Gay Mass Murder Trend

[fdpatterson]

Jefferson;1869567* McCain Lies to Christians, Kills Kids.

And if I were you I'd make sure to let them know that you are not going to put up with that and that to prove it your going to just stay home on election day.

That'll show em whose boss. :madmad:

 

[Lighthouse]

And if I were you I'd make sure to let them know that you are not going to put up with that and that to prove it your going to just stay home on election day.

That'll show em whose boss. :madmad:

Moron.

 

[fdpatterson]

Moron.

Yeah, but don't let Jefferson know, he'll probably buy it.

 

[Jefferson]

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?

Bisexuals (ie. backslidden homosexuals) are.

 

[Nick M]

Therefore, I judge you as being extremely dishonest.

What gives you the right to judge?

 

[Rusha]

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

I don't judge their SEXUALITY ... that is not the issue. The crime is the issue. Until you are able to prove that all homosexuals commit mass murder, I have no reason to judge all of them.

They are all guilty of being homosexuals.

There is no such thing as *being guilty of being homosexual*. As you know, it is not a crime ...

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

I am arguing over your generalization and the way you are trying to insinuate that all gays are mass murderers. This is no different than when BB use to blather on in all his *blacks are criminals threads*. Any idiot can make a generalization against those they hate ... get back to me should you ever be able to offer any argument outside of your blinding hatred for homos.

 

[Rusha]

What gives you the right to judge?

*I* give me the right to judge ... sorta like the way that you give yourself the right to judge.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

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?

Except that homosexuality is determined by more than actions. :mrt::duh: It is an orientation, not just a tag that describes certain activities. Want proof? Remember the little mal mot you love to trot out anytime anyone mentions anything having to do with homosexuality: "It's not OK to be gay"? By "gay" are you honestly going to convince me that you mean only someone who is currently having gay sex, not just someone who identifies themselves as gay or lives an openly gay lifestyle? When someone says that Mr. Closeted D. Fruitcake makes a public announcement that he is gay do you think people who hear this assume that he is having gay sex or do they understand that he is talking about his overall orientation, which invludes attraction and identity? You're pushing a line that not even you really swallow, all for the sake of defending some crackpot propaganda that no one with an ounce of common sense is going to be swayed by. You know what, though- if you want to keep it up, go for it, and shake your head in wodner as the vast majority of human beings dismiss you as a bigot. I have explained again and again the distinction between action and orientation, and if you want to pretend that you can't grasp this simple concept than feel free. I wash my hands of your mulish reluctance to admit you are wrong, preferring I guess to cast doubt on your intelligence rather admit you could be selling a load of tripe that even the dimmest are unwilling to purchase.

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

My own ignorance I can correct. Yours, willingly and eagerly adopted with hands over ears and eyes like a four-armed "see no evil, hear no evil" monkey who apparently doesn't mind speaking evil, is another matter. I've tried, though- Lord knows I've tried...
lain:

 

[fdpatterson]

Bisexuals (ie. backslidden homosexuals) are.

Gee Jefferson, you seem to know a whole lot about homosexuals there, don't you?

And by the way, you do realize that Thomas Jefferson was a liberal and I'm betting your real last name isn't Jefferson. :shocked:

 

[Lighthouse]

Yeah, but don't let Jefferson know, he'll probably buy it.

You're a moron because you don't realize that just because Jefferson isn't voting for McCain or Obama doesn't mean he's going to stay home and not vote.:doh:

And by the way, you do realize that Thomas Jefferson was a liberal and I'm betting your real last name isn't Jefferson. :shocked:

I know it isn't his last name. It's his first name, moron.

 

[Stripe]

I don't judge their SEXUALITY ... that is not the issue. The crime is the issue. Until you are able to prove that all homosexuals commit mass murder, I have no reason to judge all of them.

When you are a priori opposed to considering the evidence it hardly makes your opinion something worth listening to. If you are willing to judge everything but why someone is a homosexual and refuse to judge if their statements on the matter might be lies then you've just disqualified yourself from all rational enquiry.

Just like PB, if you refuse to acknowledge the means by which you judge someone to be a truck driver you eliminate the validity of your opinion on any categorisation of truck drivers as over-represented in the "cool" category. Truck drivers are cool

There is no such thing as *being guilty of being homosexual*. As you know, it is not a crime ...

:idunno: It's also legal to murder your own child and to have underage sex. It used to be legal to own black people and illegal for women to vote. So I guess your smiley face hides a lie...

