Why do people discrimanate?

[Coypu]

Originally posted by BrokenAngel
I see what you mean, but surely you can see some distinction between the percieved "badness" (can't think of a better word right now) of homosexuals, and the known, obvious and blatant "badness" of paedophiles.

You can think that homosexuality is a bad thing, or a good thing, or just be neutral about it, but IMO you simply cannot think that paedophilia is anything but wrong.

Both gay and peadphiles have abnormal sexuality, but as long as a peadophile doesn't rape children i see no problem with him. Same with the gay man, as long as he doesn't rape men i'm ok with him. What's the difference?

 

[Gia]

Originally posted by Coypu
Both gay and peadphiles have abnormal sexuality, but as long as a peadophile doesn't rape children i see no problem with him. Same with the gay man, as long as he doesn't rape men i'm ok with him. What's the difference?

.......I'll leave this to someone else.

 

[Thor]

Originally posted by Coypu
Both gay and peadphiles have abnormal sexuality, but as long as a peadophile doesn't rape children i see no problem with him. Same with the gay man, as long as he doesn't rape men i'm ok with him. What's the difference?

Both gay and peadphiles have abnormal sexuality,

This is an ASSUMPTION or premise that you begin with that need ( certainly) not be true.


but as long as a peadophile doesn't rape children i see no problem with him.



Try telling that to your local authorities.
I don't think that having sex with a child is acceptable under any circumstances, nor is it accepted in Western society. Can you spell
20 to life?


Same with the gay man, as long as he doesn't rape men i'm ok with him.

That's nice. I'm glad you are ok with that. Me too. I'm ok with a lot of people who aren't rapists.

They key word above was ABNORMAL. We still think of roughly 20% of the human population that is homosexual as abnormal? So what happens when that makeup is the normal state of affairs.

To say that pedophilia, to prey sexually upon children, is ok is simply outrageous. Given that, I cannot say I take anything else you say seriously.

To compare that with alternative lifestyles is simply ridiculous.

I shouldn't have bothered to dignify it with a post, but it is so egregious, it required one.

 

[Coypu]

Try telling that to your local authorities.
I don't think that having sex with a child is acceptable under any circumstances, nor is it accepted in Western society. Can you spell
20 to life?


Well, at one point it was illegal to be gay so this is not a good argument.

That's nice. I'm glad you are ok with that. Me too. I'm ok with a lot of people who aren't rapists.

They key word above was ABNORMAL. We still think of roughly 20% of the human population that is homosexual as abnormal? So what happens when that makeup is the normal state of affairs.

20% is a unrealistic number, this statistic is based on the fact that women are very open to lesbian sex, but it does not mean that 20% are gay. And it is abnormal sexual behaviour, our sexual drive have been evolved to ensure that we spread our speices, gay sexuality and paedohpilia does not do this, and is therefor something gone wrong.

But as with most things, many of you talk about this particular subject right now because there it is starting to get more accepted, hardly any of you would have had the guts to do so 50 years ago, or to stand up for peadohpiles today.

To say that pedophilia, to prey sexually upon children, is ok is simply outrageous. Given that, I cannot say I take anything else you say seriously.

To compare that with alternative lifestyles is simply ridiculous.

I shouldn't have bothered to dignify it with a post, but it is so egregious, it required one.

Well, imagine that YOU where born as a peadophile, it's not something you choose, its who you are. So since you are such a nice person you suffer through your whole life acting like a normal person afraid to tell anyone of how your true feelings are and to never be able to be or to express love to anyone. How would you like that? Are you a evil person or are you just trying your best to live a good life? Hoping one day to be accepted as who you are, and maybe even to be loved?

 

[Brad Johnson]

Originally posted by Coypu
But as with most things, many of you talk about this particular subject right now because there it is starting to get more accepted, hardly any of you would have had the guts to do so 50 years ago, or to stand up for peadohpiles today.

What does 50 years ago have to do with any of this? Who stood up 100 years ago in favor of women's rights? In the 1940's what California Americans stood pro-Japan re: the interment camps?



