Regardless of how misguided Beantown's OPINION is, he tries to explain himself without being condescending douchebag.
Obama vs. Beantown
- Thread starter Beantown
- Start date
Regardless of how misguided Beantown's OPINION is, he tries to explain himself without being condescending douchebag.
Hopper
Banned
How can ya go runnin round callin this splenderous hunk of pomposity a "douchebag," I ax ya, eh, Bronc? Mebbe you aint knowin, but he's a bona fide expert on these here topics. He done tole us all that. No real need to, though. Ya know, straight-off, that anybuddy callin hisself "Sage" gotta be plumb brilliant, eh? Mebbe not as brilliant as Kicky, but, still..
C l u t c H 385
Banned
It's still a he. And any dude that chops of his D-Willy is pretty scary, I figya.
Hop - read it again. I didn't call him any names. I only commented on Beantown.
Hopper
Banned
OK, I think git it now, eh, Bronc? You're just callin Beaner a "condescending douchebag." That's more better, sho nuff!
Hopper
Banned
But what if they aint got no real argument, eh, Bronc? Then what?
NAOS
Well-Known Member
look, I'm in the business of education. That field is, more and more, dominated by the need to massage students' fragile sense of their selves. Sometimes I come here to blow off some steam. You are correct in disliking my tone/posture in this exchange. I don't carry myself like this in the "real world", but I'm not going to massage ignorance here -- where anonymity carries the day.
Sorry Bronc, but I get to be an ******* here if I feel the need.
EDIT:
by the way, I have a pretty generous definition of ignorance. Basically, it's when you refuse to acknowledge what you don't know. Beantown is an incredible example of this. As far as I can tell he knows almost nothing about this terrain, and he's arguing tooth-and-nail. Stupid. And I'm getting a bit tired of stupid things on this particular issue, seriously.
Last edited:
Hopper
Banned
Yeah, Clutch, exactly, eh? That's kinda what I wuz gittin at when I done said this here, ya know:?
Like good ole Robert Johnson done said, that there one time....
6 and 2 is 8...
8 and 2 is ten....
Bitch try an trick ya one time....
She sho nuff gunna try it agin
Hey you do what you wanna do. Nobody's asking you to massage ignorance. I just felt like illustrating a contrast in styles. That's MY prerogative. Some people say their peace and leave it at that. Some people feel the need to go medieval on someone they don't even know. I guess that anonymity can be a rush - after spending all day getting pushed around, it must feel nice to be the tough guy. Not saying that's you, but ...
NAOS
Well-Known Member
Since you are gathering the kind of data that YOU are interested in, let me tell you this: I don't come here to be a dick. Sometimes it just happens. Like, maybe twice. Oh, and I'm a fan of the utah jazz.
I'm sure that at some point people have pointed out to you that sex in human society serves much more of a purpose than simply to procreate. If it serves an important function in male/female relationships beyond procreation it seems like it would also serve much the same function in same-sex relationships. Even though you don't think the parts match up correctly for same-sex people they seem to get along okay and can have sexually satisfying relationships.
This brings up another point. You say the parts match up well for procreation, and that's true. But, are you aware that they do not match up well for adequate stimulation for the female? (you can leave your size jokes out of this, as that isn't the issue and if you think it is you're probably a victim/offender in what I'm about to say.*) I joke with my wife that I think at least half the men in the world only have one move down low that I call the "pump-and-roll," which I'll try to delicately describe without getting a warning. Guy is in the mood so he crawls on top of his partner, pumps on her for a minute or so and, being satisfied, he rolls off and falls asleep. I think the assumption of most men guilty of only having this one move in their arsenal is that the actions that please and satisfy them must be the same actions that please a woman. It might surprise them to know that somewhere around 80% of women will never have an ****** through "regular" intercourse. So if heterosexual sex is so superior why are the vast majority of women left out of all the fun of it? In order to please the vast majority of women you are going to have to engage in activities that may not be condoned by your view of biology/evolution. I hope, Beantown, that you don't shun these activities as being unnatural or inferior, for the sake of your spouse.