I am arguing over your generalization and the way you are trying to insinuate that all gays are mass murderers. This is no different than when BB use to blather on in all his *blacks are criminals threads*. Any idiot can make a generalization against those they hate ... get back to me should you ever be able to offer any argument outside of your blinding hatred for homos.

On what basis do you judge that I insinuate all people who have had homosexual relationships are mass murderers? On what basis do you judge that I have a "blinding hatred for homos"?

Except that homosexuality is determined by more than actions. :mrt::duh: It is an orientation, not just a tag that describes certain activities. Want proof? Remember the little mal mot you love to trot out anytime anyone mentions anything having to do with homosexuality: "It's not OK to be gay"? By "gay" are you honestly going to convince me that you mean only someone who is currently having gay sex, not just someone who identifies themselves as gay or lives an openly gay lifestyle? When someone says that Mr. Closeted D. Fruitcake makes a public announcement that he is gay do you think people who hear this assume that he is having gay sex or do they understand that he is talking about his overall orientation, which invludes attraction and identity? You're pushing a line that not even you really swallow, all for the sake of defending some crackpot propaganda that no one with an ounce of common sense is going to be swayed by. You know what, though- if you want to keep it up, go for it, and shake your head in wodner as the vast majority of human beings dismiss you as a bigot. I have explained again and again the distinction between action and orientation, and if you want to pretend that you can't grasp this simple concept than feel free. I wash my hands of your mulish reluctance to admit you are wrong, preferring I guess to cast doubt on your intelligence rather admit you could be selling a load of tripe that even the dimmest are unwilling to purchase.

If you don't want to answer the questions feel free just to say so.

My own ignorance I can correct. Yours, willingly and eagerly adopted with hands over ears and eyes like a four-armed "see no evil, hear no evil" monkey who apparently doesn't mind speaking evil, is another matter. I've tried, though- Lord knows I've tried...
lain:

What does the Lord think about homosexuality, PB?

 

[Jefferson]

...do realize that Thomas Jefferson was a liberal

Thomas Jefferson authored the following Bill: "Whosoever shall be guilty of Rape, Polygamy, or Sodomy with man or woman shall be punished, if a man, by castration, if a woman, by cutting thro' the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch diameter at the least. - Bill Number 64, authored by Jefferson and "Reported by the Committee of Advisors, 18 June 1779"

Jefferson wasn't so liberal after all, was he fdpatterson?

 

[PlastikBuddha]

If you don't want to answer the questions feel free just to say so.

I answered it. Homosexuality is not defined by action alone but inclination and self-identification.

What does the Lord think about homosexuality, PB?

This isn't about what the Lord thinks, Stripe. This is about what people think and mean when they use the words "homosexual" and "gay". Since neither word appears in the Bible anyways I find your question puzzling.

 

[Stripe]

I answered it. Homosexuality is not defined by action alone but inclination and self-identification.

PB:
If someone is inclined to be a truck driver, are they one in fact?
If someone is inclined to be a murderer, are they one in fact?
If someone is inclined to be a liar, are they one in fact?
If someone is inclined to be a Chinese speaker, are they one in fact?
If someone is inclined to be a rapist, are they one in fact?
If someone is inclined to be a homosexual, are they one in fact?

I'm not prepared to argue with you (especially since the UKMikey episode ) that someone who "self-identifies" as a homosexual would not actually be one in fact. I consider it almost certainly impossible that one could refer to himself as a homosexual and not either be practicing or wind up practicing. So your further distinction is moot.

This isn't about what the Lord thinks, Stripe. This is about what people think and mean when they use the words "homosexual" and "gay". Since neither word appears in the Bible anyways I find your question puzzling.

You brought God into this. Or were you taking His name in vain?

I use the word homosexual to mean people who have committed the act in the same way I use the terms truck driver, liar, murderer and Chinese speaker.

Now if you're quite over your tirade on the definition would you mind answering exactly why it is that you feel the need to defend homosexuals so vigorously. Afterall, I don't see you leaping to the defence of the white male when they are accused of being over-represented in the sample of serial killers.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

PB:
If someone is inclined to be a truck driver, are they one in fact?
If someone is inclined to be a murderer, are they one in fact?
If someone is inclined to be a liar, are they one in fact?
If someone is inclined to be a Chinese speaker, are they one in fact?
If someone is inclined to be a rapist, are they one in fact?
If someone is inclined to be a homosexual, are they one in fact?