I'm guessing this all makes sense to you. By taking one thing and lumping it in with everything and then asking the question of who would stand up for pedophiles you've taken this discussion in a new direction.

I stand up for necrophiliacs. Who'll take the foot fetish contingency?

Who will stand for latex lovers? Serial killers? Narcoleptics?

 

[Gabu]

Originally posted by MJ5150
[B...I just dislike being called close/narrow/small minded when I tell someone I disagree. Two people disagree on ones sexuality. The one in disagreement thus decides to associate mainly with those that share his/her opinion. Nothing close/narrow/small minded about it to me. I like team A, so I choose not to watch team B in favor of team A. Some would declare me a close/narrow/small minded person for so doing.

-Mike [/B]

I agree with Mike, on pretty much everything he has said. I just read all of the posts, man it took a while... and I didn't want to reply until the end for fear of rehashing old statements. But I wanted to at least let him know that he is not alone in the way he feels... I think that in some cases people are taking exception to what Mike is saying over semantecs rather than what is actually being said.

Over and over, he is saying "initially". Here is the bar example again in a different way:

I walk in the bar. I wish to make contact with someone for whatever reason. There are two people in the bar. (I am leaving out the bartender for simplicity.) I don't know either of them. Looking them over, I notice that one is a white male, in his 30s, brown hair, brown eyes, about 6' tall, balding, dressed well, smiling, and chatting with the bartender. The other is a latino male, in his 20s, brown hair, brown eyes, about 5'9", long hair, dressed casually, looking into his drink, alone.

I want to make contact with either one or both of these people. But since the two are not in the same group, addressing both at the same time would be unusual from my understanding of social etiquette. I therefore need to make a decision on whom to talk with first, although I may talk with both. How do I decide whom to initially talk with?

So, to those who believe that Mike is being small minded, please answer the above question.

 

[Davidoc]

I've been quiet since my intial few posts in this thread.

I never really addressed the issue. I got caught up on the "agreeing with the lifestyle" bit, and went on about how gayness is something you're born with, as opposed to a choice-I still stand by that.

Here's my opinion on the topic itself.

I MJ is not a biggot, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with what he's saying. He doesn't do mean things to gay people, he just decides not to hang out with them for whatever reason, which is totally cool. I don't have a problem with hanging with gay people, but I don't have a problem with people who do.


Oh, about the whole pedaphile thing... That goes back to gay people being born gay, but children lovers not being born loving children.

 

[MJ5150]

The history of persecution of Irish people in the USA is just that, history. When March 17th rolls around in 2004 the Irish communities around the country are not going to have parades (they have parades around here), and large parties so they can gather safely with their own kind without fear of being persecuted. I do not disagree for one minute that gay people are persecuted in ways the Irish were in the early days of the USA. But to say that gay people organize gay events solely for the reason to gather in groups to feel safe is silly. It may, on occasion, have something to do with it. There is a gay night club near me. Yet, I see gay people in regular clubs as well. The gay night club was not opened as a safe haven. It was opened simply to establish a place for gay people to go hang out with gay people because they WANT to. How do I know that? Because there is a sign on the freakin door that says exactly that! I have been there. It says something about it being a place for gay men and women to hang out, and network. It concludes by saying: "All are welcome. Leave your prejudices at the door"

Hey BrokenAngel....you assumed, and made a stupid rhetorical comment yourself. Bedroom behavior is not something people use to determine their associates? Hmmm...you sure about that?

Some, many, quite a few, a portion, several, a lot, a good portion, a high percentage, a multitude, a bunch....there are several words that would work in my now controversial statement. Pick the one you like best. I had not realized you would find the word "many" so objectionable.

Gabu...thanks for the kind words.

-Mike

 

[Brad Johnson]

Originally posted by Gabu
I agree with Mike, on pretty much everything he has said. I just read all of the posts, man it took a while... and I didn't want to reply until the end for fear of rehashing old statements. But I wanted to at least let him know that he is not alone in the way he feels... I think that in some cases people are taking exception to what Mike is saying over semantecs rather than what is actually being said.