*back to the size issue for a second. I'm not discounting it, but again I think the majority of men are misguided. Size plays a role, but most men are obsessed with length, whereas most of the sensitive areas for a woman are not hard to get to, and certainly don't require a yard-stick to reach. Girth might put a greater amount of pressure in important places, but length is mostly wasted. The tragic part of this is that a man with a lot of length often feels like he is automatically good in bed, when in reality he's going to need to put in just as much effort in other areas as any other guy to actually do the job well.
Anyone who feels like I'm wrong here I welcome to correct my mistakes (by PM if it can't be done tactfully in this thread). I'm always willing to learn new things on the issue.
Hopper
Banned
Well, Game, since ya done axxed, and all, I think mebbe you're wrong about that there "pump and roll" thang, ya know?
My own damn self, I do the pump, but then I'm too lazy to do the roll, so I just crash right there, know what I'm sayin?
Yes, I do know what you're sayin.
Hopper
Banned
Game, doncha just hates when you're sound asleep, kinda dreamin, mebbe, and then, likes it's kinda far away, ya hears the distinct sound of a double-barrelled sawed-off bein shucked...then, before ya can really react, ya feels that cold steel against your temple, then ya hears yo Babe sayin: "Hoppa, I swear to Gawd, this here time Imma blow your sorry head clean OFF!"
I HATE when that happens.
I HATE when that happens.
It's all good. I think it's frequently forgotten (myself included) that, ultimately, most of us are here for the same reason. And I understand there will be disagreements. That keeps things interesting. It's not much of a board if everyone is nodding and patting each other on the back all the time.
Plus, if you work as an educator, you probably DO need to blow off some steam.
Oh, and I am fully aware that I am a total dick from time to time.
What are these supposedly highly liberal things Obama has done? Enact health-care reform very similar to what Republicans had previously proposed? Kept Guantanamo Bay open? Followed Bush's timetable for withdrawal from Iraq?
I don't believe biological importance has any real relevance to you. Everytime your latest statement of this relevance gets put down, you pop up with a revised version of it.
You can, and certainly denialists like to portray biology as thinking that just-so stories are science. Some authors even present just-so from time to time in the popular literature, as an example of how something could happen (not as how something did happen). Biologists do not take just-so stories seriously, though.
I've answered before that I doubt there is any one cause of homosexuality. If there are different causes, I see no reason to disbelieve that some might be purely biological, even purely genetic, while others might be a combination of biological and environmental, or purely environmental. From what I recall of the research, on a scale graded 0-100, after years therapy to reduce/remove homosexual influences, the range of change was 0-20 points, arguing against it being a choice. From what I recall, if you know one twin is homosexual, that the other will 3 times more likely to be homosexual if the twins are identical than if they are fraternal, arguing a significant biological component for some variations or homosexuality.
Because he also says he tries to separate his religious views from his political views.
Hopper
Banned
Ya figure the "bitch" Malkovich complained about is makin any kinda "choice," Eric?
aint/hopper and his red herring
(you'd think he'd get tired of lugging it around)
Beantown
Well-Known Member
There are plenty of theories out there on homosexuality and its existence. But all the theories out there do not effect these following FACTS about homosexuality. These three are what I base my opinions on.
#1 They cannot reproduce or add to genetic diversity
#2 They cannot engange in sexual intercourse
#3 Heterosexuality can be seen physically in sexual anatomy between male and females, this is not case for homosexuals
So if you have any information that changes these facts then fine. But so far nobody has provided anything. If you have info about homosexual reprodcution or physical changes in sexual anatomy in homosexuals then please do so.
Again I am for protecting and respecting the power of reproduction and the process of sexual intercourse only experienced in heterosexual relations.