Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ut · 06-11-2003, 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by yguy
I'm not going to waste another keystroke defending myself against such patently idiotic accusation.

Well, I guess these feelings are reciprocal

scigirl · 06-11-2003, 08:09 AM

Ut - was your 'Patently idiotic accusaion' simply quoting yguy's other posts? Ha ha - that's too funny.

sci

Ut · 06-11-2003, 08:12 AM

Exactly scigirl, that's exactly what I did.

yguy · 06-11-2003, 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by sodium
So, do I understand the process as follows (based on your comments about Holland),

1) Acceptance of gender confusion.
Leads to
2) Acceptance of bad things in general.
Leads to
3) Acceptance of Muslim immigration.
Leads to
4) Acceptance of Lots of Muslim immigration.
Leads to
5) Destruction of society by Muslims.

Is that more or less the argument?

You're skewing the thrust of my argument a bit by throwing Muslims into it, since in principle it could be any group bent on infiltrating a country as a virus does an organism. Obviously not all Muslims are terrorists, but they can be expected to be disproportionally sympathetic to Islamic terrorists.

If you let someone into your house, and he opens your refrigerator and helps himself without asking, and you don't protest, you have essentially given him leave to make himself at home. You can hardly be surprised, then, if you eventually find him making himself at home with your daughter, if you get my drift. The dutch have let such a person enter their country in the person of the head of the AEL.

BTW, an integral component of step 2 is the fact that gender confusion and the selfishness which spawned it produce an environment which is increasingly hostile to children, which produces a decline in population, inducing the government to loosen immigration laws to maintain the population base.

yguy · 06-11-2003, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by scigirl
No, actually I rarely know what you are talking about. Here's my impression of your posts so far (and I've read many more than I've replied to):

You make a bold outrageous claim, with no evidence to back any of it up. We all call you on it. You say, "that's not what I meant" but still never explain what you do mean. A couple threads later, you make the exact same bold outrageous claim.

The way I see it, I do try to explain what I mean, but most here find those explanations unsatisfactory at best or heretical at worst. As far as I know, that doesn't make me guilty of anything beyond lack of ability to articulate. If I'm just an idiot who provokes reaction for the fun of it, the easiest course is for those who see me that way to do to me what I do to those I see as idiots: put me on ignore.

Quote:

You also have this interesting habit of replying to only one or two comments that a poster made, and ignoring the rest. Is that because you have no proper rebuttal?

Possibly. I'd have to know the specific instance. Many times it's a point I've addressed previously, and I don't like repeating myself.

OTOH, scigirl, you haven't addressed every point I've made either - so I don't quite see the problem.

Quote:

Look at your last post to Ut and Dr Rick. Yes they were a bit condescending to you. But as you just told fatherphil in another thread, that shouldn't be a reason to ignore their arguments so you can "sharpen" your own. Are you now forgetting your own advice?

Not at all. I've heard enough from Dr. Rick to know that he's not interested in understanding what I'm getting at. Had I thought the same of you, I would have said nothing to fatherphil.

Quote:

Dr Rick's point about how gender is a complex trait - a while back I started a thread here discussing how confusing gender can be. Yet you just completely ignored this point, and instead wished to participate in a flame war.

You lost me. Was I supposed to have been aware of that thread?

Quote:

I'm finished discussing things with you, for all of the above reasons.

Sorry to hear that, and I wish you well.

keyser_soze · 06-11-2003, 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by yguy
<previously deleted quote deleted by Michael>

A touchy subject it appears....Hmm. Something definately struck a nerve, because the response was way out of proportion to the statement from Dr. Rick.

Protesting too loudly speaks as much as protesting not at all.

cheetah · 06-11-2003, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by yguy
You're skewing the thrust of my argument a bit by throwing Muslims into it, since in principle it could be any group bent on infiltrating a country as a virus does an organism. Obviously not all Muslims are terrorists, but they can be expected to be disproportionally sympathetic to Islamic terrorists.

