Who IS this guy?!

'Niceguy' Eddie

Political Talk Show Host and Internet Radio Personality. My show, In My Humble Opinion, (original, huh?) airs on Tuesdays at 10:PM and Saturdays at 8:PM, Eastern time on RainbowRadio.

Feel free to contact me at niceguy9418@usa.com. You can also friend me on Facebook, follow me on Twitter, and Tumblr, and support my Patreon. Also, if you don't mind the stench, you can find my unofficial "fan club" over HERE. ;)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sunday, April 1, 2012

Hey William...

92 comments:

  1. I take this to mean you wondered what the bloody hell was going on with that web-cam thread. I'm not here for ages, then I come back and blow the place up. Hopefully you found the conversation amusing, at least.

    And William, if you want to pursue your points, kindly keep them off of this thread. Let's try to consolidate the mess.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, that's actually just been per for the corse since William's arrived. (You should see what happens when he and Conchobhar go at it.) And while there is no shortage of invective that I heap upon him, and will continue to, in prortion to the stupidity of his posts, I can't deny that he's been VERY GOOD FOR BUSINESS. So I'm very happy to have him around. ;)

      Also his appetite for abuse seems a bit insatiable - a quality every bit as admirable as the quality of his posts are inadmirable.

      Delete
  2. Heck with you, brabs. Eddie makes this thread just for our conversation and you don't want to carry it on any more... go figure. You liberals are all alike. You make so many claims of fact then run away when called on them. Keep up the good work.

    That "fear of change" comes from the liberal ideal that all needs to be as they say or you are a bigot. Don't worry, I know that liberals are all loony. If only one of them could carry on a conversation with me that wouldn't turn into a point of hypocrisy. But, it ain't going to happen.

    Just because you're afraid (or unable) to support your stance don't whine to me that you don't want to continue this conversation. Typical liberal.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was saying to continue on the other thread. It should be more than obvious that I'm quite eager to pursue my points by now.

      I didn't know Eddie made this thread just for us. I don't see that written anywhere here.

      Delete
    2. Um... WHERE did you get the idea that I "[made] this thread just for [your] conversation?"

      Don't flatter yourself.

      Why this posted should be apparent after a couple of days. A bit of a new theme, just for April. (After that, we'll see how it goes.)

      I called you out specifically only becuase I thought you might have something *snort* *laugh* *a-hem* INTELLINGENT... to say.. *AHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAHAAAAA!* *a-hem* ...on the matter at hand.

      I'll get to your other comments in a little while. (The Pizza's here.)

      Delete
    3. "Um... WHERE did you get the idea that I "[made] this thread just for [your] conversation?" "

      The TITLE. Have you started ANY other thread using the name of someone who posts as a headliner before? If so, I'll bet you did it because of that person. If not, then this is the first time you have made a thread for someone who posts at your site. But it is clearly obvious what your intentions are.

      BTW, thanks for thinking I'm so important that you make ME the THE headline in an article title of yours. I feel honored (by the way, that's a choice I made ... I FEEL honored) ... almost flattered, but not quite.

      Delete
    4. The title only suggests that the joke was meant for you to read. And the fact that you think you "choose" to feel a certain way? Suggests your either not being completely honest / telling the whole story, or you need to take a decent philosophy class, and learn a little about determinism.

      And to answer youy question, yes, I have. MANY times. See... "Top 10 for Craig D," "My Response to Steeve," or "My Repsonse to ClassicLiberal." There may be others that I don't recall at the monent, but "Craig D's" was fairly recent. So... Dumb question. (And yes, there IS such a thing.)

      Delete
    5. Which clearly means you started this article for the conversation I was having with Brabantio. You listed several other instances where you used poster's names in the title and each one of those were aimed at that person (as I said). Thanks for being so deniably liberal. You may call it a "dumb question" but FACTS over-rule your opinion this time. So, the question wasn't so dumb after-all. You just couldn't fathom an accurate answer so you made some blather up about "determinism". Typical liberalism

      Delete
  3. Bring it on, Eddie ! Show me the scientific PROOF that homosexuality naturally occurs in human beings. Bring that stupid proof that you so dearly want to be able to bring.

    Darn, you don't have that proof? Then SHUT THE FUCK UP ! ! !

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why are you so unhinged here?

      Delete
    2. I'm not unhinged, brabantio. I am just copying the writing "style" that Eddie uses on most of his other articles. You don't mind if a right-winger uses that kind of language, do you? You had such a fit over writing "style" the other day, I figured it would be ok if I used a popular left-winger method.

      Delete
    3. I didn't mean just that post. The post before it you said "Just because you're afraid (or unable) to support your stance don't whine to me that you don't want to continue this conversation. Typical liberal." That had no basis in reality, so I was noting a trend in irrationality.

      Delete
    4. Sorry, it won't happen again.

      Delete
    5. I doubt that, but we'll see.

