Gay Mass Murder Trend

[PlastikBuddha]

Either way the person is a queer.

And, genius, a homosexual act is a homosexual act whether the person committing the act is strictly homosexual or not. Stripe said nothing of the person who committed the act. He only mentioned the act.

Since this entire conversation centers around who is and isn't a homosexual, dimbulb, there is a definite difference between the act and the orientation.

 

[Lighthouse]

Since this entire conversation centers around who is and isn't a homosexual, dimbulb, there is a definite difference between the act and the orientation.

How is that not what I said? Stripe said the act was a homosexual act. He said nothing of the orientation of the person committing the act. Rusha made an asinine comment, because she, apparently, believes the act and the orientation are the same thing.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

How is that not what I said? Stripe said the act was a homosexual act. He said nothing of the orientation of the person committing the act.

Because of the context in which this discussion is taking place. If we are concerned only with individual homosexual acts the statement "gays are more likely to be mass murderers than straights" is meaningless because "gays" refers to orientation, not individual acts of sodomy or tribidism. To say, as Stripe has suggested, that all homosexuals fit the profile for being serial killers when in fact the serial killers in question are not homosexuals is just plain misinformation.

Rusha made an asinine comment, because she, apparently, believes the act and the orientation are the same thing.

I don't think she does believe that- in fact that is why she and Stripe are arguing. Stripe does believe that there is no significant difference between the two, in terms of profiling anyways. Of course, since you can't profile an act it's a bit absurd. If you could, it would be better to profile those people who kill other people than to worry about who they just did the nasty with...
:think:

 

[Rusha]

I don't think she does believe that- in fact that is why she and Stripe are arguing. Stripe does believe that there is no significant difference between the two, in terms of profiling anyways. Of course, since you can't profile an act it's a bit absurd. If you could, it would be better to profile those people who kill other people than to worry about who they just did the nasty with...
:think:

:thumb:

That's exactly right. Those who prey on others normally go for the easiest targets. A stepfather who has NEVER had a sexual interaction with a man before might prey on his stepson rather than his stepdaugher because the son is quieter and easier to intimidate and manipulate.

 

[Stripe]

I have defined out of existence a lot of post hoc ergo propter hoc baloney that serves no purpose but to villify a portion of the population that you don't like.

No one doesn't. Because these serial killers do NOT match the profiles of other homosexuals. They don't identify themselves as homosexuals or live openly homosexual lives so the correspondence with what most people consider homosexuality comes down to a few sexual encounters- something that can't be profiled in the first place!

I beg your pardon? I think determining who is and who is not is extremely pertinent to a conversation on whether or not homosexuals are more likely to be murderers. In fact, I'd say that aside from who is and who is not a murderer, it is the single most pertinent detail. :mrt::duh: If you don't have a definition of "homosexual" that jibes with what is commonly accepted, and if you don't stick with that definition throughout the argument than you are doing nothing but spreading nonsense.

Nope. Since your definition of "homosexual" is inaccurate to the point of being useless for identifying people. Nobody knew most of these serial killers had ever had ANY homosexual contact, remember?

None at all.

Because having homosexual encounters doesn't make a person a homosexual anymore than having heterosexual encounters makes a person a heterosexual.

They do not and I have already explained why.

How so? If the people have had homosexual encounters but these encounters are not visible then how is profiling ALL homosexuals of any use whatsoever?

Um, increasing the number of homosexuals by changing the definition to include a larger number does not mean an actual increase in the population, only the recognized number. :mrt::duh:

Not when misused so transparently...

In the minds of everyone without an agenda of hate.

Facts. I know they aren't your friends, but they help the rest of us make informed decisions.

Well .. you do have a lot of words with which to support your position. But the simple fact is that homosexuality is defined by an act every single time. It is only in your mind that some distinction needs to be made.

 

[Stripe]

:thumb:

That's exactly right. Those who prey on others normally go for the easiest targets. A stepfather who has NEVER had a sexual interaction with a man before might prey on his stepson rather than his stepdaugher because the son is quieter and easier to intimidate and manipulate.

So homosexuality is the result of cowardice?

I agree.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

Well .. you do have a lot of words with which to support your position. But the simple fact is that homosexuality is defined by an act every single time.

