“Individuals who identify as straight but in psychological tests show a strong attraction to the same sex may be threatened by gays and lesbians because homosexuals remind them of similar tendencies within themselves,” explains Netta Weinstein, the study’s lead author. “In many cases these are people who are at war with themselves and they are turning this internal conflict outward,” says co-author Richard Ryan.OK, so it isn't exactly news. Still, I'm so happy what we all knew was the case is out there for all to read.
Oh, and I can't wait to read Art's take on this.
56 comments:
Yeah, no news there, this is research confirming several previous studies.
Plus, anecdotally, many LGBT people will tell you how loudly homophobic they were before they came out -- trying to deflect attention.
So cliche that it's true. The guilty dog barks loudest.
Waiting for some woofing around here.
ugh..
AH, so for you boys, this is confirmation that all who oppose the lifestyle and agenda that doesn't exist are homosexuals themselves. Is that it?
But what difference would that make? It only shows that some acknowledge their own shortcomings, but because of their honor and character, continue to stand for righteousness, morality and virtue. Many people who covet the property of others would never steal. Many people who feel anger toward others would never kill or even harm. All these people would continue to speak against theft and murder.
So what real point have you and such studies made except to prove what Scripture already tells us about ourselves?
By the way, I still as a man who just celebrated 22 years of marriage to the only woman I've EVER married, lust after other women, but have never even attempted to back into an adulterous affair. Why? Not because I'm not so "oriented", but because I understand right vs wrong and strive to abide by it.
So, I guess by your wacky "anything to enable bad behavior" post, I am "threatened" by adulterers, or thieves or murderers because of my own sinful nature? What deep thinkers!
But then again, that would mean that your negative emotions directed at me means that you hold the same opinions I do about the things we discuss. Hmmm.
By the way, Geoffrey. Thanks for inviting me back to post my opinions. You're a gem.
Invitation? Hardly. Writing about teh gay is like chumming for sharks with you. You can't help yourself. I knew you'd respond.
Since Jesus says that lusting after a woman not your wife is adultery, I would have to say you have "slipped" in to adultery . . .
No, please, Geoffrey. Don't be shy. Your welcoming me back is the most gracious act I've ever seen you commit on the blogs. Good for you.
But it's hardly "chumming" when you expect me to respond. So of course it's an invitation in every way, even without the "...I can't wait to read Art's take on this."
As to the lusting, of course it's adultery on my part. Unlike yourself and your boy, Alan, I do not re-interpret Scripture to absolve myself of my sinful nature. (I look to Christ for that) My point, and I never tire of explaining points to you who is so incapable of getting them, is that despite my nature, I still strive to overcome it. Thus, the premise that the "science" is meant to establish is quite meaningless due to its incredibly obvious nature. In other words, its not news at all.
That and the silly notion that people who maintain the sinfulness of homosexual behavior and the psychologically abnormal nature of the attraction are somehow "threatened" by it indicate the bias inherent therein.
"I still strive to overcome it." Guess you missed that whole Protestant Reformation thing, huh.
I'm trying to remember when I've ever tried to absolve myself of sin. I'll get back to you if I can think of an instance.
Wow! This time I actually missed a point! This refers to your last line. But the obvious instance is your support and enabling of homosexual behavior. But then, the absolution for you is in pretending there is no sin there to begin with. Far easier than absolution is this pretense, but it amounts to the same thing.
"Writing about teh gay is like chumming for sharks with you. You can't help yourself. I knew you'd respond."
Of course, Geoffrey. Though the busybodies, fusspots, tattletales and scolds don't need an invitation to talk about the gays.
For example, in our last lengthy discussion here, can you guess who the firsts person to bring up the subject of gay sex was? I'll give you 3 guesses and the first two don't count, particularly because in almost every conversation that person is *always* the first person to bring up gay sex, regardless of how off topic. But I shouldn't single out one homophobe for doing that....all his cronies do the same thing. No invitation is necessary because it is the only thing on their tiny little sex-obsessed minds.
Because, you see, regardless of the fact that they're totally obsessed with gay sex, regardless of the fact that -- as you have pointed out with your site statistics -- they troll blogs like this one obsessively just to get the chance to talk about gay sex obsessively, they're *totally* not obsessed with it.
Um. Yeah. right.
I hate seafood. I really do. Raised in the Midwest, I just never developed a taste for anything that once swam. Yuck. And if someone asks, I'll tell them I hate seafood. But I don't spend all day trolling foodie blogs obsessively screaming spittle-flecked invective at the other readers about the abhorrent nature of eating sea bugs.
