that you believe to be true? Thank you.
Okay.
If a straight guy were to spend three days posting messages about how he didn't want attention, then HELL YES I WOULD.
Someone who didn't want attention wouldn't be posting.
And after I directly quoted it in my response. Funny how hard it is for you to find it.
This debate NEVER had integrity.
It was 4 DAYS of gay rape jokes before one or more of the gays decided that it was important to inform the "straight boy" that his opinion didn't count.
From there it was me pointing out that the self described bi guys wanted attention and them demanding that attention be paid.
You can claim it was me running the train off the rails, but I'm the one that WALKED AWAY when it was all about rape.
Now, could you offer evidence of the following:
a) That I WOULDN'T respond to a straight guy who was posting about how he didn't want attention.
b) That I didn't quote it in my response.
c) That I think this debate ever had integrity
d) That I didn't leave the debate and get called back in for being straight.
e) That I never pointed out that people wanted attention
f) That there were a bunch of posts about gay rape
After all, you are essentially claiming that nothing that I am posting is believable and demanding that I repeat every post multiple times.
Maybe you would BOTHER to actually provide something to the debate apart from insults. Or do I need to go complain to the overlords about your failure to adhere to "rule 10"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-02-2011 3:08 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-02-2011 3:44 PM Nuggin has replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 1985 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 205 of 284 (627483)
08-02-2011 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by bluegenes
08-02-2011 3:11 PM


Re: Closet bisexuals.
How can we take your word for it? That's the trouble.
You don't have to. I honestly don't care if you believe me or not. I'm not defensive about my lack of interest in gay sex. I'm pro-gay. I think they have the right to do what they want, even if I don't get why they would want to do it.
If I were to spend 40 posts arguing with you about how you were afraid of straights and insisting that in no way was I gay, then you would have good reason to question what I was saying.
Just like if I were to spend 40 posts arguing that I don't seek attention, you would be right to question whether or not that was true.
You've given us the opinion that "out" bisexuals are an attention-seeking subset of gays
Yes. They've admitted to being a subset of gays. And their continued insistence on getting attention has made it clear that they are attention seeking. Ergo "attention seeking subset of gays".
Ah! A clue. Perhaps you're an attention seeking closet "gay" who would call himself a bisexual if he wasn't in double denial.
Isn't "double denial" a double negative?
You don't need to be gay to be attention seeking, but you do need to be gay to be bisexual.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by bluegenes, posted 08-02-2011 3:11 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-02-2011 4:00 PM Nuggin has replied
 Message 214 by bluegenes, posted 08-02-2011 4:12 PM Nuggin has replied

Ohruhen
Junior Member (Idle past 4094 days)
Posts: 11
From: Nottinghamshire, UK
Joined: 07-30-2011


(2)
Message 206 of 284 (627484)
08-02-2011 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by Nuggin
08-02-2011 3:01 PM


If a straight guy were to spend three days posting messages about how he didn't want attention, then HELL YES I WOULD.
Someone who didn't want attention wouldn't be posting.
Ok, so going against my gut I'm going to keep at this. Why have you extended this idea from the individual to the whole group (i.e. all bi-sexuals)? Also, responding seems to me to be the best way of having what you actually intended conveyed not only to you, but to all the other people reading. Isn't that why we're posting on a public forum and not a one-on-one chat?
This debate NEVER had integrity.
It was 4 DAYS of gay rape jokes before one or more of the gays decided that it was important to inform the "straight boy" that his opinion didn't count.
From there it was me pointing out that the self described bi guys wanted attention and them demanding that attention be paid.
You can claim it was me running the train off the rails, but I'm the one that WALKED AWAY when it was all about rape.
I made no such claim, I merely want to sort this mess out so this discussion regains it's intended integrity and we can discuss the matter without this disruption.
Edited by Ohruhen, : lost most of post somehow
Edited by Ohruhen, : remaking origional post

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Nuggin, posted 08-02-2011 3:01 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by Nuggin, posted 08-02-2011 3:29 PM Ohruhen has replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 1985 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 207 of 284 (627485)
08-02-2011 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by Ohruhen
08-02-2011 3:19 PM


