Free speech falls prey to 'human rights'
- Thread starter Sabastian
- Start date
Blade said:
Exactly what have i said that has incouraged you to make yourself look like and idiot now?
Why exactly do you feel the need to provoke me blade?
If i am notorious for defending the xbox perhaps you should be recognized as one who notoriously attacks it.
I stated what was true.
30 fps is not and xbox problem. How is arguing that many other consoles games run at 30 fps an example of weak argumentation? Especially considering what i said is true. Silent hill 3 despite what marc seems to deny has framerate issues all over the place. Chaos Legion is in no way different.
Does
Natoma said:Legion said:Natoma said:Debate ending? Yes. Good? Ermm......
Nice little cheap shot from an individual who has never supported any of his argumentations
*cough*
Your refusing to deny my accussations is telling Natoma. It truly is.
Natoma said:
Natoma how have you defended your cause? You never have. You have only stated your beliefs. You have only made anonymous references to so called scientific research which you refuse to discuss with me. I do not have any interest in discussing with you your use of logical fallacies. So, unless you have something to add to this discussion perhaps you ought to leave it alone?
Is it truly difficult for you to discuss things with me? Is your unwillingness caused by some mental incapacity you have to argue with some one you can't generalize as a homophobe? Sometimes i wonder.
The reason why I left this debate Legion is because trying to deal with a person who truly believes that human beings cannot learn how to procreate unless they're taught in a Sex-Ed class (what the hell did the species do for the past few thousand years when sex-ed wasn't around eh? ), or believes that the parts of the brain that deal with sexual arousal have nothing to do with sexual orientation (which I should state is a human definitional descriptor for the sexual arousal response), is pointless. You display a lacking of the fundamentals of biology and psychology. But whatever, I need to get up in the morning for work. Tootles.....
), or believes that the parts of the brain that deal with sexual arousal have nothing to do with sexual orientation (which I should state is a human definitional descriptor for the sexual arousal response), is pointless. You display a lacking of the fundamentals of biology and psychology. But whatever, I need to get up in the morning for work. Tootles.....I'd say the unwillingness to discuss with you (Legion) comes from your manner - you are rude, guilty of many of the faults you blast others for (i ahve seen you make many unsupported statements in this thread) and you dont seem to grasp the point of discussion. You treat it like WAR! and most people dont like that. If you cant understand that, then you will go through life feeling victorious, but most people will just think you are rude, arrogant, and impossible to talk effectively to (because you simply ignore what you dont want to hear, because you seem incapable of what i have written below).
Oh yes, i thought that i would add that discussions usually involve an attempt to see the other persons viewpoint - you could abstract this by attempting to argue the other persons side if you must consider this a battle. Im sure you will claim to have done this, but it is apparent you have not.
Oh yes, i thought that i would add that discussions usually involve an attempt to see the other persons viewpoint - you could abstract this by attempting to argue the other persons side if you must consider this a battle. Im sure you will claim to have done this, but it is apparent you have not.
Natoma said:The reason why I left this debate Legion is because trying to deal with a person who truly believes that human beings cannot learn how to procreate unless they're taught in a Sex-Ed class (what the hell did the species do for the past few thousand years when sex-ed wasn't around eh?
For some reason or another you feel thinking this way is some how backwards, primitive, illogical, or other wise stupid. WHy?
I feel the need to question your wording; how would they learn to have sex via nonenviromental methods?
Would they genes convey this information to them? Do you not see how absurd this reasoning is?
How, Natoma, would genes (nonthinking entities) convey this information to you? How would they help you visualize it? I think its readily apparent all "instintual" behaviors in humans manifest naturally. For example you do not learn to breathe. You can control it. However it opperates naturally with out your conscious control of it.
Can the same be said for sex? Can it be demonstrated? What do we have to go by but mere comparison between us and other animals? Why should merely accept the belief that sexuality and sex are instinct drive behaviors in humans simply because other animals have such mechanism? Have not humans demostrated a great capacity to usurp animal instinct of the nonhuman animal kingdom?
Why does this shock you? A great portion of the psychological community feels the same way.
You are taking my words out of context. I said i believed the libido etc has nothing to do with your decisions as to sexual orientation. I did however admit without a libido sexual orientation more than likely wouldn't matter much to you.
What we find as sexually arousing is generally cultural. You should admit this as it is fact. For example there is nothing coded in my genes to tell me i should be sexually aroused by intelligent women, men who are valiant, white teeth, long hair, or braids.
You haven't provided any evidence the two are associated. Why should anyone agree with you?
You mean to say i lack p your[/b[ understanding not the proper understanding.
Althornin said:
No, i just don't agree with certain people's comments in a lot of these threads. My comments were directed to Natoma not you.
Does it bother you that while calling me an asshole you have made yourself one?
I do not see myself as rude to anyone unless i have been given proper provocation to be so.
I generally back up a comment concerning what i am debating when asked to. I am sure you have seen unsupported comments from me, I generally make them when the information is common knowledge or has been accepted to be true. Why would i bother to post links/resources for every comment i make?
Sir, I never asked for you opinion nor was it warrented for yout to aspouse it here. My comments were rhetorical in nature and addressed to another individual.
Actually i haven't. I have pointed out to natoma several times the difficulty in expressing just how genes would opperate to cause certain human behaviors that which also involve a great deal of enviromental exposure. I think if you read my words objectively you will see it is readily apparent i have considered his opinion long before he conveyed it to me.
His unwillingness to discuss with me has nothing to do with my attitude. If care to actually read over this thread you will realize we have spoke quite a bit about this topic. However he has yet to address specifics. This is to say he is refusing to back up his position. Which also happens to be the connotation of the word "dicuss" in my statement. Which leaves me to wonder; if you had read this entire thread how could you have missed the context of that particular sentence?