      You want proof? See... you ask for SCIENTIFIC proof, but that's not what you're REALLY asking for. You're asking for proof that you will accept. And in your infinite cleverness have already decided that you will not accept ANY proof from me. In a previous thread you asked for "a specific gene." WTF is that about? Why would I need to do THAT? I don't need to FIND A GENE to explain something that I can OBSERVE, first hand, EVERY DAY!

      You want scientific proof? You can read any academic paper on the matter written in the last 30-40 years on the subject NOT by Keith Ablow or some other biggot with a political or religious axe to grind. (You know, soemone who did ACTUAL RESEARCH, as opposed to BIBLICAL research.) You want an example? Try google: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=origin+of+homosexuality&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=6y16T5SkBrOD0QHm8eyQDQ&sqi=2&ved=0CBsQgQMwAA. And PICK one. I've read enough on the matter to have arrived at my opinon. Can you say the same?

      How about a dfifferent tact, and yet still a SCIENTIFIC one: Direct observation and data collection. I've worked with three homosexuals in the past few years, that I've know of. Two men, one woman. In past jobs I've worked with at least two others, and I've had one personal acquaintance as well. Guess what: They all say the same thing, that they've always been that way, and that they didn't choose their PREFERENCE.

      And that's pretty much self-evident! You can't choose to PREFER something! As I laid out in "pray teh gay way," I didn't choose to PREFER Redheads or HATE Bananas. (Both preferences that will shorten my life-spn, I might add.) But I did choose to marry one, and do choose not to eat the other, largely becuase of those preference WHICH I DID NOT CHOOSE TO HAVE. (Proove that I did!)

      And besides, on what basis would it be my place to tell [litrerally every singel homosexual that has ever commented publicly on trhe mater] that THEY ARE WRONG about THEIR OWN FEELINGS? That's idiotic. And would require an inordinate amount of proof! Especially given the unbiquitousness of the sentiment!

      You want more evidence? How about the fact that homosexuality has been observed in Chimpanzees, our closest animal relatives? 98% of our DNA is common. I suppose you expect me to believe that there's something in that last 2% taht PREVENTS us from being gay? Despite the fact that GAYS EXSIST? Again - That's a claim that would require some pretty steep proof ON YOUR PART!

      (con't)

      Delete
    6. (con't)

      Now... You ask here if it occurs "naturally." Again... WTF does THAT mean? (To YOU, I mean.) Are you suggesting that my homosexual co-workers were created in laboratories? Or maybe you're suggesting that chimpanzees (or any other of a thousand other species where homosexuality has been obsevred) are influenced by the Liberal media? (Which itself does not even exsist!)

      William... It's very simple. So simple in fact that even you should be able to understand it. I didn't CHOOSE to be strait. At no point in my did I find that COCK held the same interest to me as T&A. When I became aware of my sexuality, it was T&A right from the start. I look ed over, saw some T&A and thought "I want that!" There was no choice in the matter to do anything but FOLLOW MY INSTINCTS - and is those insticts that define me as strait, and they are not instincts that I CHOSE TO HAVE. And as fascinating as it woudl be, I don't need to be shown a gene to have that PROVEN to me. A littel self reflection will suffice.

      Likewise, another man who becomes aware of his sexuality, looks at T&A and shrugs his sholuders, but sees some muscular guy and gets hot? He's GAY. Show me the CHOICE involved so far! There isn't one! Becuase one's sexuality is not defined by behiavior but by their PREFERECNE. Sure - he can CHOOSE to go chase women. He can CHOOSE to marry one, even. But that's irrelevant. If he prefers MEN? He's GAY. And if he's good either way? Fine - he's BI. Choseing not to indulge his taste for men doesn't erase the fact that he HAS ONE!

      See... YOU want to turn it into a semaantic argument, and then act like it's me who doesn't hav eth SCIENCE. It isn't a SCIENTIFIC point! You seem to suggest that being gay means HAVING a same-sex relationship. It doesn't. It means WANTING one. You may choose to HAVE one, but you can't possibly CHOOSE to WANT one! You just WANT what you WANT! (I don't CHOOSE to want Chocolate Ice Cream. I only CHOOSE to eat that instead of Vanilla!) But you're asking me to scientifically disprove a point in which you've CHANGED THE MEANING of the word!

      If you want PROOF of this? You don't need genetics. All you need is a dictionary.

      Delete
    7. William, when did you DECIDE (consciously make the decision) to like females? Or did it just occur "naturally"?

      Delete
    8. "Show me the CHOICE involved so far! "

      OK, how's this: I look ed over, saw some T&A and thought "I want that!"

      When you "thought", what decision process was being bypassed that allows you to claim you were born that way? Why did you even HAVE to think about it if you claim you are born that way?

      What race are homosexuals?
      What ethnic group are homosexuals?
      "All you need is a dictionary."


