Queersetti is a sniveling coward with no credibility

[Le Jacquelope]

Ok, so other than posting a neutral study that was done, by someone other than him I might add, at what point has Q run around and said that gays are better than straights in any way?

He's not done anything else in that regard, and as such I have not ever attacked him on any issue but this.

Is that so odd? I don't hate him, I hate what he did that day. Even though I may say "I hate you you worthless son of a warmachine!" what I am really saying is I hate what he did.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

idiot. If I say Sweden has a higher life expectancy than Bangla Desh, you'll claim that I'm not only prejudiced against Bangla Deshis, but saddling Swedes with an unfair obligation to live a long time.

That depends.
Were you doing it to make the Swedes look better?

It was clear that you were doing what you did to make gays look better than heteros. Why else did you fight to the death to defend those so-called "stats"? Hmmmmm?

Foolish angry man. Why is it so demeaning to you to accept the fact that gays and heteros are equal and that no one is superior to the other?
You are obsessed with holding the line at "gays make more money, dammit!" What is it that makes you feel so good about defending that one little poorly done study?

And let us point out again that the post you brought up by me in no way shows that I want gays to shut up about homophobia. It only shows I took issue with you for claiming gays are superior to heterosexuals.

Your logic is as flawed as Jesse Jackson's "anyone who's against me must hate blacks" because I'm not even against you, Q... I'm against one thing that you said. You can't handle one little shred of criticism and that suggests your ego is far too fragile for your own good.

You should, like, do something about that.

 

[Queersetti]

That depends.
Were you doing it to make the Swedes look better?

It was clear that you were doing what you did to make gays look better than heteros. Why else did you fight to the death to defend those so-called "stats"? Hmmmmm?

Foolish angry man. Why is it so demeaning to you to accept the fact that gays and heteros are equal and that no one is superior to the other?
You are obsessed with holding the line at "gays make more money, dammit!" What is it that makes you feel so good about defending that one little poorly done study?

And let us point out again that the post you brought up by me in no way shows that I want gays to shut up about homophobia. It only shows I took issue with you for claiming gays are superior to heterosexuals.

Your logic is as flawed as Jesse Jackson's "anyone who's against me must hate blacks" because I'm not even against you, Q... I'm against one thing that you said. You can't handle one little shred of criticism and that suggests your ego is far too fragile for your own good.

You should, like, do something about that.

This is a fight to the death?

And here I thought I was just having fun taunting a buffoon on the internet.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

This is a fight to the death?

Of your credibility, yes.

Again, let's study Queersetti logic:
"LT disagrees with me.
I am a homosexual rights activist.
Ergo LT disagrees with homosexual rights activism."

Ah damn, where is TB4P and his venn diagrams when we need him?

 

[Le Jacquelope]

And since Queersetti's mind got sidetracked

Let's rewrite this for his comprehensional benefit:

That depends.
Were you doing it to make the Swedes look better?

It was clear that you were doing what you did to make gays look better than heteros. Why else did you fight so stubbornly to defend those so-called "stats"? Hmmmmm?

Foolish angry man. Why is it so demeaning to you to accept the fact that gays and heteros are equal and that no one is superior to the other?
You are obsessed with holding the line at "gays make more money, dammit!" What is it that makes you feel so good about defending that one little poorly done study?

And let us point out again that the post you brought up by me in no way shows that I want gays to shut up about homophobia. It only shows I took issue with you for claiming gays are superior to heterosexuals.

Your logic is as flawed as Jesse Jackson's "anyone who's against me must hate blacks" because I'm not even against you, Q... I'm against one thing that you said. You can't handle one little shred of criticism and that suggests your ego is far too fragile for your own good.

You should, like, do something about that.

 

[phrodeau]

LT, you really shouldn't try using logic. You're simply no good at it.

 

[Byron In Exile]

This is a fight to the death?

And here I thought I was just having fun taunting a buffoon on the internet.

Ask him to post his address.

Then, according to LT, the dispute will have been "taken into real life," and after that it gets really fun.

(You'll still just be taunting a buffoon on the Internet, but it will be "real life" to him.)

 

[Nawtee]

Ive been away for afew days, and this thread is still here.

:blink:

Um.. thats all.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Ask him to post his address.

Then, according to LT, the dispute will have been "taken into real life," and after that it gets really fun.

(You'll still just be taunting a buffoon on the Internet, but it will be "real life" to him.)

