GOP DUI GAY

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Busted anti-gay lawmaker reportedly seen at gay club



Talk about a bad hangover. After GOP State Sen. Roy Ashburn's DUI arrest, rumors are swirling about his sexual orientation following a report that he allegedly visited a gay nightclub.

Ashburn, 55, a father of four, represents the 18th district, which includes Kern, Tulare and Inyo counties. According to reports, police pulled him and an unidentified male passenger over in Sacramento around 2 a.m. Wednesday. Ashburn's blood alcohol level was .14 percent, .06 percent above the legal limit, say authorities. He was arrested for drunken driving, booked and released; the man in the car with Ashburn was not arrested. The state-issued Chevy Tahoe Ashburn was driving at the time of his arrest has been impounded.



http://www.californiatargetbook.com/images/roy%20ashburn.jpg

What a scumbag!! The guy drives a gas-guzzling Chevy Tahoe on the dime of taxpayers!

[olevetonahill]

Aint EVERY one Ghey in Cal ?

[Collier11]

HE couldnt even tell himself he was gay but I could see it from 1000 yards away

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Aint EVERY one Ghey in Cal ?

That means less competition to bang the muchachitas.

[badger]

Ashburn, 55, a father of four, represents the 18th district, which includes Kern, Tulare and Inyo counties.

the first word that stuck out to me :D

[SoonerBorn68]

The guy drives a gas-guzzling Chevy Tahoe on the dime of taxpayers!

Government motors. Duh.

[olevetonahill]

That means less competition to bang the muchachitas.

Thats right they are either Ghey or Illegals huh ?

[Jello Biafra]

HE couldnt even tell himself he was gay but I could see it from 1000 yards away



:chicken:









;)

[LosAngelesSooner]

Pretty typical. Usually those who run around angrily yelling and screaming about teh gheys and how they are sinners and must be stopped the most are usually quite gay themselves and just trying desperately to hide it.

[NormanPride]

I always hear that but I don't know how true it is...

[goingoneight]

Yeah... the first sign should have been the ghey profile picture.

[XingTheRubicon]

maybe he was researching something

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Walk the walk or STFU!

the passanger in his car was released. He was not a staffer or well known to the legislator.

[LosAngelesSooner]

I always hear that but I don't know how true it is...Read the headlines in the papers for the past 20 years.

It fits into a stereotype. And like any stereotype there is some truth behind it as well as some exceptions to the rule.


Walk the walk or STFU!

the passanger in his car was released. He was not a staffer or well known to the legislator.Sounds like he picked someone up from the bar and was taking him home.

[yermom]

wide stances, meth dealing ghey escorts...

Larry Craig was funny, but the Haggard one was the best

[Leroy Lizard]

If we don't know anything about his passenger, WTF?

[Leroy Lizard]

Usually those who run around angrily yelling and screaming about teh gheys and how they are sinners and must be stopped the most are usually quite gay themselves and just trying desperately to hide it.

Not to stereotype or anything.

[Okla-homey]

Pretty typical. Usually those who run around angrily yelling and screaming about teh gheys and how they are sinners and must be stopped the most are usually quite gay themselves and just trying desperately to hide it.

Now, now. No evidence has been put forth this guy was a gay-basher. Therefore, don't tar him with that brush.

Now, that said, I quite agree that the most vocal anti-gay types are generally closeted homos. I've believed for years that Fred Phelps up in Topeka is probably gayer than RuPaul or that blonde guy on the old "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" show. To wit, flaming. As in he fancies nude male torso sculpture and would do you in a Greyhound bus lavatory. He's just never been busted.

[Leroy Lizard]

Now, that said, I quite agree that the most vocal anti-gay types are generally closeted homos. I've believed for years that Fred Phelps up in Topeka is probably gayer than RuPaul or that blonde guy on the old "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" show. To wit, flaming. As in he fancies nude male torso sculpture and would do you in a Greyhound bus lavatory. He's just never been busted.

But that won't stop us from going ahead and labeling him, will it?

[King Barry's Back]

To move this away from blatant stereotyping...


There is a school of psychology that says that those who are strongly animated to condemn certain types of behavior, especially sexual behavior, tend to be motivated by a very strong -- almost irresistable -- urge to engage in that behavior.

Let me say that I have absolutely no expertise in this, but happened to read a newspaper article about this last week. Otherwise, i never heard of the theory.

But once you are aware of it, you see it very often depicted in popular culture. An example that comes to mind is from the movie "Kinsey" a few ago, about the controversial sex researcher Alfred Kinsey.

The character of Alfred Kinsey's father, played by John Lithgow, was depicted as a Bible-banging, passionate anti-sex crusader who caused a youthful Alfred to lead a completely repressed sexual life. Then in the end, we see the reason for the father's anti-sex obsession was because the father felt urges that he was trying to deny. (In this case, I think it was about ALL sex, not just homosexuality.)

Anyway, I don't put much stock in Hollywood pop-psychology, so don't consider it in the end much more than a steretype.

Just me, though, but I don't go around beating up gay people, denouncing them, or trying to hide them.

I mostly just ignore them or occassionally laugh at them some times.

[Leroy Lizard]

There is a school of psychology that says that those who are strongly animated to condemn certain types of behavior, especially sexual behavior, tend to be motivated by a very strong -- almost irresistable -- urge to engage in that behavior.

Tend to?

I don't know of any self-respecting psychologist that would make such a blanket statement.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Gay Club Owner Calling For Ashburn Resignation
More Local News
SACRAMENTO (CBS13) ―



The owner of a Sacramento gay nightclub that Senator Roy Ashburn was at before his arrest early Wednesday morning on suspicion of DUI is calling for Ashburn's resignation.

The CHP arrested Ashburn at 2:00 a.m. Wednesday. Sources tell CBS13 that Ashburn, known for his anti-gay stance, had just left FACES -- a gay nightclub -- before being arrested.

Today, FACES owner Terry Sidie said he thinks it's time Ashburn resigned.

"I think it probably would behoove him to step aside," said Sidie.

Others in the gay community are not yet calling for Ashburn to step down, but are commenting.

"As a public figure he has definitely crossed over into some territory that goes against what his public voting record shows," said Bill Otton, Interim Director of the Sacramento Gay & Lesbian Center.

Equality California also issued a statement. "It is extremely hypocritical for Senator Ashburn, by patronizing a gay club, to be enjoying the fundamental rights and freedoms of association that others have fought so hard for but that he himself has repeatedly voted against," said Equality California Executive Director Geoff Kors.

Ashburn served six years as a state Assemblyman before being elected to the State Senate. According to Project Vote Smart, Ashburn's voting record shows he has voted against every gay rights measure in the State Senate since taking office including Recognizing Out-Of-State Same-Sex Marriages", Harvey Milk Day and Expanding Anti-Discrimination Laws.

[Leroy Lizard]

Sorry, but they're not making any sense.

This is starting to look orchestrated.

[LosAngelesSooner]

To move this away from blatant stereotyping...
How DARE you?!

This is the South Oval. Blatant stereotyping is what we do best here.

;)

[LosAngelesSooner]

Sorry, but they're not making any sense.

This is starting to look orchestrated.You mean like the pimp kid with ACORN who made up all that stuff?

Nah...these are Libs. They don't lie, they just bitch and moan a lot before they cave in.

[LosAngelesSooner]

Now, now. No evidence has been put forth this guy was a gay-basher. Therefore, don't tar him with that brush.
Putting forth laws that strip a sub-sect of humanity of their basic human rights and voting against any measure that in any way benefits them is bashing in my book.

As for the rest of your post: I totally agree.

[Leroy Lizard]

Putting forth laws that strip a sub-sect of humanity of their basic human rights and voting against any measure that in any way benefits them is bashing in my book.

Voting against something is the same as bashing it?

[LosAngelesSooner]

If I vote against black people having the right to vote, would you or would you not consider that a form of "bashing" black people?

[Leroy Lizard]

No. Bashing would imply an overt denigration of people. Words lose meaning when applied too liberally.

In essence, what you are doing is affixing an emotionally charged label to those who vote against the way you wish they would, which means those who disagree. So those that vote against tax increases to pay for social programs are bashing the poor.

[Crucifax Autumn]

So he just hates the gay behavior he craves, but doesn't bash it.

BTW...He has a purdy mouth.

[Leroy Lizard]

I'm not sure we have even established that he's gay.

But to respond to your statement, yes, you can disrespect something and vote against it and not bash it.

[yermom]

it seems odd for someone that loves to vote down gay stuff then go to a gay bar

i've been to gay bars before, but i'm a dirty lib

[Leroy Lizard]

it seems odd for someone that loves to vote down gay stuff then go to a gay bar

Not at all for someone who is gay but wishes he wasn't.

But again, do we even know he went to a gay bar?

[Crucifax Autumn]

He was just doing research...







...on the taste of penis.

[Leroy Lizard]

Okay, let me try once again.

Do we know for a fact that he went to a gay bar?

[Crucifax Autumn]

I personally don't care. I'm just jumping on the chance to make gay jokes about yet another idiot that tries to legislate away gay rights laws.

[Leroy Lizard]

Wow. Okay, not much else to say there.

[Crucifax Autumn]

LOL...I'm not above admitting my childishness!

[DeadSolidPerfect]

..yet another idiot that tries to legislate away gay rights laws.

What rights to gays currently have that he is trying to "legislate" away?

[yermom]

how about the one they did legislate away?

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Okay, let me try once again.

Do we know for a fact that he went to a gay bar?

watch the video...

http://cbs13.com/video/[email protected]

Witnesses say the Senator was partying at the gay club Faces on Latin Night right before his DUI arrest.

[DeadSolidPerfect]

how about the one they did legislate away?

Which one was that?

[yermom]

marriage in California

[SanJoaquinSooner]

We need to preserve traditional values for the future of our children. Children must be raised with morals and principles. As a society, we must provide them with a secured and loving environment that allows them to flourish."

Those are the words of California state Senator Roy Ashburn, a father of four, quoted in a 2005 press release announcing a rally to support "traditional marriage".

