Amnesty International shows solidarity with Budapest Pride

[jennfarrsuperstar]

I wanna know where to get the earrings at 1:00 and 1:44 :D

[syrian1113]

Viva Syrian peaceful revaluation 2011 against the Nazi regime in Syria

Pray for the spirits of 1895 innocents civilians been killed by the dictator from 15/3/2011 up to date

Pray for the blood of 126 Childs been killed by the dictator

Viva CHE

Freedom for Syria

[sqekcx]

One thing people need to understand: It's none of your business which sex another person chooses to fuck.

[Elephantintheroom01]

@sqekcx

Nice theory, bra

Well, It was gonna be either one or the other of those options. Either its nones business what you do or its everyone’s business.

Rather than proposing a system for the whole of the human race, as your doing there. (QED i dont have that level of control over society, nore do i want it.)

I tend to take the view that if its illogical then you dont have the right to tell people to stop bugging you about it and doing it in secret is no consolation.

Pretty simple actually.

[Elephantintheroom01]

@sqekcx Its not about choice, its about evidence. And you really ought to consider evidence.

Dont right it off as an opinion, it really is completly different.

[sqekcx]

@Elephantintheroom01

whatever you say. I'll still happily fuck men

[Elephantintheroom01]

Ya know the hardest part of society today is deciding who to silence...

Do you dislike what I say about the nature of equality and genders?

Do you want to silence me?

Well I hold truth as my highest standard, I think NO ONE should be able to silence another. If we live in a society that can so easily silence groups, then you are just promoting the exact thing which you understand to destroy equality.

The cause of all this is bias, and i dont think you have what it takes to stop yourself.

[Elephantintheroom01]

Oh ffs,

I'm a scientist and i'm here to tell you there is no evidence proving it to be logical infact there is evedence to the contrary. All the evidence YOU THINK YOU HAVE has been disproven.

It is illogical and it is harmfull to be gay and you silence decent like the rest of society by propagandizing it as phobia with the help of the gay dominant media and assuming it to be illogical. NOW WHOS THE SECRET POLICE.

This isnt an opinion, YOUR NOT THAT LUCKY, its science.

[MrDarkbloom]

@Elephantintheroom01 Harmful to be gay? For who? :))

[Elephantintheroom01]

@MrDarkbloom Both parties.

The purpose of genes is to reproduce, there is no scientific evidence for a benefit to gayness, indeed it actually seems to be not intentional. In short, they dont pass on their genes which could contain vital information like immunity.

What this means in practical terms is; if they arnt passing on their genes, well, what are they doing? Consuming resources, indeed when they go into retirement it is OTHER PEOPLES CHILDEREN that will pay their social security.

Y/N?

[Mattyb88ful]

@Elephantintheroom01

"when they go into retirement it is OTHER PEOPLES CHILDEREN that will pay their social security."

What utter rubbish. People who don't have children, whether gay or heterosexual, contribute MORE to the public purse PRECISELY because they don't have children. They don't have children that rely on schools and et cetera.

[Elephantintheroom01]

@Mattyb88ful

Aha, that is precisely the misunderstanding i'm talking about.

By your logic, the less children people have, the more contribution they should make to education for the rest of us.

If theoretically this were promoted until 99% of the population support 1% of the children then this should mean that education was excellent and this should totally mean that this 1% could run the economy well enough to support the 99% right, right?

This is whats called a “logical absurdity"

Continued

[Mattyb88ful]

@Elephantintheroom01

Your argument doesn't make sense. What gay people contribute throughout their working lives isn't then sucked up by children. How dare you bash gay people for relying on pensions and et cetera when they have contributed to the system throughout their lives? And, I love how you claim the tax gay people pay goes to bailing out banks and et cetera. The tax gays pay goes to the same things that the tax heterosexuals pay.

[Elephantintheroom01]

Continued part 2

Its also called a “thin end of the wedge argument”.