And now I will make you go away for good from this thread by asking you a question far too complex for your single celled brain:

If challenging someone to post their name and address is not taking things into real life, then why is posting it against the rules?

And Byron, whatever logic chip has you thinking that names and addresses are not real life things, should be ripped out of your head and returned to the merchant.

 

[Freya]

He's not done anything else in that regard, and as such I have not ever attacked him on any issue but this.

Is that so odd? I don't hate him, I hate what he did that day. Even though I may say "I hate you you worthless son of a warmachine!" what I am really saying is I hate what he did.

But, he's expressing himself, and you're not against gays expressing themselves.

 

[Byron In Exile]

But, he's expressing himself, and you're not against gays expressing themselves.

The matter is whether gays should be impaling themselves upon their own swords.

I think not.

Just my opinion, though.

 

[Freya]

The matter is whether gays should be impaling themselves upon their own swords.

I think not.

Just my opinion, though.

God forbid that a group of people who have gone through hell just to get where they are, should ever find any one thing to be proud of. What the hell are they thinking?

 

[Byron In Exile]

God forbid that a group of people who have gone through hell just to get where they are, should ever find any one thing to be proud of. What the hell are they thinking?

Exactly.

And then what?

Why did Tchaikovsky drink water he knew was poisoned?

Why?

 

[Pookie]

The matter is whether gays should be impaling themselves upon their own swords.

I think not.

Just my opinion, though.

So let me see if I got this right. A gay man mentioning something that gays can be proud of is an example of gays "impaling themselves upon their own swords"? That's what the "matter" is about, huh? Please, explain ... or correct me if I've misunderstood you.

 

[Byron In Exile]

So let me see if I got this right. A gay man mentioning something that gays can be proud of is an example of gays "impaling themselves upon their own swords"? That's what the "matter" is about, huh? Please, explain ... or correct me if I've misunderstood you.

No, we're trying to understand Tchaikovsky, now.

If you want to talk to a lunatic, try Van Gogh.

No, never mind...

 

[Pookie]

No, we're trying to understand Tchaikovsky, now.

If you want to talk to a lunatic, try Van Gogh.

No, never mind...

I think you've been posting with LT just a bit too much.

 

[Byron In Exile]

I think you've been posting with LT just a bit too much.

Probably so.

I try to adopt the language of those with which I try to communicate.

 

[Byron In Exile]

A bad habit, probably.

 

[Freya]

So let me see if I got this right. A gay man mentioning something that gays can be proud of is an example of gays "impaling themselves upon their own swords"? That's what the "matter" is about, huh? Please, explain ... or correct me if I've misunderstood you.

Gays are only allowed to state equality with straights, they aren't allowed to have something in which to be proud. Ditto with blacks, Asians, green-skinned people, etc. Everyone is exactly equal, and nobody evers excels at anything. Do you think LT would be happy if we were all just exact clones...that way there'd be no differences, and nothing for anyone to be superior at.

 

[Queersetti]

Re: And since Queersetti's mind got sidetracked

Let's rewrite this for his comprehensional benefit:

That depends.
Were you doing it to make the Swedes look better?

It was clear that you were doing what you did to make gays look better than heteros. Why else did you fight so stubbornly to defend those so-called "stats"? Hmmmmm?

Foolish angry man. Why is it so demeaning to you to accept the fact that gays and heteros are equal and that no one is superior to the other?
You are obsessed with holding the line at "gays make more money, dammit!" What is it that makes you feel so good about defending that one little poorly done study?

And let us point out again that the post you brought up by me in no way shows that I want gays to shut up about homophobia. It only shows I took issue with you for claiming gays are superior to heterosexuals.

Your logic is as flawed as Jesse Jackson's "anyone who's against me must hate blacks" because I'm not even against you, Q... I'm against one thing that you said. You can't handle one little shred of criticism and that suggests your ego is far too fragile for your own good.

You should, like, do something about that.

The crux of your mental deficiency is an unwillingness or inability to understand that facts exist independently of one's agreement with, or approval of them. Life expectancy is Sweden does not fluctuate based on the any conclusion you or I might draw from it, or due to anyone's intention in mentioning it. At the heart of every one of the insane "debates" I have seen you engage in on this board is this bizarre notion of yours that facts undergo a metamorphosis depending on who cites them, and on your subjective interpretation of their motivation for doing so.

