"It's Not a Lifestyle...

| | Comments (45) | TrackBacks (0)

...it's how God made some." -- Mark

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: "It's Not a Lifestyle....

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://novatownhall.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1125

45 Comments

Kevin said:

Can't you just call "wrong" wrong without making it about "gay" or "black"? I don't understand, Jack. It's the same stuff as that story about the Christian/Newsom murders. 4 bad people did something bad, totally unrelated to your insinuation that it was because they were gay.

Now, with the argument of whether God intentionally makes people one way or another, that's a different question altogether.

zimzo said:

Apparently Jack believes that white people and straight people don't commit crimes.

Jack said:

Kevin, they could not have done it if they weren't gay.

zimzo said:

They are accused of injecting people with HIV tainted blood. You don't have to be gay to do that.

There are laws in a number of countries criminal sexual transmission of HIV without informing one's partner. Seven people have been convicted in Great Britain. Five of them were heterosexual. There have also been convictions in the United States and Canada of men who infected women. In Libya foreign medical workers were convicted of infecting 426 children with HIV (though the legitimacy of their prosecution is highly questionable).

Yet another false statement from Jack.

Jack said:

It was their own blood, zimzo. So which statement was false?

Eric the 1/2 troll said:

"Kevin, they could not have done it if they weren't gay."

Wow, that's faulty logic if I've ever seen it.

Jack said:

Saying it is faulty does not make it faulty. What is the logical fallacy?

stay puft said:

holy cow is that below the belt. Jack, you're kind of being an idiot right now.

now you might say, "saying that I'm being an idiot doesn't make it so" and that would be true, but you are.

Jack said:

"Gratuitous assertions may be gratuitously dismissed."

Your assertions are dismissed.

stay puft said:

people with teeth are evil:
http://www.bakusun.az/cgi-bin/ayten/bakusun/show.cgi?code=9623

gun owners are murderous barbarians:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070531/lf_afp/philippinescrimeshot

straight married people are truly wicked:
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny--housefiredeath0531may31,0,6170930.story?coll=ny-region-apnewyork

(I think it's called a spurious relationship. Of course, just because I think that's what it is doesn't mean that is what it is)

stay puft said:

www.bakusun.az/cgi-bin/ayten/bakusun/show.cgi?code=9623

gun owners are murderous barbarians:
news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070531/lf_afp/philippinescrimeshot

straight married people are truly wicked:
www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny--housefiredeath0531may31,0,6170930.story?coll=ny-region-apnewyork

(I think it's called a spurious relationship. Of course, just because I think that's what it is doesn't mean that is what it is)

stay puft said:

sorry, that first link was to an article that definitively proves that people with teeth are a wrenched lot

stay puft said:

Jack, just because you say they're dismissed doesn't mean that they are dismissed

jacob said:

Jack,
What is your point here? You certainluy have all the right people annoyed, but ...

Are you saying that this behavior is typical, or in anyway epitomizes the gay community?

jacob said:

zimzo,
whatever Jack is saying, he ain't saying that. And you know it.

Jack said:

Actually, my point really was just to annoy the libs.

Anyway, back to the original post, Mark's idea is that gay's cannot control themselves -- it's just the way God made them. Puffalump has a problem with my comparing gays to homicidal maniacs (which, by Mark's logic, God made them to be). And here we have a group of homosexual homicidal maniacs. What timing.

stay puft marshmallow man said:

lame

Jack said:

Perhaps, but a lot of fun. And you guys go for it every time.

jacob said:

Marshmallow,
Face it. The argument that someones behavior can be excused because 'XxX', where XxX is:
1. he/she was not loved
2. he/she did not have sufficient opportunity
3. he/she has some pathology
4. he/she is just made that way
does not hold water. It is an arguement long used. It is in cases like the one Jack pointed out that the unsoundness of this line of reasoning becomes most apparent.

jacob said:

One more thing. I am not making a comparison of the reltive nature of any particular act. I am just saying we are all able to make decisions, and choose not to do something. No one is a slave to programming, therefore we all are responcible for what we do.

