Poll: What percentage of people are LGBT?

[Something Amyss]

Cute, but now the big question is how deep did you actually go here? How many articles did you find and read written by those who oppose gay adoption for example?

Did you seriously ask me to go beyond the facts and read from people who are specifically biased on the matter?

This is what I talk about with cognitive dissonance, your pretty much taking a pool of information and selectively gravitating towards only things that reinforce what you already think.

My not gravitating towards only things that reinforce what I already think. My gravitating towards hard facts and numbers over scary stories and things that are "generally accepted." You haven't offered any contrary evidence. Hell, you refuse to even bother backing up your argument at all.

This is the problem with conspiracy theories. Anything that disagrees with the conspiracy theorist, even facts, numbers, or science, is TEH BIAS.

So where's your evidence? Right, you don't have any. There are no facts or numbers that would bolster your claim, so you rely on the notion of "common knowledge" or what is "generally accepted." Sure, foster homes see a median abuse of under a tenth that reported in traditional homes despite greater scrutiny, but what about the other side? The side with a bunch of unfounded claims and superstition?

Well, you know what? We haven't heard from the "foster children are being used as slave labour for the ant people" side of things, or the "foster children are being used as a renewable food source" side of things, either. And you know? Maybe we should. Maybe we should teach ALL the controversies!


But if you ever come across some actual evidence, we can have a chat.

 

[Anti Nudist Cupcake]

Three to five percent of the population probably fall into the L and G categories; perhaps another .5% are genuine members of the T category; and there may be as much as twelve percent of the population on top of that who are bisexual in a sense that goes beyond situational sexuality (attention whoring at parties, for instance). In other words, I'd suggest a range for all categories between ~15.5-17% of the population. The percentage of asexuals, as well as modern... constructs like 'genderqueer', is negligible, and lower yet for authentic cases - perhaps one in one hundred thousand. These people are more typically hipstersexual [http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=hipstersexual].

Americans tend to estimate the number as being much higher, as much as a quarter of the population. This is stupid and they are dumb.

Please look at the poll results.

 

[Therumancer]

Cute, but now the big question is how deep did you actually go here? How many articles did you find and read written by those who oppose gay adoption for example?

Did you seriously ask me to go beyond the facts and read from people who are specifically biased on the matter?

[.

... and that right there proves my point entirely, the very definition of cognitive dissonance. You are pretty much convinced of what the facts are, so thus anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong, thus you will not even listen to what they have to say, and are impossible to convince. To be fair, the people speaking from that other position in many cases think and say the same thing about you and your position, as they feel they are operating from a position of having the "facts" and anything you and what media supports you is by definition biased. It's in a nutshell why I don't waste my time and tell people to do the research, because at the end of the day if your not willing to even read what the other side says, why should I waste my time at that point?

I tend to occupy a fairly unique position in these kind of social discussions due to experience, and having been on both sides of the debate. I actually understand your side, and am quite familiar with your arguments and justification having been there myself, meaning my attitudes come from a much greater pool of knowledge. Direct experience has shown that fundamentally what we're discussing when it comes to social issues, regardless of what they are, is idealism vs. realism. That's been going on since the dawn of civilization in one way or another and it's not going to end now. I think a big part of the problem is that so few people can ever be in a position to really understand the world and what people are like. One of the reasons why I've felt there should be a requirement that any politician capable of setting or intrepeting policy (or contributing to it) should have to have been involved for so many years in certain professions just to be allowed to represent and have an opinion. Likewise while I agree with the right of everyone to vote potentially, I do tend to think the right should be earned through some kind of public service much like Heinlein, even if not to that extent but that goes well beyond this argument. Basically, anyone wielding power, greedy or not, should be more than just an idealist and have some grounding in the true nature of human society and the people they will be governing. A society run largely by idealists tends to damage itself due to being impractical off of paper despite the best of intention. A society run by pessimistic realists actually makes things better by understanding the real problems and addressing them directly.

