Study: Liberals prone to psychoticism

[Crucible]

The reality is that you have a complete hang up with women and obsessively and neurotically bang on about it. Have you not noticed how people from the left to right generally just regard you as in need of help?

I see a problem that needs to be addressed and done something about. Not that liberals like to do either- problems are what perpetuate their nonsense.

There is a grave conflict of interest in society pertaining to the sexes, and one could make a whole list of them. But, you all don't want anything to do with it, so you just call one a 'misogynist'.

Same old tripe as with everything else. Sexist, racist, xenophobic, homophobic, anon anon. State a problem with anything relevant and you're sure to be bashed with one of those words. Or, the general, universal word- 'bigot'.

Let's just call it what this thread calls it- phycoticism. That's exactly what it is, through and through.

 

[Arthur Brain]

I see a problem that needs to be addressed and done something about. Not that liberals like to do either- problems are what perpetuate their nonsense.

There is a grave conflict of interest in society pertaining to the sexes, and one could make a whole list of them. But, you all don't want anything to do with it, so you just call one a 'misogynist'.

Same old tripe as with everything else. Sexist, racist, xenophobic, homophobic, anon anon. State a problem with anything relevant and you're sure to be bashed with one of those words. Or, the general, universal word- 'bigot'.

Then take a look in the mirror and do something about it then...

:freak:

 

[Tambora]

I think neither should be crimes and certainly not capital crimes as the private relationships between adults should be just that,

That's the thing.
It should be private ...... between a married man and woman only (hehe!).

yet some people think that homosexuals (practicing at least) and adulterers should be put to death. That only stems from the far right zealous side of the political spectrum and borders on the psychotic as exemplified on here at varying times.

Yeah, yeah, but that's not why I asked you.

The fixation on homosexuality from certain people here is bewildering and anything but sane...ok, I get that you think homosexual relations are wrong. AFAIC if people are gay then they didn't choose that and have just as much right to a relationship and a sexual life as anyone else provided it's adult and consensual. Adultery isn't something I'd condone but then it's not just all black and white as if it's just a case of simple betrayal all the time either.

Here's what I'm asking you ...............

Pretend there are no laws at all about homo sex or adultery.
(Shouldn't be too hard since there really aren't any now.)

Now .......

Do you feel it would be right or wrong for you to commit adultery?
Do you feel it would be right or wrong to stick your body part in another man's feces dump chute?
(Not asking if you ever would or not; just asking if you think you would be doing anything wrong, hypothetically, if you did something like that.)

 

[Arthur Brain]

That's the thing.
It should be private ...... between a married man and woman only (hehe!).

Well, that's more of a 'religious' conviction on your part then isn't it? I'm not saying you think anything other should be a crime as such but in regards to the thread it's only the hyper zealous 'right' that advocate such penalties for any sort of sex outside of the boundaries you put forward.

Yeah, yeah, but that's not why I asked you.

I know but in relation to the OP it's relevant to point it out.

Here's what I'm asking you ...............

Pretend there are no laws at all about homo sex or adultery.
(Shouldn't be too hard since there really aren't any now.)

Now .......

Do you feel it would be right or wrong for you to commit adultery?
Do you feel it would be right or wrong to stick your body part in another man's feces dump chute?
(Not asking if you ever would or not; just asking if you think you would be doing anything wrong, hypothetically, if you did something like that.)

Ok, for me personally I would consider adultery to be an act of betrayal to someone I'd made a vow to and even if there were things going askew in the relationship then I'd be far from proud of myself if I had a fling with someone else. It's not the way I would go but then my circumstances could differ to someone else's. I could hardly condemn someone who's trapped in a loveless marriage seeking warmth from another. It's not cut and dried.

As for your latter then it simply wouldn't be an option for me to have any sort of physical intimacy with another bloke let alone the act you were kinda needlessly graphic on. That particular act doesn't appeal to me as a heterosexual man with a woman so you're fixating on one particular that many a heterosexual married couple engage in so what about other sexual practices that aren't the 'standard' exactly? Oral sex, fetish, roleplay etc, just within a heterosexual marriage?

I think there's way more important issues in life than the sexual proclivities of consenting adults even if I've no such proclivity myself would be my honest answer.

I don't consider it 'wrong' per se if that wasn't already clear.

 

[Crucible]

Whenever homosexuality is defended, there is almost always 'consenting adults' within the argument. Or, at the very least, that is the relative basis of them.

But, two adults, brother and sister, are perfectly capable of this so called legal contract of 'consent'- and it's the contradiction to such argument unless one also supports incest.

Inevitably, they will bring up the fetal disorders that come with incest.. but, if you agree that sex can simply be recreational and a person isn't obligated to birth a child in doing so, than that argument falls apart to.