Kevin said:

"lame"-totally

"Perhaps, but a lot of fun. And you guys go for it every time."-please. my ;) was implied.

"The argument that someones behavior can be excused because. . ."-please. Who is excusing the behavior in the article above? I don't think there is anyone here saying "they should get a break because they just weren't loved enough/didn't have the opportunities others had/are pathological/were just made that way". Your argument/s stink.

Let's you and I have an argument about it, Jacob. I don't think anyone here is even attempting to be an apologist for the four people in this article, or the four people in the article about the Newsome/Christian murders.

Has anyone here ever said some people were just made murderers other than Jack?

"I am just saying we are all able to make decisions, and choose not to do something. No one is a slave to programming, therefore we all are responcible for what we do." The only instances where this is not true are instances where the law recognizes that because of mental illness, an individual was not capable of making rational decisions at the time he committed a crime (my paraphrase is a totally inadequate summary of the law, btw).

Jack did not point out the unsoundness of any kind of reasoning except for the reasoning you introduced, which was unsound. If anything you are starting trouble, like Jack, or you're projecting.

zimzo said:

Jacob, why do you find it so hard to disagree with Jack when he says something that is clearly insane? "What is your point here? You certainluy have all the right people annoyed, but ..." Even Jack admits he can't really defend what he says now, claiming that he was just having "fun" (though why he thinks looking like a complete imbecile is "fun" is a complete mystery but everyone gets their kicks differently). Then you finally come up with an argument that is a total non sequitur. Anything to avoid agreeing with us and disagreeing with Jack. Don't you have a mind of your own?

jacob said:

zimzo, kevin,
I will answer in turn ...

zimzo,
Jack linked the article to Mark's 'there are just made that way' point. He is taking an extreme case and looking to see if a hypothesis holds. That is how it is done in math.

As for the fun I saw it in his comments that came afterword. I have disagreed with him publicely in this forum. So yes, I do have a mind of my own.

Kevin,
the behavior above is nogt being excused by anyone in the article, nor am I implying it is. The point is that one tests to see of a rule is true by appling it to an extreme case. Don't you do the same in your studies?

stay puft said:

applying it to an extreme case or taking words out of context?

interesting, isn't it, that his extreme case just happened to feature gay murders?

Jacob, where does your sexuality come from? Would you say it's there as part of some design, or is it the case that you are an asexual person who only CHOOSES to be "straight" based on your reading of the bible. ...that would be very rational, just like math.

Jack said:

And it just happened to be posted on Drudge just after you complained about my comparing homosexuals to homicidal maniacs. Very well timed, I must say.

My sexuality, and I dare say Jacob's as well, comes from God. "Male and female He created them." So say the Bible. It does not say, "Male, female, bisexual, homosexual, and transgendered He made them." The others a corruptions of His intent.

What we CHOOSE is what we DO with that sexuality. It is as much as sin to go whoring as it is to go buggering. Our sexuality, one way or another, is not sinful. What we do with our sexuality is where we stray from the path.

Kevin said:

Jack, good then, you are choosing heterosexuality. If you wanted to be gay you could, though. However, you simply do not want it enough, or at least as much as you want heterosexuality.

Kevin said:

Also, in your second paragraph you are confusing "gender" with "sexuality". Male and female are genders, homosexual/bisexual are not, technically. "Male and female He created them" changes nothing about the argument, then. God can still create/select gender, if you so desire. . .however, the argument about whether God creates/selects sexuality is the question you've not yet begun to address.

Jack said:

No, Kevin. God's intention was for us to be heterosexual. I did not choose that, nor did I say that all homosexuals choose homosexuality. We choose our ACTIONS.

"Gender" is a grammatical term. For instance, a girl is of the feminine SEX, but the word for "girl" in German is of the neuter GENDER. Hence, when referring to a girl, it is appropriate (in German) to use the neuter pronoun.

