Originally posted by no1marauder Yeah, she even "pretended" to give birth to two daughters.
Do people who spout such nonsense even realize how stupid it makes them look?
It's a kind of coping mechanism for Putin's boys. People don't like the fact that they voted against an upstanding Christian family man and voted in a draft-dodging rapist con-man, so they have to invent Obama-related scandals to create a sense of equivalency.
Originally posted by KazetNagorra It's a kind of coping mechanism for Putin's boys. People don't like the fact that they voted against an upstanding Christian family man and voted in a draft-dodging rapist con-man, so they have to invent Obama-related scandals to create a sense of equivalency.
One person was killed for mentioning the fact in public.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie This is simply a rather predictable appeal to personal consideration rather than attacking the substance of the post. How banal. I have appealed to and asked for a reason, if you don't have one just say so but simply telling others that they are homophobiac or transphobiac or attempting to malign them with any other debilitating mental ailment simp ...[text shortened]... lid reason just say so or at very least put a little more effort into attempting to provide one.
Actually it goes right to the heart of the matter. You have often exhibited a range of irrational negative attitudes and feelings toward people who are identified or perceived as being homosexual. That you exhibit the same toward transgender people is part and parcel of your irrationality toward those who don't conform to your gender expectations. It is what it is.
There are also those who similarly exhibit a range of irrational negative attitudes and feelings toward people of other races. From what I gather, as a JW the expectation would be that you not be racist. Are you similarly "bothered...by a lack of reason as to why people should be more accepting of people of other races"? Or is the reason that they are human beings just as you are, good enough for you? For racists, evidently it's not good enough. Of course, if you're also racist, this won't mean anything to you.
Originally posted by Eladar One person was killed for mentioning the fact in public.
The full extent of what was given away is coming to light. Apparently, more than one life was lost because of what was given away, and from what I hear, close to a million pages of confidential information.
I guess Obama looks on what was done as "good" and will encourage more of it.
Originally posted by no1marauder Russian intelligence agents aren't "whistle blowers" unless what they are revealing pertains to the activities of Russian government agencies.
Sure they are. They may have an agenda aside from just telling the public the truth but they are still whistle blowers.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne Actually it goes right to the heart of the matter. You have often exhibited a range of irrational negative attitudes and feelings toward people who are identified or perceived as being homosexual. That you exhibit the same toward transgender people is part and parcel of your irrationality toward those who don't conform to your gender expectations. It is ...[text shortened]... idently it's not good enough. Of course, if you're also racist, this won't mean anything to you.
Actually I have provided rational reasons why I am against the practice of homosexuality. These range from having the highest ever recorded figures for HIV among homosexual males in the UK indicating to me that the practice is essentially destructive to an examination of the physiology of the human body leading me to the conclusion that its unnatural. These are valid and rational reasons. There is nothing irrational about them. Furthermore I asked a rather simple question. Why should we be more accepting of transgenders and was treated with flimsy and nonsensical reasons. Your attempt was possibly the most predictable.
Being Human is not a valid reason in itself. There are numerous acts perpetrated by human beings which are objectionable and on the basis of your 'logic' we should be willing to accept these acts merely on the basis that they were perpetrated by humans. What a pile of old crock. Furthermore I do not object to homosexuals as human beings, I object to the things that they practice.
Seeing that you are having difficulty making a distinction and perpetuating the myth that sexuality and race are synonymous let me spell it out for you so there can be NO doubt. Racial characteristics are immutable. They cannot be changed. What this means is that its illogical and irrational to form any prejudice against someone because of racial characteristics. This is not the same as sexual practice, is it, because people can and do change their sexual practices and your false comparison falls apart.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie Actually I have provided rational reasons why I am against the practice of homosexuality. These range from having the highest ever recorded figures for HIV among homosexual males in the UK indicating to me that the practice is essentially destructive to an examination of the physiology of the human body leading me to the conclusion that its unnatura ...[text shortened]... , because people can and do change their sexual practices and your false comparison falls apart.
You appear to be conflating homosexuality with anal intercourse. The two are not synonymous.
Originally posted by Proper Knob You appear to be conflating homosexuality with anal intercourse. The two are not synonymous.