There is no consistency in the homosexual argument whose basis is built upon adult consent.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Whenever homosexuality is defended, there is almost always 'consenting adults' within the argument. Or, at the very least, that is the relative basis of them.

But, two adults, brother and sister, are perfectly capable of this so called legal contract of 'consent'- and it's the contradiction to such argument unless one also supports incest.

Inevitably, they will bring up the fetal disorders that come with incest.. but, if you agree that sex can simply be recreational and a person isn't obligated to birth a child in doing so, than that argument falls apart to.

There is no consistency in the homosexual argument whose basis is built upon adult consent.

The fact of congenital disorders that can result in heterosexual incestuous relationships is kinda making its own point. Sex can be and often is recreational and very often outside of not only marriage but all kinds of non procreative ways to boot. I hope you don't need a chart for this...

 

[Crucible]

The fact of congenital disorders that can result in heterosexual incestuous relationships is kinda making its own point. Sex can be and often is recreational and very often outside of not only marriage but all kinds of non procreative ways to boot. I hope you don't need a chart for this...

So.. completely ignore my point and.. say things.

You just proved that you have no rational argument, good job :wave:

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

With this, I agree with you.
It is kinda comical to watch him describe liberals,when it fits him like a glove!!!!

​

:rotfl:
Nobody here whines about and has contempt for women as much as he does.

I find Crucible kind of boorish and contemptible. He's a wee bit annoying as well.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

That's what liberals say!

Old Cruc isn't particularly likable is he?

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Speaking the truth is not 'whining'. Rather, you all whine about the truth when you can't simply mock those who tell it- when you have your groomed, feminized men there to defend you.

I always found it perplexing the state of mankind today- how it can incontrovertibly exemplify exactly what is held against them and it somehow pass as rebuttal.

Notice how you immediately took the side of whom you were against, right when your folly was noted? And he'll will take your side- there's nothing new under the sun, since Eve seduced Adam with the fruit.

Ya don't seem to like females very much.

 

[musterion]

Really? Don't remember that meself, got a quote?

Of course you dont. But I recall when the original version of the study came out, the presentation of which the people behind it now say was wrong, you and others here were quite happy with the idea that it was conservatives who lean psychotic. The lie has popped up occasionally since.

Now that they admit they had it completely backwards, what are your thoughts on the study?

Others can fall for your distraction of raising homosexuality in a thread it has nothing to do with, but I wont.

 

[musterion]

To the rest of you...please don't feed his distraction. He's avoiding talking about the study, please don't let him.

 

[annabenedetti]

To the rest of you...please don't feed his distraction. He's avoiding talking about the study, please don't let him.

To the 3 people he's speaking to (okay to all 5 of you):

First, it's pretty funny that musterion has a problem all of a sudden talking about a subject that's usually near and dear to his heart (you know, sodomy) and second - anyone remember musterion's Oregon college murderer: black or white thread?

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

To the 3 people he's speaking to (okay to all 5 of you):

First, it's pretty funny that musterion has a problem all of a sudden talking about a subject that's usually near and dear to his heart (you know, sodomy) and second - anyone remember musterion's Oregon college murderer: black or white thread?

I really think this post was not, well thought out. Sort of like your other posts.

 

[Tambora]

Well, that's more of a 'religious' conviction on your part then isn't it? I'm not saying you think anything other should be a crime as such but in regards to the thread it's only the hyper zealous 'right' that advocate such penalties for any sort of sex outside of the boundaries you put forward.

Sure, it is my religious conviction.
But I'm not really talking about this as a religious conviction, because folks can see reasons it is wrong without being religious at all.

I know but in relation to the OP it's relevant to point it out.

Yes, to look at a situation from every angle should be considered.

But at the same time, it's not good to keep bringing up other angles when discussing a particular one, but to take one angle at a time.

Ok, for me personally I would consider adultery to be an act of betrayal to someone I'd made a vow to and even if there were things going askew in the relationship then I'd be far from proud of myself if I had a fling with someone else. It's not the way I would go but then my circumstances could differ to someone else's. I could hardly condemn someone who's trapped in a loveless marriage seeking warmth from another. It's not cut and dried.

I could understand someone divorcing their spouse for abusiveness.
But not adultery.
There are exceptions to some rules, but that doesn't make the rule a bad thing.

As for your latter then it simply wouldn't be an option for me to have any sort of physical intimacy with another bloke let alone the act you were kinda needlessly graphic on. That particular act doesn't appeal to me as a heterosexual man with a woman so you're fixating on one particular that many a heterosexual married couple engage in so what about other sexual practices that aren't the 'standard' exactly? Oral sex, fetish, roleplay etc, just within a heterosexual marriage?

I believe that sticking your body member into another person's poop dumper hole is not only wrong, but downright nasty.
And then taking that same sloppy body member and sticking it into that person's mouth is just as wrong and nasty.
Doesn't matter if you are hetro or homo; it's nasty and was not intended for that use.