Getting back to facts now; it is well understood by economists that in an ideal world, with zero inflation and death, the correct ratio of parents to children is 1:1 and this allows replacement in jobs and can fund social security aswell as education. If I were to say 1:99 then this would result in the reverse of the same logical absurdity above. Or perhaps you would like to suggest a better ratio?

Continued part 3.

[Mattyb88ful]

@Elephantintheroom01

2- there are many gays who do have chilren, whether it's through a hetero relationship they have had, adoption, surrogacy etc. And, there are many heterosexuals who don't have children. Why pick on gays?

3- how dare you bash people, gay or hetero, for not having children? Why must they?

4- the world's population was 500M just 500 yrs ago - now it's 7B on its way to 10B. The world's heavily overpopulated and your complaining because some are not having children.

[Elephantintheroom01]

@Mattyb88ful

2- Ideally children need a proper family environment with both parents. Their not acting in the childs interest if they choose to have children without providing this.

These heterosexuals aren’t diseased like gays because If they fail to get a mate this is because of natural selection. Not because they have "chosen to be different."

3- Ive already explained this, the purpose of DNA is to reproduce.

4- The world is not overpopulated this is a lie, watch?v=zBS6f-JVvTY

[Mattyb88ful]

@Elephantintheroom01

"need a proper family"

You don't have a monopoly on the definition of a family.

"chosen to be"

Homosexuality is not a choice. Disagree? Prove it.

"the purpose of DNA"

You're committing the naturalistic - is/ought - logical fallacy. Pathetic LOL.

"is not overpopulated"

Yes, it is, actually. In any case, humans aren't about to go extinct. So, there is no reason whatsoever to demand that everyone has children.

[Elephantintheroom01]

@Mattyb88ful

"monopoly on the definition of a family"

1. >"Trying to disprove the definition of a healthy family which contain members from both sex"

"Homosexuality is not a choice."

2. >Trying to disprove free will exists

"Naturalistic logical fallacy"

3. Now thats allot better...

"The naturalistic fallacy is the assumption that because the words 'good' and, say, 'pleasant' necessarily describe the same objects, they must attribute the same quality to them"

I didnt say that, i said HEALTHY.

[Mattyb88ful]

@Elephantintheroom01

"Trying to disprove the definition of a healthy family which contain members from both sex."

Throughout the world, and throughout history, the definition of family varies.

"Trying to disprove free will exists"

Its got nothing to do with 'free will'. Homosexuality is not a choice. Fact. Just as being left-handed is not a choice. We can choose not have sex (or not use the left or right hand), but the feelings themsleves are not a choice.

[Elephantintheroom01]

@Mattyb88ful I respect your attempt at identifying a fallacy. However, if your really being reasonable, this fallacy turns on your own argument.

If person X says that gayness is good because its a different type of love, and perhaps go on to say, i personally know many pleasant gay people.

Then they are committing this fallacy, because they are saying that this means that it is healthy. When being pleasant or having a love of something doesn’t guarantee health. Is is the case with fixation.

[Mattyb88ful]

@Elephantintheroom01

"Overpopulation is just a myth"

Evidence?

"Gayness [is a myth]"

Evidence?

"their not passing on there genes."

So what? Why must they have children? You're a fucking dictator telling people how they should live their lives. Mind your own fucking business.

[Elephantintheroom01]

@Mattyb88ful

“Why must they have children?”

I've explained all that.

You are showing a bias; you can’t admit your wrong.

"Gayness [is a myth]"

I proved; Gayness is a illness, sanctioned by society

"You're a fucking dictator. Mind your own fucking business."

Since when is providing evidence dictatorship. I’ve spent my own time talking to you. I have been selfless.

Would you rather I not try to find the truth? Or if I do find truth I’ll just keep it to myself and to hell with everybody else

[Mattyb88ful]

@Elephantintheroom01

"I've explained all that."

No, you haven't explained why people must have children. The human species is not at the brink of extinction.

"I proved; Gayness is a illness"

Again, no, you haven't proved that.

"Since when is"

Telling people how they must live their lives is dictatorship.