 

[Solsbury_Grille]

According to the Williams Institute, an LGBT think-tank at UC Berkeley law school, it runs around 2% of the population. (Williams Institute, 2011)

Williams Institute (2011) How Many People are Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender?, UC-Berkeley School of Law, Berkeley, CA (retrieved from: williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu)

 

[username sucks]

Oh sweet sugar, my thread has turned into a flame war[footnote]I use the term loosely, I know[/footnote]. Can we all just stop fighting, please?

Please look at the poll results.

The poll is very inaccurate in regards to the entire population. This is an LGBT friendly site, and a thread about LGBT stuff, so the poll will have far more LGBT people than there are in the general population.

 

[Something Amyss]

You are pretty much convinced of what the facts are, so thus anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong, thus you will not even listen to what they have to say, and are impossible to convince.

You have provided zero evidence for any of your claims, the numbers disagree. On side has things like numbers and the other has a conspiracy theory inference that "you won't listen."

One side is more credible. It's not yours. It's also not particularly surprising that you don't seem to understand why a lack of any actual evidence doesn't hinder your claims.

 

[Therumancer]

You are pretty much convinced of what the facts are, so thus anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong, thus you will not even listen to what they have to say, and are impossible to convince.

You have provided zero evidence for any of your claims, the numbers disagree. On side has things like numbers and the other has a conspiracy theory inference that "you won't listen."

One side is more credible. It's not yours. It's also not particularly surprising that you don't seem to understand why a lack of any actual evidence doesn't hinder your claims.

I've explained my position on everything including "evidence" and where to find it, and why it needs to be found by you quite clearly. Basically this entire discussion comes down to the argument that because social liberals control the media to the point where most overt sources are going to agree with you, that it must be true. My point is that I'm not going to waste time tossing you things if your not in a position to be able to understand the truth to begin with, it's something that you need to do on your own. As was stated here before "why should I listen to biased sources" which translated here is "sources not biased in my direction" since pretty much all evidence to the contrary is biased in it's own direction. The information is freely available out there, there is just no point in wasting my time if your not going to accept it anyway. Do the research, which you know is out there, then get back to me once you at least understand both sides, and we can have a discussion. Until you do that your pretty much unprepared for any kind of serious dialogue.

For the most part I talk more about cognitive dissonance than anything, which is why I take the approach I do. That is the tendency for fanatics to avoid, and automatically dismiss anything that does not fit in with their world view and what might threaten it, to the point that it might as well be invisible. In the past I've done a lot of research for people and had it thrown back in my face casually. I do not do that anymore (and haven't for years) I will only generally provide this kind of information if I feel it's actually obscure enough to be difficult to find or uncover.

I think it's you who really doesn't "get it".

Speaking purely hypothetically of course, let's say you were doing research into this kind of thing and decided "okay, who wields intimidating legal power in terms of defending a gay who abused foster kids". Groups like NAMBLA while insisted to be irrelevant by liberals who want to believe they are a fringe, have deep enough pockets that they were even considered an intimidating force by two of the three largest Resort/Casinos in the world which also enjoyed massive amounts of favoritism from the state legal system (as the state gets a portion of the revenues). Enough so, where homosexuals caught stalking kids (I mean caught red handed) needed to be handled with kid gloves simply because the bean counters didn't want to get into that particular slap fight. NAMBLA being one of the groups behind subtle propaganda campaigns to start out by saying "well, it's not illegal to be a gay pedophile" and things like that. They are also a group that pushes for say love between adults and children which can be expressed physically to be legally accepted as healthy and natural... and well, let's say I don't even like to talk about it. At any rate maybe if you started digging into them, you might for example run into discussions about the foster care system, manipulating it, and fighting the system if and when someone is caught. While not as overt as it has been in the past, The North American Man Boy Love Association is out there, but of course if you have ever heard of them your cognitive dissonance probably convinces you that they couldn't possibly be a factor in any way that might compromise your beliefs. What's more you'd never start digging into such an organization to see what they have to say because you know... that might cause problems. This is of course purely hypothetical mind you. Hypothetically someone might also start looking into oh say, cases invoked by people that oppose gay adoption, you know the "biased" articles that you don't even want to consider.

See, my point is that I'm familiar with both sides of this, on top of having real world experiences that reinforce what I say. You on the other hand only invoke or listen to one side, and have pretty much said you don't have a clue, nor care, about what the other side says. If your going to just ignore everything, why should I bother? On the other hand if you are open minded, do your own research, and learn about the other side, well, I think it might change your perspective. But even if it doesn't, at least then we'd have something to talk about.

It's sort of like a liberal going off about racists and white nationalists and stuff when they haven't even so much as checked out "Stormfront" themselves and is only acting on second hand information. Sure, like me you might read their stuff and their positions and not change much in your attitudes by agreeing with them, but at least then you know enough to disagree with authority. What's more, like it or not, even people you disagree with sometimes make some rather compelling points you wouldn't have thought of, which can provide greater understanding of situations being discussed. Nothing to do with this discussion, but my point is sort of that as much as I agree with them on this particular issue, your typical liberal has no idea what the difference is between say the KKK and a Neo-Nazi, so lashes out blindly without a clue, idealistic, but one of the reasons it oftentimes doesn't work out so hot is having no idea what your doing, and you look kind of silly when you start calling one the other for example.

 

[Ishal]

I have no clue of the percentage, but I generally assume it's higher than what a statistic would say, if only slightly.

Tumblr taught me there are quite a lot of sexual identities out there that I had no clue about. I've only ever known a few gay people and like one or two trans people.

I had a Bi-sexual friend at Uni and I still don't "get" it. But I don't have to understand it to respect it and grant them, and all others, the empathy they deserve.

 

[Something Amyss]

I've explained my position on everything including "evidence" and where to find it, and why it needs to be found by you quite clearly.

Except you haven't, you've simply implied that there's some top secret evidence I need to read between the lines for oh and I can'trust source X Y or Z because ponies.

You haven't offered evidence, you've offered excuses. I doubt you have any in the first place. That's what happens when you work backwards from a conclusion.

 

[kenu12345]

I have no clue of the percentage, but I generally assume it's higher than what a statistic would say, if only slightly.

Tumblr taught me there are quite a lot of sexual identities out there that I had no clue about. I've only ever known a few gay people and like one or two trans people.

I had a Bi-sexual friend at Uni and I still don't "get" it. But I don't have to understand it to respect it and grant them, and all others, the empathy they deserve.

Tumblr isn't exactly the best place to try learning about all that stuff. Just saying

 

[Random Fella]

Creating a poll on this site about it is pretty biased, considering the generally positive view the moderator and user base has toward them, there generally will be more than the usual percent present in the user base.

 

[Ishal]

I have no clue of the percentage, but I generally assume it's higher than what a statistic would say, if only slightly.

Tumblr taught me there are quite a lot of sexual identities out there that I had no clue about. I've only ever known a few gay people and like one or two trans people.

I had a Bi-sexual friend at Uni and I still don't "get" it. But I don't have to understand it to respect it and grant them, and all others, the empathy they deserve.

Tumblr isn't exactly the best place to try learning about all that stuff. Just saying

I'm aware, but it's the first place I've seen it all mentioned.

If I desire to learn more, I won't be doing it there.

 

[Vault101]

] Tumblr isn't exactly the best place to try learning about all that stuff. Just saying

why not? granted I haven't been to tumblr but I've been in similar online spaces and while people like to mock all the "SJW'ness I found it fairly useful

unless Tumble goes to otherkin levels of insanity

 

[kenu12345]

] Tumblr isn't exactly the best place to try learning about all that stuff. Just saying

why not? granted I haven't been to tumblr but I've been in similar online spaces and while people like to mock all the "SJW'ness I found it fairly useful

unless Tumble goes to otherkin levels of insanity

Its cause of otherkin levels of insanity that I advise people not to use tumblr. No offense to the site, but people invent all sorts of sexualities and pronouns there just to be important even if it means the same as other words. Sure, if you find a reasonable person there that knows there stuff sure, but alot of the people I seen there make up some weird chiz

 

[Vault101]

[snip.

