Learn to post using fact, logic and reason. When you have to cuss and insult people, it's pretty obvious to others that you cannot defend yourself. You use that as a crutch because you have nothing else to say.
First of all, I'm not defending myself. I'm not gay and thus do not need to defend myself. What you meant to say was, "when you have to cuss and insult people, it's pretty obvious to others that you cannot defend your argument." And your contention that I use them as a crutch is completely wrong, as well. Anyone that has seen my posts knows perfectly well that I can engage in a discussion/argument without the uses of cusses or insults. However. some posts are so personally offensive that they warrant it. And since I am not writing a Master's thesis, RFP, letter to the Board of Directors, whitepaper, business prospectus, nor any other type of document for which profanity would not be appropriate, it is not "wrong" to cuss nor does it weaken my argument one iota. You may not like the cussing, or the insults, but they do absolutely nothing to diminish the point. So, rather than learning from me, which you should because my posts have 1,000x more wisdom than yours ever do, you resort to nitpicking about irrelevant matters. Tsk, tsk, BT- if you're not intellectually capable of engaging in the discussion, it's perfectly all right to fold. <iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/Jj4nJ1YEAp4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
yes, I am talking about the USA, I would agree with you on all this^^ Here ya go. http://www.gundersenhealth.org/ncpt...e/sexual-offenders-101/sexuality-of-offenders In a 1994 study, researchers reviewed 352 medical charts, representing all of the children seen in the emergency room or child abuse clinic of a Denver children’s hospital as a result of being sexually abused. In looking at charts for a one year period (from July 1, 1991 to June 30, 1992), the researchers found that the molester was a gay or lesbian adult in fewer than 1 percent of cases (2 of 269) in which the adult molester could be identified. (Jenny, Roesler, and Poyer, 1994).
I'm not sure what can be known from this study. How would Sandusky have been categorized? His lifestyle outside of sexual abuse was heterosexual. Trip to emergency rooms would greatly exclude women abusers because of the nature of the abuse and women are less likely to be violent. Not sure what my point is but in crimes like this we should all know what are the stereotypes and what can actually be shown. Also what is the unknown. I'm not equating homosexuality to sexual abuse the poster you were responding to, just responding to some potentially dangerous stereotype.
You're still insulting. Lift your game -- you can't just rely on cussing and insults alone as a crutch. Then you claim your credibility speaks for itself? Weren't you the guy that was going to offer job/resume advice every day last year? You didn't keep your word.
I have yet to see you provide any counter argument to anything. About 85% of your responses are canned "stop using insults, you have already lost, blah blah blah" and then when someone actually b****slaps you with true facts, logic, and reason you ignore said post and never respond. Great job texxx.
Why wouldn't the mayor of Houston getting married, whether gay or straight, not be a matter of interest to a board primarily consisting of people who live in / or have some personal connection to Houston?
I hope you guys realized after his second post that FV Santiago is godless troll. I'm sure an intelligent and capable individual such as yourself will have moved on to superior countries like France by then. You don't need to worry for our future.
Someone like Sandusky identifies as heterosexual and while the targets of his abuse where mostly male he still appeared at least to have interest in sex with females. At least as far as identification DFW is correct that the majority of abusers in the US are white male heterosexuals. I agree with you we need to be careful with stereotypes so then what do you think about the stereotypes raised by the poster that DFW was responding too?
Today is MLK Day. We celebrate the legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr. today. I hope you all realize that Dr King was a devout Christian and man of God. He was Baptist pastor. Was he flawed and did he sin -- yes, as we all do. So keep all of this in mind as you trash Christian beliefs on the day we honor Dr. King. Dr. King is rolling in his grave watching the deterioration of our society's Christian foundations and attitudes such as those on display in this thread. And under no circumstances would Dr. King accept homosexuality as anything other than an abomination in the eyes of God. Something to keep in mind, especially for the minorities in this forum who Dr King's tireless, Godly efforts helped advance. Mockery of Christianity is spitting on his grave. Shame.
OK, so am I to understand that you are comparing civil rights and gay rights to bestiality and sex trafficking? Check.
Ok, Big Texxx, you got me. I've wracked my brain and I just can't, for the life of me, come up with proof for my arguments. So, how would one use facts to justify an opinion such as "gay marriage should be illegal?" Or, in my case, "gay marriage should be legal?" I'll wait.
Of course, that's texxxtbook for him. I'm obviously in his head b/c he's bringing up something I had mentioned over a year ago, so there's no way he could remember that unless I've really had an effect on him. It's quite flattering, to be honest (the reason I was not able to continue the careers thread is none of his business, but my colleagues know why). Anyway, my personal belief is that marriage should be permitted between consenting adults. And as much as I am personally against this, I would have to say this includes polygamy. I am not sure if you can present empirical evidence on something like this, but I would say that from a legal standpoint, marriage provides the spouse with rights that civil unions don't. Therefore, marriage should be permitted between consenting adults, regardless of their gender. You see, now Mr. BT needs to provide his own facts to support his view- wait, did he even state his side? Of course not. He fails so many times in these threads that he deserves to be insulted until he mans up and actually takes a stand and backs it up. To BT:
The majority of reported abusers and I think I have already raised my concerns with that. Only a minuscule amount of sexual abuse is reported. Stereotypes of abusers and their victims are what allowed Sandusky to continue with years of sexual abuse against his victims (which were exclusively male not mostly male). Have not read FV's posts. Read DFW because he used all caps in places and responded because my BS meter went off.
You are really a sad individual. You are just like the Pharisees that disgusted Jesus, with your holier-than-thou attitude. People like you act like you're morally superior, but you're not. Jesus would much rather take the side of a liberal than you- that's what Jesus was all about- he was about supporting the weakest in our society, the oppressed, those who were shunned. The lepers, prostitutes, poor, etc. And as far as Dr. King was concerned, his main focus had nothing to do with homosexuality, and to appropriate this holiday to support your anti-gay agenda is deplorable.
