Homophobic people

[Supa_Ramga]

When people are in denial they tend to act against that which they are denying, its the same thing with "homophobic" people. They act against homosexuals because they are in denial.

Wow, another fallacy... using circular logic does not promote your argument, all you have done is restate your claim.

You state people "act against that which they are denying" and then say "they act against homosexuals because they are in denial." All you did was use different words to say the same thing, you did not back up your claim whatsoever.

I suggest you read my earlier post on the first page.

 

[Shroomsday]

The theory that one is "born gay" makes absolutely no sense to me. Why? Because of the above reasons. Homosexuals CANNOT reproduce. If there was a predestined genetic code for homosexuality, it would have died out already. Being gay is a choice, and I personally do not understand why anyone would make that choice.[/QUOTE]

Yes. There have been significant studies that have shown that sexual orientation is almost certainly biological derived. On top of that who would deliberately choose to identify with a group of people who are so looked down upon by so many?

 

[shakaka]

Wow, another fallacy... using circular logic does not promote your argument, all you have done is restate your claim.

You state people "act against that which they are denying" and then say "they act against homosexuals because they are in denial." All you did was use different words to say the same thing, you did not back up your claim whatsoever.

I suggest you read my earlier post on the first page.

No, because what I am saying makes sense.

I'll say it again, so you can process it.

When people are in DENIAL they will ACT AGAINST that which they are DENYING.

Why? Obviously because they don't want to admit that they are what they are denying.

Let me put it this way. When people are in denial of say.. somebody not liking them anymore, they will still think in their mind, and act like that person still likes them. Its the same thing with homophobes, when a homosexual person is in denial of being homosexual, they will over-compensate in their heterosexual actions.

I'm sure you've heard if people being "comfortable with their sexuality."

I am comfortable with my sexuality, I know I am straight and I don't have to put down a certain type of people, or a certain lifestyle to feel a sense of false heterosexual security.

Now, with that said, maybe you will understand what I mean.

 

[Supa_Ramga]

No, because what I am saying makes sense.

I'll say it again, so you can process it.

When people are in DENIAL they will ACT AGAINST that which they are DENYING.

Why? Obviously because they don't want to admit that they are what they are denying.

Let me put it this way. When people are in denial of say.. somebody not liking them anymore, they will still think in their mind, and act like that person still likes them. Its the same thing with homophobes, when a homosexual person is in denial of being homosexual, they will over-compensate in their heterosexual actions.
I'm sure you've heard if people being "comfortable with their sexuality."

I am comfortable with my sexuality, I know I am straight and I don't have to put down a certain type of people, or a certain lifestyle to feel a sense of false heterosexual security.

Now, with that said, maybe you will understand what I mean.

You claim

When people are in denial they tend to act against that which they are denying

You restate this here

When people are in DENIAL they will ACT AGAINST that which they are DENYING.

HOWEVER... you then assert

its the same thing with "homophobic" people. They act against homosexuals because they are in denial.

Your error is in your assumption that people are in denial, and therefore, they act against homosexuals. People may act against homosexuals for other reasons, denial is not the only plausible explanation.

You contend the idea that people "act against" homosexual people because they are in denial. However, nowhere do you actually provide reason why that is so. It is unquestionable that those who are in denial may "act against that which they are denying." But, are these people are actually in denial?

All you have done is stated the reaction of those in denial, and then restated it by using the word homosexual. As I already said, this is a fallacy known as circular logic. You have proved absolutely nothing

 

[shakaka]

You claim

You restate this here

HOWEVER... you then assert


Your error is in your assumption that people are in denial, and therefore, they act against homosexuals. People may act against homosexuals for other reasons, denial is not the only plausible explanation.

You contend the idea that people "act against" homosexual people because they are in denial. However, nowhere do you actually provide reason why that is so. It is unquestionable that those who are in denial may "act against that which they are denying." But, are these people are actually in denial?