If someone is inclined to be a heterosexual, are they one in fact? If a young teenager starts feeling the pull of their hormones, but has decided to remain chaste until marriage, are they in fact neuter until they consummate their heterosexuality? Is a priest who decides to remain celibate for all of his life and deny his urges towards the fair sex not a heterosexual in your opinion? If you think that they are you are flying in the face of the actual definition of the words "heterosexual" and "homosexual". Sexual orientation is not a crime that is commited, an occupation, or a language. It is a classification. You can't change the meaning of commonplace words to suit your religious and political agenda. :nono:

I'm not prepared to argue with you (especially since the UKMikey episode ) that someone who "self-identifies" as a homosexual would not actually be one in fact. I consider it almost certainly impossible that one could refer to himself as a homosexual and not either be practicing or wind up practicing. So your further distinction is moot.

Why- because YOU find it hard to believe? That's tough, but not all gay people have gay sex, and yet they still consider themselves to be homosexuals... :think: Maybe you should get the word out and explain how everyone has been misusing "your" words, eh?

You brought God into this. Or were you taking His name in vain?

I was invoking His name in hopes that He would grant me the paitence to endure your willful ignorance.

I use the word homosexual to mean people who have committed the act in the same way I use the terms truck driver, liar, murderer and Chinese speaker.

Which is not the way the word is defined.

Now if you're quite over your tirade on the definition would you mind answering exactly why it is that you feel the need to defend homosexuals so vigorously.

Because your acussations have nothing to do with homosexuality but everything to do with the breakdown in personal identity that accompanies extreme pyschosis. Like I said, it's like trying to stigmatize heterosexuals because most rapists are straight. It doesn't work because the pathology that leads to someone wanting to force sex on others is not so much a normal sexual desire but an extension of other problems. Same with people who kill and mutilate multiple victims, they no more represent homosexuals than any other crazy person represents the normal majority of our population.

Afterall, I don't see you leaping to the defence of the white male when they are accused of being over-represented in the sample of serial killers.

Because no one is suggesting that being white in some way CAUSES them to be serial killers; and when someone is listed as white there isn't some ulterior motivation to "adjust" their race to fit with one's bigoted notions. If someone were saying, "well- he's not really caucasion, but he can't dance- I guess that's pretty white. List him as white," you can be sure I'd object.

 

[Stripe]

If someone is inclined to be a heterosexual, are they one in fact?

If you accept your delusion that people are born as homosexals then I guess this would be difficult to answer. Luckily your baseless assertions are a crock and people are created hetrosexual so I can answer this with a "Yes" even if it doesn't exactly fit with the series of questions I asked. You might as well have asked, "If a person is inclined to be human is he one in fact?"

And again, I notice, you seem singularly incapable of answering even one of the series of questions I give....

If a young teenager starts feeling the pull of their hormones, but has decided to remain chaste until marriage, are they in fact neuter until they consummate their heterosexuality?

Clearly not. All you are pointing out is that people are capable of controlling that which requires controlling.

Is a priest who decides to remain celibate for all of his life and deny his urges towards the fair sex not a heterosexual in your opinion?

You answered your own question. Congratulations.

If you think that they are you are flying in the face of the actual definition of the words "heterosexual" and "homosexual".

In your mind only.

Sexual orientation is not a crime that is commited, an occupation, or a language. It is a classification. You can't change the meaning of commonplace words to suit your religious and political agenda. :nono:

How are people classified as homosexual, PB? And given the lack of any means for classification which do you think would be the status quo?

Why- because YOU find it hard to believe? That's tough, but not all gay people have gay sex, and yet they still consider themselves to be homosexuals... :think: Maybe you should get the word out and explain how everyone has been misusing "your" words, eh?

I find it hard to believe that a man who has no sexual history could call himself a homosexual. What would he base that classification on? If he were basing it upon his feelings then I would be surprised if he were to then go on to act in contradiction to those feelings. I know it has happened and other things come into play, but the point is that, in every case, a homosexual act is the only thing that can be used to delineate a person as being homosexual. That you are prepared to accept a person's word on the matter in spite of the facts just reveals your ignorance and gullibility.

I was invoking His name in hopes that He would grant me the paitence to endure your willful ignorance.

I see. So you have no patience.

Which is not the way the word is defined.