Over and over, he is saying "initially". Here is the bar example again in a different way:

I walk in the bar. I wish to make contact with someone for whatever reason. There are two people in the bar. (I am leaving out the bartender for simplicity.) I don't know either of them. Looking them over, I notice that one is a white male, in his 30s, brown hair, brown eyes, about 6' tall, balding, dressed well, smiling, and chatting with the bartender. The other is a latino male, in his 20s, brown hair, brown eyes, about 5'9", long hair, dressed casually, looking into his drink, alone.

I want to make contact with either one or both of these people. But since the two are not in the same group, addressing both at the same time would be unusual from my understanding of social etiquette. I therefore need to make a decision on whom to talk with first, although I may talk with both. How do I decide whom to initially talk with?

So, to those who believe that Mike is being small minded, please answer the above question.

Sorry G, I don't go into bars looking for people to talk to

In this scenario, if that was my goal, the first person I'd talk to would be the bartender... might as well get a drink, I'm in a bar. Since the one guy is talking to the bartender that might be the first conversation I got in... unless of course I overhear the conversation and it's not one I care to be a part of.

Now, to the problems with this scenario...

1) Either of these guys could be gay. How would Mike know which one to talk to first? Minus some outwards sign this is the stuff you don't know so how can you make that decision?

2) You've made the latino man sound as if he wants to be left alone. Kind of stacks the deck against him, don't it?

3) And the (possibly gay) White guy is more outgoing. Doh!

4) The descriptions are a nice touch but since I'm not physically attracted to either man...

I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm trying to point out as I've attempted all along that this stuff can rarely be distilled down to a couple of rules of engagement. It's not that simple. That's why I don't think a simple-minded approach works very well... you might miss out on the more stimulating conversation because of it. Then again if this conversation floats your boat:

"How 'bout them Yankees?"

"Yeah, hows about 'em?"

*grunt*

*snort*

*scratch*


the simple approach may do just fine


BTW is the bartender gay? Just checking.

 

[Thor]

Originally posted by Coypu
Try telling that to your local authorities.
I don't think that having sex with a child is acceptable under any circumstances, nor is it accepted in Western society. Can you spell
20 to life?


Well, at one point it was illegal to be gay so this is not a good argument.

A hundred years ago, a legislature in Indiana entertained legislation defining Pi=3. Passing that law would not have made it so. Passing laws regulating sexual orientation of adult humans is archaic.

I still find the analogy of sex between consenting adults, whether, hetero, homo, or bisexual, and children with any of the above, as
baseless. Pedophiles, like rapists, thrive on power and control. And sometimes violence. The child does not choose to be molested, they are a victim of it.

Adults who choose a sexual relationship with other adults are IMHO entitled to their discretion and privacy. And, in the case of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people, the same legal protection that our society affords other minorities.

-----------
That's nice. I'm glad you are ok with that. Me too. I'm ok with a lot of people who aren't rapists.

They key word above was ABNORMAL. We still think of roughly 20% of the human population that is homosexual as abnormal? So what happens when that makeup is the normal state of affairs.

20% is a unrealistic number, this statistic is based on the fact that women are very open to lesbian sex, but it does not mean that 20% are gay. And it is abnormal sexual behaviour, our sexual drive have been evolved to ensure that we spread our speices, gay sexuality and paedohpilia does not do this, and is therefor something gone wrong.

I don't quite get that. Women who are quite 'open to lesbian sex' are in the normal but women who are lesbian are ABNORMAL? How about they are all NORMAL? Would that be too much too ask.

And that people who rape, kill, commit mayhem and abuse children are ABNORMAL.

That definition works for me a lot better, in my very humble opinion.

As far as evolution goes, IF that were the case, one would supect that the orientation would work its way out of the gene pool. But it hasn't, has it?

'Is therefor something gone wrong' Perhaps nature and evolution don't follow your plan. But I'm glad you know what it is. So you can tell me why male seahorses bear children, and why some species of terran life physically change from male to female or vice versa. Or are your conclusion on evolution gone wrong based strictly on your observations of homo sapiens?