I wasn't going to come back to this but whatever

the problem is this is just the same tired old right-wing rhetoric "common knowledge" this thing you keep whipping out like you don't have to explain, alongside "common sense" or "truthisms" problem is thease are vauge wishy washy ideas that "sound" kind of right but have no sold basis,

and when youre not doing that your explaining to us

[I/]no actually I'm right because I'm totes qualified to have very much correct opinions because I have experience in stuff, see if you were like ME then you'd get, if you would just SEE then you'd get it..... and did I mention I was totes liberal ageis ago so that gives me 10+ correctness points and WHY YOU QUESTION MY COMMON KNOWLEGE? *argle bargle* "liberal propaganda"[/I]

you're asking people to take your [I/]'pinions[/I] as objective fact because you say they should. You write paragraphs upon paragraphs but in the end you're saying NOTHING except "no I'm right because I say I am"

 

[Therumancer]

[snip.

I wasn't going to come back to this but whatever

the problem is this is just the same tired old right-wing rhetoric "common knowledge" this thing you keep whipping out like you don't have to explain, alongside "common sense" or "truthisms" problem is thease are vauge wishy washy ideas that "sound" kind of right but have no sold basis,

and when youre not doing that your explaining to us

[I/]no actually I'm right because I'm totes qualified to have very much correct opinions because I have experience in stuff, see if you were like ME then you'd get, if you would just SEE then you'd get it..... and did I mention I was totes liberal ageis ago so that gives me 10+ correctness points and WHY YOU QUESTION MY COMMON KNOWLEGE? *argle bargle* "liberal propaganda"[/I]

you're asking people to take your [I/]'pinions[/I] as objective fact because you say they should. You write paragraphs upon paragraphs but in the end you're saying NOTHING except "no I'm right because I say I am"

Am I though?

No offense Vault101, but I really don't think your a dumb person and you probably know better, and I've played the game back and forth with you enough to be pretty sure you get it.

But hey, let's spell it out in very simple terms. Very little that I say here is actually all that unusual or "radical" despite the general political leanings of these forums, we both know that the right and left wings are huge political forces in the US and neither are going anywhere soon. We both see the single digit election results, we both watch politicians game the system to force things through that they don't have support for. Despite strings of victories recently, gay rights and other social issues have been, and still are, a major political battleground, where honestly even a lot of victories are tainted by being due to only being achieved with bureaucratic finagling, and that even a lot of states are forced to legally accept something does not mean they socially accept it and are going to accept it. Heck we've got bloody governors going up before the court system and getting slapped down, and really that's not good because frankly when you start crossing governors who have popular support in their state to be there, your cruising to make things REALLY nasty.

On these forums, I hear people talk about how dumb conservatives, tea party guys, or whatever else are while the back patting is going on, and generally we know what side dominates discussion here so that's not unusual or unexpected.

I do not believe for a second that you don't think there are any sources that will reinforce what I happen to say, because we both know while a tiny minority here I am representing positions shared by millions of people.

At the end of the day this entire dance comes down to a simple fact. What is currently considered "mainstream media" will support what you say. I will ultimately wind up pulling from more "conservative", "alternative", or "fringe" media sources, or various kind of groups you are philosophically opposed to and bigoted against. At the end of the day your not going to accept those sources, only ones you happen to agree with, which you of course agree with because they support you. If I sit down to prove a complicated point across a lot of sources, it's not going to be worth the effort when we both already know you aren't going to accept those sources. Hence why I tell you to do your own research. We both know where what I think comes from, I mean I haven't been shy about my political affiliations and disrespect for what I see as liberally biased news sources. As far as I'm concerned if your going to read other news sources and seriously consider them, your going to do that without me needing to tell you.