How else can he reliable inform you that he doesn't and have that information reliably received by others reading all of this? Seems like the most logical thing to do as silence is so rarely useful in making a point.
Let's remove the word "Attention" and substitution the word "scream".
If someone stands in the middle of the street and screams: "I DON'T SCREAM" - clearly they are contradicting themselves.
If I say, "The problem with guys in plaid shirts is that they tend to scream", I'm over generalizing.
But then, if a plaid shirt wearing guy starts screaming "I DON'T SCREAM" over and over and over again, you really don't expect me to say "Wow, you're right. You don't scream."
No, the proper thing to do is just _not scream_. Pretty simple. Apparently too hard to do.
This thread boils down to three things in my opinion:
#1) Who is gay?
- My point is and has been that "gay" is an umbrella term which included "bi", "lesbian", etc. The BIs on the thread have admitted that they are covered under "gay marriage" and "gay rights". So, they admit that "gay" applies to them.
Yet, in response to me, they object to being referred to as "gay".
So, it's a "nigger" situation. They get to call one another gay but no one else gets to.
#2) Who gets to have an opinion?
- Apparently "straight boys" don't get to have an opinion on gay rights. I object to this, and apparently I'm the only one who thinks so because everyone else seems to be in agreement that only the gays get to have an opinion on the gays and the rest of us are "homophobes" or "biphobes" or "lesbophobes" etc.
#3) Who wants attention?
- I pointed out that the other posters wanted attention. They wanted to talk about what they do sexually and did. They wanted to tell me that I didn't have a right to an opinion. And did. They wanted to go on endlessly about how they didn't want attention. And did.
All of that is just attention seeking.
The rest has just been them insulting me and me insulting them back.
Oh, and lately, people complaining that I won't just sit back and let them insult me without responding in kind.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Ohruhen, posted 08-02-2011 3:19 PM Ohruhen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by Ohruhen, posted 08-02-2011 3:46 PM Nuggin has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 544 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 208 of 284 (627487)
08-02-2011 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by Nuggin
08-02-2011 3:13 PM


Okay.
None of that was highlighted.
Was the omission intentional, or do you just not know how to do it?
Now, could you offer evidence of the following:
No: the bits where I'm required to know what you're thinking defeated me. After all, we know that we don't know that even after you've ostensibly told us.
As to the remaining factual inaccuracies and false implications of your post, I can see that they are there, but what I can't know is if you know that they're false, which is what I'm trying to find out.
After all, you are essentially claiming that nothing that I am posting is believable ...
Well the trouble is that you "essentially" claimed that when you claimed to be trolling. This has left you with what is called a "credibility gap". Even if you made some unassailably factual statement such as that today is Tuesday, there would still remain the suspicion that you had done so under the impression that it was Monday.
... and demanding that I repeat every post multiple times.
As for repeating your posts, you could always say which bits are sincere when you originally post them. Of course, people might not believe you, so you're in a bit of a quandary. Maybe you shouldn't have started trolling in the first place.
Maybe you would BOTHER to actually provide something to the debate apart from insults.
Lately my contribution has been to ask you to distinguish between cases where you are, or are not, being sincere, and I have been perfectly courteous in doing so.
Unless and until you do that, it is not clear in what sense there can be a debate. People don't usually bring along their own straw men, and it is hard to know how to respond to someone who may be just pretending to be wrong rather than actually being wrong. They look exactly the same from where I'm sitting.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Nuggin, posted 08-02-2011 3:13 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by Nuggin, posted 08-02-2011 4:04 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Ohruhen
Junior Member (Idle past 4094 days)
Posts: 11
From: Nottinghamshire, UK
Joined: 07-30-2011


Message 209 of 284 (627488)
08-02-2011 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by Nuggin
08-02-2011 3:29 PM


Let's remove the word "Attention" and substitution the word "scream".
If someone stands in the middle of the street and screams: "I DON'T SCREAM" - clearly they are contradicting themselves.
If I say, "The problem with guys in plaid shirts is that they tend to scream", I'm over generalizing.
But then, if a plaid shirt wearing guy starts screaming "I DON'T SCREAM" over and over and over again, you really don't expect me to say "Wow, you're right. You don't scream."
You would be wrong to say it about ALL plaid shirt wearing guys.
[gs]This thread boils down to three things in my opinion:
#1) Who is gay?
- My point is and has been that "gay" is an umbrella term which included "bi", "lesbian", etc. The BIs on the thread have admitted that they are covered under "gay marriage" and "gay rights". So, they admit that "gay" applies to them.\[/qs\]
Others seem to have brought up honest attempts to explain how they see being gay and gay marrage as different things with different implications on people who may or may not fall under one or both of those terms. I tend to agree, gay marrage is a union between two men, so the nomer gay marrage works in regards to the act of the marrage itself. However, I don't see why ONLY gays, as defined by the concensus as those who are only interested in members of the same gender as they, are the only ones who would want a "gay marrage". It doesn't seem to be about attention seeking about attention seeking, but about making sure correct terminology is used.
Yet, in response to me, they object to being referred to as "gay".
So, it's a "nigger" situation. They get to call one another gay but no one else gets to.
Drastic oversimplification. The term Nigger is deemed offencive to some due the historical connertations it brings up for them (so some have told me, I see no rason not to believe them). I don't know why some have a problem with you're use of the term gay other than being deemed wrong by concensus, but that's for them to deside.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Nuggin, posted 08-02-2011 3:29 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by Nuggin, posted 08-02-2011 4:10 PM Ohruhen has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 544 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 210 of 284 (627490)
08-02-2011 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by Nuggin
08-02-2011 3:17 PM


Re: Closet bisexuals.
I honestly don't care if you believe me or not.
Do you honestly honestly not care?
Ah well, since you're repeating the same sort of nonsense you came out with during the period when by your own admission you were trolling, the most likely explanation is that you still are.
If you come up with something new, that might be an indication that you've stopped, or merely a sign that you've become bored of your own capacity to generate tedium.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by Nuggin, posted 08-02-2011 3:17 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by Nuggin, posted 08-02-2011 4:11 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2022 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2023