----------
But as with most things, many of you talk about this particular subject right now because there it is starting to get more accepted, hardly any of you would have had the guts to do so 50 years ago, or to stand up for peadohpiles today.
---
I defer to Brad's comment above.
It has also been illegal to be black and free. I think we have been working towards a more enlightened society.


To say that pedophilia, to prey sexually upon children, is ok is simply outrageous. Given that, I cannot say I take anything else you say seriously.

To compare that with alternative lifestyles is simply ridiculous.

I shouldn't have bothered to dignify it with a post, but it is so egregious, it required one.

Well, imagine that YOU where born as a peadophile, it's not something you choose, its who you are. So since you are such a nice person you suffer through your whole life acting like a normal person afraid to tell anyone of how your true feelings are and to never be able to be or to express love to anyone. How would you like that? Are you a evil person or are you just trying your best to live a good life? Hoping one day to be accepted as who you are, and maybe even to be loved?


To molest children is evil.

That analogy could be applied to Ted Bundy or any other serial killer as well.

Gays are not criminal, and they are not abnormal.
And there is no reason to persecute people for their sexual orientation other than fear, ignorance and bigotry.

 

[clef360]

Originally posted by Davy0

Oh, about the whole pedaphile thing... That goes back to gay people being born gay, but children lovers not being born loving children.

I'd like to know what evidence people have that Gay people are born like that. I think that pedophilia and homosexuality are similar in that they're both products of environment. There's that study that I posted about earlier about gay twins and also, an abnormally large percentage of gay people have had very traumatizing experiences as children. Anyways, show me the money!

 

[Brad Johnson]

Originally posted by MJ5150
The history of persecution of Irish people in the USA is just that, history. When March 17th rolls around in 2004 the Irish communities around the country are not going to have parades (they have parades around here), and large parties so they can gather safely with their own kind without fear of being persecuted. I do not disagree for one minute that gay people are persecuted in ways the Irish were in the early days of the USA. But to say that gay people organize gay events solely for the reason to gather in groups to feel safe is silly.

Well, by now you know me and details

Did someone actually say "SOLELY"? That completely changes the meaning. If they did, cool, guess I missed it. If they didn't could we at least try to stick to what's actaully being written?

If they didn't say solely AND you're calling them silly, that's another problem.

It may, on occasion, have something to do with it. There is a gay night club near me. Yet, I see gay people in regular clubs as well. The gay night club was not opened as a safe haven. It was opened simply to establish a place for gay people to go hang out with gay people because they WANT to. How do I know that? Because there is a sign on the freakin door that says exactly that! I have been there. It says something about it being a place for gay men and women to hang out, and network. It concludes by saying: "All are welcome. Leave your prejudices at the door"

So how does that turn into it not being a place where they can feel safe?

Hey BrokenAngel....you assumed, and made a stupid rhetorical comment yourself. Bedroom behavior is not something people use to determine their associates? Hmmm...you sure about that?

If you're going to want people to consider intent and not take things literally I guess that might go both ways. Here's what she said:

"People choose to associate with people based on their interests, personality and general demenour NOT what they do in the bedroom".

I got what she was saying, I guess you didn't. Of my own current personal and professional relationships, which number in the hundreds, two are based on what people do or did in the bedroom:

my wife and my ex-wife.

That's it.

Some, many, quite a few, a portion, several, a lot, a good portion, a high percentage, a multitude, a bunch....there are several words that would work in my now controversial statement. Pick the one you like best. I had not realized you would find the word "many" so objectionable.

If you're talking about this one:

"Homosexual people would prefer to associate with other homosexuals"

you can hardly blame the reader

All we have to go on here is what you write. By adding "solely" (if you did add it) or leaving out "many" you misrepresent "your" intent. We read what you write. Objective proofreading might help, that's what I do, to try and make sure my intent is clear.

Gabu...thanks for the kind words.