I hate homophobia. I really do. Raised as an adult human being with compassion and decent manners, I just think that hating someone is wrong. I'll certainly call it out when the homophobes come a-running (as they always do.) But I don't spend all day trolling homophobe blogs screaming spittle-flecked invective at the other readers about their unnatural hatred.
But then, the difference between me and them is that long ago I learned to mind my own business.
And unlike them, I'm not a childish, desperate attention whore.
See, I was hoping you'd mention Art's total lack of understanding of grace, Biblical theology, Christian moral teaching, and general disregard for what he claims to believe.
Instead, you made a far better point. Along with ignorant and hateful, he's rude and, as you say, more than a little childish.
BTW, Geoffrey, though I'm not at all surprised by the link between people's homosexual attraction and those same people's homophobia, I'm not sure we need that research to explain homophobia, any more than we need to blame it on lack of education, for example.
I've always thought Stanley Milgram's work was pretty informative on the subject of people's lack of compassion due to blind obedience to authority and explains the whole thing quite well. There's no question in my mind that these same homophobes would have turned the dial to 450V with no hesitation.
"See, I was hoping you'd mention Art's total lack of understanding of grace, Biblical theology, Christian moral teaching, and general disregard for what he claims to believe."
While all true, I didn't think I needed to remind you of the obvious. :)
"For example, in our last lengthy discussion here, can you guess who the firsts person to bring up the subject of gay sex was?"
You, cupcake. I went back and checked. It came after Geoffrey's comment regarding our first encounter, to which I asked him to point me so I could review it but he never did. My mention of homosexuality came afterwards as part of my defense, just like it is here.
"I hate homophobia."
Interesting. I suspect that the reason you feel threatened by "homophobia" is because you share their understanding of the sinfulness of what God calls an abomination/detestable. That totally aligns with the "science" described in the link. Unless you think the piece is accurate is stating that it is the sinner and not the sin to which we object.
You once accused me of being homosexual using this very lame angle. At that time, I welcomed you to believe what you like and then resolve how I could still oppose the behavior. It is as I stated above, that I might be tempted to all sorts of things, but intend to act according to Christian teachings, though I might often fail to do so perfectly. On that score, you, Geoffrey and I are quite equal, as your extending any level of grace in my direction is non-existent, thereby belying your own understanding and demonstrating how you both disregard what you claim to believe. Funny how that works both ways, no?
Or, perhaps people feel threatened by homophobia because homophobes walk around the United States beating the shit out of people with baseball bats on a regular basis. I see new reports almost daily. Or perhaps people feel threatened by homophobia because homophobes hang, shoot, imprison, and torture LGBT people in many countries around the world.
In the face of such reckless hate and immeasurable violence done by homophobes over the millennia -- including the thousands upon thousands of LGBT people or people simply perceived to be LGBT who were beaten, mutilated, tortured, gassed, burned, and/or shot in WWII -- MA's total ignorance of why any rational person, gay or straight, would be threatened by homophobia is obscene.
Like the whole "blacks and liberals are the real racists" business, the whole "gays are forcing acceptance down our throats", besides being unintentionally hilarious, ignores the history of violence that lies behind the demand for social justice. Art's satisfied that, never having owned a slave, he's free from condemnation as a racist, just as, never having beaten up a person just for being gay, he's not a homophobe.
It's as much about avoiding responsibility as it is anything. Not only is it ignorant, it's cowardly. But then again, Alan, you and I are the real cowards.
Well, duh. Because refusing to hang out with the blogging equivalent of the drunk ass at a bar is always a sign of cowardice, and never just a sign that normal people tend to simply avoid a person whom they think -- rightly or wrongly -- is just an intolerable drunk asshole.
In what world is that *ever* true, I wonder? LOL
I mean, do people actually end up in situations in which they force themselves to converse with people they think are total twits just so they don't appear "cowardly" to either themselves or others?
I've certainly gone out of my way to be polite to people I don't particularly care for, but whom have been polite to me. But outright assholes? I tend to avoid them.
If that's cowardice, then I'm a coward ... and so is every other sane person on the planet, so I guess I'm in good company. :)
But at least I'm not a closet case. :)
"Or, perhaps people feel threatened by homophobia because homophobes walk around the United States beating the shit out of people with baseball bats on a regular basis."
Not according to FBI statistics, which clearly show one is far more likely to be a victim of hate crimes due to race or religion than sexual orientation. What's more, "hate crimes" covers vandalism, as well as assaults and murder. So, if you take out the property crimes, and also the 2% of that category that is actually hate crimes against heterosexuals, you're getting down to well under 1000 cases a year. How much under is hard to say without further digging. I don't know how detailed the annual reports are. It was enough to find that crimes against LGBT victims is far from epidemic proportions. Then again, there's also the issue of whether or not a crime against a homosexual was really motivated by anti-homo bias, as opposed to some other reason. But even if we concede that all such claims are accurate, one still cannot pretend there is some great danger faced by the average homosexual that is greater than those victims of crimes motivated by hatred of another's race or religion.
