Queersetti is a sniveling coward with no credibility

[Le Jacquelope]

Saying that one group is better at something than another does not mean that nobody in the second group can be good at that thing. Blacks ARE better at some sports than whites, it's a fact, not a slur against whites.

If gay men on average make more than straight men, it's not to say that straight men can't make good money, or that gays are better in some way. It's a conclusion drawn on a group of people, not those same people as individuals.

Then we have no common ground on this issue, because I completely disagree with the concept that judging people as a group does not affect the individual.

I see and have pointed out too many examples of how the individual is judged strictly by the group they belong to.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

I prefer curved answers myself. I mean if we are going for the big time we really should have circular logic.

hmmm. My dick is curved when its hard. I am sure there's a metaphore in there somewhere.


don't mind me, I am just having another surrealism moment

Pookie is a god damned moron and that remark proves it.

 

[Queersetti]

Queersetti you must be really good at farming. You can just shake your head and sow that fertilizer and make stuff grow.

You change your argument more often than Fawkin'Injun changes alts, and a question like "even if they could prove the statement was true" is irrelevant here. As I said before, comparing the earnings of heteros and gays at any given time is like counting which color a roulette ball lands on the most on any given day.

No, it isn't.

Take a basic statistics class at your local junior college sometime, nitwit, if they haven't all posted restraining orders against you yet.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

No, it isn't.

Take a basic statistics class at your local junior college sometime, nitwit, if they haven't all posted restraining orders against you yet.

Queersetti logic sez:

Out of 1000 turns at the roulette wheel:
(assuming green 00 doesn't exist)
the ball landed on red 520 times
the ball landed on black 480 times
ergo
the next day, be sure to bet on red.


What you need, Quacky, is more than statistics here. You need a direct explanation as to why the ball falls on red 520 times today and why it won't turn around and fall on black 520 times tomorrow.

That study that you posted showed no indication that either gays or heterosexuals have an innate advantage over each other in getting or holding higher paying jobs. That study you posted was about as scientific as tallying the results of a thousand turns at a roulette wheel.

Listen to yourself. You're using money as a way of showing that gays are superior to heterosexuals. Come on, man, you're acting more Republican than anyone else. Who's the one wielding these voodoo money statistics? Not me. I'm just the one calling you on it.

Queersetti logic, revisited:
Q: "I'm making more money than you!"
NotQ: "No you're not!"
Q: "Yes I am!"
NotQ: "No, you're not!"
Q: "Yes I am! Yes I am! You must be obsessed with money! How Republican of you!"




Oh and once again I will remind you. I called you out on your stereotypes. I never once chided you for bashing homophobes. Your claim that I want gays to shut up and take homophobic bullshit is demonstrably wrong.

Oh and Quaky... I'd show you a website I run that has a gay pride section that I put in it but that would identify me immediately and I won't go there.

 

[Queersetti]

Queersetti logic sez:

Out of 1000 turns at the roulette wheel:
(assuming green 00 doesn't exist)
the ball landed on red 520 times
the ball landed on black 480 times
ergo
the next day, be sure to bet on red.


What you need, Quacky, is more than statistics here. You need a direct explanation as to why the ball falls on red 520 times today and why it won't turn around and fall on black 520 times tomorrow.

That study that you posted showed no indication that either gays or heterosexuals have an innate advantage over each other in getting or holding higher paying jobs. That study you posted was about as scientific as tallying the results of a thousand turns at a roulette wheel.

Listen to yourself. You're using money as a way of showing that gays are superior to heterosexuals. Come on, man, you're acting more Republican than anyone else. Who's the one wielding these voodoo money statistics? Not me. I'm just the one calling you on it.

Queersetti logic, revisited:
Q: "I'm making more money than you!"
NotQ: "No you're not!"
Q: "Yes I am!"
NotQ: "No, you're not!"
Q: "Yes I am! Yes I am! You must be obsessed with money! How Republican of you!"




Oh and once again I will remind you. I called you out on your stereotypes. I never once chided you for bashing homophobes. Your claim that I want gays to shut up and take homophobic bullshit is demonstrably wrong.

Oh and Quaky... I'd show you a website I run that has a gay pride section that I put in it but that would identify me immediately and I won't go there.

You can not simply dismiss any statistical study as a fluke of chance, simply because you don't care for it's findings.

Once again, you are completely deluded. I never said that higher incomes equalled superiority, that was your dubious addition to the conversation.

If you are so pro-gay, why do you keep objecting so strenuously to the idea that gays have achieved a high level of social success? Why, if you are not hostile to gays expressing themselves here, do you constantly attack any mention of gay pride as "superiorist".

Other than being a jealous little bitch, that is.

 

[Queersetti]

Oh, and while you are popping blood vessels trying to think, perhaps you would like to explain how my contempt and disdain for you as an individual constitutes a stereotype.

 

[TANG GOD]

faggotry is a sexual disease as a result makes them bias about thier own very horny sexual lifestyle.