[Leroy Lizard]

watch the video...

http://cbs13.com/video/[email protected]

Witnesses say the Senator was partying at the gay club Faces on Latin Night right before his DUI arrest.

We have an openly gay politician who says that he saw Ashburn driving around in the area, and the owner of a gay bar who says he doesn't know if Ashburn was in the bar.

From what I can tell, that's it.

[DeadSolidPerfect]

marriage in California

This is a right gays previously held?

[SanJoaquinSooner]

We have an openly gay politician who says that he saw Ashburn driving around in the area, and the owner of a gay bar who says he doesn't know if Ashburn was in the bar.

From what I can tell, that's it.

Quit being obtuse, Liz.

CBS13's Koula Gianulias also reports that Cabaldon called out Ashburn in a Facebook posting about six months ago.

"It wouldn't bother me so bad to see Roy Ashburn at Badlands with a boy if he didn't have such a bad voting record on gay rights," he wrote.


The Bakersfield Californian, Ashburn's home newspaper, had asked him twice about his sexuality in the past several years. After hearing a rumor that Ashburn was going to be outed by another newspaper, a columnist for the paper asked Ashburn last year if he is gay. Ashburn replied: "Why would that be anyone's business?"

[olevetonahill]

Have any of Yall ever been to a gay Club ?
I went once . They wouldnt let me in .:D

[SanJoaquinSooner]

This is a right gays previously held?

Yes, there are some gay couples who are recognized as legally married in California. An initiative passed allowing the state of California to discriminate w/ respect to gender in its recognition of marriages. Those already married are grandfathered in.

[Chuck Bao]

Have any of Yall ever been to a gay Club ?
I went once . They wouldnt let me in .:D

Yeah that probably was a lesbian bar, am I right? Some lesbian bars won't let guys in or you'd certainly be made to feel unwelcome.

[Leroy Lizard]

Quit being obtuse, Liz.

CBS13's Koula Gianulias also reports that Cabaldon called out Ashburn in a Facebook posting about six months ago.

"It wouldn't bother me so bad to see Roy Ashburn at Badlands with a boy if he didn't have such a bad voting record on gay rights," he wrote.

The Bakersfield Californian, Ashburn's home newspaper, had asked him twice about his sexuality in the past several years. After hearing a rumor that Ashburn was going to be outed by another newspaper, a columnist for the paper asked Ashburn last year if he is gay. Ashburn replied: "Why would that be anyone's business?"

Sorry, but that's a big load of nothing.

I'm not saying he's straight. He isn't a politician in my state, so I don't have any stake in it. But there seems to be an incredible lack of evidence to back up some pretty highly charged accusations. So far, all we have is a gay politician claiming he saw Ashburn driving around in a gay area, and a newspaper asking him if he's gay.

[StoopTroup]

I'm not sure we have even established that he's gay.

I think I've figured out who was in the car with him.

[yermom]

i might agree with LL when he files a defamation suit :D

[Harry Beanbag]

Have any of Yall ever been to a gay Club ?
I went once . They wouldnt let me in .:D

I've been to several gay bars in the Castro District in San Francisco. Friend of mine was gay and took me bar hopping. Most of them are really good people and I always had a great time.

Side note: Just because I have been to a gay bar doesn't mean I'm gay or that I want to be gay or that I hate gays.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Have any of Yall ever been to a gay Club ?
I went once . They wouldnt let me in .:DYa gotta belong to one of the 2 sexes.

[olevetonahill]

Yeah that probably was a lesbian bar, am I right? Some lesbian bars won't let guys in or you'd certainly be made to feel unwelcome.

Naw this was a Gay dude Private club back in the early 80s
Me an 2 friends wanted to go in just to see . They looked at us thru the lil peephole thingy and said " Go Away"

[Leroy Lizard]

I think I've figured out who was in the car with him.

You're the one that gets a woodie every time you think of me.

[Leroy Lizard]

i might agree with LL when he files a defamation suit

As a politician, he simply can't do that.

(Oh, he *can* but it would be counterproductive no matter the truth.)

[Collier11]

I've been to several gay bars in the Castro District in San Francisco. Friend of mine was gay and took me bar hopping. Most of them are really good people and I always had a great time.

Side note: Just because I have been to a gay bar doesn't mean I'm gay or that I want to be gay or that I hate gays.

Harry likes wanger

[Leroy Lizard]

According to reports, police pulled him and an unidentified male passenger over in Sacramento around 2 a.m. Wednesday.

It says, "according to reports." The police report is publicly available. Was the police report one of the reports? If so, why doesn't it say "According to the police report..."

If not, what other reports could this possibly be? If it's eyewitness testimony, why doesn't it say that? And why hasn't the media quoted the actual police report?

This is just real shoddy journalism, which leads me to suspect there may be nothing more to this than a simple DUI.

Maybe a journalism major can explain.

[Chuck Bao]

I've been to several gay bars in the Castro District in San Francisco. Friend of mine was gay and took me bar hopping. Most of them are really good people and I always had a great time.

Side note: Just because I have been to a gay bar doesn't mean I'm gay or that I want to be gay or that I hate gays.


Good for you! It takes a man to be that comfortable in his own sexuality to not feel threatened or feel the need to judge what other consenting adults do.

I don't think that there is any question about the state senator from California. But, if he were like you and just going out to have a beer with a friend, who just happens to be gay, you'd think the friend should speak up by now. I trust that your friend would have.

[Leroy Lizard]

Good for you! It takes a man to be that comfortable in his own sexuality to not feel threatened or feel the need to judge what other consenting adults do.

Since we're all singing campfire songs together, let me offer a differing opinion: Real men don't hang out in gay bars.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Sorry, but that's a big load of nothing.

I'm not saying he's straight. He isn't a politician in my state, so I don't have any stake in it. But there seems to be an incredible lack of evidence to back up some pretty highly charged accusations. So far, all we have is a gay politician claiming he saw Ashburn driving around in a gay area, and a newspaper asking him if he's gay.

The Mayor of West Sacramento says he's seen him in a gay club with a date. Not only did the newspaper ask him if he's gay, he didn't say no to the question.

We're not trying to convict him in a court of law that would require a higher level of evidence. But there's surely enough evidence for message board conclusions just as there was enough evidence to know tiger woods didn't crash his car out of his driveway simply because he was overly-eager to get to the gym for a workout.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Have any of Yall ever been to a gay Club ?
I went once . They wouldnt let me in .:D

Now admit it , vet. They kicked you out for messing up on the spelling of YMCA.

[Chuck Bao]

Naw this was a Gay dude Private club back in the early 80s
Me an 2 friends wanted to go in just to see . They looked at us thru the lil peephole thingy and said " Go Away"

SERIOUSLY DUDE! The peephole thingy was a very, very good sign that you do not belong there. It was probably not meant to be a zoo. There are bars where you can go and just have a beer and relax and basically feel accepted and okay with the world.

[Leroy Lizard]

The Mayor of West Sacramento says he's seen him in a gay club with a date. Not only did the newspaper ask him if he's gay, he didn't say no to the question.

Once the media gets you saying no to accusations, they own you. You can't deny, because the very act of denying implicates you. Politicians have tried for years to figure out how to handle left-field questions, and most of them fail miserably at it.

So Ashburn tells the reporter, "No, I'm not gay." The newspaper than states "Ashburn denies being gay." Guess what everyone will conclude?


We're not trying to convict him in a court of law that would require a higher level of evidence. But there's surely enough evidence for message board conclusions just as there was enough evidence to know tiger woods didn't crash his car out of his driveway simply because he was overly-eager to get to the gym for a workout.

With Tiger we actually had a police report to look at and eyewitness testimony from neighbors who have no real reason to lie. (Also, you are using selective hindsight. Many times such rumors turn out to be untrue.) So far here, we have nothing more than one man's testimony, who just happens to be on the opposite side of the political fence.

Male passenger not identified. Gay club owner can't say if he was in the club. No one else has stated he was in the club either (unless I missed it.

Of course, there will be tons of witnesses now.

If I was going to put my money on it, I would say that he's gay. But I'm not going to conclude that just yet. This has all the making of a smear campaign.

[Scott D]

This is just real shoddy journalism, which leads me to suspect there may be nothing more to this than a simple DUI.

Maybe a journalism major can explain.

You say this like there is any other sort of journalism in today's world.

[yermom]

The Mayor of West Sacramento says he's seen him in a gay club with a date. Not only did the newspaper ask him if he's gay, he didn't say no to the question.

We're not trying to convict him in a court of law that would require a higher level of evidence. But there's surely enough evidence for message board conclusions just as there was enough evidence to know tiger woods didn't crash his car out of his driveway simply because he was overly-eager to get to the gym for a workout.

and that was all 6 months before this DUI business

[yermom]

Since we're all singing campfire songs together, let me offer a differing opinion: Real men don't hang out in gay bars.

i think you might protest too much ;)

[olevetonahill]

SERIOUSLY DUDE! The peephole thingy was a very, very good sign that you do not belong there. It was probably not meant to be a zoo. There are bars where you can go and just have a beer and relax and basically feel accepted and okay with the world.

I swear we wernt wantin to cause any Probs . Remember the Ghey lifestyle was still pretty much in the Closet back in 81/82

Hell we was drunk and just wanted to see if it was real :eek:

[StoopTroup]

i think you might protest too much ;)

Exactly

[Chuck Bao]

I swear we wernt wantin to cause any Probs . Remember the Ghey lifestyle was still pretty much in the Closet back in 81/82

Hell we was drunk and just wanted to see if it was real :eek:

I remember back even earlier than that when I thought I could solve Rubik's cube. I really couldn't and I just wanted to enter the competition to see others fail. I am very glad now that I didn't. I'm not sure what I'm trying to say here but I don't think going in at the deep end of the pool, even for the very drunk, is a good thing. Afterall, it is about human relationships and not just the mechanics of sex.

[StoopTroup]

Mechanics do have secs.

[olevetonahill]

What can i say Chuck
we wuz drunk and really hadnt ever seen anything like it .