What would be more interesting to see is how the perpetrators of such crimes vote. Fred Phelps has run for public office several times as a Democrat. People like myself don't stoke hatred by preaching God's truth about the sinfulness of homosexual behavior. People like you just like to say so.
"In the face of such reckless hate and immeasurable violence done by homophobes over the millennia -- including the thousands upon thousands of LGBT people or people simply perceived to be LGBT who were beaten, mutilated, tortured, gassed, burned, and/or shot in WWII..."
You mean by these guys?
This idea that "homophobia" is rampant and a threat to even normal people is fear-mongering hyperbole of the worst kind. The fact is that people like me would be among the first to stand between someone like you and the type of person you like to portray as being people like me. I oppose those who would do you harm as much as, if not more than, I oppose those like you who like to portray your lifestyle as morally neutral.
Thus, "rational" people do not "fear" homophobia because it isn't what those who support the agenda that doesn't exist want rational people to believe. Rational people aren't affected by fear-mongering hyperbole.
Now, REAL hatred is evident in comparisons of those with whom one might disagree to "drunk assholes".
Because violence is a numbers game, apparently. Personally, I believe that even one episode of intimidation or violence based on race or ethnicity or religion, by anyone of any political stripe, towards anyone of any political stripe is one episode too many.
MA believes that as long as the numbers are small, that's no reason to be concerned, particularly if he thinks he can score meaningless and cheap political points in a vain effort to ... What? Convince us that his homophobia is OK?
As if there's ever been any evidence that we've ever found any of his tripe convincing.
"Like the whole "blacks and liberals are the real racists" business, the whole "gays are forcing acceptance down our throats", besides being unintentionally hilarious, ignores the history of violence that lies behind the demand for social justice."
The first part, about blacks and liberals, is not entirely an accurate reflection of my stated position. First of all, I speak of the black race-baiters, like those you voted for (Sharpton, Jackson, etc). I know far too many blacks that don't seem to be racist at all and since I don't judge on skin color, I would never make such a statement. I do know liberals who are not, at least overtly, racist, though I believe most of them support racist policies like affirmative action (a well intentioned policy, but racist in its effect).
The second part is also deceitful (what a shock), as it conflates two unrelated categories. The agenda that does not exist DOES intend to force immorality down our throats as it demands acceptance via the proposal of hate crimes/speech laws, redefining marriage and redefining morality for that matter. This is starkly obvious to any honest person and Alan cannot be one of those if he thinks he doesn't hope that someday the whole world will regard homosexual behavior in the same manner it does normal sexual behavior. Geoffrey, too.
As for justice, I support it wholeheartedly, but not on the activist's terms. I support prosecution of all found guilty of assault, battery, murder and property damage of ANY citizen of this nation. I do NOT support different penalties that amounts to special status of certain victims of these crimes. THAT is NOT justice at all.
"Art's satisfied that, never having owned a slave, he's free from condemnation as a racist, just as, never having beaten up a person just for being gay, he's not a homophobe."
This is just too stupid to be merely deceitful. I'm not a racist because I don't deserve the label. I don't judge people by their skin color, nor do I discriminate based on skin color. I have no duty to claim responsibility for the injustices that some blacks have suffered simply for being white, and more certainly because I have not caused or participated in perpetrating those injustices. YOU fakes are more than free to pretend you ARE taking responsibility, while in the meantime, you do nothing to atone.
And I am not a "homophobe" because I have no fears of homosexuals. My fear is with psuedo-intellectuals and quasi-christians like Geoffrey who buy into the false rhetoric and lame arguments put forth by those pushing the agenda that does not exist. The 2% of the population pushing that agenda is not responsible for the gullibility and moral abdication of the enabling percentage of the rest of the country.
I'm a major supporter of that 2%, but not in the way one supports a child who demands desert for dinner. I hope for their repentance as I do the repentance of all who sin for His sake as well as theirs, as I strive to repent of my own sins.
I've been 100% consistent in these positions (with the notable exception of not always striving as hard as I can to repent of my own sins---sue me).
"Because violence is a numbers game, apparently."
No, but accurate numbers are important. You inflate them or focus on them as if your favored group experiences something far worse than other groups. I'm merely keeping it in perspective, which doesn't really help your case, but at least it's more honest.
I'd much prefer that no one ever experiences assaults and murder and property damage for ANY reason regardless of one's race, creed or even sexual orientation. I've stated THAT plenty of times as well, though you deceitfully wish to paint a different picture. Do you think you could at least find something factual to accuse me of?
"As if there's ever been any evidence that we've ever found any of his tripe convincing."
No. There exists no such evidence. That's because of your own hatred and biases against those with whom you disagree, not because their arguments are actually "tripe". You'd have to actually prove THAT charge, and you haven't the skill or evidence to do that.
Art, martyr to the truth. How pathetic. For what I really wish was the last time - please go away. You're boring and tiresome, and in need of a new habit, I think.
I'm acting the martyr? That's rich as you whine about my visiting.
Whine?!? I'm pleading with you to stop.
Do you go to people's houses, and when they ask you to leave, insist you are going to stay, giving them criticisms on their decorating style, the colors they paint their rooms, and their parenting technique? When repeatedly asked to leave, do you insist you're doing all this on principle?
Good God, man. Catch a clue.
"I'm acting the martyr"
*cough*cough*narcissist*cough*
Parkie,
One is not a narcissist for posting questions, observations or critiques of other opinions. Nor is one a narcissist for correcting purposely false descriptions of one's position. A narcissist would be more like one who demands that a person no longer visits because that person isn't impressed with narcissist's deep thoughts.
A: "So cliche that it's true. The guilty dog barks loudest."
G: "Waiting for some woofing around here."
Yup.
MA "You inflate them or focus on them as if your favored group experiences something far worse than other groups."
LOL. You're such a moron it's hard to find a place to begin.
RE: "Inflate them [numbers]" I didn't quote a single number, so inflating numbers is impossible, you lying moron.
But hey, if you think I've inflated the numbers, I'll give you now a third chance to prove me wrong! Simply give me a quote. One. Simple. Damn. Quote. You're the one whining above about "evidence" and "proving that charge." So put your money where your mouth is coward, and give us one single quote where I have used a number of hate crimes against anyone that was inflated.
One. Single. Quote. Here's your big chance! Come on, kiddo, put up or shut up.
RE: "Focus on them..." Here we have the gay-sex-obsessed freak complaining that I actually mention homophobia in a post that is ACTUALLY ABOUT HOMOPHOBIA. He, who brings up gay sex in post after post, regardless of topic, is whining because I'm actually talking about homophobic violence in a post where homophobia is the actual topic! LOL
RE: "Far worse than other groups..." In fact, I intentionally mentioned the holocaust, which, I don't think any rational person would deny, killed more Jews than homosexuals.
So again you play the numbers game. If only a few LGBT people are beaten or killed, it's no big deal. Tell me, MA, how many LGBT people have to die in order for it to become important to you? 1000? 10,000? 100,000? As I said on a post about homophobia I think one example of any violence against anyone is one example too many. If this were a post about anti-Semitism, I'd say the same thing. You however, would apparently complain that the Jews are only a tiny minority of hate crimes cases and therefore violence anti-Semitic violence against them shouldn't be bothered about. Because it turns out, in 2010, according to FBI statistics, 1040 hate crimes were committed due to an offender's anti-Jewish bias, while 1528 hate crimes were committed based on sexual orientation.
So according to your -- ha ha ha ha -- "logic", anti-Semitic violence is even less important than anti-LGBT violence.
But as I said, to normal, rational, compassionate, adult human beings like me, even one is one too many. So feel free to keep playing your numbers games, and spinning out your lies.
But you really ought to do it in your own sesspool. You do have your own blog, right? Or don't your cronies give you enough attention there, whore?
"You're such a moron it's hard to find a place to begin." Yes, dealing with Art does present certain challenges.
As to his own cesspool, he's reduced to banning Parklife (although he sneaks thru on occasion), and the Amen corner, with Neil Simpson usually the first one to chime in on how wise and thoughtful Art's post is (not to mention Christian).
Here's the deal, Art. I realize you think you are on some mission, pointing out the various errors of our ways. Which, to my ears, sounds both really, really egotistical as well as comically stupid. Instead of wasting space and time here, write your own post about this stuff. Get your friends and those who comment over there to argue with you there.
Like I asked before, do you overstay your welcome out in the real world? Because, see, I was taught to be polite. When asked to leave, I get up and go.
It isn't that I'm afraid of you. It isn't that your attention to facts and your logic so overwhelm me I shudder in fear at the thought of addressing your comments. As I've said I don't know how many times, and really wish I never had to say again, whatever it is you think you're doing, you're expressing hatred, ignorance, bigotry, and a host of other things that I would rather not dirty up my little blog here. As you have pointed out in the past, I have a small readership.
I'm begging. Make it one reader smaller.
"One is not a narcissist..."
Well said.. well said.
