If having a disease is by definition an harmful and disadvantageous

>>723680653
bump

>>723680653
Having a higher risk of other diseases does not constitute a disease. The only solid argument you got there is it inhibits reproduction.

>>723681664
Is being gay an advantageous and non-harmful physical or mental condition?

>>723681664
so if ur gay u can cum inside of a womyn no condom & no kids ?

>>723680653
its not gay sex thats a higher risk,its anal sex,
so i mean as long as you use a condom.

>>723681896
Gay couples aren't able to reproduce. Are you saying that a gay can choose to have heterosexual sex and still be gay and also claim that being gay isn't a choice?

>>723681846
It's pretty advantegous if ya like sucking dick. Stop browsing /b during class underage anon

Being gay is a mental condition
I fucking hate homosexuals

>>723681905
You know...male gays practice sodomy. And even if wearing a condom does not reduce the risk to 0% (the risk is higher as membranes are getting hurt for not fulfilling their role), what about all other diseases like faecal incontincence, etc?

>tfw literally no one you're related to is nonwhite or gay

BASED

>>723680653
Your just trying to rationalise your illogical hate.

>>723682119
A gay man fucking a woman does not unmake him a gay man. You have a choice to act out or repress your homosexuality, but no to choose between being sexually attracted to other men or not.

>>723682171
No it's not, very weak counter-argument and logic there.

>>723682267
Your dad could be gay for all you know.

>>723682292
Try harder with a better counter-argument.

>>723682267
Statistically that's highly unlikely. You probably have several closeted relatives

>>723682310
You did not answer the question and got the point.
Gay couples aren't able to reproduce. Are you saying that a gay can choose to have heterosexual sex and still be gay and also claim that being gay isn't a choice?

>>723680653
>then why being gay should not be considered a disease as it causes a much higher risk of HIV, venereal diseases in general, faecal incontinence, much higher risk of mental diseases and inhibits reproduction?
because correlation =/= causation

>>723682335
Yes it is. What's considered advantegous is entirely abstract as how you defined it.

>>723682226
Twins experiments showed this very clearly. Nobody should hate homosexuals but also nobody should promote a disadvantageous mental condition.

>>723682461
Nope, it's not. Try harder.

is being left handed a disease?

>>723682380
Yeah he can claim that

>>723682383
There are not only stastistical studies but also clinical studies in which there is an almost 0% error rate. Also, saying that being gay inhibits reproduction is a fact. Simple biological knowledge.

>>723682560
Yes, it is. If you want to die, having bone cancer is advantageous

>>723682357
Look up the definition of disease. And you will see you are wrong. Thats it, now don't try to play semantics the definition is clear. You already have your opinion trying to say its a disease is you rationalising it after the fact. Out of interest, do you think it should be illegal to be gay?

>>723682666
If being gay is a choice and a gay man can have sex like a non-gay whenever he wants...then it must be a mental condition.

>>723682646
There's no significant (by statistical and clinical knowledge) disadvantage in being left handed

>>723682767
Saying "you are wrong, look up at what you said" to prove you are right. That's not how logical debates work.

>>723682796
Wow shit sorry I din't realize I was talking to a psychiatrist, you must be correct

>>723682824
From the top of my head I can think of one: writing by hand.

>>723682744
Biology is not subjective. It's obvious that with "advantageous" I meant not only a biological advantage, but also a condition that provides health and safety to an individual ALSO according to basic biological knowledge of life preservation. Using your logic every kind of mental illness could be advantageous if the subject who has it is liking it.

>>723682903
Not a counter-argument. Making fun/ad hominem are not valid arguments in a debate.

>>723682881
Your way too much on the defensive dude. By definition you are wrong. Gayness was considered a disease up until 1971. But it no longer is, i think I'm going to go with what medical science says rather than some tard on /b/. Or is that not how logic goes cuz you say so?

>>723682972
Left-handed cannot write? Nice to know...(Sarcasm)

>>723682698
being statistically likely to have a diseases does not mean you actually have a disease
does that explain better?

>>723683068
Repeating your opinion without providing an argument is not an argument. Also, ab auctoritate fallacy.

>>723683137
Is being gay an advantageous and non-harmful physical or mental condition? With "advantageous" I meant not only a biological advantage, but also a condition that provides health and safety to an individual ALSO according to basic biological knowledge of life preservation.

>>723683012
Okay so it seems your definition of disease is a lifestyle decreasing your chance of breeding, and/or increasing risk for disease. I don't think that's a very scientific definition anon, by that measure being ugly is a disease.

>>723683137
Why is zoofilia considered mental illness, then? Couldn't it be a sexual orientation? Why not?

>>723683061
Your reddit-tier autist thread isn't worth making arguments in

>>723680653
so, you have no idea what homosexuality is

>>723683232
Being gay doesn't decrease chance of breeding as being ugly does due to standards of beauty. Being gay completely inhibits reproduction.

>>723683167
Oh i Get it now. Your ironically trolling people by saying they are illogical by not having an argument even though you don't have any argument yourself. It's basically one huge fallacy, fallacy.

>>723683283
Nice counter-argument. (Sarcasm)

When will you learn that insulting your opponents in a debate is an argument?

>>723683346
I provided alot of arguments/questions not being answered.

>>723683211
it's not inherently advantageous or disadvantageous, In effect you could argue it's a disadvantage because a lot of people hate gays

>>723683313
What about people who don't want kids? Do they have a disease? What about closeted gay people who have a wife and kids but screatly fuck dudes?

>>723683137
Why there are many classified mental illness then? They are just harmful condition that distort people view on reality...they could be advantageous for someone like...seeing talking unicorns around you could be even fun. Okay it could be harmful and increasing risk of diseases and promoting a mental illness could provide even more illness by clinical studies but...

>>723680653
Someone could be gay and celibate. Checkmate bitch.

>>723683350
>When will you learn that insulting your opponents in a debate is an argument?

Wrong, it's not an argument. Autist

>>723683402
Nice to know. An higher risk of diseases and not being able to reproduce being gay is advantageous.

(With "advantageous" I meant not only a biological advantage, but also a condition that provides health and safety to an individual ALSO according to basic biological knowledge of life preservation.)

>>723680653
So a broken leg is a disease?
right

>>723683438
Is being a gay a choice as not wanting kids is?

>>723683611
Gay people can reproduce

>>723683605
That's what I wanted to read! You are making progress!

>>723683555
Gay couples aren't able to reproduce. Are you saying that a gay can choose to have heterosexual sex and still be gay and also claim that being gay isn't a choice?

>>723683674
Same^

>>723683674
yeah they do every day
even ones who never fuck the opposite sex
they fucking pay to have kids

whose lives they ruins with their faggotry

>>723683704
gays pay women to have babies for them
it has happened millions of times heh

>>723680653
Why does my pee pee come out yellow ?

>>723683646
Milo Yiannopoulos says being gay is a choice, he's gay. Other gay people say it isn't, i don't think it's concrete that it is or isn't a choice.

>>723683704
>what is surrogacy

Gay people by natural standards can not and WILL not have kids, you know why? because women have the genitalia to reproduce the child, as the man provides his DNA, with that being said how do you think two men will reproduce without surgical, hormonal and other type surgeries?

>>723683800
he also thinks christianity is true
he's a mess lol

the cure for homosexuality is nitrogen gas

>>723683826
surrogate pregnancies, the same thing straight couples who can't have babies do

File: IMG_0515.png (6KB, 160x186px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 160x186px

>>723683826

>>723683745
Yeah...Even if rich gay people live in a society that allows them to buy kids and raise them, gay couples are still not able to reproduce...Building mechanical wings and giving them to people who think they are birds for supporting their condition does not make them birds.

>>723683826
No one thinks two men can reproduce. That has to be the dumbest strawman argument I've seen in a while.

>>723683826
Gay couples can reproduce. For example, if in a lesbian couple one of the women has a girldick, she can impregnate her partner. Checkmate.

>>723683812
>>723683779
>Even if rich gay people live in a society that allows them to buy kids and raise them, gay couples are still not able to reproduce.

did you even read my post, I said WITHOUT any medical help dumb ass damn, where'd you learn to read?

>>723683946
It's just a good answer to people who thinks that saying "B-but gays c-can buy children!!" is a counter-argument against the obvious fact that being gay inhibits reproduction.

File: Alchemische_Vereinigung_aus_dem_Donum_Dei.jpg (1MB, 1460x2260px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1460x2260px

Since gay couples are unable to reproduce we can rule out that being gay is genetic, since every gay person is a genetic dead end.

Being gay is cultural. This is also why you find gays mostly working in art/fashion/journalism and such. Would u ever meet a gay person who just walked into the woods to get away from the urban life, build a hut, hunt rabbits and survive in nature? I think not.

File: 16508432_1540599679301092_1296588495154415131_n.jpg (49KB, 614x637px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 614x637px

>>723683946
No, let's build a spaceship together and fly into space dude.
cuz you're super smart

>>723682698

Being gay doesn't inhibit reproduction, many gays have kids and any of them can make them if they want to, they choose not to, a choice is not a disease

>>723683849
So you advocate for killing people. See why no one agrees with your crazy bullshit. People don't want to live in a society in which people are killed for non violence. People don't like isis, even arabs don't like isis. You wanna live in a isis type society? People will want nothing to do with your crazy assed nastyness. Your an outcast because you suck as a person.

>>723683985
>You did not answer the question and got the point.
Gay couples aren't able to reproduce. Are you saying that a gay can choose to have heterosexual sex and still be gay and also claim that being gay isn't a choice?

>>723684106
You should publish these findings in a scientific journal

>>723684222
this is the peer review

>>723684101
Is that a bad thing? I mean ypu see no problem with over population? If someone doesn't wanna have kids so what? Or don't you believe in freedom.
>>723684122
Not an argument altright snowflake..

>>723684160
Stop having an autist freak out anon

>>723683990
>Not being able to understand that they never said gay couples can reproduce
>Not understanding they said ways that gay couples can raise a child biologically related to one of them

>>723684160
Lol your sperging out now. Retard alert kek.

File: IMG_6618.png (565KB, 640x1136px) Image search: [Google]

565KB, 640x1136px

>gay have faecal incontinece due to buttsceks
Gay man are not required to have anal sex

>veneral diseases
Not wearing a condom is not a disease

>much higher risk of mental diseases
How so? And also, if having a higher chance of having a disease is a disease, are habits such as not eating properly or not exercising considered diseases?

>inhibits reproduction
Then again, is wearing a condom a disease? People who dont want children, who wear protection, take pils and get abortions are sick? Does being gay mean you are mot fertile, and therefore cannot donate sperm, impregnate a woman for the sole purpose of procreation, and etc?

Sage, OP should go back to faggit

This is cool. I haven't seen a tard get rekt thia hard in a while.

>>723684283
What is your argument? Saying that allowing people who live in an harmful and disadvantageous mental condition to buy kids is great against centuries of psychological studies? Do you follow ethics? Should also trans people, people who identify in helicopters, animals or poligamyst be able to buy/raise kids in your concept of freedom?
Accepting everyhing =/= freedom

>>723684297
>>723684363
>>723684443
>>723684627
Look! Ad hominem and strawman everywhere!

>>723684297
>>723684363
>>723684443
>>723684627

Are you have intelligent?

>>723684760
Those are not ad hominems. Ad hominens are insults presented as arguments, e.g. "you are autistic therefore you're wrong". An insult is just calling you autistic, which you are. Namaste

>>723684538
>Gay man are not required to have anal sex
Woah nice, another thing to add to the disadvantages list: not being able to have a complete sex intercourse. (Only if we pretend for a moment that gay men do not practice sodomy)

>Not wearing a condom is not a disease
even if wearing a condom does not reduce the risk to 0% (the risk is higher as membranes are getting hurt for not fulfilling their role), what about all other diseases like faecal incontincence, etc?
>How so? And also, if having a higher chance of having a disease is a disease, are habits such as not eating properly or not exercising considered diseases?
See above, already answered that. Also, is being gay a choice as living in bad habits, not eating properly, not exercising is?

>Then again, is wearing a condom a disease? People who dont want children, who wear protection, take pils and get abortions are sick? Does being gay mean you are mot fertile, and therefore cannot donate sperm, impregnate a woman for the sole purpose of procreation, and etc?

Again, is being gay a choice as deciding not to wear a condom is? Also, gay couples cannot reproduce due to biological conditions, not for "deciding not to use contraceptive".

>>723684689
Oh your some crazy moralistic social conservative. Modern psychology doesn't class gayness as harmful. You have this idea that it is wrong, but this is just a feeling an emotion. It grosses you out so you've dicided that its wrong. The thing is you haven't any logic reasons for why it is harmful. You just say they cannot/don't reproduce, without explaining how or why this is harmful.

>>723684951
Is an insult an argument? Are you used to insult your opponents in a debate to prove you are intelligent?

>>723684760
>>723684876
Samefag is mad af.

>>723685117
No and yes

>>723685091
Again, ad-hominem, ab auctoritate ("Modern psychology") and strawmens. Why not trying harder?

>>723685182
We are different users lol

>>723680653
Gay people are going to fuck and have fun. There is nothing you can do about it, ever. Deal with it or kys. You have two choices.

>>723685322
This logic and argument remind me of something...wait:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEaOBswKrMU

And also the kid that steals the ball after loosing in football class at nursery school.

>>723685250
Bullshit dude you got nothing. Explain to me why its harmful that they don't reproduce. If you had something you would. Whenever someone has got you, you cry fallacy or ignore them. Do you know what the fallcy, fallcy is?

>>723685288
Bullshit

>>723685533
See above dude (like the thread itself and the definition)! Repeating "bullshit dude you got nothing" is not an argument! I'm pretty sure that's a fallacy!