-Mike

 

[Brad Johnson]

Originally posted by clef360
I'd like to know what evidence people have that Gay people are born like that. I think that pedophilia and homosexuality are similar in that they're both products of environment. There's that study that I posted about earlier about gay twins and also, an abnormally large percentage of gay people have had very traumatizing experiences as children. Anyways, show me the money!

You're right, it's a choice. You obviously have proof.

 

[Gabu]

Originally posted by Brad Johnson
Sorry G, I don't go into bars looking for people to talk to

Me too, I just go there to play.

In this scenario, if that was my goal, the first person I'd talk to would be the bartender... might as well get a drink, I'm in a bar. Since the one guy is talking to the bartender that might be the first conversation I got in... unless of course I overhear the conversation and it's not one I care to be a part of.

That sounds fair enough. The drink was obvious, although you know you took my senario and ignored where I was going with it. I meantioned that I was not describing the bartender for simplicity. I think it would be reasonable to infer that this would take him out of the equation to talk to.

On the other hand, getting a drink and then overhearing part of the conversation is a good way to gain some insite into the first guy. I realise now that this creates an easy way to defeat my objective, so I would like to simplify it a bit more. The real question at hand is, what do you use in order to interact with another? What would you do if the first man was not talking with the bartender and he and the second man were both sitting by themselves, and you did want to talk with someone?

Now, to the problems with this scenario...

1) Either of these guys could be gay. How would Mike know which one to talk to first? Minus some outwards sign this is the stuff you don't know so how can you make that decision?

Let's leave the gay angle alone. Its really not important to me because you can choose one person over the other for many reasons... the exact reason is not as important to me as the process by which you choose.

2) You've made the latino man sound as if he wants to be left alone. Kind of stacks the deck against him, don't it?

I was just trying to make the two different. But if it helps, they can both look friendly and approachable. The main point was just that they do have some differences.

3) And the (possibly gay) White guy is more outgoing. Doh!

Like I said, I left gay out of this deliberately because it is not what I am talking about.

4) The descriptions are a nice touch but since I'm not physically attracted to either man...

Again, the gay reference... *sigh* The reason for the description is because we are all different. It could be two Latinos, or whatever... every one of us is different and I was trying to reflect that. If we were all exactly the same, it wouldn't matter who you talked to first, right? Because the response would likely be identical. Since we are different some people may give you a more desireable response to whatever your interaction is.

I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm trying to point out as I've attempted all along that this stuff can rarely be distilled down to a couple of rules of engagement. It's not that simple. That's why I don't think a simple-minded approach works very well... you might miss out on the more stimulating conversation because of it.

I understand what you mean. But I don't agree because everyone has a process that they will use in this senario, right or wrong. They come in, they want to talk to someone, they see some people, ... now is where a process of some type takes place. How do they decide who to talk with first? For some people, they may talk with the closest person to themself, for others they may talk with a person who they feel they can identify with for whatever reason, etc...

Then again if this conversation floats your boat:

"How 'bout them Yankees?"

"Yeah, hows about 'em?"

*grunt*

*snort*

*scratch*

the simple approach may do just fine

That is a process. For some people it works fine. Would you descriminate against them for that?

BTW is the bartender gay? Just checking.

Like I said, that has nothing to do with what I am writing about at this moment.

 

[MJ5150]

Hehehe....you crack me up Brad, in a good way

The dude was asking you to put yourself in a situation. We all realize we can not assume your actions. No one is trying to. What is so hard about simply looking over the situation and giving your opinion? This isn't real life here at TB. I can't really type out how to describe you. It's like you always want to remind us that you are different. It makes it difficult to have these conversations since you are always reminding us that you won't do this, or you're not like that. Some of the scenarios I came up with, or read in this thread, are ones I would not always find myself in, but for the sake of the conversation I replied.

Yep, either guy could be gay. At this point, it doesn't matter. BTW, the bartender is a really cool gay dude, who doesn't like the Yankees!