All you have done is stated the reaction of those in denial, and then restated it by using the word homosexual. As I already said, this is a fallacy known as circular logic. You have proved absolutely nothing

Let me make it MORE clear.

REASON:​

Let me put it this way. When people are in denial of say.. somebody not liking them anymore, they will still think in their mind, and act like that person still likes them. Its the same thing with homophobes, when a homosexual person is in denial of being homosexual, they will over-compensate in their heterosexual actions.

Why don't you read my whole post instead of arguing for the sake of arguing.

 

[Supa_Ramga]

Once again where is your PROOF that people who dislike homosexuals are gay. You are linking your second statement to your first. In your first statement you are assuming the person is in denial. It is not actually known whether a person who dislikes homosexuals are in denial. Once again you fail to show any proof that the person is actually in denial. Instead you use circular logic (as well as the fallacy non-sequitar) to try to draw attention away from your lack of proof.

Also

Why don't you read my whole post instead of arguing for the sake of arguing.

That almost sounds like an Argumentum ad Hominem, ANOTHER FALLACY. Fallacies do not promote your argument, do not use them.

 

[shakaka]

I don't need to have proof, its a theory, and I have evidence to back it up.

You've yet to show evidence that it's not true, all you've been doing it telling me that I don't have proof. Again, YOU ARE ARGUING FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUING.

Also, you've used the word "fallacy" about 20 times in the last 5 minutes, why not get a thesaurus and look up some new words to use..?

 

[Supa_Ramga]

I don't need to have proof, its a theory, and I have evidence to back it up.

You've yet to show evidence that it's not true, all you've been doing it telling me that I don't have proof. Again, YOU ARE ARGUING FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUING.

Also, you've used the word "fallacy" about 20 times in the last 5 minutes, why not get a thesaurus and look up some new words to use..?

I don't need to have proof, its a theory, and I have evidence to back it up.

Where is this evidence? I've yet to see it.

You've yet to show evidence that it's not true, all you've been doing it telling me that I don't have proof. Again, YOU ARE ARGUING FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUING.

"The burden of proof is upon he who claims." Shifting the burden is a fallacy as well. Do not use it.

Also, you've used the word "fallacy" about 20 times in the last 5 minutes, why not get a thesaurus and look up some new words to use..?

It's important that your argument be free of fallacies. Although everyone occasionally (some more than others) uses a fallacy in their argument, it's better to free oneself of these useless arguments. I strongly suggest you acquaint yourself with the different types of logical fallacies. It's great way to identify flaws in people's arguments.

Use this knowledge to your advantage!

 

[shakaka]

Where is this evidence? I've yet to see it.


"The burden of proof is upon he who claims." Shifting the burden is a fallacy as well. Do not use it.



It's important that your argument be free of fallacies. Although everyone occasionally (some more than others) uses a fallacy in their argument, it's better to free oneself of these useless arguments. I strongly suggest you acquaint yourself with the different types of logical fallacies. It's great way to identify flaws in people's arguments.

Use this knowledge to your advantage!

Your smug sense of superiority annoys me.

You keep denying my evidence, all you are doing is commenting on how I am arguing my point instead of actually arguing a point yourself. Get your head out of your ass for once, get off what you think is your high horse, and argue a point. Stop beating around the bush because you have no argument.

 

[Supa_Ramga]

Your smug sense of superiority annoys me.

You keep denying my evidence, all you are doing is commenting on how I am arguing my point instead of actually arguing a point yourself. Get your head out of your ass for once, get off what you think is your high horse, and argue a point. Stop beating around the bush because you have no argument.