See, every time you tell me to "prove" something that we both know is out there, that's just you resorting to the only feeble defense you can manage after I outmanuver you, or point to things you already know but haven't put quite that context yet. If I do humor you by going through the effort to make a point, that basically lets you have the pleasure of insulting my sources because yours are subjectively better.

I suppose you might think I'm the only social conservative on the planet or something and there has never been any kind of real organized or philosophical opposition to your point of view, but I kind of doubt that.

In short, stop screwing around, we both know what the deal is. If someone wants me to dig up some obscure piece of comic book information or something in another thread, yeah I'll do that (or try) because that can be pretty obscure. But basically if your asking me to prove social and political points, no, I'm not going to waste my time. Heck, if you want you can go listen to Rush Limbaugh or whomever yourself and go rant about what an idiot he is without me wasting my time providing material for you. I'm not an idiot, so don't act like it's otherwise. I've gotten enough praise for my posts from various places as well, and am sure enough people that "get it" where even if you somehow actually do not, that I'm not especially worried about the impressions I leave.

Besides, with the bias on this site, if I did for example start bringing up things that would reinforce me about gay rights and such I'd probably get moderated. After all this site made it clear that for making strong anti-gay statements you can be moderated. I could be accused of linking to "hate sites" or whatever, which had me somewhat concerned even before I was moderated, due to the fact that some of the groups I base information on are groups I do not agree with 100% or even actually oppose but in one way or another make or reinforce a point. For example if I started linking to NAMBLA crap that probably would end well, especially now. On the other hand though sites and groups connected to that are one of the best places to see the nature, size, and scope of a lot of the things I based my attitudes on. I doubt your unaware of them, but of course choose not to acknowledge them because it doesn't follow what you want to believe. At the end of the day if you really wanted information like you claim, you would simply go check those haunts out yourself. Just like if there was any chance of anything I linked from conservatively biased sources to contradict your liberally biased ones even mattering, you'd already be checking them out, and be entering these discussions prepared to actually discuss the issues rather than trying to get around them by pretending opposing viewpoints don't exist.

... and yeah I'm sure you've got your snappy answers and everything for this, but frankly we both know what the score is, I spelled it out because I'm a bit bored, but really.... I didn't have to and I think we both know it.

 

[Vault101]

[snip.

you know what? your right

certain opinions, held by you or whoever else ARE unpopular, both in society at large and this site (depending)

but don't cry to me about it, or act like it proves anything....it doesn't


[quote/]I do not believe for a second that you don't think there are any sources that will reinforce what I happen to say,because we both know while a tiny minority here I am representing positions shared by millions of people. [/quote]
that doesn't mean SHIT...that doesn't prove your right, millions of people don't believe in evolution eather

[quote/]What is currently considered "mainstream media" will support what you say. I will ultimately wind up pulling from more "conservative", "alternative", or "fringe" media sources, or various kind of groups you are philosophically opposed to and bigoted against. At the end of the day your not going to accept those sources, only ones you happen to agree with, which you of course agree with because they support you.[/quote]
its always something else isn't it? its the media bias, peoples biases, society's bias's


[quote/]Besides, with the bias on this site, if I did for example start bringing up things that would reinforce me about gay rights and such I'd probably get moderated. After all this site made it clear that for making strong anti-gay statements you can be moderated[/quote]
ooooooooohhhhhhhhhhh its the SITE's fault....gotcha

no actually its just generally unacceptable to be bigoted towards gay people because we have collectively decided that its all arbitrary Bourne out of years of religious/societal oppression


[quote/]I've gotten enough praise for my posts from various places as well,.[/quote]
oh look there you go again....

[quote/]For example if I started linking to NAMBLA crap that probably would end well, especially now. On the other hand though sites and groups connected to that are one of the best places to see the nature, size, and scope of a lot of the things I based my attitudes on. I doubt your unaware of them, but of course choose not to acknowledge them because it doesn't follow what you want to believe.[/quote]
BTW please tell me the existace NAMBLA isn't some "point" against LGBT rights because that's just fucking gross dude

what about NAMBLA? they're a group who are trying to piggy back on the same defences the LGBT community use....does that mean anything? the distinction between a consenting adult and a child are fairly obvious, but then peadopheilia is a whole other discussion.