No one is missing out on anything. We are talking about first impressions. Suppose I go with my first impression, and the person I chose ends up being a great friend. I never get a chance to talk to the other guy. What have I missed out on? The chance the other dude was cool too? Well then, I better to talk to every single person I see just in case I am missing out on someone. I was going to say something about first impressions, but I know that would be assuming so I won't.

Now...now...now...don't go assuming a shallow conversation would ensue because of what you deem is a "shallow" approach.

-Mike

 

[Coypu]

A hundred years ago, a legislature in Indiana entertained legislation defining Pi=3. Passing that law would not have made it so. Passing laws regulating sexual orientation of adult humans is archaic.

I still find the analogy of sex between consenting adults, whether, hetero, homo, or bisexual, and children with any of the above, as
baseless. Pedophiles, like rapists, thrive on power and control. And sometimes violence. The child does not choose to be molested, they are a victim of it.

Adults who choose a sexual relationship with other adults are IMHO entitled to their discretion and privacy. And, in the case of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people, the same legal protection that our society affords other minorities.

Not all peadophiles rape children, you seem to beleive that for some reason, but it is wrong. So hating all peadohiles is like hating all gays, discriminating.

---

I don't quite get that. Women who are quite 'open to lesbian sex' are in the normal but women who are lesbian are ABNORMAL? How about they are all NORMAL? Would that be too much too ask.

And that people who rape, kill, commit mayhem and abuse children are ABNORMAL.

That definition works for me a lot better, in my very humble opinion.

As far as evolution goes, IF that were the case, one would supect that the orientation would work its way out of the gene pool. But it hasn't, has it?

'Is therefor something gone wrong' Perhaps nature and evolution don't follow your plan. But I'm glad you know what it is. So you can tell me why male seahorses bear children, and why some species of terran life physically change from male to female or vice versa. Or are your conclusion on evolution gone wrong based strictly on your observations of homo sapiens?


Well i guess it all depends on how you define normal, in germany during Hitlers reign it was normal to be a nazi so i guess you could say that it is fairly normal to be gay in todays society.

Mutation is a important part of evolution, so the gene pool will never be "perfect", there will always be mutations, such as gays.

To say that pedophilia, to prey sexually upon children, is ok is simply outrageous. Given that, I cannot say I take anything else you say seriously.

To compare that with alternative lifestyles is simply ridiculous.

Being a peadophile does not mean that you rape children, just as being gay does not mean that you rape other men.

To molest children is evil.

Evil? Molesting children is bad because it hurts them, just as raping a man is wrong for the same reason, but evil sounds very fishy. I do not support rape, and I never will but I still do not beleive that all peadophiles are rapists and therefor we should not discriminate them.

That analogy could be applied to Ted Bundy or any other serial killer as well.

Gays are not criminal, and they are not abnormal.
And there is no reason to persecute people for their sexual orientation other than fear, ignorance and bigotry.

Serial killers bring unessary pain to others, this is not a very nice habit and therefor should be avoided. Same with rapists.

Well, that is excatly what you are doing towards peadophiles!

 

[Gia]

Originally posted by MJ5150

I can't really type out how to describe you. It's like you always want to remind us that you are different. It makes it difficult to have these conversations since you are always reminding us that you won't do this, or you're not like that. Some of the scenarios I came up with, or read in this thread, are ones I would not always find myself in, but for the sake of the conversation I replied.

this sounds to me like an obvious avoidance tactic

You can't address the issues that brad raised so you choose to post a illogical and nonsensical pseudo personal attack.


Hey BrokenAngel....you assumed, and made a stupid rhetorical comment yourself. Bedroom behavior is not something people use to determine their associates? Hmmm...you sure about that?

God, you're so patronising. It almost makes me respect you and your posts.

I said..."People choose to associate with people based on their interests, personality and general demenour NOT what they do in the bedroom".[

Yeah, i'm sure about that. Oh, except for maybe people like you. You may choose your friends based on their sexual habits. If so, go team you, but it's kind of abnormal behavoir, dontcha think ?

 

[Brad Johnson]

Originally posted by Gabu
Me too, I just go there to play.

I don't even do that.