Your propagation of modern confusion notwithstanding, it is the homosexuals, bisexuals, and "transgendered" that are confused in thinking that God wants them to engage in sinful behavior.

stay puft said:

Jack, your, "God's intention" argument is oh so compelling, but if it's "modern confusion" v. "old fashioned reactionary" I'll go with the MC

jacob said:

Marshmallow,
"where does your sexuality come from? Would you say it's there as part of some design, or is it the case that you are an asexual person who only CHOOSES to be "straight" based on your reading of the bible"
Good question. I see all behavior is a combination of nature and nurture. As said above God made man and woman. However, there is a cultural component to sexuality as well.

To deny that would be ignoring the fact that in confined male only enclaves (prison as an example) the percentagge of men engaged in homosexual bahavior increases.

Which is why I do not deny that some have stronger urges in certain egards, but I do not agree that we are mere slaves to those urges.

Fair enough?

jacob said:

Marshmallow,
"applying it to an extreme case or taking words out of context?

interesting, isn't it, that his extreme case just happened to feature gay murders?"
Face it, if Jack found straight guys with swastika armbands and crucifixes who committed these acts, would you question the coincidence?

Or would you espouse that this is an indicator that all people with crucifixes want to do this?

Jack said:

My mistake, it was not Drudge, but Dr. Michael "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder" Savage who put up the link.

stay puft said:

I thought all "straight guys with swastika armbands and crucifixes" were actually repressed homosexuals (nature v. nurture)

Jack said:

That's what you get for thinking.

jacob said:

Marshmallow,
Only if they are in a music group that is singing about the YMCA. Or did you miss the memo?

Kevin said:

'"Gender" is a grammatical term. For instance, a girl is of the feminine SEX, but the word for "girl" in German is of the neuter GENDER. Hence, when referring to a girl, it is appropriate (in German) to use the neuter pronoun.'

I see you cede your point then.

David said:

"These people were drugged, it's therefore rape, pure and simple. It's shameful, disgusting and terrifying. Those who did this are crazy."

Well, no shit.

Apparently you are unhinged enough to believe that rape (you understand what that means, right? Forcing another human being to have sex against their will?) and "premeditated bodily harm" of other people are not chosen behaviors. That's pretty frightening right there.

What I'm wondering, though, is whether you will actually be stupid enough to inject this sort of nonsense into political campaigns. If I had to wager, I'd go with "yes." You folks crack me up.

Jack said:

David:

Please read all the comments before making comments yourself. We have already gone over this. See the 15th comment.

zimzo said:

Jack is Eugene DelGaudio's campaign manager.

It wasn't so funny when these people were gaining political power. Now they are hilarious.

Jack is fairly uninvolved in local politics as far as I can tell. Feel free to correct me, Jack.

Jack said:

I do not live in Loudoun, so I do not get involved in Loudoun politics. I did not feel it neccessary to respond to zimzo, because no-one takes him seriously anyway.

David said:

Jack: sorry, but I don't see where you or anyone else has addressed the content of my comment. You'll have to be more specific.

Jack said:

"Anyway, back to the original post, Mark's idea is that gay's cannot control themselves -- it's just the way God made them." -- Jack (comment 15)

The idea was to point out the idiocy of the idea that homosexuals cannot control their actions. I should have made that more obvious.

David said:

That's exactly what I mean - what do you think that sexual orientation has to do with being or not being able to control one's actions?

Of course that's an idiotic idea. Duh. So, once again, making the analogy you appear to be making suggests that rapists, murderers, etc, just can't help themselves. I think that's pretty disturbing.

Jack said:

I don't think that. That was Mark's assertion, not mine. I was only trying to point out how stupid that assertion was. I am sorry I did not make that more obvious.

Leave a comment


Type the characters you see in the picture above.

Old Dominion Blog Alliance

Technorati

Technorati search

» Blogs that link here

ECOSYSTEM