Unless you were pulling another "but x do a thing" or "slippery slope"...I mean come the fuck on

[quote/]At the end of the day if you really wanted information like you claim, you would simply go check those haunts out yourself[/quote]
the problem is you think I'd look at your sources and come to the same conclusions as you, because they are "right" but it don't work like that

 

[username sucks]

Creating a poll on this site about it is pretty biased, considering the generally positive view the moderator and user base has toward them, there generally will be more than the usual percent present in the user base.

I not only edited this into my OP days ago, but also have already replied to several people with the following statement: I was well aware that this poll would not represent the population when I first created it. This is why, if you read my OP, the poll question is specifically stated to be separate from the question in the title of the thread.

Nothing personal to you, Random Fella. I'm just getting tired of people saying the same thing you just did, as if they didn't even read the OP or any other posts.

 

[Therumancer]

[snip.

you know what? your right

certain opinions, held by you or whoever else ARE unpopular, both in society at large and this site (depending)

but don't cry to me about it, or act like it proves anything....it doesn't


[quote/]I do not believe for a second that you don't think there are any sources that will reinforce what I happen to say,because we both know while a tiny minority here I am representing positions shared by millions of people.

that doesn't mean SHIT...that doesn't prove your right, millions of people don't believe in evolution eather

[quote/]What is currently considered "mainstream media" will support what you say. I will ultimately wind up pulling from more "conservative", "alternative", or "fringe" media sources, or various kind of groups you are philosophically opposed to and bigoted against. At the end of the day your not going to accept those sources, only ones you happen to agree with, which you of course agree with because they support you.[/quote]
its always something else isn't it? its the media bias, peoples biases, society's bias's


[quote/]Besides, with the bias on this site, if I did for example start bringing up things that would reinforce me about gay rights and such I'd probably get moderated. After all this site made it clear that for making strong anti-gay statements you can be moderated[/quote]
ooooooooohhhhhhhhhhh its the SITE's fault....gotcha

no actually its just generally unacceptable to be bigoted towards gay people because we have collectively decided that its all arbitrary Bourne out of years of religious/societal oppression


[quote/]I've gotten enough praise for my posts from various places as well,.[/quote]
oh look there you go again....

[quote/]For example if I started linking to NAMBLA crap that probably would end well, especially now. On the other hand though sites and groups connected to that are one of the best places to see the nature, size, and scope of a lot of the things I based my attitudes on. I doubt your unaware of them, but of course choose not to acknowledge them because it doesn't follow what you want to believe.[/quote]
BTW please tell me the existace NAMBLA isn't some "point" against LGBT rights because that's just fucking gross dude

what about NAMBLA? they're a group who are trying to piggy back on the same defences the LGBT community use....does that mean anything? the distinction between a consenting adult and a child are fairly obvious, but then peadopheilia is a whole other discussion.

Unless you were pulling another "but x do a thing" or "slippery slope"...I mean come the fuck on

[quote/]At the end of the day if you really wanted information like you claim, you would simply go check those haunts out yourself[/quote]
the problem is you think I'd look at your sources and come to the same conclusions as you, because they are "right" but it don't work like that[/quote]


First off, drop the tone if you want to have a discussion like this. I've been pretty polite with you, despite getting constant crap. The positions we both represent are both very unpopular with a whole lot of people depending on who your talking to. Hence why society is such a battleground in general. I'm not complaining about it, simply pointing it out.

Also whether you happen to like it or not, we've already had this discussion. You of all people know EXACTLY what I have against gay men. You also know damn well I can't talk about it because I'm pretty sure you were following the conversation where I got moderated, so drop the attitude. I'm not generally shy about expressing my attitudes because I've done it several times over the years, but you know damn well I'm being censored by the site if I want to post here, so don't even act like I wouldn't thrown down here again like I have numerous times if I could. If you have a problem with this, then you should actually be backing Gamersgate. If you don't have a problem with it, well we really don't have much to talk about because it shows exactly what your principles (or lack thereof) are.

