The Chat Thread
Started by: Lgolos | Replies: 158,197 | Views: 12,277,685 | Sticky
Oct 7, 2016 8:31 PM #1463646
Placing the burden of proof on the guy you're debating with and not yourself is a logical fallacy though...
Oct 7, 2016 9:05 PM #1463649
Quote from AlphaeusGosh...read a study that came out back in...'12? You can probably google it.
In what world does a single study equate to indisputable facts that aren't up for debate?
Quote from AlphaeusAs to the credibility of what each side said, who knows.
Well you yourself said you're "just stating the facts, which are not open to debate". One of those 'facts' being "On a technical level, homosexuality is determined by the balance of hormones in the brain."
I'm just going to skip ahead for you, nothing you posted back then was remotely close to established, accepted fact and you should refrain from presenting yourself from that position unless you A) know what you're talking about, and B) are able to actually back up the things you say.
Oct 8, 2016 1:23 AM #1463660
oh hey im just in time to see a literal gay discussion
Also, Alphaeus, anno Exile's post, you're dead. Oh so very dead
Also, Alphaeus, anno Exile's post, you're dead. Oh so very dead
Oct 8, 2016 2:36 AM #1463662
Quote from AlphaeusGosh...read a study that came out back in...'12? You can probably google it. There is also an organization out there for gay people that want to become straight...again, read that years ago. I think it was called Gen1 or something.
Bruh. "Facts not up for debate."
I mean, in the end, it doesn't really matter why or how. If a person's gay, they're gay. If they're not, they're not. And if they want to change from one way or the other, that's their choice.
Well yeah.
Generally speaking, in society nowadays (well, Western society) homosexuality is an accepted norm in life. Most of the intense debate (like the info I'm citing) was generated from both sides of the fight for gay rights. As to the credibility of what each side said, who knows. I pick through the info for what seems the best referenced and most logical. Now that the whole battle (at least in America) is over, I don't guess it matters all that much.
"Like the info I'm citing."
Where?
"As to the credibility of what each side said, who knows"
Hey, good point. We can agree on something
Oct 8, 2016 3:54 AM #1463667
I actually googled and it has a dedicated wikipedia page which basically says what you'd expect it to say.
It's pretty hilarous that one of their techniques sounds like it's straight outta The Clockwork Orange.
"nausea-inducing drugs...administered simultaneously with the presentation of homoerotic stimuli"
It's pretty hilarous that one of their techniques sounds like it's straight outta The Clockwork Orange.
"nausea-inducing drugs...administered simultaneously with the presentation of homoerotic stimuli"
Oct 8, 2016 7:29 AM #1463675
All they're asking from you is citation when you state things as fact, we wont just take your word for it.
Oct 8, 2016 5:24 PM #1463699
Quote from SmileI actually googled and it has a dedicated wikipedia page which basically says what you'd expect it to say.
are there any examples of a reverse conversion?
it seems that most people have pretty weird reasons for writing books or performing surgeries on gay people.
The Psycho-Analysis of Children ends with the analysis of Mr. B., a gay man. Klein claimed that he illustrated pathologies that enter into all forms of homosexuality: a gay man idealizes “the good penis” of his partner to allay the fear of attack he feels due to having projected his paranoid hatred onto the imagined “bad penis“ of his mother as an infant. She stated that Mr. B.’s homosexual behaviour diminished after he overcame his need to adore the “good penis” of an idealized man. This was made possible by his recovering his belief in the good mother and his ability to sexually gratify her with his good penis and plentiful semen.
i understand that this is only one case but
why
Oct 8, 2016 9:49 PM #1463731
Seven out of the top ten non-Stickied threads in this section are forum games or roleplays. The top threads are an Anime/Manga discussion thread, a locked "troll" thread, Azure teaching people about LinkedIn and SEVEN Forum Games or roleplays. Come on, guys.
Oct 8, 2016 9:53 PM #1463733
Well, there's sadly not much interest in LinkedIn articles, though I find them fascinating still.
Oct 8, 2016 10:02 PM #1463735
The one post on that thread is a completely irrelevant long ass paragraph about the food industry's effect on biodiversity lmao
Oct 9, 2016 1:36 AM #1463753
Yeah...
This was one of those situations where you're like "Oh! I remember XYZ that totally fit here!"
Then you post and come back later and realize "Oh shit! XYZ isn't exactly what my memory told me it was...fuck you, over-crammed and faulty memory."
OH well. Abandon ship. Attempt failed. I screwed my own argument in the ass, which is a gay idea being made by a straight guy, so hey, wtf. :P
This was one of those situations where you're like "Oh! I remember XYZ that totally fit here!"
Then you post and come back later and realize "Oh shit! XYZ isn't exactly what my memory told me it was...fuck you, over-crammed and faulty memory."
OH well. Abandon ship. Attempt failed. I screwed my own argument in the ass, which is a gay idea being made by a straight guy, so hey, wtf. :P
Oct 9, 2016 7:15 PM #1463840
What is this thread.... 8.5 mil views?!?? Who spends all year reloading this page over and over and over and over...
Oct 9, 2016 7:51 PM #1463844
Quote from Mart456What is this thread.... 8.5 mil views?!?? Who spends all year reloading this page over and over and over and over...
Not just one person... probably many people reloading together.
Oct 9, 2016 9:52 PM #1463873
Quote from Mart456What is this thread.... 8.5 mil views?!?? Who spends all year reloading this page over and over and over and over...
Well it's been here for 9 years so...
Oct 9, 2016 10:48 PM #1463874
So... I did the calculations. The Chat Thread gets around 2600 views every day, judging by how many views and how long the Chat Thread has been.