      " It isn't a SCIENTIFIC point! "

      Not if you're going to continue to make a claim for civil rights based on OPINION and current PREFERENCE


      I've got gay friends too. One (girl) was giving me relationship advise when I met my wife. She was living with a girl and had no problem saying she loved girls. She recently had a baby ... with her husband (man).
      Does this mean she is living a lie? Are you going to be the one to tell her that her life is a sham and she should go back to preferring women? After all there is NO CHOICE available in this matter (according to YOU). Perhaps, one day, she will go back to women as mate material. What will you call her then? A hypocrite for even thinking about men? Or a bigot for making a choice YOU don't agree with ?

      Delete
    9. "You want proof? See... you ask for SCIENTIFIC proof, but that's not what you're REALLY asking for. You're asking for proof that you will accept."

      Is this an "you can't handle the truth" moment? Yes, I want some scientific proof. Just like there is scientific proof that can prove you are a man or a woman (must be there for gays too, right? ). Just like there is scientific proof that can prove what race you are.
      So, yeah, I would like some proof of those wild FACTS you claim are there. And, you are right, I do want more than just opinionated writings. Because if opinion is all you can find, that isn't very scientific is it?

      That isn't too much to ask for is it? I sure hope not. You've made so many claims of mental superiority over me, that if you can't bring that proof ... well, you've got some egg left on your face.

      Delete
    10. I'm still waiting to hear what scientific proof was brought forward in order for women to gain the right to vote.

      Delete
    11. "When you "thought", what decision process was being bypassed that allows you to claim you were born that way? Why did you even HAVE to think about it if you claim you are born that way?"

      Is that supposed to make sense? Realizing you're attracted to something is not a decision, it's a realization. Do you "choose" to be hungry every time you notice it?

      Delete
    12. What other kind of proof was brought to give them civil rights?

      Do you need a napkin, too?

      Delete
    13. "Is that supposed to make sense?"

      The way you avoided answering the question, it must have made a lot of sense.

      Delete
    14. "Realizing you're attracted to something is not a decision, it's a realization. Do you "choose" to be hungry every time you notice it?" is not avoiding the question by any definition. You're the one who's refusing to answer questions in your last two posts here.

      Delete
    15. "Do you need a napkin, too?"

      Ad hominem. You made the contention, now kindly substantiate it.

      Delete
    16. Already done that. Can you read? Now it's time for YOU to back up the claims of FACT YOU have made.

      Or ...

      You can keep avoiding the subject by changing the subject, yet again.

      Personally, I think you'll continue to do the later

      Delete
    17. Saying "what other proof" is not supporting your contention, because you've never established that any type of proof was brought forward.

      What scientific proof was it? It can hardly be argued as "changing the subject when you wrote:"Yes, I want some scientific proof. Just like there is scientific proof that can prove you are a man or a woman (must be there for gays too, right? )."

      And what claims of fact have I made, much less not backed up? You keep saying this, but never explain what "fact" I claimed.

      Delete
    18. "I'm still waiting to hear what scientific proof was brought forward in order for women to gain the right to vote."

      Ever hear of the X and Y chromosome? There's a little description of it here:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_chromosome

      Now, since they've found AND identified the gene that causes your sex, finding and identifiing the gene that causes sexual choice should be easy to bring proof of. Because women have no choice in how they are born, it was determined that regulating their participation in events was illegal. BTW, it is illegal to discriminate against homosexuals too, but your choice of sexual preference doesn't get you civil rights like being born that way does.


      "Realizing you're attracted to something is not a decision, it's a realization."

      So, this "realization" ... is it a choice? Hunger happens because of scientifically proven body functions need to be sustained. Are you saying that everyone in the world is homosexual, they are just refusing to feed that hunger?

      Delete
    19. William, being hungry is a natural physical reaction. Choosing tacos over lasagna is the choice. When you looked over and saw T&A and said "I want that", you didn't DECIDE to want it, you just KNEW you wanted it. That's not a choice. That is a natural reaction.

      I am guessing that when you found out you liked girls, you decided to be with them, just as someone who is gay decides to follow their natural inclination to be with the same sex. I'm also guessing that if someone told you to go against your natural inclination, and to be with men, you would not be receptive to the idea, much the way a gay man would not be receptive to being with women.

      If it's not a choice to LIKE something, then it's within nature. What more do you want as proof?

      Delete
    20. "William, being hungry is a natural physical reaction."

      Yes, I know that. That's what I told Brabantio after brought that into this discussion.

      "I am guessing that when you found out you liked girls, you decided to be with them, just as someone who is gay decides to follow their natural inclination to be with the same sex."

      Sammy, what makes it "their natural inclination"? If what you say is correct, then one is an un-natural inclination while the other is natural. How do you know which is which? What is my friend who was gay but now lives straight? Which is her "natural inclination"? Does she have one?

      And, you are correct, when I chose to like girls I wanted to spend time with them. Although your (and Eddie's) analogy with T&A isn't very good. Men have tits and men has asses. Perhaps you should change your lettering to D&A or P&A.

      Delete
    21. "Now, since they've found AND identified the gene that causes your sex, finding and identifiing the gene that causes sexual choice should be easy to bring proof of. Because women have no choice in how they are born, it was determined that regulating their participation in events was illegal."