I think there's way more important issues in life than the sexual proclivities of consenting adults even if I've no such proclivity myself would be my honest answer.

There are lots more issues to discuss.
This is just one of them.
It's graphic and unsettling, to say the least.
But this very nastiness is the main theme of homos.
It's what they do.
To use another of the same sex sexually, nastiness is about all they can do.

I don't consider it 'wrong' per se if that wasn't already clear.

I think you have cleared that up.
Thanks.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Of course you dont. But I recall when the original version of the study came out, the presentation of which the people behind it now say was wrong, you and others here were quite happy with the idea that it was conservatives who lean psychotic. The lie has popped up occasionally since.

Now that they admit they had it completely backwards, what are your thoughts on the study?

Well if you recall it so well then I would have thought it would have been easy enough to quote me on the matter? If you actually knew anything you'd realize that I don't put much stock in 'studies' that venerate or berate people based simply on a general political leaning as people can't be neatly compartmentalized into some box as much as you may think otherwise. If I saw an article with the title "All Conservatives Are Wingnuts" I wouldn't bother with it unless it was deliberate satire by way of. That being said, it's not a lie to point out that there are certain psychotic elements pertaining to the far right reflected on here, although that's more to do with fanatical extremism than conservatism itself which I'll expound on in the following

Others can fall for your distraction of raising homosexuality in a thread it has nothing to do with, but I wont.

I raised it, along with adultery to bring up the entirely salient point that some of your far right brethren see nothing amiss with putting these people to death and imposing an effectively authoritarian state on the whole of the West. AFAIC those people, Nick M, Stripe et al are rather more zealous whackjobs than merely conservatives but the fact remains that such attitudes emanate from the far right as much as you're apparently uncomfortable with accepting. And you of all people to get his panties in a bunch over the topic of homosexuality being raised is more than just a little ironic frankly...

 

[Arthur Brain]

Sure, it is my religious conviction.
But I'm not really talking about this as a religious conviction, because folks can see reasons it is wrong without being religious at all.

Outside of religious conviction most people see nothing wrong with consenting adult homosexual relations.

Yes, to look at a situation from every angle should be considered.

But at the same time, it's not good to keep bringing up other angles when discussing a particular one, but to take one angle at a time.

Perhaps but sometimes an angle just presents itself.

I could understand someone divorcing their spouse for abusiveness.
But not adultery.
There are exceptions to some rules, but that doesn't make the rule a bad thing.

Some would argue that the betrayal of adultery is its own form of abuse, so again it's not cut and dried.

I believe that sticking your body member into another person's poop dumper hole is not only wrong, but downright nasty.
And then taking that same sloppy body member and sticking it into that person's mouth is just as wrong and nasty.
Doesn't matter if you are hetro or homo; it's nasty and was not intended for that use.

Well 'thanks' again for the graphics there but it seems that you're rather more fixated on one particular sexual act than anything else. Do you consider anything outside of straightforward heterosexual penetrative sex to be deviant and unnatural?

There are lots more issues to discuss.
This is just one of them.
It's graphic and unsettling, to say the least.
But this very nastiness is the main theme of homos.
It's what they do.
To use another of the same sex sexually, nastiness is about all they can do.

You'd find many men and women who would simply tell you otherwise and who are in loving relationships. You focus in on one particular sexual act that you find disgusting. That's fair enough, I couldn't entertain it myself but to reduce all homosexual relationships to 'using' someone sexually is simply not true.

I think you have cleared that up.
Thanks.

:e4e:

 

[Crucible]

Outside of religious conviction most people see nothing wrong with consenting adult homosexual relations.

Most people who openly support homosexuality do so out of conviction against religion.

But, I suppose that's where you say 'oh, you're a mind reader now'. I know the typical atheist routine. But guess what? It doesn't take a mind reader and you are living proof of that, Mr. Atheist On A Religious Website

 

[Arthur Brain]

Most people who openly support homosexuality do so out of conviction against religion.

But, I suppose that's where you say 'oh, you're a mind reader now'. I know the typical atheist routine. But guess what? It doesn't take a mind reader and you are living proof of that, Mr. Atheist On A Religious Website

Nah, if you were a mind reader you'd know I wasn't an atheist but thanks for playing anyway doofus...

Now go run off somewhere and blabber on about how women have ruined society blah blah blah...

:dunce:

 

[Arthur Brain]

To the 3 people he's speaking to (okay to all 5 of you):

First, it's pretty funny that musterion has a problem all of a sudden talking about a subject that's usually near and dear to his heart (you know, sodomy) and second - anyone remember musterion's Oregon college murderer: black or white thread?

Yes, I recall it, and unlike here you actually quote the guy and his erroneous presumptions...

:thumb: