Bush meets the press

[Legion]

This is basically become a farce. This is a step by step recount of this whole brouhaha.

1) You stated that homosexuality was a deviant mutation if I believed that it is genetically predisposed.

To which you stated my argument was comprised of homosexuality being a condition and a sickness. never once did i state this. You have agian stated your characterization of my arguments was "dead on". This is of course not true and when pressed to give examples you could not. You merely left the thread without answering to my request.

The matter of wether or not you stated i used the word deviant to describe sickness/bad/something negative is a side issue to the fact that you stated i called homosexuals as deviant mutations. Which i never stated i believed yet you continue to tell me i do.

2) I stated that you called homosexuality a deviant mutation.

3) You stated that you never said such a thing.[/quote

No, i as refering to you your use of the word deviant. You had stated from the very begining my argument was comprised of homosexuality be a condition to be cured as well as a sickness. I refered to homosexuality being a deviant muation by your reasoning, which of course it would be if sexual orientation is predetermined.

I did not CALL homosexuality a deviant mutation. I stated if it WERE a genetically predetermined condition it WOULD BE a deviant mutation.

Why would i believe homosexuality is a deviant mutation if i do not believe orientation is caused by genetics?

Proof:

No, i haven't and yes you are misrepresented my argument. What i stated to you was, implying that there was a genetic cause would also imply mutation. When did i ever stated i believe homosexuality is a deviant mutation?

4) I provided the exact quote where you did.

Proof:

Unless of course you believe were predispositioned to be homosexual then you might as well refer to yourself as a deviant mutation...

Right here you catch yourself in your own canard Natoma! Read EXACTLY what i said!

The first statement is quite obvious:

If you imply there is a genetic cause that would imply mutation. This is 100% true if you adhere to the theory of evolution.

The next statement is clearly sarcasm Natoma:

If you believe there is a genetic cause you are allowing yourself to be called a mutation.

As i said before i was trying to make a point to you. That by supporting your beliefs you are ultimately doing more harm to homosexuals.

5) You continue to refute that and say that you've never called homosexuality a deviant mutation. Then you make this qualifier about "wicked mutation" or "(evil, destructive)".

I haven't stated homosexuality is a deviant mutation Natoma. You can stop now. I don't believe sexual orientation is genetically caused so why the hell would i believe it to be genetic mutation?

All those qualifiers regarding deviant = wicked or evil or destructive are your legion, not mine. I've already shown over and over and over where you stated that homosexuality is a deviant mutation. And if you don't believe me, here it is again, your own words.

Yes lets laugh together at your own reasoning.


yes you know i don't believe in genetic predisposition yet i believe homosexuality is a genetic mutation....the joke is on you.

 

[Legion]

tee hee

Unless of course you believe were predispositioned to be homosexual then you might as well refer to yourself as a deviant mutation...

Yes i am clearly stating what i believe...definately calling it a mutation while using the words "Unless of course"

I swear to god natoma you and i have had this exact converation in IMs before. Please check your logs. I swear this is deja vu


i just get this feeling some one is looking for a quote right now to prove i do infact view homosexuals as a deviant mutation. Yes i do believe there is a genetic cause, i just pretend not to...


PS - Lets not forget we have had many conversations like this in the past. I you refer to my reasoning as being comprised of homosexuality being some kind of disease why would i not think the definition of the word deviant you were thinking i was ascribing to homosexual was anything less that something along the lines of sickness?

For the life of me i can't find the dicussion we had about my use the word deviant aside from the one here. I specifically remember a discussion over terminology where some one, pressumably you, ask me either not to use the word or to better describe in the future what i meant. Of course such is unecessary for this discussion as there are multiple levels of misrepresentation happening here.

 

[Natoma]

And people accuse me of mincing and parsing words.

Ok Legion, we can play this game.

Legion: Natoma, do you think people are genetically predisposed to homosexuality?

Natoma: Yes, I do believe people are genetically predisposed to homosexeuality.

Legion: Ok, then if it is true that people are genetically predisposed to homosexuality, then it is a deviant mutation.

Scientist In The Future: We have 100% undeniable proof that people are genetically predisposed to homosexuality.

Legion: Then it must be a deviant mutation.