"although he sneaks thru on occasion"
oh.. hardly. You can hear crickets over there these days. I imagine this is why Geoffrey is so busy these days.
"Make it one reader smaller."
We need a 12-step plan for MA.
In the immortal words of of those great philosophers of our time, Motley Crue: "Girl, don't go away mad, Girl, just go away." :)
"with [redacted] usually...."
Careful. You know that it's dangerous to talk about HWMNBN, don't you? Or is it that you have to say his name 3 times while looking in a mirror before he appears? I can never keep those two straight. I prefer not to find out, all I know is that if someone mentions HWMNBN, he completely loses his mind ... um, er ... more completely loses his mind.
Frankly (look, MA, I'm saying something positive about you!) that level of just Bat-shit. Crazy. Obsession honestly makes MA look positively well-adjusted. MA, for instance, does not have an entire blog filled with hundreds of posts dedicated to his love for one man. uh .... yet.
I mean ... seriously ... that is some majorly screwed up freaky over-the-top Fatal Attraction-level of Grade A Crazy right there. If someone's blog starts to look like the virtual version of some psychotic's apartment on every episode of Law and Order, it is probably time for them to seek some strong pharmaceutical intervention and pound those pills fistfuls at a time.
So in comparison, MA, for all his faults, hasn't quite hit the lunatic jackpot ... uh ... yet. He's just a bore.
Here are the references you made that suggest large numbers of assaults
"...homophobes walk around the United States beating the shit out of people with baseball bats on a regular basis. I see new reports almost daily."
and then of course "actual" numbers
"including the thousands upon thousands of LGBT people or people simply perceived to be LGBT who were beaten, mutilated, tortured, gassed, burned, and/or shot in WWII"
But then, my point was a general one anyway, so your demand is childish. It is a common ploy to inflate the plight of the LGBT community so as to increase the victim status to draw sympathy, as well as to more greatly demonize those who understand the truth about the behavior and those who engage in it. The reference to the Holocaust is evidence of this, as what you say happened to homosexuals was happening to other groups of people in larger numbers. In the meantime, I don't regard any of the victims of Nazi horrors to be more or less undeserving than another. But I'll concede this much: I put it poorly. You inflate, not so much the numbers as much as the situation, by speaking of the numbers AS IF others aren't experiencing the same thing in greater numbers. That's totally my fault. I should well know by now that you'll jump on anything you think you can use to prove something about me you need to believe is true.
"Here we have the gay-sex-obsessed freak complaining that I actually mention homophobia in a post that is ACTUALLY ABOUT HOMOPHOBIA."
You're getting desperate in a Parkie sort of way by isolating "Focus on them" when that was in the context of inflating the numbers, not on hate crimes in general. Try to relax. "Far worse than other groups..." also referred to the practice of ginning up the situation when comparisons to other groups are easy to find. This would not be necessary if people like yourself would stop acting like crimes against homosexuals are more common than they are. It's like saying there's a big problem with black kids being under attack by white guys.
"Tell me, MA, how many LGBT people have to die in order for it to become important to you?"
This indicates my suspicion is correct, that you guys want to believe negative things about me and don't read my comments closely to really know. I have already addressed this. What's more problematic is that you'd ask a question like this. When a person is murdered or assaulted or their property is destroyed, I really don't concern myself with their race, religion OR their sexual deviancies. I don't condone it regardless of those insignificant things. I much prefer it never happens at all. How can a homosexual repent when he's dead? He can't.
"You however, would apparently complain that the Jews are only a tiny minority of hate crimes cases and therefore violence anti-Semitic violence against them shouldn't be bothered about."
OK, pookie. Now it's YOUR turn to put up or shut up. Where have I ever stated anything that even hints that I believe violence against ANY person "shouldn't be bothered about." Or where I have suggested that the numbers of victims has any bearing on whether I would be concerned or not.
"Yes, dealing with Art does present certain challenges."
True. Like backing up your opinions, responding to questions, observations and critiques. Like showing the grace you claim to know so much about. Other than that, I'm really quite easy to deal with.
"As to his own cesspool, he's reduced to banning Parklife..."
Also not true. I merely delete his pointless comments. I'm still hoping that someday he'll actually try engaging with something thoughtful and substantive.
"Here's the deal, Art. I realize you think...etc"
Let me help you with this point. I post here to engage in conversation, just like I do anywhere else I might post a comment. But I can understand you confusion. It must be those ears of yours.
"When asked to leave, I get up and go."
Well, you see, I got this man crush...
"you're expressing hatred, ignorance, bigotry,"
I'm just waiting to see you explain how, because I never do any of those things. Saying so doesn't make it so and for one who postures himself as a person with a solid understanding of the faith and grace and all that, saying such nasty things without demonstrating why they might be true really indicts yourself in that manner.