[StoopTroup]

ThiaBone + OVJ = Bangkok?

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Bangkok.

Soak it in. Just say it with me again.

Bangkok.

That is all.

[Chuck Bao]

Bangkok.

Soak it in. Just say it with me again.

Bangkok.

That is all.

You know what? It really should be a badge of honor to think a country is open-minded to accept those people who are courageous enough to stand up for themselves and demand equal treatment. Democracy was built on that courage and many human rights were as well. Vet and his drunken friends maybe just wanted to see what fighting for freedom is all about. Whether they agree or not, may God bless them and may all of us know that we have those freedoms and that was achieved on the back of sacrifices of others.

This California state senator is not standing on that principle, as far as I can tell.

[Collier11]

Bangkok dangerous

[Chuck Bao]

Bangkok dangerous


And you have been to Bangkok before?

[Collier11]

no, Confucius tell me

[Crucifax Autumn]

What rights to gays currently have that he is trying to "legislate" away?


how about the one they did legislate away?

Yermom nailed it. They had a law and far right wing Christians, out of state Mormons, and Blacks (Yes, blacks piled on a minority) freaked out and made it illegal.

I just have a hard time figuring out why these people all feel the need to spend their time on shat like this when there are real societal problems to be dealt with. If Neal and Bob want to wear wedding rings I just don't give a rat's ***. It doesn't affect my life, marriage, or children in any way whatsoever.

[Chuck Bao]

no, Confucius tell me

I will tell you, but I don't know if you will listen. Thais are relatively open to the idea of gays or lesbians. That is not to say that Thai mothers will not shed a tear or two over no grandbabies. Basically, it is not a difficult idea to understand - some guys just want to live together and some girls just want to live with other girls. It is no threat or concern, so why would anyone be bothered with that? Give them their rights and people will soon forget about separated us in the first place.

[Collier11]

well I was just being silly, I have no qualms or issues with the gay lifestlye, my uncle is gay, doesnt bother me. I dont agree with it and I dont think it is ideal under God but its not my place to judge.

The only thing I discriminate against is stupidity and hatred... lifestyles, race, etc... doesnt matter one bit to me

[LosAngelesSooner]

Since we're all singing campfire songs together, let me offer a differing opinion: Real men don't hang out in gay bars.Heh...it would be fun to watch someone actually walk up to some of the gay guys I know and accuse them of "not being 'real men'" to their faces.

Lots of fun. :D

[Crucifax Autumn]

Since we're all singing campfire songs together...

Weenie roast?

[Okla-homey]

Putting forth laws that strip a sub-sect of humanity of their basic human rights and voting against any measure that in any way benefits them is bashing in my book.

As for the rest of your post: I totally agree.

FWIW, some folks fail to accept the notion homesexuality is anything other than a choice. I'm not really sure. I think the jury is still out on that to the extent science has yet to isolate a "gay gene." Neverthelsss, I understand the psychology community long ago lined-up behind the notion a person is born homosexual and they aren't "made."

But more relevantly, there are men who, for whatever reason, like little kids in a sexual way. We call them "pedophiles." We castigate them and put them in prison if they are convicted of acting on their "impulses." In fact, we even send people to the penitentiary for simple possession of photographs depicting children in a prurient light.

There are men who, for whatever reason, like to start fires. We call them "arsonists." We castigate and put them in prison if they are convicted of acting on their impulses.

There are people who are pathologically disposed to steal stuff. We call them "kleptomaniacs." Nevertheless, we castigate them and put them in prison if they are convicted of acting on their impulses.

Of course, the difference between the groups I've listed and garden-variety homosexuals is the fact those other types of folks engage in conduct harmful to others. In contrast, the contemporary conventional wisdom is homosexuality between consenting adults doesn't hurt anyone. Perhaps that's true. I'll give that view the benefit of the doubt.

Therefore, I'm disposed to accept homsexuality and homosexuals as folks who, for whatever reason, sexually fancy folks of their gender. I'm down with gay civil marriage, as long as faith-based organizations (that's Californian for "churches") aren't compelled to solemnize said unions on pain of losing their legal status as a church, or otherwise suffer.

The fact is, no matter how much the gay rights community shouts it ain't fair, the Scriptures are pretty clear that homosexual conduct (not homosexuals), is abhorrent and is therefore an anathema to legitimate ecclesiastical authority and more importantly, to God. Therefore, folks who subscribe to and observe a faith that is based on the 1611 King James Version of the Bible, are never going to accept homosexual conduct on a par with heterosexual conduct.

The only thing I find personally offensive in this whole debate is the fact people who are willing to tolerate homosexual behavior, but stop short of accepting it as a healthy lifestyle on the same plain with heterosexuality are "homophobic" knuckle-draggers.

Besides, gay marriage will surely lead to gay divorce, And my family law practitioner brethren could use the boost in income.

[Leroy Lizard]

I just have a hard time figuring out why these people all feel the need to spend their time on shat like this when there are real societal problems to be dealt with.

Actually, it didn't take me any longer to vote against gay marriage than for it.


Heh...it would be fun to watch someone actually walk up to some of the gay guys I know and accuse them of "not being 'real men'" to their faces.

Lots of fun.

So being a real man is about being tough. Okay, but that contradicts what most others are saying. Can't have it (ahem) both ways.


The only thing I find personally offensive in this whole debate is the fact people who are willing to tolerate homosexual behavior, but stop short of accepting it as a healthy lifestyle on the same plain with heterosexuality are "homophobic" knuckle-draggers.

Something about your statement makes no sense. So... huh?

[Crucifax Autumn]

Actually, it didn't take me any longer to vote against gay marriage than for it.


But it did take a lot of protestors and assorted organizers a LOT more time than just leaving it alone.

[C&CDean]

Would it be appropriate to say "this thread is hopelessly gay" now?

[LosAngelesSooner]

FWIW, some folks fail to accept the notion homesexuality is anything other than a choice. I'm not really sure. I think the jury is still out on that to the extent science has yet to isolate a "gay gene." Neverthelsss, I understand the psychology community long ago lined-up behind the notion a person is born homosexual and they aren't "made."

But more relevantly, there are men who, for whatever reason, like little kids in a sexual way. We call them "pedophiles." We castigate them and put them in prison if they are convicted of acting on their "impulses." In fact, we even send people to the penitentiary for simple possession of photographs depicting children in a prurient light.

There are men who, for whatever reason, like to start fires. We call them "arsonists." We castigate and put them in prison if they are convicted of acting on their impulses.

There are people who are pathologically disposed to steal stuff. We call them "kleptomaniacs." Nevertheless, we castigate them and put them in prison if they are convicted of acting on their impulses.

Of course, the difference between the groups I've listed and garden-variety homosexuals is the fact those other types of folks engage in conduct harmful to others. In contrast, the contemporary conventional wisdom is homosexuality between consenting adults doesn't hurt anyone. Perhaps that's true. I'll give that view the benefit of the doubt.

Therefore, I'm disposed to accept homsexuality and homosexuals as folks who, for whatever reason, sexually fancy folks of their gender. I'm down with gay civil marriage, as long as faith-based organizations (that's Californian for "churches") aren't compelled to solemnize said unions on pain of losing their legal status as a church, or otherwise suffer.

The fact is, no matter how much the gay rights community shouts it ain't fair, the Scriptures are pretty clear that homosexual conduct (not homosexuals), is abhorrent and is therefore an anathema to legitimate ecclesiastical authority and more importantly, to God. Therefore, folks who subscribe to and observe a faith that is based on the 1611 King James Version of the Bible, are never going to accept homosexual conduct on a par with heterosexual conduct.

The only thing I find personally offensive in this whole debate is the fact people who are willing to tolerate homosexual behavior, but stop short of accepting it as a healthy lifestyle on the same plain with heterosexuality are "homophobic" knuckle-draggers.

Besides, gay marriage will surely lead to gay divorce, And my family law practitioner brethren could use the boost in income.Heh...you kept digging holes and then pulling yourself back out of them at the last minute. LOL. But I'd say that they also haven't isolated a "straight gene" yet for some reason people of opposite genders find each other attractive, too. And since there is no victim in those cases (as long as it's consensual, obviously) then they can be lumped in there with the pedophiles and arsonists.

The place where you went off the rails is when you brought the Bible into the equation. The Bible is very clear on hating LOTS of different groups. The problem is that people nowadays pick and choose which verses of the Bible still matter and which ones no longer do. If you use the Bible as a guideline, then you either use ALL OF IT or NONE OF IT.

And don't try the typical "throw out the Old Testament because of Jesus" bunk, either, just because I brought up all the crap in the O.T. Why? Because Jesus never said one damn thing about teh gheys.

As for "marriage" vs "civil unions," as long as they are all equal, I'm fine with it. Make all "marriages" be actually government civil unions. And make it an option to get married in a church as long as you fit into the Church's guidelines. But make both of them the exact same, and make them have the same damn name.

[LosAngelesSooner]

So being a real man is about being tough. Okay, but that contradicts what most others are saying. Can't have it (ahem) both ways.Okay, LL...tell all of us what you think constitutes a "real man."

:pop:

[Leroy Lizard]

But it did take a lot of protestors and assorted organizers a LOT more time than just leaving it alone.

Everyone has a hobby. If they want to sink their time into it, fine by me.

[Leroy Lizard]

Okay, LL...tell all of us what you think constitutes a "real man."

Me.

What does not constitute a real man?

You.

[Crucifax Autumn]

Everyone has a hobby. If they want to sink their time into it, fine by me.

They should take up knitting or something.

[Okla-homey]

As for "marriage" vs "civil unions," as long as they are all equal, I'm fine with it. Make all "marriages" be actually government civil unions. And make it an option to get married in a church as long as you fit into the Church's guidelines. But make both of them the exact same, and make them have the same damn name.

Marriage is marriage sayeth the law in the United States. Except for the fact states that don't cotton to gay marriage don't have to recognize it by operation of a Federal statute stating same. Google "Federal Defense of Marriage Act" (DOMA for short).