I have not said that they are synonymous but I object to the practice in both homosexuals and heterosexuals for the same reason. As you are aware my main reason for opposition is religious, homosexuality is anti Biblical, citing things like the physiology of the human body is merely an attempt at corroboration. Either way my reasons are rational.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie I have not said that they are synonymous but I object to the practice in both homosexuals and heterosexuals for the same reason. As you are aware my main reason for opposition is religious, homosexuality is anti Biblical, citing things like the physiology of the human body is merely an attempt at corroboration. Either way my reasons are rational.
Except that you seem to link disease transmission risk with unnaturalness and implicitly unnaturalness with wrongness, which comes under the heading of the naturalistic fallacy: that natural is necessarily good and unnatural necessarily bad. So your argument seems not to be as rational as you claim.
Just a point, use of condoms significantly cuts disease transmission risks and I can't think of many things more unnatural than a condom. So I'm skeptical about both the first and second links in that part of your argument.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie Actually I have provided rational reasons why I am against the practice of homosexuality. These range from having the highest ever recorded figures for HIV among homosexual males in the UK indicating to me that the practice is essentially destructive to an examination of the physiology of the human body leading me to the conclusion that its unnatura ...[text shortened]... , because people can and do change their sexual practices and your false comparison falls apart.
Actually I have provided rational reasons why I am against the practice of homosexuality. These range from having the highest ever recorded figures for HIV among homosexual males in the UK indicating to me that the practice is essentially destructive to an examination of the physiology of the human body leading me to the conclusion that its unnatural. These are valid and rational reasons. There is nothing irrational about them.
That you believe these are "rational reasons [to be] against the practice of homosexuality" on the whole serves as evidence of your irrationality.
You certainly can't reasonably be against the practice of homosexuality amongst women for these "reasons".
You certainly can't reasonably be against the practice of homosexuality amongst men who do not have HIV for these "reasons".
Are you similarly against the practice of heterosexuality on the whole because of the incidence of STD's?
Being Human is not a valid reason in itself. There are numerous acts perpetrated by human beings which are objectionable and on the basis of your 'logic' we should be willing to accept these acts merely on the basis that they were perpetrated by humans. What a pile of old crock.
Then provide rational reasons as to why people should NOT "be more accepting of transgenders" and homosexuals.
Originally posted by DeepThought Except that you seem to link disease transmission risk with unnaturalness and implicitly unnaturalness with wrongness, which comes under the heading of the naturalistic fallacy: that natural is necessarily good and unnatural necessarily bad. So your argument seems not to be as rational as you claim.
Just a point, use of condoms significantly cuts dis ...[text shortened]... a condom. So I'm skeptical about both the first and second links in that part of your argument.
Except that you seem to link disease transmission risk with unnaturalness and implicitly unnaturalness with wrongness. - Deepthought
No I don't, you simply made that up. I have linked the physiology of the human body with unnaturalness the anus not being a fit orifice for sexual intercourse by virtue of it being a one way system and sexually transmitted diseases with destructive behaviour as evidenced by the highest ever recorded figures for HIV among homosexual males in the UK.
Please refrain from attempting to misrepresent what I have stated, the text is clear and unambiguous and your accusation of being irrational false.
The use of condoms does not negate any of these aspects except perhaps to mitigate the risk of disease, it does not affect the physiology of the human body nor its anti Biblical nature.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne [b]Actually I have provided rational reasons why I am against the practice of homosexuality. These range from having the highest ever recorded figures for HIV among homosexual males in the UK indicating to me that the practice is essentially destructive to an examination of the physiology of the human body leading me to the conclusion that its unnatural. ...[text shortened]... ational reasons as to why people should NOT "be more accepting of transgenders" and homosexuals.
Homosexuality in women does not negate the rationality of what I have said. I object to their practice on the basis that its anti biblical, this does not negate anything that I have previously stated and your objection is therefore moot. Homosexual men who do not have HIV again does not negate the argument for those that do and its ludicrous to think that it does, their actions stand condemned on the basis of human physiology and by virtue of being anti Biblical.
I have provided rational reasons. That you do not accept the reasons does not make them irrational or illogical.
19 Jan '17 09:46
Chelsea Manning's sentence commuted
Back to Top