 

[Pookie]

Pookie is a god damned moron and that remark proves it.

I was just using your logic and how you reason things out.

*shrugs*

 

[Pookie]

Pookie is a god damned moron and that remark proves it.

Oh yeah. Your responding to me proves you're not ignoring me. So that makes you ... a liar.

 

[Pookie]

You can not simply dismiss any statistical study as a fluke of chance, simply because you don't care for it's findings.

Once again, you are completely deluded. I never said that higher incomes equalled superiority, that was your dubious addition to the conversation.

If you are so pro-gay, why do you keep objecting so strenuously to the idea that gays have achieved a high level of social success? Why, if you are not hostile to gays expressing themselves here, do you constantly attack any mention of gay pride as "superiorist".

Other than being a jealous little bitch, that is.

LT's the one that brought up the "superiority" issue to begin with. That alone proves he thinks that way about gays. That also proves without a doubt he's a homophobe and a bigot. He also stereotypes gays. You see how he is trying to say you think gays are superior. That implies he thinks that way about all homosexuals. And now he is being called out for it. *nods*

/LT logic

 

[Rhys]

Pookie is a god damned moron and that remark proves it.

Okay, but it was me you quoted

And its already a well known fact that I am a moron...just ask Sunstruck.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Okay, but it was me you quoted

And its already a well known fact that I am a moron...just ask Sunstruck.

I was referring to Pookie's remarks which you quoted.

I've never fired a shot your way.

 

[Pookie]

I was referring to Pookie's remarks which you quoted.

I've never fired a shot your way.

I thought you were ignoring me? You're not trying very hard, are ya?

 

[Le Jacquelope]

You can not simply dismiss any statistical study as a fluke of chance, simply because you don't care for it's findings.

I am pointing out the lack of credibility of the findings. I guess you really did not grasp the meaning of roulette statistics versus fundamental differences in gay vs hetero job skillsets. The latter you and your statistics have failed to establish.

Once again, you are completely deluded. I never said that higher incomes equalled superiority, that was your dubious addition to the conversation.

And once again, you're a liar. The only reason someone would ever start a thread announcing that one group of people earns more than another is to stick a feather of superiority in one's cap. Your being a fool is not your fault as much as it is your schoolteachers' fault, but your mistake was in assuming others are fools like you.

If you are so pro-gay, why do you keep objecting so strenuously to the idea that gays have achieved a high level of social success?

I object to any race, gender, religion or sexual orientation group of people claiming they are inherently higher achievers than others.

If I had seen some some hetero guy posting that hetero people made more than gays, and he'd posted "statistics" to prove it, I would have challenged them, too.

You don't see me as a black guy yapping about how blacks in general are more athletic than whites, even though I've heard this claptrap a thousand times.

I feel that people are equal and should be judged as individuals, not as groups.

Is any of this clear to you yet? Why do I find myself having to answer the same question 20 times?

Why, if you are not hostile to gays expressing themselves here, do you constantly attack any mention of gay pride as "superiorist".

Other than being a jealous little bitch, that is.

Really? Constantly, you say? How many times other than one thread by you have I attacked statements of pride by gay people? I have only attacked one statement about something you identify as "gay pride", because it isn't gay pride, it's just another lame attempt at "my group is better than yours" dick waving.

So tell us, where did you get this "constantly" from?

 

[Rhys]

I was referring to Pookie's remarks which you quoted.

I've never fired a shot your way.

I know LT and I never fired one at you either.

I am attempting to interject humour here, and making an observation that this thread is very surreal.

 

[Queersetti]

I am pointing out the lack of credibility of the findings. I guess you really did not grasp the meaning of roulette statistics versus fundamental differences in gay vs hetero job skillsets. The latter you and your statistics have failed to establish.


And once again, you're a liar. The only reason someone would ever start a thread announcing that one group of people earns more than another is to stick a feather of superiority in one's cap. Your being a fool is not your fault as much as it is your schoolteachers' fault, but your mistake was in assuming others are fools like you.


I object to any race, gender, religion or sexual orientation group of people claiming they are inherently higher achievers than others.

If I had seen some some hetero guy posting that hetero people made more than gays, and he'd posted "statistics" to prove it, I would have challenged them, too.

You don't see me as a black guy yapping about how blacks in general are more athletic than whites, even though I've heard this claptrap a thousand times.

I feel that people are equal and should be judged as individuals, not as groups.

Is any of this clear to you yet? Why do I find myself having to answer the same question 20 times?


Really? Constantly, you say? How many times other than one thread by you have I attacked statements of pride by gay people? I have only attacked one statement about something you identify as "gay pride", because it isn't gay pride, it's just another lame attempt at "my group is better than yours" dick waving.

So tell us, where did you get this "constantly" from?

If I started a thread with a post about gays making more money than straights, post a link to it. Put up or shut up, fathead.

And, once more, I ask; if someone posts empirical proof than a given social group earns more than another, is it your contention that such factual evidence should be suppressed?