      And in what year was DNA confirmed to be linked to heredity?

      Delete
    22. "So, this "realization" ... is it a choice? Hunger happens because of scientifically proven body functions need to be sustained. Are you saying that everyone in the world is homosexual, they are just refusing to feed that hunger?"

      No, it's a realization. There are online dictionaries that can help you out here. Your question is idiotic, since the context here was Eddie's comment about seeing a girl and having desire for her. That would be heterosexual in nature.

      Delete
    23. "Sammy, what makes it "their natural inclination"? If what you say is correct, then one is an un-natural inclination while the other is natural. How do you know which is which? What is my friend who was gay but now lives straight? Which is her "natural inclination"? Does she have one?"

      They're both natural inclinations. That's why some animals display homosexual behavior. Your bisexual friend doesn't necessarily have a natural inclination.

      Delete
    24. I detest celery. My wife loves it. Both are natural. What is natural for one is not natural for another. And please please please don't bring pedophilia into the discussion, because that is a behavior that harms another. (My preemptive strike against the Santorum argument)

      Delete
    25. Sammy, you might want to check out the "web-cam" thread. It's very long, but even if you skip a little you may see what ground has been covered (like pedophilia) already.

      Delete
    26. " Your bisexual friend doesn't necessarily have a natural inclination."

      Oooo, she's "bisexual". Is there a gene for that one, too? With no "natural inclination" does that mean she isn't homosexual OR heterosexual? What IS she? Are you going to be seeking civil rights for them too?

      Delete
    27. Are you hearing about bisexuality for the first time? It would mean she's not exclusively homosexual, yes.

      And of course, if she wanted to marry a woman instead of a man, why shouldn't she be allowed to? What's the harm?

      Delete
    28. If she isn't "exclusively homosexual" then does that mean she has a failed gene and it could be considered a birth defect? Maybe she can get civil rights by claiming she is defective and was born defective because she isn't "exclusively homosexual". When would she be determined to be "exclusively homosexual"? What if she is heterosexual and just tried experimenting. Is that a possibility?

      Delete
    29. "If she isn't "exclusively homosexual" then does that mean she has a failed gene and it could be considered a birth defect?"

      I wouldn't call it that. What relevance would this have?

      "When would she be determined to be "exclusively homosexual"? What if she is heterosexual and just tried experimenting. Is that a possibility?"

      She would be considered homosexual if she was attracted only to women. If you're experimenting, then you find the same gender attractive. It's a possibility, but that person probably isn't going to be interested in marrying a woman.

      Delete
    30. Ahhh, for the homosexual gene to actually kick in, you need to be attracted to the same sex before you are attracted to the opposite sex? But, if you're attracted to both sex's then you are in no-man's land and are forbidden from getting civil rights you want to give only to homosexuals.

      As far as civil rights are concerned you are saying that bi-sexuals don't get them, but homosexuals do?

      That's quite a few choices you are allowing and not allowing. Which one of these conditions are "natural"?

      Delete
    31. "Ahhh, for the homosexual gene to actually kick in, you need to be attracted to the same sex before you are attracted to the opposite sex?"

      Where was that implied?

      "But, if you're attracted to both sex's then you are in no-man's land and are forbidden from getting civil rights you want to give only to homosexuals."

      I don't see why. I quite plainly said someone bisexual should be able to legally marry someone of either gender.

      "As far as civil rights are concerned you are saying that bi-sexuals don't get them, but homosexuals do?"

      Again, I neither said nor implied that bisexuals wouldn't get to marry who they wanted to.

      It really shouldn't be difficult for you to keep track of what I said two posts back.

      Delete
    32. I said: as far as civil rights
      you said: no implication that bi-sexuals can't marry.

      You might want to try to keep track of what is being said HERE and NOW, instead of in your mind. Have I mentioned gay marriage AT ALL in our conversation?
      Do you mean you've been mis-reading every comment I've made and assumed I said something else? No wonder you're so confused.

      Delete
    33. What other rights might you be talking about? Maybe you should be more specific, instead of expecting me to assume that you're talking about something out of the realm of what was already being discussed.

      Delete
    34. You're saying the right to get married is a civil right? I think I would clasify that one as a human right.
      Because, I've said in virtually every post I've made what I'm talking about. But, what do I know about what you write, you're too busy calling me a moron after lecturing me about being rude.

      Delete
    35. Again, what rights are you referring to, then? I'm not seeing the alternative.

      Delete
    36. I asked you if getting married is a civil right. Can you answer that question before you go off onto another subject change, yet again.

      Delete
    37. I honestly wasn't concentrating on the distinction, because I was going with the theme of the conversation.

      Civil rights:"The rights belonging to an individual by virtue of citizenship, especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and by subsequent acts of Congress, including civil liberties, due process, equal protection of the laws, and freedom from discrimination."

      Wouldn't the right to marriage fall into that? Why not?

      Delete
    38. No. Do you have a "right" to a driver license? What's the difference between them and how.