As to whether marriage is "church" or "civil" in jurisdictions that permit gay marriage, it matters not. The two are precisely equal under the law of those jurisdictions.

[Leroy Lizard]

They should take up knitting or something.

Then they wouldn't be real men.

[olevetonahill]

I would respond to an idiot poster in this thread But he'd prolly cry and I'd get another red card :D

[Crucifax Autumn]

Then they wouldn't be real men.

They would if they knitted themselves some sweaters with giant balls on them.

[Chuck Bao]

Homey, I generally agree with some of the premises you put forward. And, I freely admit that your posts offer far greater knowledge and insight than mine. But, I object to the way you write sometimes like it isn’t honest and you sound like you are putting in the closing arguments in a murder case. I’ve posted with a lot of lawyers and district attorneys in various states and I normally don’t get that less-than-honest vibe.

Yeah, like posting about pedophiles and keptos and whatever before you get to the real point.

Okay, to use the word “aberrant” and we can debate what that means and if God actually said it. It wasn’t even mentioned in the 10 commandments or by Jesus. Besides that, show me where you have abstained from all sins mentioned in the Bible. You can start by explaining why you are not a pedophile or a klepto.

Dude, seriously, if you are going into criminal law and base your life’s work on arguing before a court of peers, this is just curtsey advice - come across as a little more genuine.

[Crucifax Autumn]

God did say it. He told me in a pickup truck outside Crawford.

[Chuck Bao]

God did say it. He told me in a pickup truck outside Crawford.

I believe you had a Road to Damascu convertion. Wait...no...Road to Crawford, Tx.? As the home of our previous president? And, Bush was what burning brush? And, you took that as a sign? And, when you came down from that high, did they worship a calf and dressed in calf **** orange?

[Collier11]

Heh...you kept digging holes and then pulling yourself back out of them at the last minute. LOL. But I'd say that they also haven't isolated a "straight gene" yet for some reason people of opposite genders find each other attractive, too. And since there is no victim in those cases (as long as it's consensual, obviously) then they can be lumped in there with the pedophiles and arsonists.

The place where you went off the rails is when you brought the Bible into the equation. The Bible is very clear on hating LOTS of different groups. The problem is that people nowadays pick and choose which verses of the Bible still matter and which ones no longer do. If you use the Bible as a guideline, then you either use ALL OF IT or NONE OF IT.

And don't try the typical "throw out the Old Testament because of Jesus" bunk, either, just because I brought up all the crap in the O.T. Why? Because Jesus never said one damn thing about teh gheys.

As for "marriage" vs "civil unions," as long as they are all equal, I'm fine with it. Make all "marriages" be actually government civil unions. And make it an option to get married in a church as long as you fit into the Church's guidelines. But make both of them the exact same, and make them have the same damn name.

The Bible doesnt preach hate on anyone, it clearly defines what is a sin and what isnt. If you are a Christian you try to follow the rules and repent where you didnt, simple

[Collier11]

God has a ferrari, not a pickup

[Okla-homey]

Homey, I generally agree with some of the premises you put forward. And, I freely admit that your posts offer far greater knowledge and insight than mine. But, I object to the way you write sometimes like it isn’t honest and you sound like you are putting in the closing arguments in a murder case. I’ve posted with a lot of lawyers and district attorneys in various states and I normally don’t get that less-than-honest vibe.

Yeah, like posting about pedophiles and keptos and whatever before you get to the real point.

Okay, to use the word “aberrant” and we can debate what that means and if God actually said it. It wasn’t even mentioned in the 10 commandments or by Jesus. Besides that, show me where you have abstained from all sins mentioned in the Bible. You can start by explaining why you are not a pedophile or a klepto.

Dude, seriously, if you are going into criminal law and base your life’s work on arguing before a court of peers, this is just curtsey advice - come across as a little more genuine.

I'm far from perfect, and I sin all the time. The thing is though, I try to avoid it. That's the point.

That's also the thing that separates humanity from animals. Sometimes referred to as "self-control." It's another thing entirely to say to oneself, "I have these urges, and clearly God put them in me, so I'm going to proudly go about doing what makes me feel good."

Avoidance of acting on sinful urges is, I beleive, what God call us to do. That's not the same as surrendering to my impulses.

True, Jesus never specifically addressed homosexuality. He didn't have to. He said, "I have not come to change one jot or tittle of the [Mosaic] law." Matthew 5:17-18. What He did do, was He brought grace and mercy to all of us who sin, who are sincerely willing to repent, and who try to do better.

[tommieharris91]

Would it be appropriate to say "this thread is hopelessly gay" now?

It was that way from post 1. Posting pics of animal penises would probably make it less homo.

[Collier11]

I cant quote the verse but did the Bible not say that you shouldnt lie with a man as you would a woman?

[Chuck Bao]

I cant quote the verse but did the Bible not say that you shouldnt lie with a man as you would a woman?

Ir is strange that you marked that one and the others still okay.

[Harry Beanbag]

So being a real man is about being tough. Okay, but that contradicts what most others are saying. Can't have it (ahem) both ways.

I don't know, but I think you would have to be pretty tough to take a big **** up the ol' poop chute.

[Crucifax Autumn]

And even tougher is the guy holding the poop chutee down to poke him.

[Scott D]

God has a ferrari, not a pickup

you probably believe that God told Adam and Eve to stay away from the apple tree because he had his collection of Playboy, Penthouse, and Hustler magazines hidden behind it too. ;)

[Crucifax Autumn]

The incident I mentioned actually took place in West Texas somewhere I think. The guy that saved Bush supposedly sits in his pickup talking to God. And not in that "I'm praying to God up above" kinda way. He says it literally that a physical God actually comes and sits in his truck with him.

Maybe that's what this DUI Gay guy thought he was doing.

[LosAngelesSooner]

Me.

What does not constitute a real man?

You.:rolleyes:

Really? That's all you've got?

Pathetic.

[Leroy Lizard]

I know the tactic, okay? I wasn't fooled with ye olde "Make them define it, then fire back with counterexamples*" scheme.

* If you can't think of any counterexamples, conveniently concoct a phony relative who can be easily offended by the opponent's comments. Then make 'em backpedal.

[Collier11]

you probably believe that God told Adam and Eve to stay away from the apple tree because he had his collection of Playboy, Penthouse, and Hustler magazines hidden behind it too. ;)

I think God told us to be good people, dont screw up, but if you do screw up, ask to be forgiven, thats all I think

[LosAngelesSooner]

I know the tactic, okay? I wasn't fooled with ye olde "Make them define it, then fire back with counterexamples*" scheme.

* If you can't think of any counterexamples, conveniently concoct a phony relative who can be easily offended by the opponent's comments. Then make 'em backpedal.
No. I really want to know.

You were the one who said that gay men weren't "real men," so I made the joke that, basically, I know a **** ton of big, tough, buff gay men who could easily squash you like a bug. To which you replied that "toughness doesn't make someone a real man" (or thereabouts).

So I really want to know what YOU define as a "real man." After all...YOU'RE the macho dude who is saying what is and is not a real man.

Now, just because your only reply was the ULTRA lame "I'm a real man and you're not" first grade comeback...doesn't mean I'm trying to trap you. It just means that you spoke out your *** and now you have no actual reply other than, "I don't like gay people so I want to call them names."

Which is pretty typical of you, Leroy.

That about sum it up? :pop:

[olevetonahill]

No. I really want to know.

You were the one who said that gay men weren't "real men," so I made the joke that, basically, I know a **** ton of big, tough, buff gay men who could easily squash you like a bug. To which you replied that "toughness doesn't make someone a real man" (or thereabouts).

So I really want to know what YOU define as a "real man." After all...YOU'RE the macho dude who is saying what is and is not a real man.

Now, just because your only reply was the ULTRA lame "I'm a real man and you're not" first grade comeback...doesn't mean I'm trying to trap you. It just means that you spoke out your *** and now you have no actual reply other than, "I don't like gay people so I want to call them names."

Which is pretty typical of you, Leroy.

That about sum it up? :pop:

No you REALLY dont want to KNOW . If ya wanted to KNOW you would ask in a respectful manner not as an adversary :rolleyes:
But then you are so cool ya can get the PTB to protect yerass:pop:

[LosAngelesSooner]

No you REALLY dont want to KNOW . If ya wanted to KNOW you would ask in a respectful manner not as an adversary :rolleyes:
But then you are so cool ya can get the PTB to protect yerass:pop:I'm mailing you a whole CASE of tissue to stop the vaginal bleeding you're spreading around in every thread.

Jesus...:rolleyes:

[LosAngelesSooner]

The Bible doesnt preach hate on anyone, it clearly defines what is a sin and what isnt. If you are a Christian you try to follow the rules and repent where you didnt, simpleSo you don't eat pork?

[Leroy Lizard]

So I really want to know what YOU define as a "real man." After all...YOU'RE the macho dude who is saying what is and is not a real man.

And I'm telling you that I have been posting long enough to know the tactic.

Where have you been? This same old tired technique is used in every freakin' debate on the Web.

Oppose abortion? Well, define life.

Oppose pornography? Well, how are you defining pornography?

It's straight out of middle school and only idiots fall for it.

So, if I define "real man," you will simply create some phony buddy of yours that happens to fall outside the definition but who happens to have saved some kids' from drowning, and races airplanes, and bench presses 500 lb, and won the welterweight division in boxing.

None of that will work, so now the buddy will have cancer or will be serving in Iraq, and will have read this forum and had his feelings badly hurt and how dare I say such hurtful things to man who is going to die or is fighting for his country.

Yeah, I've seen this before a kajillion times.

So, in typical Internet thread fashion, you will now say, "Who me!?!!? I wouldn't think of doing such a thing. I was just curious."

Or, you will cry to fellow posters. "Leroy (sniff) won't answer my questions. Boo hoo hoo."

Sorry, but I'm not playing your game.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

... faith-based organizations (that's Californian for "churches")

does Oklahoma legal language refer to temples, synagogues and mosques as churches?


The fact is, no matter how much the gay rights community shouts it ain't fair, the Scriptures are pretty clear that homosexual conduct (not homosexuals), is abhorrent and is therefore an anathema to legitimate ecclesiastical authority and more importantly, to God. Therefore, folks who subscribe to and observe a faith that is based on the 1611 King James Version of the Bible, are never going to accept homosexual conduct on a par with heterosexual conduct.

No one is requiring that they accept it. The Catholic Church does not consider a civil marriage on par with a marriage in The Church. In general, it doesn't allow its members to receive communion if their marriage is not recognized by The Church. But it doesn't attempt to block the legality of civil marriages.


The only thing I find personally offensive in this whole debate is the fact people who are willing to tolerate homosexual behavior, but stop short of accepting it as a healthy lifestyle on the same plain with heterosexuality are "homophobic" knuckle-draggers.

Lots of evidence that promiscuity is not a healthy lifestyle. I personally think the lifestyle of a gay marriage would be healthier than picking up guys in a gay bar.

[Okla-homey]

Lots of evidence that promiscuity is not a healthy lifestyle. I personally think the lifestyle of a gay marriage would be healthier than picking up guys in a gay bar.

If the parties to said marriage were indeed faithful to each other. IMHO, two men in a relationship precisely doubles the odds of marital infidelity.

[JohnnyMack]

Just to recap:

Keep the government out of my gun safe.

Make sure the government keeps the gays away.

[Scott D]

I think God told us to be good people, dont screw up, but if you do screw up, ask to be forgiven, thats all I think

way to ruin the joke assclown :mad:

[Leroy Lizard]

No one is requiring that they accept it. The Catholic Church does not consider a civil marriage on par with a marriage in The Church. In general, it doesn't allow its members to receive communion if their marriage is not recognized by The Church. But it doesn't attempt to block the legality of civil marriages.

Voting in a way that allows gays to marry is tantamount to accepting it.

[LosAngelesSooner]

Communion has nothing to do with marriage or with sexuality in the Catholic Church. I'm unwed and I can still receive Communion. And homosexual members of the church are still able to receive it.

As for not blocking the legality of civil marriages, when you campaign against the laws being passed and raise money to repeal said laws when they are passed, that is the same as blocking the legality of civil marriages.

[LosAngelesSooner]

And I'm telling you that I have been posting long enough to know the tactic.

Where have you been? This same old tired technique is used in every freakin' debate on the Web.

Oppose abortion? Well, define life.

Oppose pornography? Well, how are you defining pornography?

It's straight out of middle school and only idiots fall for it.

So, if I define "real man," you will simply create some phony buddy of yours that happens to fall outside the definition but who happens to have saved some kids' from drowning, and races airplanes, and bench presses 500 lb, and won the welterweight division in boxing.

None of that will work, so now the buddy will have cancer or will be serving in Iraq, and will have read this forum and had his feelings badly hurt and how dare I say such hurtful things to man who is going to die or is fighting for his country.

Yeah, I've seen this before a kajillion times.

So, in typical Internet thread fashion, you will now say, "Who me!?!!? I wouldn't think of doing such a thing. I was just curious."

Or, you will cry to fellow posters. "Leroy (sniff) won't answer my questions. Boo hoo hoo."

Sorry, but I'm not playing your game.That's just a bunch of cowardly bull butter and you know it. You ran off at the mouth about how this or that isn't a "real man," but then you're afraid to define what said "real man" is.

That's just lame and, if I man, not very manly. :pop:

[Leroy Lizard]

I voted against gay marriage, so I blocked its legality too. :)

[Leroy Lizard]

That's just a bunch of cowardly bull butter and you know it. You ran off at the mouth about how this or that isn't a "real man," but then you're afraid to define what said "real man" is.

Oh, now I'm AFRAID! I'm skeered!

I said that real men don't go to gay bars. My statement is unambiguous. Deal with it.

I don't have to define "real man" to make such a statement, no more than I have to define pornography to call porn stars "whores." Do you see the connection? (Of course you don't.)

You are relying on a fallacy to further a point (that one can only defend that which one has defined). I thought you were educated, but you sound dumber and dumber after each post.

Again, since you completely ignored my point:


So, if I define "real man," you will simply create some phony buddy of yours that happens to fall outside the definition but who happens to have saved some kids' from drowning, and races airplanes, and bench presses 500 lb, and won the welterweight division in boxing.

None of that will work, so now the buddy will have cancer or will be serving in Iraq, and will have read this forum and had his feelings badly hurt and how dare I say such hurtful things to man who is going to die or is fighting for his country.

I know you're itching to pull this off, but it's not going to happen. Sucks for you.

[JohnnyMack]

Real men love Jesus.

[Collier11]

True

[LosAngelesSooner]

Oh, now I'm AFRAID! I'm skeered!

I said that real men don't go to gay bars. My statement is unambiguous. Deal with it.

I don't have to define "real man" to make such a statement, no more than I have to define pornography to call porn stars "whores." Do you see the connection? (Of course you don't.)

You are relying on a fallacy to further a point (that one can only defend that which one has defined). I thought you were educated, but you sound dumber and dumber after each post.

Again, since you completely ignored my point:



I know you're itching to pull this off, but it's not going to happen. Sucks for you.Okay, "Real Man." Glad to know where you...*ahem*...stand? :confused:

In that case I stand by my statement that I would absolutely LOVE for you to say that in front of a few fellas I know who frequent gay bars. Love it. Because then I'd get the opportunity to see your "Real Manliness" in action.

I'm sure it's a splendid sight to behold. Up there with a Unicorn being ridden by a Leprechaun as it jumps over a Chupacabra.

[Leroy Lizard]

In that case I stand by my statement that I would absolutely LOVE for you to say that in front of a few fellas I know who frequent gay bars. Love it.

Another crap argument.

I hate drug dealers. But I am sure there are drug dealers out there that would kill me if I told them how I feel about them. I guess that makes their activities okay, right?


Because then I'd get the opportunity to see your "Real Manliness" in action.

I didn't define "real man" in terms of being able to physically assault people, but that doesn't stop you from assuming I did.

Since you have now added the straw man to your list of idiotic attempts at debate, any other fallacies you want to employ?

I hope you kept the receipt on your master's degree.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Western Montana Welding and Sniper College For The Blind And Deaf doesn't issue refunds.

GO, FIGHTING DIRT CLODS!

[Leroy Lizard]

This is what happens when your diploma is printed on binder paper.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Northwestern Idaho Mountain Truck Driving and Sniper's College will issue refund upon verification of failure to hit a target from a moving tractor trailer at 1000 or more yards.

HIGHER LEARNING, F*CK YEAH!

[Chuck Bao]

I don't know Leroy. A real man to me is one who is hard working, self-reliant, provides for his family, soft-spoken but yet willing to stand up for his rights and take the side of those being denied their equal rights.

It is never about being a bully or starting fights. And, it certainly isn't about being an obnoxious blow hole.

There may be some "real men" who feel comfortable having a beer with a gay friend. Others may not and that would be because they don't go to bars or don't drink beer.

Being so afraid of catching the gay disease or trying to hide some latent tendencies is not living up to my ideal of a real man, which is the really the main subject of this thread and that California state senator and his erratic driving due to boose and possibly the man sitting next to him.

[Collier11]

The gay disease, ahhhhh :D

[LosAngelesSooner]

Another crap argument.

I hate drug dealers. But I am sure there are drug dealers out there that would kill me if I told them how I feel about them. I guess that makes their activities okay, right?



I didn't define "real man" in terms of being able to physically assault people, but that doesn't stop you from assuming I did.

Since you have now added the straw man to your list of idiotic attempts at debate, any other fallacies you want to employ?

I hope you kept the receipt on your master's degree.I'm still waiting for you to make even the most feeble attempt at defending your blindly stated position.

But it's good to know that you know both "hate" homosexuals and also equate them to drug dealers. Very nice. :pop:

[LosAngelesSooner]

I don't know Leroy. A real man to me is one who is hard working, self-reliant, provides for his family, soft-spoken but yet willing to stand up for his rights and take the side of those being denied their equal rights.

It is never about being a bully or starting fights. And, it certainly isn't about being an obnoxious blow hole.

There may be some "real men" who feel comfortable having a beer with a gay friend. Others may not and that would be because they don't go to bars or don't drink beer.

Being so afraid of catching the gay disease or trying to hide some latent tendencies is not living up to my ideal of a real man, which is the really the main subject of this thread and that California state senator and his erratic driving due to boose and possibly the man sitting next to him.And THIS ^^^ by the way, is how a REAL MAN defines the term "real man."

:pop:

[Okla-homey]

The gay disease, ahhhhh :D

Apparently runs rampant in prisons.;)

[Leroy Lizard]

I'm still waiting for you to make even the most feeble attempt at defending your blindly stated position.

You didn't ask me to defend my position. You asked me to define "real man," for which I told you that such a tactic is moronic.

[LosAngelesSooner]

You didn't ask me to defend my position. You asked me to define "real man," for which I told you that such a tactic is moronic.
LOL! Classic.

You want to DEFEND your position on what a "real man" is or is not...but you want to do it without DEFINING what your definition of a "real man" is.

Wuuuuuuunderful. LOL

[Chuck Bao]

Apparently runs rampant in prisons.;)

Yeah, that is a good point. :rolleyes:

[Leroy Lizard]

I don't know Leroy. A real man to me is one who is hard working, self-reliant, provides for his family, soft-spoken but yet willing to stand up for his rights and take the side of those being denied their equal rights.

So he must be soft-spoken, heh? Do you realize how many counterexamples I can throw at you on this basis alone?

Gun control is a matter of the right to bear arms. So if you argue for gun control, like our president, you are not a real man. (Which suits me just fine, I just want to hear you say it.)

You are not a real man if you argue for abortion, according to your logic. Abortion takes away the right to life.

We can go on and on and on. Once someone makes you define it, you will spend the rest of the week countering every counterexample thrown at you.




It is never about being a bully or starting fights.

You mistake me for LASooner, who wants me to get pummeled by tough gay men to show how "real men" they are.


Being so afraid of catching the gay disease or trying to hide some latent tendencies...

Straw man. *******.

Nice try.

[Leroy Lizard]

You want to DEFEND your position on what a "real man" is or is not...but you want to do it without DEFINING what your definition of a "real man" is.

Go back and read my posts. I already explained this at least three times in here. You are employing a junior-high level fallacy.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Voting in a way that allows gays to marry is tantamount to accepting it.

Now I recognize who you are..... You're one of the evil school board members in the movie Footloose!

And not only do you want school dances banned at your school, you want a law passed to ban them at all schools!!!

[Leroy Lizard]

Now I recognize who you are..... You're one of the evil school board members in the movie Footloose!

And not only do you want school dances banned at your school, you want a law passed to ban them at all schools!!!

Wow.

[Collier11]

SJS tries really hard to be interesting and witty, it just doesnt work though

[Chuck Bao]

So he must be soft-spoken, heh? Do you realize how many counterexamples I can throw at you on this basis alone?

Gun control is a matter of the right to bear arms. So if you argue for gun control, like our president, you are not a real man. (Which suits me just fine, I just want to hear you say it.)

You are not a real man if you argue for abortion, according to your logic. Abortion takes away the right to life.

We can go on and on and on. Once someone makes you define it, you will spend the rest of the week countering every counterexample thrown at you.

You mistake me for LASooner, who wants me to get pummeled by tough gay men to show how "real men" they are.

Straw man. *******.

Nice try.

What the hell are you talking about? Your lack of understanding is pretty much proving the case against you. My grandfather was a soft spoken man but when he was forced to take sides, he did. When the KKK was doing a march in Marshall county, he told them to never come back to the county again and they never did. He never lost a fight, but he never picked a fight either. That's what I mean by soft spoken. Some people have that gravitas.

I don't have that gene. I wish I did. Yeah, although I don't have that gravitas of my grandfather, I am going to stand up for what is right. In my adopted home country of Thailand, I am standing up for democracy even when it is illegal to join a political gathering of more than five people. Okay, that is just my own take on it.

The gun issue is a way, way, way out there straw man, and why did you feel the need to throw that out in a gay "family values" senator caught with his pants down thread? Like all of that is excused because he is Republican? I highly doubt that. Even worse is your lame attempt at misdirection with the abortion issue. The only one worse is Homey who wants to remind us all that criminals have gay sex in prison.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Was Martin Luther King Jr. a soft spoken person?

Was he not a real man?

Was George S. Patton a soft spoken person?

Was he not a real man?

The list goes on and on. Point being, that's YOUR interpretation of a "real man" based on your experiences. It's an opinion. And serves not to define what's posed other than for your personal definition.

[Leroy Lizard]

What the hell are you talking about? Your lack of understanding is pretty much proving the case against you.

Here is what you said:


A real man to me is one who is hard working, self-reliant, provides for his family, soft-spoken but yet willing to stand up for his rights and take the side of those being denied their equal rights.

Soft-spoken!

You placed that in your DEFINITION of "real man."

According to you, a real man is, among other things, soft-spoken. Don't try to deny it; it's right there for everyone to see.

Was MLK Jr. a real man? He certainly was not soft-spoken. Well?

You have two choices:

1. Change your definition (and by so doing admit you really don't know what a real mean is)

2. Admit that MLK Jr was not a real man.

Congratulations, LASooner, you used a kiddie tactic to snare one of your own. And then you agreed with his definition, so you ended up snaring yourself.

I said that only an idiot falls for it. Looks like I was right.

[Leroy Lizard]

Was Martin Luther King Jr. a soft spoken person?

Was he not a real man?

Was George S. Patton a soft spoken person?

Was he not a real man?

The list goes on and on. Point being, that's YOUR interpretation of a "real man" based on your experiences. It's an opinion. And serves not to define what's posed other than for your personal definition.

The amazing thing is that I warned them that this is what would happen. What total numskulls!

[Chuck Bao]

Was Martin Luther King Jr. a soft spoken person?

Was he not a real man?

Was George S. Patton a soft spoken person?

Was he not a real man?

The list goes on and on. Point being, that's YOUR interpretation of a "real man" based on your experiences. It's an opinion. And serves not to define what's posed other than for your personal definition.

I guess the whole part of standing up for one's rights or the disadvantaged rights just completely sailed over your head. Dang, and I thought I wrote that in very simple terms.

A real man does not need to use fists or a gun to prove his point. Did Martin Luther King Jr. resort to violence? Did any of the freedom riders during the civil rights movement? Did Gandi? Did any of those supporting the women's suffrage movement?

Are the Red Shirts in Thailand going to try peaceful demonstration for democracy this weekend? I am going to be out there protesting for democracy.

I have no idea why you would pick a general who was called upon to fight a war against the Nazi thugs stealing and killing their way across Europe. Sometimes we have to fight. There are many, many who were soft spoken and did their call of duty and for that I am very thankful. But, that is not the first description I want to put in my definition of a real man.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

So Chuck, lemme know if I understand it correctly. I've been staying out of this one on purpose because of this caliber of crap.

Standing for the rights of the disadvantaged trumps one's soft-spokenness on the overall scale of real man-itude?

Commanding rolling steel and the sheer power of the American fighting man somehow eliminates one from real man contention?

A quote.


But, that is not the first description I want to put in my definition of a real man.

And that is my only point. Your personal definition does not a definition make.

[JohnnyMack]

Real men love Odin.

[JohnnyMack]

Real men love whatever culturally relevant deity is handy.

[Chuck Bao]

What is so difficult for you to understand?

You really have a problem understanding plain English.

I didn't eliminate anyone from the real man contention. Why would you want to twist it that way?

I am okay if you do not agree with me. It would be a pity, though, that you don't see that peaceful resistance is an even bigger sacrifice or measure of a man when he/she doesn't have troops or guns to back up the conviction.

I can't wait to see how you can twist this around to make it look bad. Talk about caliber of crap. You win the prize and you held back for this gem? Oh dear!

[Tulsa_Fireman]

I am okay if you do not agree with me. It would be a pity, though, that you don't see that peaceful resistance is an even bigger sacrifice or measure of a man when he/she doesn't have troops or guns to back up the conviction.

This entire point is lost on you, Chuck. The specifics of the person in comparison is moot. The point is that you have a definition of what you perceive as a "real man". The sheer subjectivity of such a definition encompasses such a massive range of qualifiers that it is virtually guaranteed
ChuckBao's version will NOT equate to Tulsa_Fireman's version. Nor Leroy's. Nor even what those we deem as real men think a real man is.

So on the scale of "real man", who is higher?

The soft-spoken, peace loving Neville Chamberlain? The boisterous, pompous Douglas MacArthur? Lyndon Baines Johnson? Dennis Rodman? Nikita Kruschev? Arnold Schwartzenegger? Ru Paul?

The point of the argument itself is pointless, a point I believe Leroy has already made.

[jkjsooner]

Since tax time is coming, all this talk of gay marriage gets me to thinking why in the hell they would want to do that? I know here in DC most of the gay folks have white collar type jobs so they're prime to face the marriage penalty.

I think it's time to allow married people to file separately at the single rate. It's ridiculous that when my wife and I just simply lived together we paid so much less in taxes than we do not that we're married.

[Okla-homey]

"Real men"...IMHO, father, support and protect children, nurturing and developing them into well-adjusted, productive members of society.

Everything else is rubbish.

But that's just my opinion. And that's not to say a sterile or homo guy can't be a real man. He can, if he helps, I mean sacrificially gives of himself, and is emotionally and financially invested, in helping boys and girls grow into responsible, educated, well-adjusted, law-abiding men and women.

[Leroy Lizard]

I guess the whole part of standing up for one's rights or the disadvantaged rights just completely sailed over your head. Dang, and I thought I wrote that in very simple terms.

You listed the critical attributes of being a real man and you clearly stated that being well-spoken was one of them.

Yes, you also said that standing up for one's rights and other people's rights were also critical attributes, but in no way did you negate the reliance on being soft-spoken.

Now we have you responding to our arguments. The tables have turned and all because you stupidly went out on a limb and tried to define an abstraction.

The concept of a "real man" is, like pornography, an abstraction. Any attempt at defining it in words will lead to just the sort of responses you are getting. Which is why so many try this tactic.

So when arguing against someone that is denouncing pornography, try to get them to define pornography then pepper them with counterexamples to throw them on the defensive. It's old hat.

[Chuck Bao]

This entire point is lost on you, Chuck. The specifics of the person in comparison is moot. The point is that you have a definition of what you perceive as a "real man". The sheer subjectivity of such a definition encompasses such a massive range of qualifiers that it is virtually guaranteed
ChuckBao's version will NOT equate to Tulsa_Fireman's version. Nor Leroy's. Nor even what those we deem as real men think a real man is.

So on the scale of "real man", who is higher?

The soft-spoken, peace loving Neville Chamberlain? The boisterous, pompous Douglas MacArthur? Lyndon Baines Johnson? Dennis Rodman? Nikita Kruschev? Arnold Schwartzenegger? Ru Paul?

The point of the argument itself is pointless, a point I believe Leroy has already made.

Do you actually read what you write? I know you don't read what I write.

Why can't you accept my original statement for what it is - my opinion?


A real man to me is one who is hard working, self-reliant, provides for his family, soft-spoken but yet willing to stand up for his rights and take the side of those being denied their equal rights.

Oh, I get it. You are trying to trick me into being something other than soft spoken and then you would prove that I am not a real man, am I right? AM I RIGHT? Heh! You almost had me. :D Very clever and spek.

[LosAngelesSooner]

Go back and read my posts. I already explained this at least three times in here. You are employing a junior-high level fallacy.No. I'm pointing out that your argument, if you can call it that, is spineless and based on nothing more an your own personal opinion.

And you're really doing all the work for me. Thanks for that, by the way. :pop:

[Leroy Lizard]

No. I'm pointing out that your argument, if you can call it that, is spineless and based on nothing more an your own personal opinion.


Gasp!! My personal opinion?!?! Oh, heavens, we can't have that!

No ****?!?! Do you really think that defining a "real man" is like defining a logarithm or defining the quotation mark? Of course it's personal opinion.

$&#&%@!!

Drugs. It must be drugs.

[SCOUT]

You listed the critical attributes of being a real man and you clearly stated that being well-spoken was one of them.

Yes, you also said that standing up for one's rights and other people's rights were also critical attributes, but in no way did you negate the reliance on being soft-spoken.

Now we have you responding to our arguments. The tables have turned and all because you stupidly went out on a limb and tried to define an abstraction.

The concept of a "real man" is, like pornography, an abstraction. Any attempt at defining it in words will lead to just the sort of responses you are getting. Which is why so many try this tactic.

So when arguing against someone that is denouncing pornography, try to get them to define pornography then pepper them with counterexamples to throw them on the defensive. It's old hat.

You have done an excellent job of showing the pitfalls of an argumentative tactic that is all too often used. I do have one major problem though. You have used a very poor example to illustrate your point. You have claimed that defining "real man" is too abstract to define. Sir, I prove you wrong...


http://reporting.journalism.ku.edu/fall08/adler-noland/assets_c/2008/12/chuck-norris-002-thumb-400x498.jpg

[Leroy Lizard]

No way, dude:

http://blog.heyeverybody.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/lonebikeroftheapocalypse.jpg

Wait, he's from Texas. Never mind.

(In all seriousness, Randall Tex Cobb is a truly great sports personality. Funny, talented, and educated.)

[Tulsa_Fireman]

http://controllingauthority.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/michael-jackson1.jpg

[SoonerAtKU]

And I'm telling you that I have been posting long enough to know the tactic.

Where have you been? This same old tired technique is used in every freakin' debate on the Web.

Oppose abortion? Well, define life.

Oppose pornography? Well, how are you defining pornography?

It's straight out of middle school and only idiots fall for it.

So, if I define "real man," you will simply create some phony buddy of yours that happens to fall outside the definition but who happens to have saved some kids' from drowning, and races airplanes, and bench presses 500 lb, and won the welterweight division in boxing.

None of that will work, so now the buddy will have cancer or will be serving in Iraq, and will have read this forum and had his feelings badly hurt and how dare I say such hurtful things to man who is going to die or is fighting for his country.

Yeah, I've seen this before a kajillion times.

So, in typical Internet thread fashion, you will now say, "Who me!?!!? I wouldn't think of doing such a thing. I was just curious."

Or, you will cry to fellow posters. "Leroy (sniff) won't answer my questions. Boo hoo hoo."

Sorry, but I'm not playing your game.

That's great and all, but remember that you were the one that started it. You don't get to start trouble during the kickball game and then take your ball and go home without someone calling you out on it.

And the question being asked is not a rhetorical "trick" on you. It's a part of any reasoned debate. It's called defining your terms. If I told you I opposed Snizzblethwanging, wouldn't you want to know what the hell I meant by it? It doesn't mean you're trying to trick me, it means you're trying to understand the person you're talking to. You can't just wing out there things like "real men don't hang out in gay bars" without defining your terms of "real men".

It sounds a little bit like you ran your mouth trying to be cleverer than you are smart.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

Would it be appropriate to say "this thread is hopelessly gay" now?


According to LL we haven't established that fact yet. All we have is LAS claiming he saw this thread go into a gay establishment.

I got nuthin'.

[Chuck Bao]

According to LL we haven't established that fact yet. All we have is LAS claiming he saw this thread go into a gay establishment.

I got nuthin'.

:eek: No, this thread never got a chance to make it to an establishment that serves beer. It was out having sex with the other totally gay threads it met in a bathroom in a truckstop.

[LosAngelesSooner]

Gasp!! My personal opinion?!?! Oh, heavens, we can't have that!

No ****?!?! Do you really think that defining a "real man" is like defining a logarithm or defining the quotation mark? Of course it's personal opinion.

$&#&%@!!

Drugs. It must be drugs.And yet you still don't have the mental capacity (or maybe just the sack) to define the broad strokes you paint with.

No need for me to continue on this one. You've already proven my point for me...again and again.

And thanks for that. :D

[LosAngelesSooner]

That's great and all, but remember that you were the one that started it. You don't get to start trouble during the kickball game and then take your ball and go home without someone calling you out on it.

And the question being asked is not a rhetorical "trick" on you. It's a part of any reasoned debate. It's called defining your terms. If I told you I opposed Snizzblethwanging, wouldn't you want to know what the hell I meant by it? It doesn't mean you're trying to trick me, it means you're trying to understand the person you're talking to. You can't just wing out there things like "real men don't hang out in gay bars" without defining your terms of "real men".

It sounds a little bit like you ran your mouth trying to be cleverer than you are smart.
Yeah...I thought it was pretty obvious too. :cool:

[Bourbon St Sooner]

:eek: No, this thread never got a chance to make it to an establishment that serves beer. It was out having sex with the other totally gay threads it met in a bathroom in a truckstop.

It may just be that this thread has a wide gay-t. I mean we haven't seen an actual police report definitely proving this thread as gay.

[LosAngelesSooner]

I could gay it up.

Trust me...I can make anything gay.

:D

[Collier11]

^ thats just too easy so im gonna leave it alone :D

[LosAngelesSooner]

Don't leave it alone, Sailor...I like it when you play with it.

[LosAngelesSooner]

State Sen. Roy Ashburn (R-Calif.), the fierce opponent of gay rights who was arrested (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/04/roy-ashburn-arrested-anti_n_485419.html) last week for drunk driving after leaving a gay nightclub (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/04/roy-ashburn-arrested-anti_n_485419.html), confirmed in a radio interview Monday that he is gay.

"I'm gay," Ashburn told local radio host Inga Barks before returning to the Senate for the first time since his arrest. "Those are the words that have been so difficult for me for so long."

Ashburn, a 55-year-old divorced father of four, claimed his 15-year crusade against proposed gay-rights laws in the California statehouse stemmed from his desire to vote the way his constituents wanted.
Well...that settles THAT.


I guess the "stereotyping" was right on this one...yet again.

[yermom]

who cares?

the dip**** should have resigned for the DUI anyway

it sounds like he wanted to get caught Vito-style anyway

[LosAngelesSooner]

Probably.

[Scott D]

who cares?

the dip**** should have resigned for the DUI anyway

it sounds like he wanted to get caught Vito-style anyway

I'd have more respect for him if he went and got caught George Michael style.

[LosAngelesSooner]

He still could. You just gotta have faith.

[yermom]

maybe his teacher told him goodbye

[tommieharris91]

So is the guy actually gay? I mean, outside of his own statements and a police report that he came from a gay club, we don't have any verifiable proof that he is homosexual.

[yermom]

i'm pretty sure he's not a real man though

[LosAngelesSooner]

Well...his passenger was sucking his dick while he was driving. Is that proof enough?

Or is it only gay if you suck the other guy's dick?

[LosAngelesSooner]

i'm pretty sure he's not a real man thoughAnd...scene.

LOCK THE THREAD.

:D

[Leroy Lizard]

So is the guy actually gay? I mean, outside of his own statements and a police report that he came from a gay club, we don't have any verifiable proof that he is homosexual.

The police report didn't say that he came from a gay club. At least, I haven't seen such a report. Was the report released?

[Leroy Lizard]

And the question being asked is not a rhetorical "trick" on you. It's a part of any reasoned debate.

No, it's not. And I have already clearly explained why.


It's called defining your terms. If I told you I opposed Snizzblethwanging, wouldn't you want to know what the hell I meant by it?

I never said anything like that.

It's like art. An art critic can look at a piece of art and decide whether he thinks it is beautiful. He doesn't have to define beautiful, because no one really can. The concept of beauty in art is an abstraction.

Only fools get caught trying to play that game. Someone else in here tried, and ended up defending his definition because it excluded MKL Jr as a real man because no definition will ever be able to account for every possible scenario.

If you fail to understand this, you can end up being bushwhacked in arguments.

"I think your art is ugly."

"Oh, really? Define beauty in art."

"Well... uhhh, it's uhhh..."

"Oh, so you can't define beauty. So what right do you have to tell me that my painting is ugly."

It's totally moronic.


It doesn't mean you're trying to trick me, it means you're trying to understand the person you're talking to. You can't just wing out there things like "real men don't hang out in gay bars" without defining your terms of "real men".

Not only can I do it, I did it.

You may disagree. Fine. If you said "real men can go into bars," I wouldn't demand that you define "real man." To me, that would be silly.

It's just your opinion based on what you think is a real man and you are entitled to it. Why is the concept of opinion so hard for you to understand?

[yermom]

sure, you made a retarded homophobic statement. good for you.

[LosAngelesSooner]

Chuck pwn3d you. Then you pwn3d yourself. You should just bow out gracefully.

As for me, I'm done with talking to you. I've already accomplished everything regarding your statement that I wanted to. Now you're just putting icing on the cake.

I'll get back to George Michael jokes. It's more fun than watching you try to spin your way out of that one. :D

[Leroy Lizard]

Chuck pwn3d you. Then you pwn3d yourself. You should just bow out gracefully.

As for me, I'm done with talking to you. I've already accomplished everything regarding your statement that I wanted to. Now you're just putting icing on the cake.


So you declare victory and go home. You have a lot in common with General Westmoreland.

[LosAngelesSooner]

:rolleyes:

Whatever, Real Man.

:D

[Scott D]

I'm quite sure that nothing about this thread is manly...in any way, shape, or form.

[tommieharris91]

http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f41/P2R-Pancake/threadisgay.jpg

This should have shown up about 10 pages ago.

[LosAngelesSooner]

It's official. Richard Simmons has spoken.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

SJS tries really hard to be interesting and witty, it just doesnt work though

I'm not trying to be funny! Either you believe in freedom and liberty or you don't.

[Leroy Lizard]

Define freedom. Define liberty.

[LosAngelesSooner]

I'll define "chicken **** cowardly answers to legitimate questions" if you'd like.


Define freedom. Define liberty.^^^ Voila.

