yguy

Yes. The purpose of the thread is not to explore the psychology of the connection on an intrapersonal or interpersonal level, though I've digressed in that direction here and there. This thread is about the socio-political connection.

JamesKrieger

Translation: When yguy makes a claim, he doesn't have to support it if it's not related to the "purpose of the thread"

Calzaer

There, I fixed it for you.

Several times in this thread and others he's refused point-blank demands for evidence and support for his contentions. He usually says something like:
"Nothing that's empirically testable " or "It's intutive, inborn knowledge that only True Believers(tm) are actually in touch with, in spite of it being allegedly intuitive and inborn."

Goober

Check this classic yguy quote from a thread back here from a discussion in the science & skepticism forum.

He makes unprovable assertions, admits that they are impossible to prove and then thinks that the burden of proof doesn't matter because he didn't 'accept' such a burden and says he almost never does! :banghead:

dk

Originally posted by yguy: There is nothing posted anywhere on II by me that could properly be interpreted as religious fanaticism...
NHGH: Well, anti-gay bigotry typically has its roots in religious fanaticism, and I've never known you to offer anything remotely resembling a credible secular argument to support your stance regarding homosexuals, so it's an obvious inference to draw. But you're right; strictly speaking, the first does not imply the second, so I apologize. I should have said "anti-gay bigot" instead of "religious fanatic".
dk: The adage “Anti-gay bigotry” presents an oxymoron. Merriam-Webster © defines bigot, “a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices”. The question is whether I’m a bigot but whether the Gay Rights Movement 1) obliges my good will and support, or 2) earns my scorn and antagonism. I am generally contemptuous of the Gay Rights because they pose an eminent threat to a good life and civilization. I oppose the Gay Rights Movement for three obvious reasons…

1. perpetuate an egotistical tradition (Freudian) that lacks judgment, conscience, and merit.
2. show hostility and mock family values (anti family)
3. subvert public schools to indoctrinate, socialize and social engineer children as political pawns to fight a cultural war

In the 1980s HIV/AIDs decimated the gay community. When HAART therapies came online in the 1990s many gays celebrated by taking off the gloves to ride bareback. This was a pathological response, for example…
” What most upset Stall and Katz - both of whom are prominent gay leaders in San Francisco - is that their community seems no longer to be listening to the primary message of 1990s public health: Always have sex using a condom.

In fact, it appears gays granted access to public schools system to education students about HIV have transported the virus into the public schools.

Such irresponsible behavior can only be described as pathological. Apparently some in the gay community intend to extend the HIV epidemic in the US to a new generation for political reasons. The scenario demostrates a Marcusean political flavor.

livius drusus

Your hoary old bête noir won't hunt in this thread, dk. Nobody's talking about AIDS here. I suggest you flog your log in one of the myriad other threads about homosexuality instead of derailing this one 16 pages into it.

AquaVita

Yep. Take it to a relevant thread, dk. This is not the time, nor place.

dk

So its your opinion that HIV+ gays provide a valuable service infecting the school children they educate and support. Good point.

dk

Yes there's a connection... read Herbert Marcuse the guru of the New Left in the 1960s, Eros and Civilization.

Dr Rick

There is no question.

What follows is a series of rationalizations presented in some form or another by dk in the past. They've been thoroughly deconstructed before on prior threads, but it might be worthwhile to go through them briefly again for those that have missed the previous beatings. [...and then I won't address this off-topic bullshit again; I just didn't want this miserable nonsense to go uncorrected)

Substitute any group you want, here, from sky-divers to Christians, and it will be no less nonsensical.

We are all lamentably familiar with the daily spectacle of hordes of gays angrily tauting children on their way to school with chants of "Nyah, nyah; nyah, nyah...you've go parents, you've got parents..."

There is no attempt to substantiate this particular spluge in the rest of his post, and it's just hate speech, akin to "Blacks are hostile to White Christian values,"

Many gays live in families, are monogamous, and are parents. The movement is fighting to be able to marry partners and adopt children, which many homophobes oppose even as they condemn them for subverting the family.

White-supremists use similar language, and just a moment ago dk was telling us he's not a bigot.

Now, dk attempts to use some "facts" to justify his feelings, but his argument is just as weak as it was the last time he tried it.

We could post something about gang-bangers or some other "small minority" of an ethnic group and generalize to the whole, but most of us aren't that hateful and irrational. The majority of gays practice safe sex, and the majority of latinos are not criminals; labeling all of either group based upon what a small deviant, minority of them do is unjustifiable and rehensible.

In this case, it's also hypocritical. dk is well aware from previous threads that what's being devastated right now by HIV is the "heterosexual community"; it's out of control in much of Africa and parts of Asia due primarily to heterosexual sex, which is no less of a "pathological response" to HIV than homosexual sex. Furthermore, if HIV was really a justification for condemning sexual orientation, then female homosexuals should warrant high praise as they have much lower HIV rates than heteroxexual family values types.

This is just dishonest; the figures he posted are for homosexual men between the ages of 23-29, and the study doesn't even mention schools! dk found a set of figures that have nothing to do with his paranoia and juxtaposed them with inflammatory rhetoric. His "irresponsible behavior can only be described as pathological."

Apparently some in the bigot community intend to extend their hate to anyone that's dumb enough to listen.