      Delete
    39. Driver's licenses are granted based on responsibility. That has nothing to do with marriage.

      Delete
    40. That's not what I asked. Do you have a right to them? Answer the question and stop deflecting

      Delete
    41. "Granted based on responsibility" means it isn't a right. Did you really not pick up on that?

      Delete
    42. Is it a right to get a marriage license?

      I think you will avoid the question. I answered it, buy you won't.

      Delete
    43. I suppose not, but is that based on responsibility? What's the point?

      What does this change about freedom from discrimination? Gay people shouldn't be allowed to get married because they can't handle it, or what?

      Delete
    44. Wow, you answered it. I'm surprised.

      "I suppose not"

      But, you think homosexuals have a "right" to marriage? Even though you just admitted that there is no "right" to get married. How do you justify that? Heterosexuals have NO "right" to get married, yet you demand them for homosexuals. That just does not make sense.

      Delete
    45. This has got to be the most dishonest tact you've taken so far. From the conversation there's no way for you to suggest that I'm talking about superior rights for homosexuals.

      Again, "freedom from discrimination". That means what other people can do, they can do.

      Delete
    46. Here's the quote I was looking for, from the other thread:

      "I'm not sure what the motivation would be to dye your hair in this scenario, since the situation we're talking about doesn't include anyone having superior rights because of any status. Straight people can get married already, so someone trying to pull one over on the system by "choosing" to be gay seems a bit odd."

      "...doesn't include anyone having SUPERIOR RIGHTS because of any status..."

      Something to remember the next time you start to blather about others not being able to comprehend English.

      Delete
    47. "This has got to be the most dishonest tact you've taken so far. From the conversation there's no way for you to suggest that I'm talking about superior rights for homosexuals."

      Talk about dishonest. At what point did I suggest them getting "superior rights"?!?

      What is a quote from you got to do with things I've said? I have NOT said "superior rights" at any time in this conversation or the other. You have used that to describe rights you thought were being discussed. But, you've already shown (and admitted) you can't comprehend written comments.

      Delete
    48. So what's your point here?:

      "But, you think homosexuals have a "right" to marriage? Even though you just admitted that there is no "right" to get married. How do you justify that? Heterosexuals have NO "right" to get married, yet you demand them for homosexuals. That just does not make sense."

      You're trying to say that I don't think heterosexuals have a right to marriage, but homosexuals should. Isn't that one group getting more rights than another?

      Would you like to google the word "superior" now?

      Delete
    49. "You're trying to say that I don't think heterosexuals have a right to marriage?"

      You just did say that. I asked if there was a "right" to get a marriage license and you said "I SUPPOSE NOT".
      Are you now saying that marriage licenses are a right for some and not others? Clarify your stance if you're going to cry about what YOU say.

      Delete
    50. That's an interesting quote. You cut a sentence in half, and then put a question mark on it. What a strange sort of mistake that is.

      "...but homosexuals should" is the rest of the sentence. The point, obviously, is that homosexuals can't get married in most states. They should be allowed (such as heterosexual couples are within the parameters of the ever-so-strict standards for handing out marriage licenses) to get married in every state.

      Is that clear, as if it wasn't already?

      And please do not do any more creative editing with my words.

      Delete
    51. My bad. You're right. Here's the entire quote: "You're trying to say that I don't think heterosexuals have a right to marriage, but homosexuals should."

      So who has a right to a marriage license? Homosexuals or heterosexuals? Keep in mind that you are in FULL support of gays getting "marriage rights" while you SAY there is no "right" to a marriage license.

      What they (homosexuals) CAN or CANNOT do is a different subject. YOU say they have the "right" to marriage. I say they do not. You admit I'm right, but continue to argue the opposite.
      The "parameters" of what is needed to GET a license is one thing, the "right" to get that license is another. Which are you argueing for?

      I'll give you another chance to clarify before I head home (I'll comment in the morning when that happens).

      Delete
    52. I don't see how this didn't already answer your question:

      "The point, obviously, is that homosexuals can't get married in most states. They should be allowed (such as heterosexual couples are within the parameters of the ever-so-strict standards for handing out marriage licenses) to get married in every state."

      It should be the same for homosexual couples as it is for heterosexual couples. It doesn't get any more "See Spot Run" than that.

      Delete
    53. It may not get any more "See Spot Run", but it would sure help if we got some more "See Spot READ".

      I say: What they (homosexuals) CAN or CANNOT do is a different subject.
      I say: So who has a right to a marriage license? Homosexuals or heterosexuals?

      You say: The point, obviously, is that homosexuals can't get married in most states.

      You should STOP using the word "obviously" because in your liberal world it apparently is NOT obvious. So, you want to change the subject AGAIN to what gays CAN or CANNOT do? Didn't I just say that was a different subject compared to whether they have a RIGHT to get married. Yet YOU don't (or can't) read that.

      I didn't think you could clarify your position on rights to marriage. You've dodged that all along and you continue to dodge it. Only now you rudely call me names after telling me to be more polite. I like how liberals make demands that others act civilly while they continue to act like animals.

      I'll give you ONE more chance to answer the damn question: WHO HAS A RIGHT TO A MARRIAGE LICENSE? HOMOSEXUALS OR HETEROSEXUALS

      If you don't answer it this time, I'll know you're just fake. But, that would explain why you are a proud member of Mediamatters.

      Delete
    54. "You want proof? See... you ask for SCIENTIFIC proof, but that's not what you're REALLY asking for. You're asking for proof that you will accept. "

      No, Eddie, I simply want scientific proof that gays are that way because they are born that way. Scientists posting opinion isn't the same thing. I think you whine about what I am after because you CANNOT FIND any scientific proof that gays are born that way. I can find scientific proof as to why people are born with red hair and I can find scientific proof as to why women and men are BORN women and men. Did you notice they are able to scientifically prove a woman is a woman and a man is a man, but they cannot prove a gay is a gay. They STILL HAVE THE GENE THAT DESIGNATES THEM MAN OR WOMAN. You can't change that with a swipe of the knife or addition of a couple boobs. Science, my boy, is the key to this. You are in COMPLETE DENIAL of proven science and wish to use opinionated lecturers as your proof.

      I realize it is an embarrassment to seek civil rights (like women and minorities get) based ONLY on a WANT to have them. But, liberals do what liberals do. I expect no less from any of you.

      Delete
    55. You're getting progressively unhinged here, and I have no idea why. I've clarified my meaning enough for any reasonable person.

      Do people have a right to vote? Felons don't. But we still say people have the right to vote. I'm not sure how marriage is any different. Outside of being married to someone already, I don't know what prevents someone of legal age from getting a license.

      So are you differentiating between the right to do something and the "absolute right" to do it? Because I'm not sure what absolute rights are out there. You have the right to own a gun, but you still have to get a license and register it. You have the right to free speech, but you can't commit slander, commit perjury or shout "fire" in a crowded theater.

      So nobody has a "right" to a marriage license, because that's a contradiction in terms. If you had a right to it, then nobody would have to give you a license to begin with.

      Does that help? Or are you holding out for either "heterosexuals" or "homosexuals" as an answer, for some bizarre reason?

      Delete
    56. "So nobody has a "right" to a marriage license"

      Right. Nobody has a "right" to a marriage license. But, you are seeking those rights for homosexuals while you are saying no one has those rights (twice). Isn't that a little bit contradictory in its own? Are those the "superior rights" you keep calling for? Did you ever look that word up in the dictionary? You need to.

      example of hypocrisy: liberal wants "superior rights" for his beloved homosexual, while saying all others have no right to those "superior rights".

      Delete
    57. "Right. Nobody has a "right" to a marriage license. But, you are seeking those rights for homosexuals while you are saying no one has those rights (twice)."

      If you don't understand the point about how rights are not absolute, please go back and read my post again. It's also been made more than clear I'm asking for homosexuals to have the same rights as heterosexuals, however you choose to describe those rights.

      "Are those the "superior rights" you keep calling for?"

      Again:"I'm not sure what the motivation would be to dye your hair in this scenario, since the situation we're talking about doesn't include anyone having superior rights because of any status. Straight people can get married already, so someone trying to pull one over on the system by "choosing" to be gay seems a bit odd."

      The phrase is "doesn't include anyone having superior rights". That's the opposite of calling for superior rights. This has been explained more than once, so please stop making this ridiculous claim.

      "example of hypocrisy: liberal wants "superior rights" for his beloved homosexual, while saying all others have no right to those "superior rights"."

      If I actually advocated superior rights for anyone, then it wouldn't be possible for anyone else to have superior rights. That would be like saying I want everyone to be richer than someone else. It's not logically possible.

      Delete
    58. "I want everyone to be richer than someone else. It's not logically possible."

      Yes, not very logical coming from you.

      Delete
    59. "Yes, not very logical coming from you."

      It's not logical at all. That's why I used it as a comparison to your "hypocrisy" charge.

      Should I say something about "lack of denial" regarding the rest of my post? Is that really all you have here?

      Delete
    60. William, for fuck's sake...

      It is completely irrelevant whether you call marriage a "right," a "priviledge," an "entitlement," a "benfit" or any other fucking thing. Call it whatever you fucking want to,I don't care, becasue it won't chaneg the POINT.

      The POINT, which is painfully obvious to anyone not insistant on being an obtuse jackass for the express purpose of wasting everbody's time, it that there remains no valid, logical, Constitutionally legitimiate reason for OUR GOVERNMENT to treat gays differently that strait swhen it comes to the LEGAL CONTRACT of marriage. (And read that statement very carefully before you respond. I don't want to have to deal with yet anbother one of your strawmen.)

      Now how stupid one has to be to see treating different people THE SAME WAY, UNDER THE LAW, as giving one group "special rights" or "superior rights" I have no idea, but I'm done with your circular word play and non-sequitorial absurdities.