Otherwise moving past all the posturing, baiting, rudeness, attitude, and nonsense, which I can't get into with you if I wanted to, you do have a valid point that if you did do the research, you might draw different conclusions, but at least then you would be prepared to actually discuss the relevant points. Right now, your typical tactic is to demand proof of things, you've sort of admitted now you know are out there. Something we've both known for a long time is complete BS. As far as slippery slope arguments go, sometimes when it comes to big issues the only way to recognize them or to deal with them is to step onto that slope. The big issues, the ones that matter, are oftentimes the most uncomfortable and unpleasant ones to solve. One of the reasons I am a social conservative is because I feel tolerance has become so popular because it happens to currently be the path of least resistance, the thing that involves people doing the least, and actually being able to convince themselves they are doing something by doing nothing. It involves various groups and issues, but I believe those attitudes have cumulatively lead to society being a more dangerous place. Sure crime is technically down, but at the same time people are far more paranoid, and even liberals frequently talk about how crazy things have gotten. As a general rule children don't roam the streets anymore, and indeed in some places it's even illegal (child endangerment) due to the risks. Not a point we'll likely agree on, but it a big part of my thinking on a lot of matters.

 

[Vault101]

First off, drop the tone if you want to have a discussion like this. I've been pretty polite with you, despite getting constant crap. The positions we both represent are both very unpopular with a whole lot of people depending on who your talking to. Hence why society is such a battleground in general. I'm not complaining about it, simply pointing it out.

I know that, but who's opinion is popular with who after a point is irrelevant
[quote/] You of all people know EXACTLY what I have against gay men. You also know damn well I can't talk about it because I'm pretty sure you were following the conversation where I got moderated, so drop the attitude. I'm not generally shy about expressing my attitudes because I've done it several times over the years, but you know damn well I'm being censored by the site if I want to post here, so don't even act like I wouldn't thrown down here again like I have numerous times if I could.[/quote]
it would have to be pretty bad if theyre moderating you for merely stating an opinion....but then maybe comparing gay men to peadophiles IS pretty bad. *shrug* I don't know where moderation stand between stating an opinion and saying something bad enough to get a warning


[quote/]If you have a problem with this, then you should actually be backing Gamersgate. If you don't have a problem with it, well we really don't have much to talk about because it shows exactly what your principles (or lack thereof) are. [/quote]Gamergate?.....HA!

no

Also my principles include "censorship is not a convenient defence for when I get criticised for saying shit"

[quote/] Right now, your typical tactic is to demand proof of things[/quote]
actually no, I'm more into asking people to explain their points

[quote/]you've sort of admitted now you know are out there.[/quote]
you call it "proof" I call it "information" I have not admitted SHIT


[quote/] As far as slippery slope arguments go, sometimes when it comes to big issues the only way to recognize them or to deal with them is to step onto that slope. The big issues, the ones that matter, are oftentimes the most uncomfortable and unpleasant ones to solve.[/quote]
see now youre just speaking in truthisms and wishy washy nonsense


[quote/]One of the reasons I am a social conservative is because I feel tolerance has become so popular because it happens to currently be the path of least resistance, the thing that involves people doing the least, and actually being able to convince themselves they are doing something by doing nothing.[/quote]
I can't say I agree, a lot of these views are characterised by going AGAINST the status quo

[quote/]It involves various groups and issues, but I believe those attitudes have cumulatively lead to society being a more dangerous place. Sure crime is technically down, but at the same time people are far more paranoid, and even liberals frequently talk about how crazy things have gotten. As a general rule children don't roam the streets anymore, and indeed in some places it's even illegal (child endangerment) due to the risks. Not a point we'll likely agree on, but it a big part of my thinking on a lot of matters.[/quote]
you mean the child snatchers? they've been around for ageis, wether or not its more of a problem or people are more aware (to the point of being too protective) I'm not sure....it doesn't have anything to do with the gays, however