That is neither simple nor factual. "Homosexual" is a sexual orientation. If it were defined simply by an act, the title of this thread "Gay mass murder trend" would be meaningless.

It is only in your mind that some distinction needs to be made.

It is in only in your mind that the distinction isn't obvious.

 

[Rusha]

So homosexuality is the result of cowardice?

Nope .. preying on children and weaker individuals is a sign of cowardice.

 

[Rusha]

But the simple fact is that homosexuality is defined by an act every single time.

Oh I see ... so what you are saying is that one sex with someone else of the sameo gender brands a person a homo for the rest of their life?

Glad to see that you agree that sexuality is natural and cannot be changed! :thumb:

 

[Stripe]

That is neither simple nor factual. "Homosexual" is a sexual orientation. If it were defined simply by an act, the title of this thread "Gay mass murder trend" would be meaningless.

No. If you were able to comprehend the message of the thread you would see that the act is the standard for the term in all cases. The distinction you make is only in your mind. It does not exist within this study.

It is in only in your mind that the distinction isn't obvious.

I still do not understand why you need a distinction. You freely admit that "gay people" are capable of being serial killers. Why are you so anti the idea that there might be a positive correlation between homosexual acts and homocide?

Nope .. preying on children and weaker individuals is a sign of cowardice.

Uh .. it was you who defined the homosexual act and its origin.

Oh I see ... so what you are saying is that one sex with someone else of the sameo gender brands a person a homo for the rest of their life?

Not necessarily. People are capable of changing and people are capable of trusting that change.

Lord be praised.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

No. If you were able to comprehend the message of the thread you would see that the act is the standard for the term in all cases. The distinction you make is only in your mind. It does not exist within this study.

Yet the distinction exists in real life and in the minds of just about everyone in America- if you make a "study" based on faulty ideas then the results are just as faulty.

I still do not understand why you need a distinction. You freely admit that "gay people" are capable of being serial killers. Why are you so anti the idea that there might be a positive correlation between homosexual acts and homocide?

Because the data doesn't support that. You are reaching beyond what the facts and the definition of "homosexual" allow.

 

[Rusha]

Uh .. it was you who defined the homosexual act and its origin.

NO, I did not. That is what YOU decided to twist twist twist my words into meaning.

I clearly stated that someone who has had NO homosexual experiences that suddenly decides to molest a child of the same gender as themselves is quite possibly doing so because they are an easier target.

Not necessarily. People are capable of changing and people are capable of trusting that change.

Lord be praised.

It depends on the change. Changing who you are biologically or mentally is not possible. Drug addicts and alcoholics are capable of discontinuing to use their particular addiction, however, they are STILL always druggies and alcoholics at heart.

A homosexual (or heterosexual) could decide to deny who they are and have sex with the opposite (or same gender) BUT in their heart they would always be what they started out as.

I don't have a problem with convicting and lawfully executing any homo or hetero who actually commits a CRIMINAL act ... but I am not going to silently accept you pretending that they are ALL guilty of these actions and that is exactly what you are trying to insinuate.

 

[Stripe]

Yet the distinction exists in real life and in the minds of just about everyone in America- if you make a "study" based on faulty ideas then the results are just as faulty.

No. You're just too caught up in the delusion that you are right. If the terms are defined then the results stand.

Because the data doesn't support that. You are reaching beyond what the facts and the definition of "homosexual" allow.

Only in your mind.

NO, I did not. That is what YOU decided to twist twist twist my words into meaning.

You say it against just below!

I clearly stated that someone who has had NO homosexual experiences that suddenly decides to molest a child of the same gender as themselves is quite possibly doing so because they are an easier target.

A man might commit a homosexual act out of cowardice.

It depends on the change. Changing who you are biologically or mentally is not possible. Drug addicts and alcoholics are capable of discontinuing to use their particular addiction, however, they are STILL always druggies and alcoholics at heart.

:idunno: I guess it's sensible to consider a person's history when considering their likely reaction to different situations. But who are you to judge the heart?

A homosexual (or heterosexual) could decide to deny who they are and have sex with the opposite (or same gender) BUT in their heart they would always be what they started out as.

Uh .. but before you said one act would make them bi-sexual. :dizzy:

I don't have a problem with convicting and lawfully executing any homo or hetero who actually commits a CRIMINAL act ... but I am not going to silently accept you pretending that they are ALL guilty of these actions and that is exactly what you are trying to insinuate.