End of story. I have to get back to work.

 

[Legion]

And people accuse me of mincing and parsing words.

Ok Legion, we can play this game.

I'd rather not. You could just state you misunderstood me. That would be fine. I really want to know whether or not you understand my position aside from the sarcasm. This matter is cut and dry.

you really mean misrepresentation game. I've told you what i believe in the past many times. There is no reason for you to be stating any of this now.

it all comes down to this

Quote:
You have also on many other occassions referred to homosexuality as deviant.


Care to point this out to me?

No answer...no reply...nada, zip, zilch...

What did you take me to be pointing out to you Natoma? Perhaps you understood it then hense you left the thread...

Tell me Natoma, what exactly were you saying here? Tell me in your own words.

Legion: Natoma, do you think people are genetically predisposed to homosexuality?

Natoma: Yes, I do believe people are genetically predisposed to homosexeuality.

Legion: Ok, then if it is true that people are genetically predisposed to homosexuality, then it is a deviant mutation.

Scientist In The Future: We have 100% undeniable proof that people are genetically predisposed to homosexuality.

Legion: Then it must be a deviant mutation.

Let me introduce this variable into the word game:

sar·casm ( P ) Pronunciation Key (särkzm)
n.
A cutting, often ironic remark intended to wound.
A form of wit that is marked by the use of sarcastic language and is intended to make its victim the butt of contempt or ridicule.
The use of sarcasm. See Synonyms at wit1.

Well the first definition fits quite well into this scenerio.

Natoma, i have often stated i believe it is possible in the future homosexuality may be determined to be genetic. The crux of my arguments have been thus: genetic predetermination may be true however to this date evidence points to the contrary and most supporting research has been invented. It is rather difficult for any one scientist to explain the sexual diversity in humans on a genetic level.

What you mean to say here is that you took my sarcasm to be a direct relation to what i believe and based on some future scenerio which of course may have no likelihood of happening you suggest that sarcasm is what i meant to be a true reflection of my beliefs.

In truth you have no idea how i would react because Natoma, you don't know a damn about me.

wow that WMD confidence condition sure seems catching...

Saddam has WMD
We will find it
It will prove us right
What if you don't find it?
...we still aren't wrong...

Homosexuality is genetically determined
in the future they will prove it
what if they don't
...its still gentically determined.

I call this invincible ignorance.

You subscribe to this nonsense like some kind of religion

"in the future you will know God is real!"

Well gee wilikers better start believing now!

ADMITT it Natoma! Even if in the future they prove it to be 100% genetically predetermined they haven't now so why would i believe it to be true now in light of all my reasoning? Come on, stop playing around.

i am just asking for a simply apology man come on.

 

[Stvn]

I generally don't like to come into this forum or read what is going on, but Natoma is a co-worker of mine and I really really really want him to stop this B3D crap and get back to work.

Anyways, I've been reading this stuff, and my interpretation of what I've read is that legion did write that homosexuality is a deviant mutation. I'm not sure why you're even debating this. The words are there. Legion, maybe you meant it as sarcasm, but you didn't say that until the now.

As for the whole mis-representation thing. Unless yor birth certificate reads "Legion" and you plan on using your B3D posts for your next job reference, I think you shouldn't worry about it. Especially considering how low an opinion you seem to have of Natoma, I can't really understand why you care so much.

Natoma, just shut up too, you are being as ridiculous as he is.

Now Natoma, Get back to work!!!!!!!!

 

[Legion]

Anyways, I've been reading this stuff, and my interpretation of what I've read is that legion did write that homosexuality is a deviant mutation. I'm not sure why you're even debating this. The words are there. Legion, maybe you meant it as sarcasm, but you didn't say that until the now.

Yes i do not believe in genetic predisposition but i called it a genetic mutation...

likewise i believe i made a choice to be bisexual yet as well as believing i was predetermined to be such by a genetic mutation...

why is it so hard for you two to reason this makes no logical sense.

Stvn can you explain this to me? how i can hold one view and then other at the same time though they contradict themselves...

 

[zidane1strife]

Well, I read the name kay in this thread, don't know if this has been posted or how reliable it is, but I found it interesting.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2094415/

 

[John Reynolds]