This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
  1. Boards
  2. Religion
  3. Christians face immense defections after refusing to stop demonizing homosexuals

User Info: Asherlee10

Asherlee10
3 months ago#181
CrustySynapse posted...
Asherlee10 posted...
CrustySynapse posted...
You make fun of the way I talk? It's okay. My mastery of language, it is not perfect. It's funny.

But you dare call me a ROBOT?! How dare you make such a---- Ok, I confess that you are correct. You have exposed my secret: I am a humble bot in the service of a quasi-hostile quasi-governmental quasi-agency.

Um, okay?

I made a dumb joke. You are not so humorless that you fail to recognize this?


I thought jokes were supposed to be funny.
"Opinions should be a result of a thought, not a substitute for it."

User Info: Asherlee10

Asherlee10
3 months ago#182
CrustySynapse posted...
Asherlee10 posted...
It's like you are /r/imverysmart material.

What does that mean?


Check out the subreddit.
"Opinions should be a result of a thought, not a substitute for it."

User Info: Asherlee10

Asherlee10
3 months ago#183
CrustySynapse posted...
Asherlee10 posted...
What you stated isn't a "negative fact" about homosexuality. So what if some gay men who participate in anal sex have some s***ting issues?

Fecal incontinence is not a negative in your estimation? You have a far greater tolerance for inconvenience than I do. My compliments.


You say it as though is some strike against homosexuality. It's an unfortunate byproduct that some gay men who participate in anal sex experience. So what?
"Opinions should be a result of a thought, not a substitute for it."

User Info: kozlo100

kozlo100
3 months ago#184
CrustySynapse posted...
Sincerely, I did not read the articles I posted.


If you're going to call people out for 'not liking science', you really do need to read the articles you post. Reading the articles is also traditionally a thing that people who care to seek knowledge and want to be enlightened on an issue do.
Time flies like the wind,
and fruit flies like a banana.

User Info: CrustySynapse

CrustySynapse
3 months ago#185
Asherlee10 posted...
CrustySynapse posted...
Asherlee10 posted...
It's like you are /r/imverysmart material.

What does that mean?


Check out the subreddit.

So again you are calling me dumb? Your rejoinders contain such pith! I do not know what to respond to your unassailable argument.

The points you have made thus far I summarize as follows:

1. What I said was exceedingly dumb.
2. What I said was not incorrect. It was dumb because of my robot style of writing.
3. Going to buy foods and accidentally making a poop in the middle of the crowded market is not a big deal.
4. My dumbness is so great that it belongs on a website where it will be publicly mocked.

Is this accurate?
I'm a little slow.

User Info: CrustySynapse

CrustySynapse
3 months ago#186
kozlo100 posted...
CrustySynapse posted...
Sincerely, I did not read the articles I posted.

If you're going to call people out for 'not liking science', you really do need to read the articles you post. Reading the articles is also traditionally a thing that people who care to seek knowledge and want to be enlightened on an issue do.

Again, I have no interest in reading about such topics. In this instance, when I said to bahamut that I sought knowledge and enlightenment, the intent was rhetorical. The intent was to goad. This is a valid rhetorical technique, no?

Secondly, is it not enough in this instance to know that the articles were cited on wikipedia to back up the same point I was making? What need to read them?
I'm a little slow.

User Info: Asherlee10

Asherlee10
3 months ago#187
CrustySynapse posted...
So again you are calling me dumb? Your rejoinders contain such pith! I do not know what to respond to your unassailable argument.

The points you have made thus far I summarize as follows:

1. What I said was exceedingly dumb.
2. What I said was not incorrect. It was dumb because of my robot style of writing.
3. Going to buy foods and accidentally making a poop in the middle of the crowded market is not a big deal.
4. My dumbness is so great that it belongs on a website where it will be publicly mocked.

Is this accurate?


1. Yes, that's correct.
2. I never said you were incorrect.
3. You act as though this is some epidemic. It isn't.
4. Yes, your displayed behavior is a lot like what you would find on /r/imverysmart
"Opinions should be a result of a thought, not a substitute for it."

User Info: kozlo100

kozlo100
3 months ago#188
No, goading is not a valid rhetorical technique.

And no, reading the wiki page you got them from isn't enough either. Though if that were the case you should've linked the wiki article itself, not the studies you didn't read and don't understand. Though at this point I'm doubting you read the wiki page either. You've pretty conclusively shown you have no interest in making sure the things you say about the gay community are accurate.
Time flies like the wind,
and fruit flies like a banana.

User Info: Asherlee10

Asherlee10
3 months ago#189
kozlo100 posted...
You've pretty conclusively shown you have no interest in making sure the things you say about the gay community are accurate.


Full stop.
"Opinions should be a result of a thought, not a substitute for it."

User Info: CrustySynapse

CrustySynapse
3 months ago#190
kozlo100 posted...
No, goading is not a valid rhetorical technique.

Why not? It achieved my desired end: both you and bahamut were quick to state that you would pursue further studies in human excrement, thus demonstrating to all who are following this thread the fanaticism of those who defend homosexuality against even the slightest and most objective of criticisms.

And no, reading the wiki page you got them from isn't enough either. Though if that were the case you should've linked the wiki article itself, not the studies you didn't read and don't understand. Though at this point I'm doubting you read the wiki page either. You've pretty conclusively shown you have no interest in making sure the things you say about the gay community are accurate.

I have been around the world. I know many people. Much of my work is to discuss the intimate details of my clients' health with them. I do not need to read artibles that do not do with my life and which are distasteful to me to know the accuracy of what I say.
I'm a little slow.
  1. Boards
  2. Religion
  3. Christians face immense defections after refusing to stop demonizing homosexuals