That sounds fair enough. The drink was obvious, although you know you took my senario and ignored where I was going with it. I meantioned that I was not describing the bartender for simplicity. I think it would be reasonable to infer that this would take him out of the equation to talk to.

I didn't ignore it... it really just didn't work for me.

On the other hand, getting a drink and then overhearing part of the conversation is a good way to gain some insite into the first guy. I realise now that this creates an easy way to defeat my objective, so I would like to simplify it a bit more. The real question at hand is, what do you use in order to interact with another? What would you do if the first man was not talking with the bartender and he and the second man were both sitting by themselves, and you did want to talk with someone?

Honestly? I probably wouldn't talk to either one unless they talked to me first.

Let's leave the gay angle alone. Its really not important to me because you can choose one person over the other for many reasons... the exact reason is not as important to me as the process by which you choose.

Other than appearance you've given me nothing to base a choice on... so how could I make a choice?Might as well toss a coin.

I was just trying to make the two different. But if it helps, they can both look friendly and approachable. The main point was just that they do have some differences.

I know... and anyone answering the question should take those into consideration.

Like I said, I left gay out of this deliberately because it is not what I am talking about.

Again, the gay reference... *sigh* The reason for the description is because we are all different. It could be two Latinos, or whatever... every one of us is different and I was trying to reflect that. If we were all exactly the same, it wouldn't matter who you talked to first, right? Because the response would likely be identical. Since we are different some people may give you a more desireable response to whatever your interaction is.

Yes G, again the gay reference. Guess I should've added the smiley... I was kidding.

Why the gay reference? Because that ties into what we've been talking about all along. If this is somehow supposed to show an error in thinking re: the gay reference, it should be able to stand up to it

So far I'm not seeing the problem.

I understand what you mean. But I don't agree because everyone has a process that they will use in this senario, right or wrong. They come in, they want to talk to someone, they see some people, ... now is where a process of some type takes place. How do they decide who to talk with first? For some people, they may talk with the closest person to themself, for others they may talk with a person who they feel they can identify with for whatever reason, etc...

See, I disagree with this.

I don't think "everyone" has a process... because I know I don't. I wing it. I'll bet I'm not alone.

One thing this thread has shown is that some people have ideas about what "everyone" does and don't seem to realize the problem with trying to paint with such a broad brush.


I don't really know what I'd do in this sitation until I actually came into it. That's because of all of the "what if's".

At that time I'd have a boatload of details to help me form a plan of action, though it would hardly be as formal as it sounds. Stuff like "how bored "am" I" which would tie into how hard up I was for a conversation... and the answer usually is, I'm not. If we're going to pretend this is a real world scenario I have to answer as I would in that situation.

That is a process. For some people it works fine. Would you descriminate against them for that?

If you mean would I discriminate by not joining in, probably. I have no interest in the Yankees nor much for baseball in general. I'd have nothing to add to the conversation.

Like I said, that has nothing to do with what I am writing about at this moment.

 

[Gabu]

Originally posted by BrokenAngel
this sounds to me like an obvious avoidance tactic

You can't address the issues that brad raised so you choose to post a illogical and nonsensical pseudo personal attack.


Hey BrokenAngel....you assumed, and made a stupid rhetorical comment yourself. Bedroom behavior is not something people use to determine their associates? Hmmm...you sure about that?

God, you're so patronising. It almost makes me respect you and your posts.

I said..."People choose to associate with people based on their interests, personality and general demenour NOT what they do in the bedroom".[

Yeah, i'm sure about that. Oh, except for maybe people like you. You may choose your friends based on their sexual habits. If so, go team you, but it's kind of abnormal behavoir, dontcha think ?

Hmm... For someone who doesn't seem to like being patronized, you sure enjoy doing it.

 

[Gia]

Originally posted by Gabu
Hmm... For someone who doesn't seem to like being patronized, you sure enjoy doing it.

yes but i've been consistantly patronising for 3 years now you can't just suddenly become patronising in the middle of a conversation...

Plus it was sarcasm. The lowest form of humour ! Go team me !