I've know for quite some time that expecting the kind of kindness and tolerance you claim to champion is the real waste of time, so I don't do that. But I'm fascinated by how you flee from the opportunity to prove you're not just full of crap and actually believe the things you claim you believe. If you truly didn't care what others felt about your opinions and positions, it doesn't make sense that you would publish them in such a public venue complete with the standing invitation to post a comment. That's what notebooks are for. But you DO want people to hear your words of wisdom. But damn anyone who dares ask a freakin question or post an opposing opinion! Yeah. Coward is accurate. See how that works? I've not just called you a coward, I've made a case for it based on reality. That's all I've ever hoped for here.
I have never, ever championed tolerance. Nor kindness.
I do not endorse obsessive behaviors either, but am resigned to having you show up, type your comments, and hope for a response. Since you won't leave, despite repeated pleas to do so, not sure what else I can do.
"including the thousands upon thousands of LGBT people or people simply perceived to be LGBT who were beaten, mutilated, tortured, gassed, burned, and/or shot in WWII"
MA, that's true. While it is very difficult to get any accurate numbers, most estimates range from 5000 to 15000 or so. That is certainly thousands and thousands. Moron.
"I see new reports almost daily."
Which is also true. If I saw a new report daily, that would be about 365 reports. Actual numbers are significantly higher than that, so I actually low-balled the number. Moron.
Can you even read English? Is there a 4 year old you could find to help you with your reading comprehension.
So yet again I'm proven correct, and you've proven that you're a liar.
"stop acting like crimes against homosexuals are more common than they are."
I didn't. In fact, I used the same FBI stats, you did. When you use them they're accurate, but when I do, I'm "acting like crimes against homosexuals are more common than they are." Moron.
"It's like saying there's a big problem with black kids being under attack by white guys."
Wow. Just...wow.
"Or where I have suggested that the numbers of victims has any bearing on whether I would be concerned or not."
That would be when you wrote, "but accurate numbers are important." And every other point in which you decided to argue about my lower than actual numbers.
Why aren't you concerned about violence against LGBT people? As you have clearly argued ... it's because the numbers are "inflated" (even though I've proven that they are not.) I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you don't understand your own argument...you don't understand anything else.
QED.
Thanks for playing.
"But damn anyone who dares ask a freakin question or post an opposing opinion!"
By the way, MA. My first challenge, which you've been too cowardly to answer, still stands. Please demonstrate that you're not a complete moron by listing 5 topics on which Geoffrey and I disagree. These can be from any area: religion, politics, art, science, etc.
Go ahead and show that you actually have any idea what either of us believes about anything. 1 list. 5 points. Simple.
Obviously I'm sure you can't do it.
"I have never, ever championed tolerance. Nor kindness."
More evidence that he's never actually read nor comprehended anything we write. I've never said any such thing either.
Do you think he is merely too stupid to realize he's on the wrong blog?
One of the first posts I ever wrote was entitled "I Can't Tolerate Tolerance". I realize five and a half years is a long time, but I haven't changed my mind on the subject. I figured, with the post sitting there for the world to read, I wouldn't need to repeat myself on the matter.
Well, you know, as we've demonstrated before, MA has the attention span of a cat -- he can't even remember what he wrote in *this* comment thread -- and he's completely incapable of using the magical google machine.
"You girls have only accused me of being wrong and pretend it's plain to see to avoid the hard work of defending the false charge. (false, that is, until you can actually prove me guilty)"
You "girls".. and MA wonders why the misogynist tag applies to him. (Or wonders about this mysterious Republican War on Women.)
Then the "until you prove me guilty" part is just funny. Does he really think of himself as some sort of like an outlaw that hasnt been caught yet?
"These can be from any area: religion, politics, art, science, etc."
btw MA, I would go with Art. Its almost impossible to be wrong there.
Alan,
You'll have to wait for me to "meet" the challenge. But now that you've finally, after repeated requests, re-presented it, I can see why it was never taken up in the past. Whatever answer I provide, you'll only nitpick the words I use to prove that I don't know what I'm talking about. This is evident in your focus on my words regarding inflating numbers, even after I conceded my mistake in saying that. (The intention being that you inflate what those numbers mean) Also, you have issues with remembering your own words as well, as evidenced by your pretending I was speaking about this post in responding to your charge regarding who first brought up the subject of homosexuality. (I believed you were referring to another post, compelled to that belief by your own words--to wit: For example, in our last lengthy discussion here, can you guess who the firsts person to bring up the subject of gay sex was? I'll give you 3 guesses and the first two don't count...
