Nobody is gay or transgender because they were groomed for it or seduced into it.

[Politruk]

You all do understand, don't you, that nobody is doing any grooming or recruiting?

 

[YDB95]

You all do understand, don't you, that nobody is doing any grooming or recruiting?

I don't think they do, no.

 

[TastySuckToy]

I have never seen you "easily refute" anything. You always just argue that the experts could be wrong and ignore all the context.

So all you have is vague appeals to 'science' which you refuse to even summarize in your own words.

Feel free to get back to me when you have a more substantive argument than that.

 

[YDB95]

So all you have is vague appeals to 'science' which you refuse to even summarize in your own words.

Feel free to get back to me when you have a more substantive argument than that.

I would, if I thought you would approach it with an open mind.

 

[TastySuckToy]

I would, if I thought you would approach it with an open mind.

This is an example of the "ad hominem" logical fallacy, specifically a variant known as "poisoning the well."

In this case, instead of addressing the actual arguments or evidence, one side attempts to discredit their opponent by claiming they are inherently closed-minded. This is a fallacious argument because:

1. It does not engage with the substance of the debate
2. It shifts the focus from the argument to the perceived character of the opponent
3. It serves as a convenient excuse to avoid presenting one's own argument

The key problem is that the refusal to present an argument is itself an illogical response. If someone truly believes they have a valid point, they should be able to articulate it regardless of their perception of the other person's receptiveness. The claim of closed-mindedness becomes a shield to hide a potential lack of substantive argument.

This fallacy is particularly insidious because it can make the person refusing to argue seem morally superior ("I won't waste my time with someone who won't listen"), while actually avoiding the intellectual rigor of defending their position.

In critical thinking and debate, the appropriate approach is to present arguments clearly and thoughtfully, allowing the merits of those arguments to speak for themselves, regardless of the perceived receptiveness of the audience.

But alas, I really didn't expect any such effort from you.

 

[Deleted member 6873114]

You do all understand that, right? It is only the nature some people are born with. It does not result from being raised by a weak-willed father and a domineering mother or anything Freudian like that. It does not result from being exposed to books with LGBT characters. There is no recruiting going on here.

Do you believe in evolution? Do you think that men that prefer fucking other men in the ass have babies as a result? Is there a survival advantage? Or would they get filtered out of the gene pool due to not having off spring to carry their queer genes to the next degeneration? I think I have finally figured out why you are so angry.

 

[YDB95]

This is an example of the "ad hominem" logical fallacy, specifically a variant known as "poisoning the well."

It's also a perfectly rational response from anyone who has debated with you before.

In this case, instead of addressing the actual arguments or evidence, one side attempts to discredit their opponent by claiming they are inherently closed-minded.

I didn't claim that. You showed it yourself, with your nonsense about dwarves claiming to be giants and so forth. I really do have to give you credit for a remarkable ability to rationalize your nonsense, too. But that doesn't change that it is nonsense.

The key problem is that the refusal to present an argument is itself an illogical response. If someone truly believes they have a valid point, they should be able to articulate it regardless of their perception of the other person's receptiveness. The claim of closed-mindedness becomes a shield to hide a potential lack of substantive argument.

It's not a matter of being unable to articulate it. Rather, I simply can't be bothered to do your homework for you, especially since you most likely won't even read it.

In critical thinking and debate, the appropriate approach is to present arguments clearly and thoughtfully, allowing the merits of those arguments to speak for themselves, regardless of the perceived receptiveness of the audience.

But alas, I really didn't expect any such effort from you.

The feeling is mutual, I assure you.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Do you believe in evolution? Do you think that men that prefer fucking other men in the ass have babies as a result? Is there a survival advantage? Or would they get filtered out of the gene pool due to not having off spring to carry their queer genes to the next degeneration? I think I have finally figured out why you are so angry.

Are you attempting to use the "sex is for procreation purposes only" nonsense?
Newsflash: Sexual encounters resulting in no conception far outnumber sexual encounters resulting in conception.
The ratio can be several orders of magnitude higher: 100 to 1, even 1000 to 1 for the "alpha males" here.
The primary purpose of sex to me seems to be sexual gratification, kids are a logical byproduct but their creation is not often the main purpose of sex.

You seem....inhibited. S'okay, though, there are a lot of folks working through their sexual inhibitions via this website (looking right at you Rightguide!)

 

[Politruk]

Do you believe in evolution? Do you think that men that prefer fucking other men in the ass have babies as a result? Is there a survival advantage? Or would they get filtered out of the gene pool due to not having off spring to carry their queer genes to the next degeneration? I think I have finally figured out why you are so angry.

What, then? Homosexuality does exist -- why? Do you think it has something to do with original sin? Sex with demons?

