View Single Post
  #110 (permalink)  
Old 07-11-2008, 11:44 AM
foundit66's Avatar
foundit66 foundit66 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,318
Thanks: 644
Thanked 1,268 Times in 811 Posts
Post Re: Homosexuality: Genetics and random factors

Quote:
Originally Posted by fxashun View Post
Well how about explaining how that relates to what I posted then. I said your post was enlightening about how you said something. What does that have to do with explaining anything?
I had to explain the obvious to you...
That I was using sarcasm, and that I DID NOT hold to the position that "heterosexuality" is pointless.


And now I'm having to explain to you WHAT I was previously explaining to you?
Can you be bothered to pay attention?


Quote:
Originally Posted by fxashun
No, you were stupid enough to make that impossible, off the wall, meaningless "comparison".
You didn't like it...
I'm crushed..

When you have a meaningful reply on the ACTUAL SUBSTANCE of what was said, let me know.
Otherwise, you are again wasting my time.


Quote:
Originally Posted by fxashun
You CAN'T in any way show where "heterosexuality" is a failure if there are no other options.
This claim is just stupid on its merits.
Before the Wright Brothers, we had all sorts of "failures" in flying.
Heck, the Wright Brothers flight was "unremarkable" in modern flying standards.
Of course you can have something be a "failure" at a time when all options are "failures".

That doesn't mean that the situation can't be fixed, which is what you are presuming.

But NONE of this has anything to do with anything.
You're just squabbling to try to claw some semblance of criticism cause you're in that mood, and you're not even talking about what was REALLY said.


Quote:
Originally Posted by fxashun
But if we go back to Jaaman's post...
And you're about to pull your usual bait and switch.
I replied to Jaaaman's post where he claimed ANECDOTAL evidence of his argument, and he demanded OTHERS research it for them.

THAT is what I was SPECIFICALLY responding to with my argument.
And you're about to pull some utterly dishonest bullsh!t in trying to reframe the issue and talk about something I was NOT applying my argument to.


Evidently, you haven't changed a bit...

I'll get back to YOUR additions in a bit, but you're pulling the same lame stunts that you've pulled time and time again. Nothing new.
Reply With Quote