      The fact is the only real argument you have against the MAIN POINT, in any BIG PICTURE sense, boils down to "my church says it's icky." And you know that eveyone with more than two brain cells to bounce togther will HAMMER your biggoted ass with the First Ammendment if you suggest that this is a reason to DENY people the "rights" (priviledges, etc...) that everyone else takes for granted. (However the fuck you want to classify them.)

      I can only imagine that you insist on nit-picking peripheral irrelevancies becuase you know you've got nothing of any substance to offer us on this. For my part, I'm done with you. I'm tired of you putting words in my mouth, claiming your strawman-points as my own simply becuase I keep trying to correct your misunderstandings, whether they are due to intent or stupidity.

      I'm done here.

      Delete
  4. How many liberals does it take to change a light bulb?


    Right ... none ... because liberals don't do any work. They rely on everyone else to do things for them ... then complain that someone is actually working.

    ReplyDelete
  5. William, you seemed to have missed this one above, so I'll repost it:

    "And in what year was DNA confirmed to be linked to heredity?"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What year was the Earth determined to be round? What does it matter as long as science eventually proves their case?

      Delete
    2. Oh, it matters a great deal. Trust me.

      Delete
    3. What year did the general population start feeling sorry for the black race and decided it was time to give them CIVIL RIGHTS?
      So, no, it doesn't matter that much at all.

      Delete
    4. I'm referring to your claim regarding women. Stop deflecting and answer, please.

      Delete
    5. "And in what year was DNA confirmed to be linked to heredity?"

      I have answered it. It doesn't matter.

      Delete
  6. It doesn't matter if it was in the early fifties? Really? You don't seem to have a grasp on the concept of linear time, even.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Did you figure out that women got the right to vote in 1920 yet? If so, would you like to explain how science that was established in 1952 was trotted out to the public in order to establish equality for women thirty-two years prior?

      Delete
    2. That was quite a clarification.
      Your stance on gay marriage is that since they've had such a hard life after they make the choice of being gay that everyone should feel sorry for them and give them certain rights that you think others get and they don't.

      Let me guess on your stance on African/American rights; they got the certain rights (that you think gays should now get) because they had a hard life after the choice of being African/American that they made and everyone felt sorry for them and gave them the rights, so now gays should get similar rights because African/Americans got them for the same reason.

      Guessing on your stance on women's rights: same as those for African/Americans

      How far off am I? Care to expound?

      Delete
    3. "Your stance on gay marriage is that since they've had such a hard life after they make the choice of being gay..."

      Obviously not, since I don't believe it's a choice. You continue to attribute your views to me.

      Now that we've addressed the deflection, I'd like you to explain your claim that science was used to grant women voting rights. It would appear you were either tremendously confused, or just plain lying. And it's not easy to give you the benefit of the doubt when you dodge and deflect instead of being straightforward about it.

      Delete
  7. Which, by the lack of denial from the rest, means I am correct in the assessment of your stance on African/American rights and women's rights. And the remaining portion of your stance on gay rights.

    I kind of figured that, but had to ask to make sure. I'm sure glad you actually respond to questions when asked of you.

    And since this article is about homophobes and lightbulbs, you'll have to wait until there is an article on women's rights for you to get the answer you're looking for ... after you change the subject yet again. That seems to be a very bad habit you've got there. Must have learned it at Mediamatters ... I see you do that a lot there too.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is no lack of denial. Your "choice" comment wasn't attributable to me, so when you base everything else off of it, it's all nonsense.

      You made the claim that innate homosexuality had to be proven because lack of choice was proven for women. That's part of your argument, so asking you to back it up is not changing the subject.

      If you can't, then my argument that innate homosexuality doesn't have to be proven stands.

      So by all means, run away.

      Delete
    2. You want me to prove women are born that way? I thought I already directed you to the wiki link where it describes how the X and Y chromosome work. You mean that isn't proof enough?

      I HAVE shown that it can be scientifically proven through DNA that a woman IS a woman. Now, it is your turn to prove homosexuality is innate. I've proven my case, you prove yours.

      Delete
    3. Your contention was that scientific evidence was used to grant women the right to vote. The actual genetics of it as we understand them today isn't relevant to what was understood in 1920.

      So no, it's not proof enough, because you're answering the wrong question. I doubt that's an accident.

      Delete
    4. You really have no clue, do you? I, also, doubt that is an accident.

      You tell me to prove (scientifically) that woman are born that way. When I do, you say: oh yeah? you said they get to vote because they are women. why are you avoiding the question.

      Really?!? Is that what you're asking THIS time?

      Delete
    5. Show me where I asked you to prove that women are born that way. Cutting and pasting the first quote I see on this thread regarding the matter:"I'm still waiting to hear what scientific proof was brought forward in order for women to gain the right to vote."

      Here's the contention in question:"We once discriminated against women and blacks. But, scientific proof was brought that showed they could not choose who they are born as and to discriminate against them based on that issue would be wrong. Now, when you bring that scientific proof then you can claim civil rights."