Naw, it's not. You're just making things up again

 

[Rusha]

You say it against just below!

A man might commit a homosexual act out of cowardice.

ANYONE (man or woman) who preys on a child is a COWARD ... unless you are stating that a man/woman who preys on a child of the opposite sex is brave ... is that what you meant?

:dizzy:

:idunno: I guess it's sensible to consider a person's history when considering their likely reaction to different situations. But who are you to judge the heart?

I am every bit as capable of judging someone's heart as YOU are ... however, I am not judging their heart ... I am judging their actions.

Uh .. but before you said one act would make them bi-sexual. :dizzy:

Yes, with another consenting adult ... not with a CHILD.

Naw, it's not. You're just making things up again

Once again you are projecting ...

:loser:

 

[Stripe]

ANYONE (man or woman) who preys on a child is a COWARD ... unless you are stating that a man/woman who preys on a child of the opposite sex is brave ... is that what you meant?

Nope. I meant what you said. You said that cowardice might promote a guy to commit a homosexual act.

I am every bit as capable of judging someone's heart as YOU are

That's nice. I cannot judge people's hearts.

... however, I am not judging their heart ... I am judging their actions.

Oh. So you agree that homosexuality can only be judged correctly by a person's words or actions?

Yes, with another consenting adult ... not with a CHILD.

Uh, kids have specific genders as well, you know?

 

[PlastikBuddha]

No. You're just too caught up in the delusion that you are right. If the terms are defined then the results stand.

And where in Enyart's show or in this thread's tile is the distinction between the acts of sexual violence carried out by insane people and the sexual orientation "homosexuality" made clear? It is as ridiculous as talking about the "heterosexual rapist trend".

Only in your mind.

You get a lot of mileage out of that paricular phrase. I don't think it impresses anyone, though.
:nono:

 

[Stripe]

And where in Enyart's show or in this thread's tile is the distinction between the acts of sexual violence carried out by insane people and the sexual orientation "homosexuality" made clear? It is as ridiculous as talking about the "heterosexual rapist trend".

I've spent a couple of pages trying to explain to you how to make sense of something you cannot make sense of.

Tell us, PB:
What factors would allow you to determine a murderer from a non?
What factors would allow you to determine a liar from a non?
What factors would allow you to determine a truck driver from a non?
What factors would allow you to determine a Chinese speaker from a non?
What factors would allow you to determine a rapist from a non?
What factors would allow you to determine a homosexual from a non?

You get a lot of mileage out of that paricular phrase. I don't think it impresses anyone, though.
:nono:

:chuckle: I wouldn't expect you to be impressed by your own ignorance.

 

[Rusha]

Oh. So you agree that homosexuality can only be judged correctly by a person's words or actions?

NO ... I do not. What part of my position are you *pretending* to not understand?

*A* homosexual (just like a heterosexual) can be judged by their words and actions.

Take you for example: you are purposefully slanting your posts to insinuate that most, if not all, gays are guilty of these types of crime.

Therefore, I judge you as being extremely dishonest.

Uh, kids have specific genders as well, you know?

:duh:

And guess what boys and girls? What it all boils down to is Stripe using the gender of the victim to vilify a whole group of people based on his own delusions.

Have you seen even one person excuse ANY criminal based on what their sexual orientation *might* be?

What's next Stripe? If a father beats his daughter but not his son, does that mean he may be a homo who secretly hates all females?

 

[Stripe]

*A* homosexual (just like a heterosexual) can be judged by their words and actions.

:doh: How do you judge they are a homosexual?

Take you for example: you are purposefully slanting your posts to insinuate that most, if not all, gays are guilty of these types of crime.

They are all guilty of being homosexuals.

Have you seen even one person excuse ANY criminal based on what their sexual orientation *might* be?

No, but you're sure desperate to try and avoid admitting that homosexuality might be a reasonable profile indicator for a serial killer.

 

[fdpatterson]

I see you failed to mention the numerous straight mass murderers and serial killers.

Did you expect something like a fair an un-biased comparison out of such hate mongering.

My favorite part was Gay Charles Mason. For being gay, Charlie sure liked to have a lot of young girls around to have sex with. But then, I guess all gay guys are like that, huh?