I have no idea why you think I have a "smug sense of superiority." Furthermore, you have offered NO evidence. Additionally, I don't appreciate you insulting me, it's totally uncalled for and has no place in this argument. Lastly, on the first page I posted my argument, clearly you choose not to read it, so I'll paste it here for you,

One can dislike someone and act negatively towards them without the fear of becoming them. For example, I dislike elitists, not because I fear that I will become one, but rather because I dislike their self-righteous, pompous, self-loving attitude. The same applies to gay people, I dislike homosexuals, not because I fear that I will become one, but rather because I don't understand how one can be interested in sexual parts they already possess. Furthermore, homosexuals cannot reproduce, are prone to contract more diseases (in comparison to a heterosexual), and most importantly, homosexuals are unnatural beings. The vagina was made for copulation with the penis. If nature promoted a homosexual lifestyle, homosexuals would have the ability to reproduce. Because they do not, they would die out.

Once again, stop using Argumentum ad Hominem.

 

[shakaka]

I have no idea why you think I have a "smug sense of superiority." Furthermore, you have offered NO evidence. Additionally, I don't appreciate you insulting me, it's totally uncalled for and has no place in this argument. Lastly, on the first page I posted my argument, clearly you choose not to read it, so I'll paste it here for you,



Once again, stop using Argumentum ad Hominem.

I don't know or care what that last thing you said is.

Also, I read your argument, and I commented on it.

So this whole argument went like this;

1. I made a point
2. You made a point
3. I made a point
4. You started commenting on other things way off-topic

 

[Supa_Ramga]

I don't know or care what that last thing you said is.

Also, I read your argument, and I commented on it.

So this whole argument went like this;

1. I made a point
2. You made a point
3. I made a point
4. You started commenting on other things way off-topic

Nowhere did you comment on my argument.

Furthermore I noted that your asserted point was groundless. Hence the reason I asked, and am still asking, for evidence. Additionally, you did not make any new point, you simply restated your first "point."

Lastly, catching your use of fallacies is not off-topic, it draws attention to your flawed claims.

EDIT: I'm tired of arguing with you. This will be my last response, as we are going totally off-topic now, AND, you are getting way too personal. Also, we aren't getting anywhere, I've already stated my point and you've been unable to refute it. Good-day

EDIT 2: If you really want to keep discussing this, we can talk about it over MSN. Otherwise this is going to nowhere but a flame war. Which is something I, and I hope you as well, do not want.

 

[shakaka]

Nowhere did you comment on my argument.

Furthermore I noted that your asserted point was groundless. Hence the reason I asked, and am still asking, for evidence. Additionally, you did not make any new point, you simply restated your first "point."

Lastly, catching your use of fallacies is not off-topic, it draws attention to your flawed claims.

EDIT: I'm tired of arguing with you. This will be my last response, as we are going totally off-topic now, AND, you are getting way too personal. Also, we aren't getting anywhere, I've already stated my point and you've been unable to refute it. Good-day

Why does it matter how I argue my point, and who are you to claim I was using fallacies? Like I said, all you are doing is commenting on how I argue, and you're not arguing a point. Get back on topic.

You never actually grasped and commented on my point, all you did was, like I said before, beat around the bush.

Things you need to do:
Get back on topic
Read
Comprehend
Think
Post

You're leaving all of those out but the posting part.

 

[Personal Jesus]

I don't like gay people because it's disgusting. I don't want any homosexuals hitting on my n shit.

What makes you think all homosexuals would find you particularly attractive?

 

[Ottis]

90% of homophobians are mexicans, blacks

 

[Faculty3000]

Honestly, homophobic people like Eminem (great MC btw) has just crazy thinking. Why can't two persons of the same sex love each other...Is there any prejudice? Personally, I love lesbians.

 

[TJ]

Basically what they are saying is that if they touch them, homosexuality is a disease, that is contagious, you will catch there "disease"

 

[Schnell]

I don't need to have proof, its a theory, and I have evidence to back it up.

I need no proof, I've got evidence, bitch.:laugh:

 

[Schnell]

90% of homophobians are mexicans, blacks

Where do you get this statistic?

Caucasian white homophobe reporting in.

 

[shakaka]

I need no proof, I've got evidence, bitch.:laugh:

What? Why not make sense.