[LosAngelesSooner]

In the meantime...let me show you how a "real man" answers a question.

Freedom:

1. the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint: He won his freedom after a retrial.

2. exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.

3. the power to determine action without restraint.

4. political or national independence.

5. personal liberty, as opposed to bondage or slavery: a slave who bought his freedom.

6. exemption from the presence of anything specified (usually fol. by from): freedom from fear.

7. the absence of or release from ties, obligations, etc.

8. ease or facility of movement or action: to enjoy the freedom of living in the country.

9. frankness of manner or speech.

10. general exemption or immunity: freedom from taxation.

11. the absence of ceremony or reserve.

12. a liberty taken.

13. a particular immunity or privilege enjoyed, as by a city or corporation: freedom to levy taxes.

14. civil liberty, as opposed to subjection to an arbitrary or despotic government.

15. the right to enjoy all the privileges or special rights of citizenship, membership, etc., in a community or the like.

16. the right to frequent, enjoy, or use at will: to have the freedom of a friend's library.

17. Philosophy. the power to exercise choice and make decisions without constraint from within or without; autonomy; self-determination.Compare necessity (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/necessity) (def. 7).

Liberty:

1. freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control.
2. freedom from external or foreign rule; independence.

3. freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice.

4. freedom from captivity, confinement, or physical restraint: The prisoner soon regained his liberty.

5. permission granted to a sailor, esp. in the navy, to go ashore.

6. freedom or right to frequent or use a place: The visitors were given the liberty of the city.

7. unwarranted or impertinent freedom in action or speech, or a form or instance of it: to take liberties.

8. a female figure personifying freedom from despotism.

—Idiom

a. at liberty, a.free from captivity or restraint.
b. unemployed; out of work.
c. free to do or be as specified: You are at liberty to leave at any time during the meeting.

[Leroy Lizard]

That's nice, but you may want to save your efforts for cases in which I wasn't being sarcastic.

Dumbass.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Define freedom. Define liberty.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/96/Barry_Goldwater.jpg

In the way Goldwater used the words.

[LosAngelesSooner]

That's nice, but you may want to save your efforts for cases in which I wasn't being sarcastic.

Dumbass.Funny. Aren't you going to use this opportunity to show me how my "defining these terms" allows you to rip them apart and show how I'm wrong and then back me into a corner?

I mean...according to YOU, Mr. Real Man, that's what happens whenever someone dares to define a term.

Oh, and in case you're wondering...I'm NOT being sarcastic. I REALLY want you to put your money where your mouth is and demonstrate your ability to rip my definitions apart as you were accusing me of planning on doing to you. It should be easy for you since I'm such a "dumbass."

Dazzle us with your brilliance.

Go for it.

I'm waiting.

:pop:

[Boarder]

Freedom isn't free. It costs folks like you and me. And, if you don't chip in your buck o' five, who will?

[yermom]

but how do you define "dumbass"?

[Crucifax Autumn]

Leroy's right. The guy is a straight REAL MAN who enjoys being blown by men.

[Leroy Lizard]

Funny. Aren't you going to use this opportunity to show me how my "defining these terms" allows you to rip them apart and show how I'm wrong and then back me into a corner?


You agreed with a definition that a real man is soft-spoken. I then asked whether MLK Jr. was a real man based on that definition. So far, I haven't seen your response.

[Crucifax Autumn]

So the guy went on radio and admitted he's gay and that he was just playing up to his conservative consituency...What do you have to say Leroy?

Is he a real man now?

[Crucifax Autumn]

http://www.towleroad.com/2010/03/roy-ashburn-.html

[Leroy Lizard]

So the guy went on radio and admitted he's gay and that he was just playing up to his conservative consituency...What do you have to say Leroy?

I never said he wasn't gay.

[NormanPride]

http://www.towleroad.com/2010/03/roy-ashburn-.html

Hahahah!


He needs to resign. The people of his district voted for a real gay-hating bigot not faux one.

[Leroy Lizard]

"My votes reflect the wishes of the people in my district."

There was obviously more to it than that. Voting anti-gay was probably his way of perpetuating the myth to himself that he wasn't gay.

[LosAngelesSooner]

You agreed with a definition that a real man is soft-spoken. I then asked whether MLK Jr. was a real man based on that definition. So far, I haven't seen your response.Okay. I'll play your game. But you won't like it.

I consider Martin Luther King to be a soft spoken man, by the definition presented in this thread. Fits perfectly, actually.

Now let's see if you can actually define "real man."

[Leroy Lizard]

So according to you he wasn't a real man.

Right?


BTW, this is your game, not mine.

[Scott D]

you two old women are still at it?

[Tulsa_Fireman]

My weiner is a real man.

[olevetonahill]

My weiner is a real man.

My weiner is a Bisnatcho :P

[SoonerAtKU]

It's just your opinion based on what you think is a real man and you are entitled to it. Why is the concept of opinion so hard for you to understand?

We're all entitled to our opinions, Leroy. That's not the discussion we're having here. The issue we have is that one group of us is trying to have an actual discussion, while one person is quite content to repeat his opinions with no discourse or meaning behind it. My question to you, then, would be "why should we listen to you?"

I know you're pretty proud of your troll status and your ability to get people upset, so is that really the extent of your intent behind the things you say here, or are you at all interested in anyone else's opinion or argument?

The irony behind all of this is that we're having a better debate about "debating" than we are about the actual issue in question. So it's not like you don't know how to do it, you just choose to argue about arguing instead of about a specific topic.

You're an odd duck, Leroy.

[SoonerProphet]

Freedom isn't free. It costs folks like you and me. And, if you don't chip in your buck o' five, who will?

there is a hefty ****in fee.

[Leroy Lizard]

We're all entitled to our opinions, Leroy. That's not the discussion we're having here. The issue we have is that one group of us is trying to have an actual discussion,

Using every fallacy known to man...


while one person is quite content to repeat his opinions with no discourse or meaning behind it. My question to you, then, would be "why should we listen to you?"

I don't like The Beatles. Can't stand them. Am I to gather a team of scientists to determine the sound attributes of music and then define "sounds good"?

Music is an abstraction. The concept of "real man" is an abstraction. Everyone has their own internal understanding of what a real man is. Attempts to define it in unambiguously only leads to the mishaps of the two nut jobs in here when they tried to define "real man."

And I will say it again: Demands for opponents to define abstract terms is nothing more than a scheme based on faulty reasoning. The stupid fall for it and then spend days defending every possible counterpunch.


I know you're pretty proud of your troll status and your ability to get people upset, so is that really the extent of your intent behind the things you say here, or are you at all interested in anyone else's opinion or argument?

The same could be said about every poster in here. Somehow these questions are only aimed at the opponents in an argument.

Am I right?


The irony behind all of this is that we're having a better debate about "debating" than we are about the actual issue in question. So it's not like you don't know how to do it, you just choose to argue about arguing instead of about a specific topic.

I argue about arguing when I see a cheap tactic thrown out.

[LosAngelesSooner]

So according to you he wasn't a real man.

Right?


BTW, this is your game, not mine.No...this IS your game. You are the one who said someone would play it. I NEVER played it...yet here YOU are, playing it.

And also...NO...he would be a real man since it would fit into the "definition" that Chuck offered.

Maybe YOU should go re-read this thread because it seems that you either forgot what you said or didn't understand what you said.

LOL

It's funny to watch you continue down this path, however. :pop:

[LosAngelesSooner]

Using every fallacy known to man...



I don't like The Beatles. Can't stand them. Am I to gather a team of scientists to determine the sound attributes of music and then define "sounds good"?

Music is an abstraction. The concept of "real man" is an abstraction. Everyone has their own internal understanding of what a real man is. Attempts to define it in unambiguously only leads to the mishaps of the two nut jobs in here when they tried to define "real man."

And I will say it again: Demands for opponents to define abstract terms is nothing more than a scheme based on faulty reasoning. The stupid fall for it and then spend days defending every possible counterpunch.



The same could be said about every poster in here. Somehow these questions are only aimed at the opponents in an argument.

Am I right?



I argue about arguing when I see a cheap tactic thrown out.What you're missing is that there is a big difference between saying, "The Beatles don't make real music," and saying, "I don't like the Beatles' music."

The first is an assertion that presumes fact and therefore needs definition. The second is an opinion. What you did was the first, but the you tried to cloak it in opinion in order to hide the fact that you don't have the capacity to define your terms.

And that's why you're still on here making a fool of yourself. :D

[Leroy Lizard]

No...this IS your game. You are the one who said someone would play it. I NEVER played it...yet here YOU are, playing it.

You agreed with Chuck's definition, and Chuck clearly listed "soft-spoken" as an attribute of a real man.

Sorry, but it's there as plain as day.

[SoonerAtKU]

The issue doesn't arise when we try to define abstract terms, Leroy. The issue arises when someone uses an abstract term to try to make a statement of fact. You're putting the cart before the horse, which is an ACTUAL logical fallacy. We're having a discussion after you've refused to define your terms, but you fail to acknowledge that it was your statement that began the discussion, not LAS' response.

My point remains, if YOU want to start a discussion of what a real man would or wouldn't do, the burden lies with YOU to tell us what that means. This applies to everything we do. We HAVE to contextualize everything we take in, otherwise we'd behave as babies do. Literally. Each piece of apple a baby eats is unique and different from every apple, and each time they meet the same person, it's unique, because they haven't developed any object permanence or schema understanding.

This is how your argument feels, to me. If we all each get to have our own definitions for everything, then what's the point of us talking? You can live in your world, where everything you say means exactly nothing to anyone else, and I'll live in mine, where everything I say means something completely opposite. We'll never get anything done, we'll never grow and learn from each other, and we'll play in piles of our own poop. How nice.

The issue isn't that we all have to come to a consensus about what a real man is. You're absolutely right that these things will always have different meanings to different people. But, we do need to know what YOU mean when YOU say it, because YOU are the one who brought that term into the discussion.

[C&CDean]

wow. In a really, really gay sorta way. This thread has devolved into another mind-numbing penis sword fight. Goodnight.