Homosexual behavior occurs among wild animals.* It is nonreproductive, but cannot be accounted for by the social or psychological factors that have been posited over the years to explain similar behavior among humans. It is simply part of nature for some reason. Possibly a certain number of members being born with a homosexual nature has some kind of survival advantage to the species as a whole.

*Vertebrates only, AFAIK.

 

[TastySuckToy]

It's also a perfectly rational response from anyone who has debated with you before.

You're just repeating the fallacy.

your nonsense about dwarves claiming to be giants and so forth.

You obviously didn't grasp the argument that self identity does not dictate reality.

It's not a matter of being unable to articulate it. Rather, I simply can't be bothered to do your homework for you, especially since you most likely won't even read it.

Your potential arguments are not 'my homework'.

 

[Politruk]

Theories on the origin of homosexuality.

 

[AceDesSpades]

Im sure there are several females who spend time around Trump and then decide to change to lesbian.

It's not a "decision."

 

[Politruk]

It's not a "decision."

This is the Lit. It is a law of nature that all women are bi.

 

[AceDesSpades]

You all do understand, don't you, that nobody is doing any grooming or recruiting?

You keep repeating these a prior truisms with the authority of a deity...

Try doing it once efficaciously instead of with the redundancy of repetition and the villagers hearing you cry "wolf."

 

[Politruk]

You keep repeating these a prior truisms with the authority of a deity...

Try doing it once efficaciously instead of with the redundancy of repetition and the villagers hearing you cry "wolf."

No one here ever contradicts me to the point of providing any real examples of grooming, or of a gay who will recount having been groomed into it, or any form of documentation of the phenomenon at all, in any form. The existence of gay-grooming appears to be only something RWs assume, without questioning it, as part of their world-view.

 

[AceDesSpades]

They need a storefront?

Groomer for Hire?​

​

 

[tristantrotsky]

Do you believe in evolution? Do you think that men that prefer fucking other men in the ass have babies as a result? Is there a survival advantage? Or would they get filtered out of the gene pool due to not having off spring to carry their queer genes to the next degeneration? I think I have finally figured out why you are so angry.

Actually, Dawn... not to sound mansplaining, but evolution is all about the advantages of genetic diversity, the wider the spread of human variation, the greater the evolutionary advantage. Of course, the 'selfish gene' is all about carrying those characteristics down to the next generation, but all aspects of diversity come into play to create a healthy and vigorous culture, which makes it easier to react to change when change occurs...

 

[AceDesSpades]

We are less genetically diverse than a pack of bonobos...

 

[PIFLA]

Pretending to be something you can't or never will be is fine,the problem is that when you start demanding to be welcomed into the real world you become a joke.You will never be able to fool mother nature PERIOD your DNA will always determine your gender and your gender at BIRTH will be your gender at DEATH no matter how hard you pretend it's not.It will be that way forever.So be a drag queen or a chick with a dick but a reality check will always reveal the truthbecause you can't pretend away DNA.

 

[AceDesSpades]

Demanding that everyone else adjust to you is the tyranny of the minority.

Takes a majority. It can quickly become a minority if people are allowed to rebel against tyranny...

 

[Carnal_Flower]

You do all understand that, right? It is only the nature some people are born with. It does not result from being raised by a weak-willed father and a domineering mother or anything Freudian like that. It does not result from being exposed to books with LGBT characters. There is no recruiting going on here.

No, I don't understand it.

People aren't "born" either gay or straight. It develops as you grow up. It can go either way for a long time.

No one is "born" trans, either. Also develops as you grow up.

Infants do GROW and interact with their environment. It's called growing up.

 

[YDB95]

People aren't "born" either gay or straight. It develops as you grow up. It can go either way for a long time.

It is true that most people aren't actually attracted to members of the appropriate sex when they're very young. But that does NOT mean your sexuality could go either way, it just means it hasn't kicked in yet. Most, if not all, GLBT people I've met knew from a very, very young age that they were not straight. And it certainly had nothing to do with being "groomed" or otherwise steered that way - in most cases they were reared in very homophobic environments.

 

[Politruk]

Demanding that everyone else adjust to you is the tyranny of the minority.

That has no relevance here at all.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

No, I don't understand it.

People aren't "born" either gay or straight. It develops as you grow up. It can go either way for a long time.

No one is "born" trans, either. Also develops as you grow up.

Infants do GROW and interact with their environment. It's called growing up.

I’m sure you have peer reviewed scientific articles to support this.

 

[Politruk]

It is true that most people aren't actually attracted to members of the appropriate sex when they're very young. But that does NOT mean your sexuality could go either way, it just means it hasn't kicked in yet. Most, if not all, GLBT people I've met knew from a very, very young age that they were not straight. And it certainly had nothing to do with being "groomed" or otherwise steered that way - in most cases they were reared in very homophobic environments.

Right. We're all familiar with the trope of a pre-pubescent boy having a completely non-sexual crush on a girl . . . but not every boy would experience that.