[Elephantintheroom01]

@Mattyb88ful Oh you've just given up now.

Not only are you presenting no counter evidence, but your arguments are one sentence long and can be summarised as punch and Judy pantomime "ohhh- no it isnt".

This is not how you win an argument, a proper scientific argument-with rules.

You’ve lost the argument.

Lately I was reading about genetics and it is possible that gayness is a ‘deliberate handicap’, but its still illogical. There are allot better handicaps that could be had.

[Mattyb88ful]

@Elephantintheroom01

"Oh you've just given up now."

Yes, because you're an idiot. You just make assertions that you're unable to make up e.g. homosexuality is a choice and et cetera. You haven't been able to prove any of your anti-gay assertions. And, this is why people like yourself are called homophobes. You have an irrational fear and/or hatred of gay people. You can't even explain your opposition in a coherent manner with evidence. How sad.

[Elephantintheroom01]

@Mattyb88ful Oh, you didnt understand...

If it is not a choice you are arguing against free will and insisting we live in a deterministic universe. The same as Christians.

This is not true, evolution proves we improve through selection. (provided you breed) That is to say, we can use our minds to imagine ourselves differently and change.

Therefore it is impossible to be out of control of your personality without it being an illness. And being unable to evolve (breed) is an illness.

[Mattyb88ful]

@Elephantintheroom01

"If it is not a choice you are arguing against free will"

No, I am not. People, heterosexual or gay, can chose whether or not to act on their feelings; however, they do not choose to have these feelings in thie first place. That's the distinction you're not getting.

"And being unable to evolve (breed) is an illness."

If you want to see it as illness then fine.

[Elephantintheroom01]

@Mattyb88ful Your assuming emotions are always right. Emotions can result from mental illness aswell as any natural causes. If emotions are right then homophobia is also right, also genetic and also unavoidable.

It’s a matter of where the feelings come from and weather they are healthy. Any sane person would question their feelings using logic. Their expression of feelings is a choice

“If you want to see it as illness then fine.”

It IS an illness. It conforms to the medical definition of one.

[Mattyb88ful]

@Elephantintheroom01

"Your assuming emotions are always right."

I don't see what that has to do with anything I have said. I just said that sexual orientation, gay or straight, is not a choice. Whether, of course, we act on our feelings is another matter.

"It IS an illness. It conforms to the medical definition of one."

Again, that's just your opinion, to which your entitled. 

[Elephantintheroom01]

@Mattyb88ful No, your lieing to yourself. I've done my best to explain to you the medical definition. I've explained that the purpose of DNA is replication. This is no where near being an opinon, because it is evidenced in this way.

You said it was their emotions. I pointed out your assumption; It is not a matter of only acting on feelings, its a matter of if they are healthy.

I've proved it isnt healthy now. You can either challange these well established facts or admit i've caught you out.

[Mattyb88ful]

@Elephantintheroom01

"I've done my best to explain to you the medical definition."

You haven't shown anything but your ignorance. For your information, there isn't an agreed medical definition when it comes to what constitutes an 'illness'.

[Elephantintheroom01]

@Mattyb88ful Yes but there is an agreed definition of what the DNA is supposed to do, there is an agreed definition of a departure from illnus.

Do you really expect everyone on the planet to agree to the same dictionary? Not very likly is it. But The one i'm using is a real definition and your argument is simply that we should change it so your bias can become acceptable.

You managed to touch apon a subject of much rage to me; the subtle change of definitions to suit poletics. Well done you!

[Mattyb88ful]

@Elephantintheroom01

"there is an agreed definition of what the DNA is"

And? So? Humans are meant to reproduce. This doesn't mean we should reproduce. This is the naturalistic fallacy. The purpose of a comb is to brush one's hair; however, using it as a microphone in the shower doesn't mean you're doing something 'wrong'. The purpose of the mouth is not to french kisses, but this does not mean french kissing is 'wrong'. The same goes with homosexuality and not reproducing.