      On the same thread you made some comment about how liberals don't have the balls to back up their claims of fact. Are you a "liberal" now?

      Delete
  8. "Here's the contention in question:"We once discriminated against women and blacks ... blah blah blah."

    That is YOUR contention. Mine is that nobody has a RIGHT to marriage. But, you can change the subject to anything you want. You've done it so many times already, what's another couple times?


    "Show me where I asked you to prove that women are born that way."

    Brabantio Apr 4, 2012 05:08 AM (this article)
    "You made the claim that innate homosexuality had to be proven because lack of choice was proven for women. That's part of your argument, so asking you to back it up is not changing the subject."

    That was all you, brother. Telling me I've got to prove women are born that way. Which I did. Your turn, now.


    Another one of yours:
    "If you can't, then my argument that innate homosexuality doesn't have to be proven stands"

    Well, I was able to prove my contention. So, now your contention MUST be proven.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "That is YOUR contention."

      What are you talking about? Are you seriously denying that you posted that quote? How would it be my contention when I'm challenging it?

      "You made the claim that innate homosexuality had to be proven because lack of choice was proven for women. That's part of your argument, so asking you to back it up is not changing the subject."

      The phrase "had to be proven" is key here. "The claim that innate homosexuality had to be proven because lack of choice was proven for women" means you said it WAS proven in order for women to get rights. That is not a request for you to prove it yourself.

      I hope that helps. You can explain your time-travel theory on this matter whenever you think you're up to it.

      Delete
  9. [William wrote:]

    "I've got gay friends too. One [...] was living with a girl and had no problem saying she loved girls. She recently had a baby ... with her husband. Does this mean she is living a lie? Are you going to be the one to tell her that her life is a sham and she should go back to preferring women? After all there is NO CHOICE available in this matter (according to YOU). Perhaps, one day, she will go back to women as mate material. What will you call her then? A hypocrite for even thinking about men? Or a bigot for making a choice YOU don't agree with?"

    William, why would I have anything at all to say about your friend's sexuality, never having met her? I have no idea how you reach your conclusions about what I might say, but they're completely assinine.

    Howver... Based solely on the information you've given here? The simplest answer is that your friend is Bisexual. I can't possibly KNOW that, for certain, but that would seem to be the case. If that's how she self-identitfies? Who am I (or you) to suggest otherwise? She may prefer 'Pansexual,' which is a thing, but I'll be honest and admit that I don't fuly understand the subtle difference between Pan- and Bi-. But either would seem to fit the bill, and I truly can't believe that you'd think was even a question worth asking [me], let alone one that would be difficult to answer.

    As for the rest of your verbal diarreah... At what point did she make (or would she have made) a choice that "even I don't approve of?" That's moronic. I don't judge people unless they choices do demonstrable harm to another. That's YOUR mental illness. If she doing no harm to another? On what basis would I disapporve? (Based on what I've written I mean, not based on your delusion fever-dream stereotyping of me with what you incorrectly think Liberals stand for?)

    And where, exactly, or when, did I say there was "no choice in the matter"? You take the words "no choice" and run off the cliffs of insanity with them! For the fuckteenth time: if you're going to tell me what I said (or believe), kindly make the slightest effort to get it right first!

    All I've EVER said on the mater was that people don't choose their SEXUAL ORIENTATION. And uh... this has the benefit of also being the mainstream scientific viewpoint, and COMMON SENSE as well. I really don't want to have to say this again, but I'm pretty sure it won't penetrate your thick skull: You don't choose who you're attacted to. YOU CHOOSE to ACT (or not act) on that attraction. You CHOOSE what you DO, not what you FEEL! And being "goy / strait / bi" is about how you FEEL, not how you CHOOSE to ACT. And you can thus be Gay, Starait or Bi, regardless of the LFESTYLE you CHOOSE.

    How these simple truisms can be lost on you, I'll never understand.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "Based solely on the information you've given here? The simplest answer is that your friend is Bisexual. I can't possibly KNOW that, for certain, but that would seem to be the case. If that's how she self-identitfies?"

    That's quite a statement, Eddie. When you say that she is "bi-sexual". What do you mean by that? Do you mean she can choose to like either male or female? Is that is ANY way related to the choice people who like only one sex make? Are you born homosexual? But, if you like both sex's that is choice?
    Or, is there a physical difference between bi-sexuals and homosexuals? If "feelings" come into play, then it is choice. I feel I like cookie-dough ice cream, but it doesn't mean I was born that way.

    As far as your "truisms", when you bring one I'll take a look at it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, Eddie, are you going to answer or not? Are homosexuals born that way, and are bi-sexuals born that way? Well, are they?

      Delete
  11. "Or, is there a physical difference between bi-sexuals and homosexuals? If "feelings" come into play, then it is choice."

    Your attraction to someone of either gender is going to manifest itself as a "feeling". This would be true regardless of whether the attraction was chosen or innate.

    ReplyDelete