I will help you:
>If having a disease is by definition an harmful and disadvantageous physical or mental condition for a living being,
then why being gay should not be considered a disease as it causes a much higher risk of HIV, venereal diseases in general, faecal incontinence, much higher risk of mental diseases and inhibits reproduction?
With "advantageous" I meant not only a biological advantage, but also a condition that provides health and safety to an individual ALSO according to basic biological knowledge of life preservation.

>>723685500
I'm not trying to make an argument dumbass. I'm just letting you know that you can't stop the faggots. They've already won, they wil fuck and be faggots while your sitting there being mad. Like thats the thing your uncomfortable with it but your gonna have to deal with it, there is literally nothing you can do. Your impotent rage amuses me.

File: IMG_6534.jpg (22KB, 552x630px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 552x630px

>>723685055
3/10, made me reply

Gay man are not required to have anal sex, as being gay is being attracted to someone of the same gender, your definition is flawed.

Faecal incontinence comes from anal sex, which you are not required to practice in order to be gay, nor must be gay to practice.

If you have a big dick, the chances of a condom breaking is bigger, which means you are more likely to get a veneral disease. Its a harmful condition, so by your definition its a disease. Im in a bad financial condition, therefore I have a disease. This applies to a lot that shouldn't. I believe your definition is flawed.

A gay man can be able to donate sperm and fuck a woman for the sole purpose of procreation, you in no way countered that, saying "cuz biology" again and again will not be of much use, as a gay man can still be fertile due as I said.

>>723685568
Are you going to consider making some valid points or just repeating "bullshit" about what I said and claiming without any proof that for some kind of reason I am pretending to be a different user than someone else here?

>>723680653
When the Disease is, according to the Definition of the harmful and negative physical or psychological harm of a living being,
why should it not be gay as a Disease, because it causes a higher level of Risk of HIV Infection, sexually transmitted Diseases in General, fecal Incontinence, a much greater Risk of mental illness and that inhibits the Multiplication?

>>723685705
Again. With this logic and argument you could also justify slavery some centuries ago.

>>723684106
Because Homosexual Couples can not reproduce, we cannot exclude that being Gay is a genetic disease, as well as any Homo is a genetic alteration cul-de-sac.

Being gay is a Culture. This is, why do you think that gay people work, in principle, in the Art/Fashion/Journalism and so on. Could you ever met a Gay Man that just entered the Forest, Away from urban Life, build Cabins, the hunting of the Hare, and the survival in Nature? I think Not.

>>723685715
You have just repeated what you've said in the previous post...oh come on...

>>723685662
By your logic, smokers have a disease, people who never exercise have a disease, people who sit on 4chan all day have a disease. Like if your going to say gayness is a disease you gotta say all this other shit is. I mean would you say those things are diseases?

>>723684538
>Gay fecal incontinece due to buttsceks
Gays don't necessarily have to have Anal sex

>sexually transmitted Diseases
Not pulled out a Condom is not a Disease

>a much greater Risk of mental illness
As well? And also, when a high Risk of contracting this Disease, the Diseases are those Habits, such as not correct or not coach believed Diseases?

>inhibits the Multiplication
Then wore again the Condom a Disease? People who do not want Children, the Protection, which contributes to Pils and get an Abortion sick? And if he is gay, this means that it is not fertile, so you can not leave Semen, to impregnate the Woman solely for the Purpose of Procreation, etc?

Sage, OP should go back to faggit

>>723685910
As none what I repeated contradicted in a valid logical and true manner.

>>723685830
Your a mad retard of course your going do that. You know it yourself, like C'mon dude we ain't as retarded as you are.

>>723685912
This fallacy has been provided so many times in this thread and also nobody really provided an answer to my question.
I will try with you.
1) You have not read my definition of disease and what has been written immediately after.
"If having a disease is by definition an harmful and disadvantageous physical or mental condition for a living being,
then why being gay should not be considered a disease as it causes a much higher risk of HIV, venereal diseases in general, faecal incontinence, much higher risk of mental diseases and inhibits reproduction?
With "advantageous" I meant not only a biological advantage, but also a condition that provides health and safety to an individual ALSO according to basic biological knowledge of life preservation."
2) Is being gay a choice as smoking, not doing exercise, sitting on 4chan all the day are?

>>723685987

Copied from >>723684538
and already answered.

>>723686002
*was contradicted, sorry

>>723685880
It's not logic you fucking autist. I'm just letting you know your side lost years ago. Like people want freedom, people want to fuck. You losers with your restrictive bullshit can sulk all you want I'm just rubbing it in. Whatever you do the gays still win.

>>723686048
Are you trying to trolling me hard or you are serious when you think that insulting is an argument? Dude how can you act like this? Have you ever had a debate? WTF!

>>723685055
>Gay Man is not obligated to hire, the Anal Sex
Woah well, another Thing is Added to the List of Disadvantages: it is not capable of a sexual relationship complete. (Only if you opt for a Moment that gays do not practice Bestiality)

>Not in a Condom is not a Disease
also if a Condom reduces the Risk of 0% (Risk higher than that of the Membranes can suffer, because they did not meet with Your Paper), as on all other Diseases as fecal incontincence, etc?
>How so? And also, when a high Risk of contracting this Disease, the Diseases are those Habits, such as not correct or not coach believed Diseases?
See above, already been answered. In addition, being gay is a Choice, as the Life in bad Habits, not of a correct Nutrition and exercise, isn't it?

>Then, again, pulled out a Condom from a Disease? People who do not want Children, the Protection, which contributes to Pils and get an Abortion sick? And if he is gay, this means that it is not fertile, so you can not leave Semen, to impregnate the Woman solely for the Purpose of Procreation, etc?

Again, being gay is a Choice, the Decision not to wear a Condom? In addition, Homosexual Couples cannot be multiplied due to the biological Conditions, and not for "the Decision not to use Contraceptives".

>>723686114
This Error has been granted many Times in this Thread and no one Reply to my Question.
I will deal with Them.
1) You have not read my Definition of the Disease, and then what has been written immediately after.
"If the Disease is, according to the Definition of the harmful and negative physical or psychological harm of a living being,
why should it not be gay as a Disease, because it causes a higher level of Risk of HIV Infection, sexually transmitted Diseases in General, fecal Incontinence, a much greater Risk of mental illness and that inhibits the Multiplication?
With "profitable", I said, not only the biological Advantage, as well as the Condition of the Health and Safety of the Individual, but also, according to the biological Knowledge base in the Conservation of Life."
2) being Gay is a Choice, like Smoking, not doing exercise, sitting all Day on 4chan?

>>723685715
Cum is not necessary for that with the Anal sex, as being gay is to be appealing to someone of your same Sex, Your Definition is incorrect.

Fecal incontinence comes from anal Sex, it is not necessary, to practice, to be Gay and not Gay, and must be practiced.

If you have a big Cock that you have, it is the Probability of Breakage of the Condom more, and then You are more Likely to have sexually transmitted Diseases. His Condition is harmful, so that, by Definition of their Disease. I am in a bad financial situation, so that I have the Disease. This applies to many, not worth the trouble. I think that Your Definition is incorrect.

Gay Man Cum Donations and fucked Woman with the sole purpose of Procreation, is somehow answered him, saying: "because of Biology" time and time again, is not of much use, as a Gay can be a fruitful Relationship, as I said.

>>723686114
But your definition isn't the accepted definition that is in the dictionary. It doesn't mean anything to anyone who isn't you. It's not hard to understand, like you can say a word means anything it doesn't make you right. If you have to change definitions to try to win an argument you probably never had a point to begin with. Creationists use the same argument, its silly. You got nothing dude, give it a rest.

>>723686229
Again. If these arguments were valid we could justify slavery of centuries ago. Do you know how many people tried to stop slavery centuries ago saying that it was wrong and getting answered that "Get over it, I want freedom, people just want to have their own slave".

Why you are not getting is the same reasoning? The same argument? The same broken logic? Pay attention, I'm not saying that having slaves is the same of being gay and letting them to buy child, I'm saying that the logic used for defending them is the same in both cases.

>>723686537
But Your Definition is not common, a Definition in the Dictionary. This does not mean that all those who are not. It is not difficult to understand how they can say that the Word means, what makes that not with the right. If you Want to change Definitions in order to attempt a Fight to win, it is very likely that he never had Sense from the Beginning. Creationists use the same argument, is just stupid. To you not, Friend, leave him in Peace.

>>723686236
to troll*

>>723686564
Again. If these Arguments are valid, could lead us to Slavery to justify Centuries ago. Did You know, as a lot of People that is Slavery for Centuries, he said that it was not so, and the Answer that "I want Freedom, People want to get their Slaves."

Why not always, the same Reasoning? The same argument? The same Logic broken? Please note, I do not say that the Slave is the same as Gay, so buy a Child, I say, that the Logic of the Protection the same for both Cases.

>>723686236
I just like making altrighters mad. You people hate freedom so i like to fuck with ya'll. Seriously you fucks are easy to trigger, mostly because your wrong.

>>723686696
I like it, what to do altrighters crazy. People hate Freedom, I like to fuck with Ya'll. Seriously, dreckssäcke, easy to drive, especially because the false.

>>723686407
You give no reasoning as to why your definition should be accepted. Everyone else uses the dictionary definition, why should we use yours?

>>723686537
Most of dictionaries have a pretty vague and different definition of "disease" and even more vague about "mental illness". You are supposed use your own logic, maybe explaining something, providing some valid arguments and not just saying that "your definition is not good...it doesn't mean anything...you stuped...you fagit..."

>>723686860
Is not to give a Reasoning of why Your Definition should be taken. Everything else, the Dictionary Definition, why to you?

>>723686933
Most of the Dictionaries are rather confusing and other Definitions of the Concepts of "Disease", and even more vague "mental Illness". Have Your own Logic, you can explain any thing, he offers solid Arguments and not just say: "Your Definition is not good...doesn't mean anything...You...You fagit..."

>>723686565
Your not even making grammatical sense at this point. I think you might be legitimately retarded. You lost this shit like an hour ago its time to stop. Your making no sense at this point.

File: IMG_7088.jpg (51KB, 640x458px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 640x458px

>>723685910
If you wont try again to make a valid point Im leaving. Do it or I will assume you are just baiting and wont give a proper anwser ever as you know you are wrong. Alternatively, give us some definitions that arent false and made up by you and lets try again to discuss and see how far you can go.

>>723687128
If not try again, for the right Time I will. Do it, or I bring you, simply, of the Defamation, but not always the correct Answer, as You know, You are wrong. In addition, we give a Definition that does not correspond with Reality and take up and can be re-treated, discuss, and see how far you can go.

>>723686696
At least you have admitted that you just want to troll without making any valid points like every liberal. REEEEEEEE Heee-heee...

What the hell is even going on at this point?? Is OP just typing gibberish on purpose, like this nigga for real?

I'm a gay guy and I don't have HIV, because I've been relatively careful. Also, more straight people have AIDS than gay people. Also while I don't plan on having children, I help raise my sisters' children. Without obligations to children I can spend more time focusing on my career and making money to support my extended family.

I don't have a mental illness, I'm quite highly functioning I just like the D.

>>723687334
what do you do for a living?

File: Famous-characters-Troll-face-Troll-face-poker-177134 (1).jpg (82KB, 884x1024px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 884x1024px

Thanks for the laugh /b/. I've been running your posts through google a translate chain using a script that I wrote and getting you faggots to argue with your own posts.

I have to go take a shit now or I'd keep doing it. Thanks for the laughs.

>>723687417
>acts retarded
>still claims victory
Whatever helps you sleep at night..

>>723687549
>>is not acting
>>still Entitled to the Victory
>Everything that helps you sleep at night..

I'm not even OP, btw. I just look on /b/ for people having pointless arguments and run their posts through my script.

File: counterfail.jpg (68KB, 750x600px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 750x600px

>>723687334

>>723687807
If your trying to prove something, prove to e that this script is real. Like people will say anything to claim victory, it only works if people believe it. I've done it myself and it worked, i think your doing the same. Maybe I'm wrong, only you can provide proof.

>>723688021
import Ember from 'ember';
import Translator from 'npm:yandex.translate';

export default Ember.Component.extend({
phrase: '',
transMogrifiedPhrase: '',
isLoading: false,
actions: {
translate: function() {
var translator = new Translator('trnsl.1.1.20170225T025331Z.a9d1809c33175b0a.88193a6532604b458bbe62c9665149b1e954a069');
this.set('isLoading', true);
translator.translate(this.get('phrase'), 'en-ru', true).then((text1) => {
return translator.translate(text1, 'ru-de', true);
}).then((text2) => {
return translator.translate(text2, 'de-es', true);
}).then((text3) => {
return translator.translate(text3, 'es-en', true);
}).then((text4) => {
this.set('transMogrifiedPhrase', text4[0].replace(/>/g,'>'));
this.set('isLoading', false);
});
}
}
});

>>723687807
sounds like you're having a helluva day, give yourself a pat on the back

>>723688068
sorry... I don't have it hosted yet. Running it locally right now. Great trolling fun.

>>723688068
Tbh i don't know anything about computers. This could be some random bullshit for all i know. You got a screen shot pretty please?

>>723680653
Because it's not being gay that is inherently causing those things.
Lack of support in the community, lack of proper queer sexual education, societal stigma, ect. are the causes for their being higher numbers of queer folk having these things.
Straight people have higher divorce rates, but is straight marriage inherently bad because there's a 50/50 chance of it working/not working out?

I do believe, however, that gender dysphoria should still be considered a mental illness because it usually requires medical intervention to "cure". Being transgender is one thing, not all trans people want to go through HRT and multiple surgeries, but for those who do (people who have diagnosable gender dysphoria), if it was no longer considered an illness then dysphoria-related surgeries would be considered "cosmetic" in nature and wouldn't be covered by health insurance or Medicare.

This is coming from a trans person, by the way.

>>723686860
Ab Auctoritate, again, and already answered. Be original at least. Every attempt made to provide a counter-argument against the definition has failed or caused the logical conclusion according to which being gay is a choice as not wearing a condom is. Same with attempts made to answer the very first answer made in this thread, about why being gay should not fit in the definition I provided, which is explicative (and explicated multiple times)

>>723687892
When your rule says that all gay man endanger themselves, but you find one that doesnt, your rule is proved to be wrong.

File: Screen Shot 2017-02-26 at 9.09.42 AM.png (60KB, 1165x969px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 1165x969px

>>723688196
It's a very basic web app at this point to prove the concept. My intent is to host it and make it available for ruining all arguments in the future.

>>723688068
I don't believe you dude, sorry.

>>723680653
>disadvantageous
Like not being a straight white man?

>>723688246
Because he is not Gay, which in principle makes all of these Things.
The lack of Support in Society, the lack of queer Sexual education, social Stigma, and so on. the Reasons for Its growing Number of strange People who have these Things.
Precisely, Men have a higher rate of Divorce, but it is in the Marriage, a priori, is wrong, because there is a Chance 50/50 it works/does not work?

However, I believe that gender Dysphoria in addition, that it is a mental Illness, because that Usually requires medical Intervention, with the aim of "cure". Be трансгендером is one Thing, not all Trans-People want to Undergo a Hormonal treatment and several Operations, but for those who (the People who are determined to geschlechtsdysphorie), if the Disease, then, Dysphoria, in Relation with the Operations that were considered to be of an aesthetic nature and not through health Insurance or medicare.

It's the Trans-Man, by the way.

>>723688366
You could run this app on every thread and it would still be the same kek.

>>723688374
lol. That's your problem.

>>723688246
Gays have higher risk in venereal diseases, faecal incontinensce and cannot reproduce due to societal stigma. Agree with you when you say that the gender dysphoria should still be considered a mental illness but not for the reason you provided. It's just because identifying as something/somebody you are not in the unique reality fits the definition of mental disease. A question: What is the difference between claiming to identify as a cat even if you're human and claiming to identify as a man even if you are a woman?

>>723680653
straight people get aids too,
condoms, allways

>>723688319
Why you don't read? About the diseases, I talked about "higher risk" of diseases, not "all gay", it's obvious that a gay could not practice sodomy, but also cannot have a complete sexual intercourse. The intrinsic disadvantage is that gay couples cannot reproduce.

>>723688393

>If having a disease is by definition an harmful and disadvantageous physical or mental condition for a living being,
then why being gay should not be considered a disease as it causes a much higher risk of HIV, venereal diseases in general, faecal incontinence, much higher risk of mental diseases and inhibits reproduction?
>With "advantageous" I meant not only a biological advantage, but also a condition that provides health and safety to an individual ALSO according to basic biological knowledge of life preservation.

>>723688825
sperm donation? impregnating a woman to procreate? they still can be fertile you know

>>723689077
I haz reference therfore i am are experts

>>723688393
/thread

>>723688612
First of all, please learn to string a coherent sentence together.
it's not that gay people can't reproduce due to social stigma, I spoke about social stigma more surrounding our higher rates of mental health issues. If there weren't people like OP telling us that we are inherently bad because of something we have no choice in, then maybe we wouldn't be so fucking depressed.
Also straight couples engage in orgies and anal sex without condoms all the time, but that's fine because they're straight, I assume? It's because the gays are so gross and scary, protect the children from buttsecks!!

Also, for the question, there is no difference. One is just taken more seriously than the other.
It's called being otherkin, by the way.

Long story short, when it comes to trans people, you can think what you want. But if you mistook a woman for a man on the street, accidentally called her "sir", and she corrected you and "looked" like a woman, you'd apologise and call her ma'am instead.
Trans people simply ask for the same thing, except we're not always going to "look" the part according to you. It's not about being PC, it's just not being a cunt.
If someone said to me "hey, I'm a cat now", I'd be like, cool, they're a cat now. That doesn't hurt me or affect me in literally any way, so why should I give a shit? I might laugh about it but I'm not going to be a cunt.

>>723680653
Why do you even care?

>>723689218
Repeating: (Why don't you just read?)
You did not answer the question and got the point.
Gay couples aren't able to reproduce. Are you saying that a gay can choose to have heterosexual sex and still be gay and also claim that being gay isn't a choice?
If being gay is a choice and a gay man can have sex like a non-gay whenever he wants then it must be a mental condition by definition.
Even if rich gay people live in a society that allows them to buy kids and raise them, gay couples are still not able to reproduce...Building mechanical wings and giving them to people who think they are birds for supporting their condition does not make them birds.

>>723689224
I make fun of providing hazing references therefore i am an experts in making counter-arguments and analysing scientific data available to everyone.

>>723689522
Gay COUPLES can't reproduce.
Gay PEOPLE can.
Gay people aren't typically infertile, and if they are, chances are it's not caused by them being gay.
Two gay men will not produce a child but a gay man is still ABLE to go and donate his sperm or have sex with a woman.
A man can get hard over many things and, if I know anything about men in general, it's that if they get horny enough they are capable of fucking anything that moves.
There are pleanty of stories talking about straight men being stranded together out at sea and fucking each other because they need to empty their load into SOMETHING. Fucking a man doesn't make you gay and being straight isn't a choice, it just happens.
Fucking a woman doesn't make you straight and being gay isn't a choice, it just happens.

So there you go.

>>723689376
>First of all, please learn to string a coherent sentence together.
Not an argument.
>it's not that gay people can't reproduce due to social stigma, I spoke about social stigma more surrounding our higher rates of mental health issues. If there weren't people like OP telling us that we are inherently bad because of something we have no choice in, then maybe we wouldn't be so fucking depressed.
Referring to only some parts of what I said to prove you are right is not an argument. Also, there's no significant study showing that being gay is associated with higher mental illness only due to social stigma. Having no choice in something (and again there's no study or logical reasoning showing that) doesn't mean it's actually good and it's fine to promote it. I have a question: is being a pedophile a choice?
>Also straight couples engage in orgies and anal sex without condoms all the time, but that's fine because they're straight, I assume? It's because the gays are so gross and scary, protect the children from buttsecks!!
You assume bad. Nice try (Not).
>Also, for the question, there is no difference. One is just taken more seriously than the other.
It's nice you have admitted that. And it's a mental illness. No serious phychological study would ever claim that supporting (also politically) the idea that someone should be free and able to identify as an animal or something else is good.
>I'd be like, cool, they're a cat now. That doesn't hurt me or affect me in literally any way, so why should I give a shit?
I give a shit when they want specific pronouns to be used, to be treated by the governments for having their mentall illness supported, when they don't accept the idea that is good and healtier to follow the unique reality and not support infinite kinds of reality and subjective views of reality. It's my bussiness when my vote has the same value of someone who is affected by a mental illness and don't want to accept that. Etc.

>>723690216
You repeat, I repeat.
You did not answer the question and got the point.
Gay couples aren't able to reproduce. Are you saying that a gay can choose to have heterosexual sex and still be gay and also claim that being gay isn't a choice?
If being gay is a choice and a gay man can have sex like a non-gay whenever he wants then it must be a mental condition by definition.
Even if rich gay people live in a society that allows them to buy kids and raise them, gay couples are still not able to reproduce...Building mechanical wings and giving them to people who think they are birds for supporting their condition does not make them birds.

>>723689376
Do you think a government, a society that should support and promote every self-subjective-non real identification could work? Also, according to your sentence "I'd be like, cool, they're a cat now. That doesn't hurt me or affect me in literally any way, so why should I give a shit?" view of life is very nihilistic and non-caring about other people true safety and health. If you know that someone is mentally ill, you should promote the idea that someone with competence and professional care should cure him, not the idea that he could do whatever he wants to his self, distorting his view of reality until he ever directly affects you. Do you follow ethics?

>>723691109
himself*

>>723691109
I follow the ethics of letting someone be whoever they want to be when it doesn't affect anyone else. It's their own choice to seek help if they need it, that's not up to me, especially when they're not harming or inconveniencing me in any way.

>>723690687
I feel that I addressed every point that you made pretty well. It's up to you to take what you want from what I said.
Pretty sure you're just trolling at this point anyway.

>>723691590
Again, no. Your view of life is very nihilistic and non-caring about other people true safety and health. If you know that someone is mentally ill, you should promote the idea that someone with competence and professional care should cure him, not the idea that he could do whatever he wants to his self, distorting his view of reality until he ever directly affects you. You are not following ethics if you just accept everything until they don't affect you or someone else. According to this illogical argument, you would support someone who wants to hurt himself, to suicide, and maybe help him to use the noose for killing himself as that decision does not affect anyone but him. That's immoral. Also, we live in a society, I give a shit when they want specific pronouns to be used, to be treated by the governments for having their mentall illness supported, when they don't accept the idea that is good and healtier to follow the unique reality and not support infinite kinds of reality and subjective views of reality. It's my bussiness when my vote has the same value of someone who is affected by a mental illness and don't want to accept that. Etc.

>>723682824
Higher chance of mental illness, for one

>>723691688
You have just repeated what you said in the previous. I will copy-paste that.

First post:
sperm donation? impregnating a woman to procreate? they still can be fertile you know
Second post:
Gay people aren't typically infertile, and if they are, chances are it's not caused by them being gay.
Two gay men will not produce a child but a gay man is still ABLE to go and donate his sperm or have sex with a woman.

After my explicative answer:
Gay couples aren't able to reproduce. Are you saying that a gay can choose to have heterosexual sex and still be gay and also claim that being gay isn't a choice?
If being gay is a choice and a gay man can have sex like a non-gay whenever he wants then it must be a mental condition by definition.
Even if rich gay people live in a society that allows them to buy kids and raise them, gay couples are still not able to reproduce...Building mechanical wings and giving them to people who think they are birds for supporting their condition does not make them birds.

Oh, you also added the claiming "Fucking a woman doesn't make you straight and being gay isn't a choice, it just happens." that is absolutely illogical and doesn't even deserve answer.
"Being gay isn't a choice..it happens..but a gay can fuck a woman whenever he wants to get a child and then take the child away from the woman (usually paying her) and raising the child with another gay with whom he couldn't reproduce as a couple"
Wow...

>>723692182
There's no statistical or clinical significant association actually.

>>723690629
>Not an argument.
Didn't say it was.

>Also, there's no significant study showing that being gay is associated with higher mental illness only due to social stigma.

Here are some:
>https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/poor-mental-health-among-homosexuals-caused-by-lifestyle-itself-or-discrimi
>Private Lives 2 survey, purports to show that the much higher rate of psychiatric treatment sought by homosexuals, compared to heterosexuals, is due to discrimination and lack of societal “acceptance.” At the same time, other studies have come to repeated conclusions indicating that “the male homosexual lifestyle itself” is a primary cause of these mental health issues.

Gay "lifestyle" has nothing to do with men simply being attracted to men, but there is social stigma about men simply being attracted to men.

>http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/LGBhealth/Pages/Mentalhealth.aspx
>Although society has changed and homophobic prejudice is less common than it used to be, most lesbian, gay and bisexual people have experienced a range of difficulties in their lives. These can contribute to mental health problems.

>http://www.care2.com/causes/why-are-gay-people-more-likely-to-have-mental-health-problems.html
>“The results raise the possibility that the poorer health reported by sexual minority group members may be due in part to hostile and stressful social environments created by the stigma, prejudice and discrimination that they face,”


>I have a question: is being a pedophile a choice?
No. You're attracted to what you're attracted to. But being a pedophile doesn't mean you're a child abuser. being attracted to children and sexually abusing children aren't mutually exclusive.

>You assume bad. Nice try (Not).
Are you saying that straight people DON'T engage in orgies or anal sex? Because if that's what you're saying, then I can link you to some studies talking about straight couples sex lives. And if that's not what you're saying, then my point is valid.

cont.

>>723680653
>If having a disease is by definition an harmful and disadvantageous physical or mental condition for a living being,
That's not the definition though

>>723680653
Because you're arguing in bad faith to find an excuse to hate gays. Just own that you hate fags, jackass

>>723692690
part 2

>No serious phychological study would ever claim that supporting (also politically) the idea that someone should be free and able to identify as an animal or something else is good.

The only official study done on anything to do with otherkin was done in 2008. 9 years later and otherkin are still a pretty unknown and unaccepted thing, so no studies have been done. Therefore, you can't say with any certainty what psychologists would say because they haven't said anything yet.

>I give a shit when they want specific pronouns to be used, to be treated by the governments for having their mentall illness supported, when they don't accept the idea that is good and healtier to follow the unique reality and not support infinite kinds of reality and subjective views of reality. It's my bussiness when my vote has the same value of someone who is affected by a mental illness and don't want to accept that

Reality is subjective, end of story.
If you're so angry about mentally ill people voting, then why don't you go out and protest against them.

At the end of the day, in 50 years you'll be on the wrong side of history. I hope to God that you don't live that long.

>>723691989
Look man, at the end of the day I don't care about the politics and the if's and but's.
I'm trans and schizoaffective so I am LITERALLY the last person to be telling someone that their perspective on reality is skewed. I'm not trying to make an argument for anyone but myself. I'm just trying to not be a cunt, man.

>>723680653
means being a minority is a disease

>>723692416
Ever had sex with an ugly chick you weren't really attracted to? Sexual orientation deals with attraction, not behavior.

>>723692416
Alright, I'll take your argument apart again piece by piece if it makes you happy, since you think i'm making no sense.

>Gay couples aren't able to reproduce.
Correct. Two men with penises are unable to produce a child.