[Elephantintheroom01]

@Mattyb88ful "This doesn't mean we should reproduce." ...perhapse, but if every human has a chance of evolving a usefull gene and, ideally speaking, only the strongest genes are domenant, then, reducing the number of humans passing on genes will reduce our success rate.

And, concidering that we have a falling birthrate, and there is no such thing as overpopulation, just starvation. And that this low brithrate will create economic stress as retirment happens, especially gays...

Continued A1.

[Mattyb88ful]

@Elephantintheroom01

We do have overpopulation. The world population was just around 0.5 billion half a century ago. Now it's almost 7 billion and on its way to 12 billion a century. More than enough reproduction is taking place to throw out the window your 'reducing the number of humans passing on genes will reduce our success rate' claim.

[Elephantintheroom01]

@Mattyb88ful Once again, the punch and judy argument "ohh yes it is" over population.

No, i've already showd you a video on overpopulation falsity.

"Was 0.5 billion, now 7 billion, then 12 billion"

All i read here is 7 is higher than 5 and 12 is higher than 7. Do you really know what the max sustainable population for the planet ear is?

"More than enough reproduction is taking place"

How much is enough? How much is healthy? Now your making the pleasant = good argument.

[Mattyb88ful]

@Elephantintheroom01

"No, i've already showd you a video on overpopulation falsity."

That video was a joke. It didn't even touch on the issue of resources.

"How much is enough? How much is healthy?"

Why don't you tell us? After all, you're the one using the gene/reproduction argument to bash homosexuality.

[Elephantintheroom01]

@Mattyb88ful I am interested in the answer but i'll have to turn that one back on you.

Its the PRO gay argument that should be explaining when there is enough genes in the pool... to justify their choices. Marko? polo, marko?, polo.

FISH OUTA WATER!

[Mattyb88ful]

@Elephantintheroom01

"Its the PRO gay argument that should be explaining when there is enough genes in the pool... to justify their choices."

No, not at all. Why must people, gay or straight, justify their lifestyle choices? If I don't want to have kids I won't have kids. It's my life. It's my body. This is what I was talking about earlier you being a dictator. You want to control how other people live their lives. It's none of your business.

[Elephantintheroom01]

@Mattyb88ful "Why must people... justify their lifestyle choices?"

Why do justify that i'm not a dictator? Or the re-incarnation of jeezas

Because people DO have to justify themselves. Theres no human right that says you can be illogical.

Assuming that everything you do is right is blind faith. Your faith in gays is just as flawed as the christians faith in god. Neither of you explain your evidence.

Also, this is why you are mistaken, you think that having a little debate is dictatorship.

[Mattyb88ful]

@Elephantintheroom01

"Your faith in gays"

What 'faith'? What are you talking about? Y

"you think that having a little debate is dictatorship."

No, that's not what I said. You see, this is the problem we have. Either you have a poor understanding of English and/or you're stupid. I said that you are a dictator because you want to control how other people live their lives.

[Elephantintheroom01]

@Mattyb88ful @Mattyb88ful Continued A1

Having less humans is akin to having less neurons in a brian, you lose thinking power. Your collective genetic evolution gets smaller.

"naturalistic fallacy" Nonono this is a straw man and disanalogies, i strongly encourage you to read the statments as if i'm not making a 'pleasant=good' argument because then you may see my actual points. As i've said before i'm making a 'healthy=good' argument. Cognative dissonance much?

[Elephantintheroom01]

Continued part 3

There is only one group that benefits from the pink pound;

the government,

and it doesnt matter what government either, Hitler or even George Bush, lets not assume that this extra money goes towards anything other than bailing out the banks or the EU so they can bail out Greece.

You did not disprove my assertion about consuming resources which are non-renewable such as gasoline. You instead quoted the old argument about the public purse. Which is changing the subject some.

[Mattyb88ful]

@Elephantintheroom01

"It is illogical"

How so?

"and it is harmfull to be gay"

How so?

[Elephantintheroom01]

@Mattyb88ful I've already explained that.