I have never made any claim that gays are superior to straight. You know that I have not, you are willfully lying, as is your standard modis operandi. I posted that a study showed that gay men on average earn more money than straight men. There can be many reasons for that to be so, none of which rely on a notion of innate superiority. You made that insupportable leap. I made no such claim. And yet, months later, you are still trying to hang that around my neck. I don't blame you, though, I recognize that you are insane.

 

[Queersetti]

Gays are only allowed to state equality with straights, they aren't allowed to have something in which to be proud. Ditto with blacks, Asians, green-skinned people, etc. Everyone is exactly equal, and nobody evers excels at anything. Do you think LT would be happy if we were all just exact clones...that way there'd be no differences, and nothing for anyone to be superior at.

It is LT's basic contention that we are, in fact, all exactly equal, and that any expression of difference is inherently "superiorist".

It should be noted that when I pointed out studies that gay men earn more, on average, than straight men, it was in the context of defending against homophobic attacks. This is lost on LT, who has stated that he believes gays who think they see homophobia on Lit are "paranoid".

As all people are completely and exactly the same in LT's world view, even speaking in defense of one's own identity group when it is attacked is offensive to him. Of course, if it is the identity group he belongs too, the rules change. In my mind, that constitutes hypocrisy. In his own mind, however, he manages to avoid any ethical conflict by believing that his motivation is always pure, and that of those who disagree with him always corrupt, and that if the facts show otherwise, it is reality itself that is flawed.

 

[Freya]

Come now. You've just declared yourself superior to LT. I'm going to start a thread.

For some reason I have this horrible affliction. I seem to feel the need to point out to blockheads their flawed logic, in the hopes that maybe they'll see where they've gone astray. It never works, but I'm stubborn.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Re: Re: And since Queersetti's mind got sidetracked

The crux of your mental deficiency is an unwillingness or inability to understand that facts exist independently of one's agreement with, or approval of them. Life expectancy is Sweden does not fluctuate based on the any conclusion you or I might draw from it, or due to anyone's intention in mentioning it. At the heart of every one of the insane "debates" I have seen you engage in on this board is this bizarre notion of yours that facts undergo a metamorphosis depending on who cites them, and on your subjective interpretation of their motivation for doing so.

You're full of shit up to your eyeballs, Quack. Post some examples.

I don't care who posts wacked out pseudo facts like the shit you posted, they get called on it regardless.

I have never made any claim that gays are superior to straight.

On one hand

I posted that a study showed that gay men on average earn more money than straight men.

And on the other hand.....

Do you always self contradict like this, Quacky?

There can be many reasons for that to be so, none of which rely on a notion of innate superiority.

Really? Like what?

I'm waiting......

You made that insupportable leap. I made no such claim. And yet, months later, you are still trying to hang that around my neck. I don't blame you, though, I recognize that you are insane.

You're trying to hang homophobia around my neck. Which is even more insane. Don't lose sight of what got you into this current debacle.

 

[Queersetti]

Re: Re: Re: And since Queersetti's mind got sidetracked

You're full of shit up to your eyeballs, Quack. Post some examples.

I don't care who posts wacked out pseudo facts like the shit you posted, they get called on it regardless.


On one hand


And on the other hand.....

Do you always self contradict like this, Quacky?


Really? Like what?

I'm waiting......


You're trying to hang homophobia around my neck. Which is even more insane. Don't lose sight of what got you into this current debacle.

For the umpteenth time, I have said you are a hypocrite. I have said you are mentally deficient. But I have not said that you are a homophobe.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

It is LT's basic contention that we are, in fact, all exactly equal, and that any expression of difference is inherently "superiorist".

It should be noted that when I pointed out studies that gay men earn more, on average, than straight men, it was in the context of defending against homophobic attacks. This is lost on LT, who has stated that he believes gays who think they see homophobia on Lit are "paranoid".

Quacky, you're a fucking moron.

Quacky logic sez:
"LT accused Queersetti of being paranoid for calling him a homophobe

Queersetti is a gay man

Therefore LT has stated that he believes gays who think they see homophobia on Lit are paranoid."

Very interesting...

As all people are completely and exactly the same in LT's world view, even speaking in defense of one's own identity group when it is attacked is offensive to him. Of course, if it is the identity group he belongs too, the rules change.

Really, how have I "changed the rules" for my own identity group?