>Are you saying that a gay can choose to have heterosexual sex and still be gay and also claim that being gay isn't a choice?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Men can get hard in odd circumstances. And it simply takes getting hard and ejaculating into a womans vagina to produce a child.
If a man is PHYSICALLY CAPABLE of doing it, then it can be done regardless of his orientation. Plenty of gay men have sex with women, before they realise that they're gay or gay men hiding the fact that they're gay from their wives.
The ability to have sex with a woman does not make someone any less gay.

>If being gay is a choice and a gay man can have sex like a non-gay whenever he wants then it must be a mental condition by definition.

OP's definition of a mental condition was
>an harmful and disadvantageous physical or mental condition for a living being
A man "choosing" to be gay does not fit this description.

>Even if rich gay people live in a society that allows them to buy kids and raise them, gay couples are still not able to reproduce

I agree. Buying or adopting a child does not mean reproducing.


I also don't understand why you thought me saying that being gay isn't a choice was "absolutely illogical" and didn't deserve an answer. But it doesn't bother me.

Straight = person
Gay = kind of a person
Trans = not a person

>>723694416
Thanks for the scholarly input, buddy.

>>723692690
>Didn't say it was.
At least you admit that.

>Studies...

Do you know how does a scientific debate work?
First one: Could you please explain how the researchers come to the conclusion that the higher rate of psychiatric treatment is due to discrimination? Researcher hypothesis are not a proof, especially in phychology, a non-exact science. There's no reference to the methodology used, and when there is, it's only about subjective questionaries submitted to the people studied. A transgender man says that he's depressed because he feel threatened by the society is not a proof. Data are a proof and data suggest that in Western civilized countries there is a very low rate of LGBT descrimination.
Second one: Doesn't even provide any specific study, only general notions and extracted vague quotations like ""As LGB people, our mental health is often under attack from various quarters, and sometimes we can find ourselves being our own worst enemy."
Third one: >"raise the possibility"
wow.

Also, have you seen the reference posted above in the screenshot? Guess not.


>No.

At least you admitted that. So you are also admitting that saying "We cannot be bad for something we have no choice in" is not an argument.

>Are you saying that straight people DON'T engage in orgies or anal sex? Because if that's what you're saying, then I can link you to some studies talking about straight couples sex lives. And if that's not what you're saying, then my point is valid.

Not at all. I just answered your question. "Also straight couples engage in orgies and anal sex without condoms all the time, but that's fine because they're straight, I assume?" No, it's not fine. you assume bad. Bad try.

>>723693197

>he only official study done on anything to do with otherkin was done in 2008. 9 years later and otherkin are still a pretty unknown and unaccepted thing, so no studies have been done.

You are really claiming that some serious psychological studies would ever claim that supporting (also politically) the idea that someone should be free and able to identify as an animal or something else is good.

Damn

>Reality is subjective, end of story.

Writing "end of story" after a claim does not make the claim true. Can a triangle have 4 sides? Answer this. (And also already answered)

Also, hoping that I don't live long is not an argument, just a proof that you are so mad and can't make a valid point.

>>723693395
You just proved me right.

>>723694129
>Correct. Two men with penises are unable to produce a child.

Great.

>Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.

Okay but should admit that saying something and repeating it, even if it's illogical does not make it true. Also, the fact that there are some gays that before where heterosexual is not a point and prove nothing. You know that there are many gay people turned heterosexual? How could you explain that and still claiming that it's not a mental condition?

>OP's definition of a mental condition was

Lol, I gave a definition of disease not of a mental condition. Have you even read?

>A man "choosing" to be gay does not fit this description.
So you're claiming that a man can choose to be gay. So it's a mental condition.

>I agree. Buying or adopting a child does not mean reproducing.
Exactly

>I also don't understand why you thought me saying that being gay isn't a choice was "absolutely illogical" and didn't deserve an answer. But it doesn't bother me.

I said that saying "Being gay isn't a choice..it happens..but a gay can fuck a woman whenever he wants to get a child and then take the child away from the woman (usually paying her) and raising the child with another gay with whom he couldn't reproduce as a couple" is illogical. Also, you haven't provided a single proof or reasoning showing that being gay isn't a choice so why should I even care?

>>723693831
How can a gay man reach orgasm while fucking with a woman? Also, there's a difference between fucking a woman you don't really like and having gay-sex.

>>723695686
>Have you even read?
kek

>Also, have you seen the reference posted above in the screenshot? Guess not.
No, because I tuned out immediately after someone WANTED a "justifiable" reason to hate a minority group.

>So you're claiming that a man can choose to be gay. So it's a mental condition.
The whole point of a mental condition is that it cannot be chosen. Also I was quoting you for the sake of the argument, I do not believe you can choose your sexual orientation.

>Researcher hypothesis are not a proof, especially in phychology, a non-exact science.

If psychology is a non-exact science then you've just proven this whole debate to be nonsensical because sexual orientation is psychological, not physical.

So neither one of us can truly be correct.
So the intelligent debate is done so I can say what I've been this entire time.

No one needs to justify their identity to you. You're a human piece of trash. I hope your lack of an open mind catches up to you and you're life get's destroyed because you're an unnecessarily homophobic and transphobic cunt.

>>723696454
People can accidentally reach an orgasm while being raped. It doesn't matter what the situation is, with enough stimulation your body will just get there.

File: IMG_0869.jpg (257KB, 640x1052px) Image search: [Google]

257KB, 640x1052px

>>723682698

>>723697145
You have finally came to the step "accuse your opponent of being homophobic/transphobic". If every trans or gay person act like that, It wouldn't be a surprise if studies with subjective questionaries show that depression in homosexuals is associated with social stigma. You just can't handle a debate and you get mad for not providing arguments.

>If psychology is a non-exact science then you've just proven this whole debate to be nonsensical because sexual orientation is psychological, not physical.

It's not me, it's the definition of psychology. It's a non-exact science. Take a dictionary. And also, this absolutely doesn't prove that sexual orientation is psychological. In fact, you haven't explained why. kek. This suggest that a bunch of researchers hypothesis and "raised possibilities" with low sample studied are not a proof in psychology.

Again, other ad hominems proving that probably a nursery school child would be better in providing more valid points than "Yoooouuuu'reeee hoomooophooobiiic REEEEEEEEEEEE"

>>723697595
Wow nice piece of paper. See many data here, alot of methodologies explained...damn..."a general introduction to the study of living things" wow!

File: 1488086114024.gif (2MB, 340x294px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 340x294px

>>723697595
MEOW

>>723697247
Yeah they can...but you still proved nothing, gay couples are still not able to reproduce.

File: 1487728095772[1].png (8KB, 344x341px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 344x341px

good fucking post, OP

>"If you identify as a cat, cool! you are a cat now! >"reality is subjective, get over it!"

KEK

>>723697145
You said reality is subjective. Why didn't you answer that? :^)

>Writing "end of story" after a claim does not make the claim true. Can a triangle have 4 sides? Answer this.

>>723698372
You asked the question "how could a man achieve orgasm by fucking a woman?", not "how could two men reproduce?"
two straight men couldnt reproduce either, but a single gay man and a single woman could still reproduce.