If you let someone into your house, and he opens your refrigerator and helps himself without asking, and you don't protest, you have essentially given him leave to make himself at home. You can hardly be surprised, then, if you eventually find him making himself at home with your daughter, if you get my drift. The dutch have let such a person enter their country in the person of the head of the AEL.

BTW, an integral component of step 2 is the fact that gender confusion and the selfishness which spawned it produce an environment which is increasingly hostile to children, which produces a decline in population, inducing the government to loosen immigration laws to maintain the population base.

Omigod yguy, are you or are you not basically saying that every person should stay in the country of their origin because if other countries invite them in the above will happen??? Or, are you perhaops saying that only industrialized, predominantly Anglo/white/etc. countires should be careful of who they let in?

Godless Dave · 06-11-2003, 08:48 AM

Yeah, that prosperity, peace, and low rate of violent crime are really killing Holland.

NHGH · 06-11-2003, 09:05 AM

Just found this thread, and frankly I'm confused by the argument here.

Quote:

Originally posted by sodium
So, do I understand the process as follows (based on your comments about Holland),

1) Acceptance of gender confusion.
Leads to
2) Acceptance of bad things in general.
Leads to
3) Acceptance of Muslim immigration.
Leads to
4) Acceptance of Lots of Muslim immigration.
Leads to
5) Destruction of society by Muslims.

Is that more or less the argument?

Quote:

Originally posted by yguy
You're skewing the thrust of my argument a bit by throwing Muslims into it, since in principle it could be any group bent on infiltrating a country as a virus does an organism.

Are you suggesting here that gays are "bent on infiltrating a country as a virus does an organism"?

Quote:

Obviously not all Muslims are terrorists, but they can be expected to be disproportionally sympathetic to Islamic terrorists.

If you let someone into your house, and he opens your refrigerator and helps himself without asking, and you don't protest, you have essentially given him leave to make himself at home.

Is this supposed to be an analogy to permitting gay marriage? If it is, I'm having trouble making out the connection. It sounds to me like you want the right to inspect the contents of others' refrigerators and tell them what they may or may not keep there.

Quote:

You can hardly be surprised, then, if you eventually find him making himself at home with your daughter, if you get my drift. The dutch have let such a person enter their country in the person of the head of the AEL.

BTW, an integral component of step 2 is the fact that gender confusion and the selfishness which spawned it produce an environment which is increasingly hostile to children, which produces a decline in population, inducing the government to loosen immigration laws to maintain the population base.

OK, this is where things get really confusing.

1) You assert that "gender confusion", which you previously defined as "men acting like women and vice versa", is the result of "selfishness". (You never answered Hedwig's request for clarification, but I'll just assume here that you meant this only in a sexual/relationship context. You can correct me if I'm wrong.) Why do you think that engaging in homosexual relationships is any more "selfish" than engaging in heterosexual relationships?

2) How does it "produce an environment which is increasingly hostile to children" to have people involved in gay relationships? And how does this lead to a population decline? (Obviously, gay sex doesn't produce offspring, but there are gays with children, either adopted or conceived via surrogates, so I don't see a firm connection between gay relationships and population decline.)

Dr Rick · 06-11-2003, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by yguy
...an integral component of step 2 is the fact that gender confusion and the selfishness which spawned it produce an environment which is increasingly hostile to children, which produces a decline in population, inducing the government to loosen immigration laws to maintain the population base.

You should have left it alone; even sodium's parody of your position is more rational than this drivel.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-11-2003, 08:09 AM	#42
scigirl Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Seattle Posts: 4,261	Ut - was your 'Patently idiotic accusaion' simply quoting yguy's other posts? Ha ha - that's too funny. sci

06-11-2003, 08:12 AM	#43
Ut Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Quebec, Canada Posts: 828	Exactly scigirl, that's exactly what I did.

06-11-2003, 08:48 AM	#48
Godless Dave Contributor Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: With 10,000 lakes who needs a coast? Posts: 10,762	Yeah, that prosperity, peace, and low rate of violent crime are really killing Holland.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.