I tell you what, PB. You find us a guy who calls himself homosexual who has never had a homosexual encounter and you might have a point ... for that one instance...

As it stands I might well be out of line with the popular or even dictionary definition of the word, but then words are malleable things. Perhaps one day "homosexual" will refer to a perversion from the norm again.

Because your acussations have nothing to do with homosexuality but everything to do with the breakdown in personal identity that accompanies extreme pyschosis. Like I said, it's like trying to stigmatize heterosexuals because most rapists are straight. It doesn't work because the pathology that leads to someone wanting to force sex on others is not so much a normal sexual desire but an extension of other problems. Same with people who kill and mutilate multiple victims, they no more represent homosexuals than any other crazy person represents the normal majority of our population.

I don't think you've quite understood the problem, PB. Your problem is not that homosexuality is being stygmatised by association with serial killers. Your problem is that homosexuality is stigmatised and the abundance of evil that sprouts from them is a big, "I told you so" from God. I understand that Bob feels comfortable expressing that sentiment from God. Hence the radio show and thread.

This can be easily seen in that it is not only you that defers from defending white males as being over-represented in the sample of serial killers. People automatically defer from that defence because nobody in their right mind believes that being a white male is a perversion. If that factor can then be eliminated then it must be something else that causes men to act at the extremes of violent behaviour. If it is not homosexuality that might be largely responsible then, what, do you believe mass murderers are born such and have a natural inclination?

Because no one is suggesting that being white in some way CAUSES them to be serial killers; and when someone is listed as white there isn't some ulterior motivation to "adjust" their race to fit with one's bigoted notions.

:BRAVO:

If someone were saying, "well- he's not really caucasion, but he can't dance- I guess that's pretty white. List him as white," you can be sure I'd object.

So you think that listing people as homosexuals because they engage in homosexual relationships is wrong. You believe this because you think homosexuals are defined by their DNA rather than the choices they make. Yet you can find no other act based group (truck drivers, murderers or Chinese speakers) that also fall into this category of being defined by DNA.

PB, even if you are right (you're not, but let's just pretend for a second) the only means by which it would be appropriate to conduct a statistical study on the link between homosexuality and mass murder would be to define homosexuality through the sexual history of the perp.

 

[fdpatterson]

Quote:
Originally Posted by PlastikBuddha
Why- because YOU find it hard to believe? That's tough, but not all gay people have gay sex, and yet they still consider themselves to be homosexuals... Maybe you should get the word out and explain how everyone has been misusing "your" words, eh?

I find it hard to believe that a man who has no sexual history could call himself a homosexual. What would he base that classification on? If he were basing it upon his feelings then I would be surprised if he were to then go on to act in contradiction to those feelings. I know it has happened and other things come into play, but the point is that, in every case, a homosexual act is the only thing that can be used to delineate a person as being homosexual. That you are prepared to accept a person's word on the matter in spite of the facts just reveals your ignorance and gullibility.

I have to agree with PB on this one. I once many years ago knew a woman, I know it isn't a man as you call for but the underlying fact is the same, who thought of herself as a lesbian even though she had never had a lesbian encounter or relationship, and had thought of herself that way for many years.

I know, I didn't get it either but if her self-image is that she is a lesbian, who am I to contradict her?

 

[Rusha]

I have to agree with PB on this one. I once many years ago knew a woman, I know it isn't a man as you call for but the underlying fact is the same, who thought of herself as a lesbian even though she had never had a lesbian encounter or relationship, and had thought of herself that way for many years.

I know, I didn't get it either but if her self-image is that she is a lesbian, who am I to contradict her?

She didn't need to act on her attraction to other other women to be a lesbian ... it was the very fact that she was naturally attracted to other women that made her one. It was the very fact that she had no interest in men that made her a lesbian.

 

[Stripe]

I have to agree with PB on this one. I once many years ago knew a woman, I know it isn't a man as you call for but the underlying fact is the same, who thought of herself as a lesbian even though she had never had a lesbian encounter or relationship, and had thought of herself that way for many years.

I know, I didn't get it either but if her self-image is that she is a lesbian, who am I to contradict her?

:idunno:

I guess you might have found an example for PB.

 

[fdpatterson]

She didn't need to act on her attraction to other other women to be a lesbian ... it was the very fact that she was naturally attracted to other women that made her one. It was the very fact that she had no interest in men that made her a lesbian.

I would have to agree with you there as that was how she saw it.