As for the constancy of your whining about the temerity of gays to express themselves, well, you've done so on this very thread, over and over today. Once again, I am sorry that your sense of self worth is so threatened by the idea that gays might have some social advantages, but unless and until you post some factual evidence to refute my claim that gay men, as a group, earn a higher average income than straight men, that claim stands unchallenged. Facts don't care if you don't personally like them, pumpkin. If I'm wrong, get on your Google and show me I'm wrong. Otherwise, you're just another blowhard.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

If I started a thread with a post about gays making more money than straights, post a link to it. Put up or shut up, fathead.

Jeez, I've been wanting to see you post evidence that I want gays to shut up about homophobia, and you haven't ever done that. As for your posts, uh, isn't that what we're discussing now?

And, once more, I ask; if someone posts empirical proof than a given social group earns more than another, is it your contention that such factual evidence should be suppressed?

As for the constancy of your whining about the temerity of gays to express themselves, well, you've done so on this very thread, over and over today.

You're lying again.
I've never, not in this thread or any other, slammed gays for expressing themselves. I've slammed you for trying to play the "my group is superior to your group" card.

Once again, I am sorry that your sense of self worth is so threatened by the idea that gays might have some social advantages

I'm sorry that your sense of self worth is so damaged that you feel you have to puff yourself up to look advantaged as opposed to equal to others.

but unless and until you post some factual evidence to refute my claim that gay men, as a group, earn a higher average income than straight men, that claim stands unchallenged.

Unchallenged only in your mind.

Your studies - such as you like to call them - showed nothing more credible than a proverbial tallying of roulette wheel results.

Facts don't care if you don't personally like them, pumpkin. If I'm wrong, get on your Google and show me I'm wrong. Otherwise, you're just another blowhard.

I challenged the credibility of the studies, retard.

Hell, did you not recall that even Zipman7 was challenging it?

 

[Le Jacquelope]

And, once more, I ask; if someone posts empirical proof than a given social group earns more than another, is it your contention that such factual evidence should be suppressed?

I didn't say anything should be suppressed. I said that such data would be unreliable.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

I know LT and I never fired one at you either.

I am attempting to interject humour here, and making an observation that this thread is very surreal.

Go for it, man.

I find it hard to be humorous when someone is falsely accusing me of telling gays to shut up about homophobia on the account of the fact that I told one guy his superiorist position was full of crap.

This reminds me of when I was called a hater of blacks because I debated white-bashing on "In Living Color".

 

[Queersetti]

Jeez, I've been wanting to see you post evidence that I want gays to shut up about homophobia, and you haven't ever done that. As for your posts, uh, isn't that what we're discussing now?





You're lying again.
I've never, not in this thread or any other, slammed gays for expressing themselves. I've slammed you for trying to play the "my group is superior to your group" card.


I'm sorry that your sense of self worth is so damaged that you feel you have to puff yourself up to look advantaged as opposed to equal to others.


Unchallenged only in your mind.

Your studies - such as you like to call them - showed nothing more credible than a proverbial tallying of roulette wheel results.


I challenged the credibility of the studies, retard.

Hell, did you not recall that even Zipman7 was challenging it?

No matter how many times you spew the same nonsense, it is still nonsense.

 

[Freya]

You're lying again.
I've never, not in this thread or any other, slammed gays for expressing themselves. I've slammed you for trying to play the "my group is superior to your group" card.

Ok, hi! Me again!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Queersetti gay?

So gays can express themselves, as long as they aren't him? Is that how this whole deal works?

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Ok, hi! Me again!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Queersetti gay?

So gays can express themselves, as long as they aren't him? Is that how this whole deal works?

LOL. Omigod. That is no more credible than "blacks can express themselves as long as it isn't LT", now is it?

C'mon, be sensible.

There are millions of gays out there laying the daily smack down on homophobes and I've nothing against that. But none of them run around saying "Gays earn more than straights, naa na na naa na!" Typically they assert, and rightfully so, that gays and straights are equal and should be treated as such.... and as a heterosexual, I stand behind that message 100%.

 

[Rhys]

Go for it, man.

Nah.

 

[Queersetti]

LOL. Omigod. That is no more credible than "blacks can express themselves as long as it isn't LT", now is it?

C'mon, be sensible.

There are millions of gays out there laying the daily smack down on homophobes and I've nothing against that. But none of them run around saying "Gays earn more than straights, naa na na naa na!" Typically they assert, and rightfully so, that gays and straights are equal and should be treated as such.... and as a heterosexual, I stand behind that message 100%.

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.

 

[Freya]

LOL. Omigod. That is no more credible than "blacks can express themselves as long as it isn't LT", now is it?

C'mon, be sensible.

There are millions of gays out there laying the daily smack down on homophobes and I've nothing against that. But none of them run around saying "Gays earn more than straights, naa na na naa na!" Typically they assert, and rightfully so, that gays and straights are equal and should be treated as such.... and as a heterosexual, I stand behind that message 100%.

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?