But as to that challenge, a few come immediately to mind as to where the two of you agree:
1) Your hateful opinion of me. While you may each dislike me for specific reasons that aren't EXACTLY alike, you both agree that you don't like me.
2) You both support the agenda that does not exist. Again, to what extent that agreement goes might be debatable, but you both agree there is no sin in homosexual behavior, and that it is not abnormal.
3) Your dislike for our last president. Listing his policies could provide more than the two remaining points on this list, but I'll leave it there.
4) Your dislike for the Republican party and modern conservatism.
5) Your favorable opinion of each other. Yeah, a cheap one, but I'm in a hurry. I could've put your nasty opinion of Neil, but that's too easy as well.
Geoffrey,
I went to your link and discovered a few things. You don't understand the current American idea of tolerance. It does NOT hold that some ideas are superior to others, but just the opposite. It says that all ideas are equally valid and so one mustn't deny that in any way.
It also clearly suggests a willingness on your part to listen to the views of others for the purpose of learning and such (I'm speaking verbatim here, so hopefully Alan won't insist I can't read--not holding my breath). If that wasn't just bullshit, then it is the tolerance of which I spoke. The current common American use of the term is fallacious, I've stated that many times (though maybe not here) so I was not using the term in that manner. Thus, you have, at least that far back, championed tolerance of a kind for a time. As to kindness, is not your reality free perspective of the Trayvon Martin case not an appeal for kindness? And what of your alleged devotion to the Christian faith? How can one make such a claim and at the same time NOT be a champion for kindness?
It is questions like these, provoked by your own words, that lead me to post here. If you want flaming shit on a porch, that would be Parkie's comments at my blog. I do nothing that Dan T doesn't do, as far as reading and attempting to engage at blogs with different perspectives than mine. (I just do it better with more facts and truth.)
Why am I not surprised? Your answer is, as usual, that I'm not using the word the way you prefer, so I end up saying the exact opposite of my intention.
Which is . . . ah, God, it's just nuts, Art.
Whatever, as kids these days say.
Oh for crying out loud...I ask a simple question about where Geoffrey and I DISagree and MA then lists things we AGREE on!
He doesn't ... and this would be hilarious if it weren't so sad ... he doesn't even know the difference between agree and disagree!
(Note, he didn't accurately state my position even on the things he said we agree on, but I don't want to nitpick, and I don't have to nitpick when he's such a complete idiot that he doesn't know the difference between "agree" and "disagree!")
And he wonders why I think he's an idiot when he reads a word and then comes up with its exact antonym?
Now he'll accuse me of making up my own definitions for the words "agree" and "disagree"
OMG what a MORON.
But, yes, MA, we should totally spend time explaining ourselves to you, who is incapable of understanding that the word agree is the opposite of disagree. Because explaining something to someone so stupid would not be a complete waste of time. Yeah. Right.
How do you even remember to keep breathing?
BTW, MA, the first time I issued the challenge you, like a coward, slunk away into a corner to assume the fetal position. This time, you failed because you don't know the meaning of everyday common words.
But by all means, feel free to try again and get another F for effort. LOL
Agree = disagree .... hilarious.
I will cut and paste again, because I know you're too stupid to find the original comment above: "Please demonstrate that you're not a complete moron by listing 5 topics on which Geoffrey and I disagree. These can be from any area: religion, politics, art, science, etc."
Uh...disagree, MA. It was your contention that Geoffrey only likes people who agree with him about everything.... Let's see if that contention is born out by the facts.
(BTW, MA, agree and disagree don't mean the same thing. If you need help understanding the big words, ask a child for help.)
Alan, you're using the word one way, but, like my use of words like "tolerance", you clearly don't understand, mean the opposite of your stated position, and so Art was answering your question. YOU are just too stupid to understand how much smarter he is than you.
There should be clothing for people who have to wade through so much stupid.
"I believed you were referring to another post, compelled to that belief by your own words--to wit: For example, in our last lengthy discussion here, can you guess who the firsts person to bring up the subject of gay sex was? I'll give you 3 guesses and the first two don't count...
"
ROFL. I ***WAS*** talking about another post, you idiot. I was referring to a post on Trayvon Martin, which is why I said "in our last lengthy discussion here."
OMG you are a total idiot. You can't understand basic English, so you just make things up.
Wow. What. A. Moron.
G: "you clearly don't understand, mean the opposite of your stated position,"
Oh, of course. How could I possibly understand what I wrote by actually reading the words I wrote? LOL
Just out of curiosity.. why does MA come here? Does he enjoy being kicked around? Or is this part of his plan to save America from the liberals..
Attention.
And we've been giving it to him in spades recently, which is why his commenting here has gone up significantly. My bad. I really should go back to ignoring him again. When we all do that, his commenting here goes down significantly, because he's not getting the attention he craves.