>>723698616
I know, but all started with someone attempting to provide "a gay man can, somehow, stimulating for hours, impregnating a woman" as a counter-argument against the obvious fact according to which being gay inhibits reproduction.
Also...really...there is NO scientific proof showing that a statistically significant amount of heterosexual people would achieve an orgasm during a gay sexual intercourse. And no, not even with rapes. Could you please explain a methodology used to come to this conclusion? How can a researcher know how many times a rape victims achieved an orgasm during the rape? I'm curious.

>>723698613
Because I have better things to do than justify why my existence isn't inherently disgusting by nature to someone on the internet that is bigoted and close-minded.

Debates like this shouldn't be a fucking piss fight to see who can sprout the same argument in different words for the longest amount of time.

OP asked the question "should homosexuality be considered a diesese", I gave my opinion and that was it. But yall wanna come along and just straight up insult my existance? I'm only going to try to have a normal conversation for so long until I call you exactly what you are - homophobic.

There was a post in between all of our discussions that literally said trans people aren't real people and NO ONE shut that person down or even disagreed except for me.
But I state actual facts and talk about my experiences as a queer person and suddenly its "REEEEEE FUCKING AUTIST "
Look at everything you have said.
And everything I have agreed with you on.
Not ONCE have you said "yeah, this is a valid point". You haven't taken a step back and looked at anything, you just want to keep going on about how horrible gay people are. Congrats.


>>723699070
Many rape victims have said that they orgasmed during their rape, their bodies just reacted.
Also have you ever met someone who served in the navy? I know anicdotal evidence isn't evidence but he has had plenty of "weird gay shit i did out at sea because everyone was horny and there were no women" stories

I'm not saying it's common, and I can't be bothered googling any research because it's 4am, I'm just saying it happens.
I know of a pair of friends, one a lesbian and the other a gay male, and she desperatly wanted a child. So despite them not being attracted to each other in any way, they managed to have sex and she gave birth to a cute little boy 3 years ago now.

I know a lot of gay people.

>>723680653
As for the HIV claim, that should not be included because being gay is not what gives you the HIV; gay sex does. Being gay does not mean you will have gay sex, so not all gay people are at risk for HIV.

>>723699619
Haha nice try! (Not)
>"I have better things to do than answering if a triangle could have 4 sides so I can prove that my claim about the subjectiveness of the reality is true"

pure kek

And yeah..other ad hominem attacks I will skip very easily and then:

>Many rape victims have said that they orgasmed during their rape, their bodies just reacted

Wow nice answer to my question "Could you please explain a methodology used to come to this conclusion? How can a researcher know how many times a rape victims achieved an orgasm during the rape? I'm curious."
No..not really a great answer. "They body just reacted"...was the researcher there? Oh but yeah you are providing anecdotal evidence and you said that!

Life is not only inherently meaningless, but more bad than good; in light of this it's morally wrong to reproduce. As such, gays are more morally righteous than any of you straightfags who will probably cave and pop a baby out at some point.

>>723699668
That's why I talked about "higher risk" and not HIV as an intrinsic feature of being gay like the impossibility to reproduce for gay couples. This only if We pretend, for a moment, that gay men do not practice sodomy and if We accept that there's another thing to add to the list:
the impossibility to have a complete sex intercourse without higher risk in faecal incontinence, etc.

>>723680653
>much higher risk of mental diseases

Being a nigger is a sickness too then?

>>723700086
Nihilist fedora tip spotted.

>"Life is bad and meaningless but I can't admit I don't follow ethics"

>>723700251
Already answered, see above pls.

>>723700302
>choosing not to follow ethics

Wow, it's like you want the complete breakdown of civilization and society.

Existential nihilism =/= ethical nihilism.

>>723699988
>"Could you please explain a methodology used to come to this conclusion? How can a researcher know how many times a rape victims achieved an orgasm during the rape? I'm curious."
Already made it pretty clear that I wasn't talking about research, I was talking about statements from actual rape victims.
Rape isn't something you can study in a clinical setting. You need consent of the subject, and by definition rape is non-consensual.

Also, to answer your precious "could a triangle have 4 sides" question, yes. it could. you could redefine what the word triangle means, or perhaps in a different plane of existence a triangle must have 4 sides. who fucking knows.


You really know how to nit pick and I'm done with being gaslighted by a fucking retard.

>>723680653
bump

>>723700817
I ask you to explain a methodology used to come to this conclusion and how can a researcher know how many times a rape victims achieved an orgasm during the rape and you've just answered:

>"Already made it pretty clear that I wasn't talking about research, just anecdotal"

I ask you if a triangle could have 4 sides and you answer yes, it could as much as you redifine what the word triangle means completely missing the point and promoting, again, a mental illness. You can't change definition whenever you wants to prove that you are right, in reality exists Euclideal geometry, study more Physics. In fact, also, defining a Triangle as a geometrical shape having 3 sides, if you want to define immediately after a Triangle as a geometrical shape with 4 sides you are not changing the first shape with 3 sides into something else in reality, you are just changing a name. You and your claims are the definitive proof that people justifying this reasonings are not only ignorant, but also promoting a sick idea in which you refuse to believe to the unique reality and in which 1+1=2.

(As in geometry, you can change the number 2 to 3 but the units don't change, you change the name used for referring to the units. 1 unit is still 1 unit in maths even if you call it 2 in another invented language. A unit fish plus another unit fish makes two fish living peacefully in their river)

>Yes a triangle could have 4 sides, the definition of a triangle is a social construct.

HAHA top kek I find really interesting the way that some people could bring theirselves even to put in discussion Maths Geometries and probably their even own existance only for justifying very weak arguments and illogical points they tried to support since the beginning. TOP KEK GEOMETRICAL SHAPES ARE A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT

>>723680653
damn yo u should publish your thoughts in a peer review article with your real name attached

>>723701856
Have you ever read 1984 by George Orwell?

>>723702912
YES.

>>723703075
Then you should understand why a triangle could have 4 sides.
It's like saying 2+2=5.

>>723703825
You can't change definition whenever you wants to prove that you are right, in reality exists Euclideal geometry and Maths.

In fact:
- We define a Triangle as a geometrical shape having 3 sides,
- If you want to define immediately after a Triangle as a geometrical shape with 4 sides you are not changing the shape with 3 sides into something else in reality, you are just changing what existing geometrical shape does the name "triangle" refers to.

You can refer to 2 units with the word "three" but these 2 units would not become 3 units, you only change the name used for referring to the existing units.
1 unit is still 1 unit in Maths even if you call it something else in another invented language. A unit fish plus another unit fish makes two fish living peacefully in their existing river.

Study more and accept that these claims are the definitive proof that people justifying this reasonings are not only ignorant, but also promoting a sick idea in which you refuse to believe to the unique reality and in which 1+1=2. You are really putting in discussion Maths and Geometries basics for being utterly ignorant and for supporting illogical arguments. You are saying that reality is a social construct, you are saying that 1+1 could = 5 because we could decide to use the graphic sign "5" to refer to existing 2 units.

kek