Why do you think, for example, he comments so much more frequently on Dan T's blog? Because, unlike here, people there are more willing to actually take him seriously and continue conversations into the hundreds of comments.
Why do you suppose he hasn't commented much at Dan T's lately. Because Dan hasn't given him the opportunity to get the attention he wants by publishing something for him to argue about. If it really were about the fact that blogs are public and therefore he should comment on everything all the time, as he says, he'd post 300 comments on one of Dan's poetry posts too.
Instead, he likes to argue, he desperately obsessively craves attention, has no manners and no intelligence. It's a recipe for this bizarre behavior.
Or, he could, I suppose, just be a masochist. Given his bizarre sex-phobia, that's not out of the realm of possibility either. Just another hypothesis that fits the data too. Or ... more likely...it's a little of all of the above.
Perhaps it's simply a case of a guy in a hurry misreading your comment. Ever think of that? Not likely. Too concerned with finding fault. Yeah, I made a stupid mistake. So what? I thought it was a stupid challenge as I thought it was worded, but at the same time, it seemed the point was to see if I pay attention. In that regard, am I wrong in the five points of agreement I listed? It THAT'S the case, then you can score a point for yourself and feel so totally satisfied.
But where you disagree? I can't say as care. What difference would it make? Would the two of you be really any less two peas in a pod? No. You'd only be two separate peas.
Now. Let's assume I'm the moron you need to believe I am. What kind of asshole merely sits back and mocks the less intelligent rather than kindly attempt to enlighten him? Why, YOUR kind, of course. Most ironic given Geoffrey's latest post regarding assuming a superior attitude.
So to explain yourself when I seek clarification would go a long way toward enlightening a moron like myself, wouldn't it. That would actually align with the...oops! I almost said something neither of you two said regarding being kind and caring individuals. I wouldn't want to have to find the exact words you used to suggest such thing. So, unlike you two in your bigoted manner, I will not presume to know more than I can actually support.
Now I don't recall ever slinking away to any corner and assuming a fetal position, though I'm sure it pleases you to assume you could ever possibly have that effect. It could be that I just don't hang on your every word as you expect that I should. This is supported by my above misreading of the word "disagree".
You also like to believe that I comment here because you are providing attention you think I crave. No. I post comments where I feel the need to correct falsehoods and incorrect statements and understandings. I post comments where I fail to understand what was written in an attempt to find clarification. I post in hopes of engaging in conversation to either persuade or be persuaded for the mutual benefit of both parties if possible. And really, Alan, the fact that you pretend you prefer to ignore me while at the same time constantly responding with less than substantive comments suggests a problem you with which you might need help. You don't ignore me at all, and then pretend that I'm jumping to YOUR bait. More irony.
If you want to talk about morons, there's this:
"I ***WAS*** talking about another post, you idiot. I was referring to a post on Trayvon Martin, which is why I said "in our last lengthy discussion here."
You are the one who tried to suggest I was faulting you for first bringing up homosexuality in a post on homosexuality. THAT was what I was responding to. If you can't follow your own attempts to mock, you really need to back off a bit. In other words, that was the same post I thought you referenced when chiding me for being the first to bring up homosexuality. Clearly it wasn't me who brought it up first, it was you. But when I suggested it was you, you claimed you were referring to the post about the survey. You must be a moron. Go back and re-read everything, and you'll see that you are in error. Or will you now say you were baiting me?
So now tell me. Why do YOU guys post comments here? Try to tell me it's for conversation sake and not to draw attention to yourself.
As far as getting "kicked around", you wish.
Geoffrey,
"Your answer is, as usual, that I'm not using the word the way you prefer..."
Of course this is incorrect. I stated that you used the word in a manner not common to today's usage of the word. I've always understood the proper meaning of the word and the fact that lefties use it incorrectly. "Tolerance" today is used to suggest that all ideas, opinions and lifestyles are equally valid. I can't help it if you have missed this.
So, your answer is no, then.
That's what I thought. Again, explaining new things to you is a waste of time if you can't even infer stand the things that we've already written about many, many times. But then, I've already written THAT several times too, and you can't even understand that simple sentence either.
I've proven my point. Thanks for playing.
My answer to "what" is "no"? Do you purposely leave out details so that I will go astray, giving you opportunity to pretend you've proven something about me? I don't much care to continue re-reading every comment posted in order to try to figure out what it is you're referencing. Because as with the "first mention of homosexuality" crap, you don't pay attention to your own words. So, muffin, unless you care to be more explicit and specific, I'm quite done with this run around.
"As far as getting "kicked around", you wish."
"Thanks for playing."
Post a Comment