Ex-gay?Follow

Well, it's possible that the person's natural feelings might have changed, but this guy in Belkira's article would be a pretty bad example. He admits that he still had some urges to bed guys which he suppressed using a technique he picked up from a Buddhist retreat. If his actual natural feelings changed, it shouldn't be necessary to suppress them in the first place. It just means he's getting better at ignoring them.

Still at it. So quick to throw out words with nothing to back it up.





Nice try. I had no intention to turn this into a thread about me, but it happens EVERY SINGLE time. I figured as much as you all complain about me "derailing" threads, that you would have taken my comment at face value and moved on. Instead, you all, not me, turned this into "Alma is stupid thread".

Your very first post in this thread was entirely about you, incidentally playing the victim.

It turns into a thread about you because you make stupid arguments, people can't resist the urge to point this out, then you you *** to the thought of everyone ganging up on you.

Frankly this is our fault, because we all keep giving you what you want.

He's merging different things while leaving facts out.

Argument "A" is not in reference to be against homosexual anything, but evidence that it isn't normal based on how our body operates, which is not the same thing as being unnatural and/or immoral. He is making it seem like that I was against SSM because the ***** goes in the ****** and that is stupid.

My full argument was that marriage is discriminatory and you either have to draw the line somewhere (discriminating against a group) or have it open to any union. Making the assumption that people would like to draw the line somewhere (i.e. not marrying minors,etc), homosexuality isn't safe out of popularity because the ***** goes in the ******. Because of that fact, one can make an argument of marriage on normality, which would exclude any union that is deemed abnormal.

Argument "B" wasn't an argument for or against homosexual anything either. It was a counter to homosexuals don't have the rights to marry. The fact that a homosexual person can marry isn't an argument to deny SSM, once again, that is stupid.

tl:dr: Don't listen to Eske.




Quoted again for evidence.. Read above. Eske just butchered two statements to mean some garbage that he made up. 90% of the time, that is what happens. Regardless if I failed to say it where it can be understood or not, people tend to make up their own arguments for me and argue that as opposed to what I'm really saying. At the end, their fictional argument that they are countering is in fact stupid.

Eske just made a great example of that.

Edited, Jun 23rd 2011 2:28pm by Almalieque

Regardless nothing. The fact that you can't properly communicate any thought is the whole issue. That's not entirely true. You inability to comprehend is equally at fault.

Srsly. The "***** goes in the ******" thing, was his response to someone asking what his problem was with homosexuality. He's said it a few times, though. Here's the one I had recalled:



Vintage Alma logic at work here. He doesn't support it, but he doesn't care about it. But he'll argue against it, even though he doesn't care. But of course, he's not arguing against it. And he has no idea why anybody might think that was the case.

As to that second example that I gave: people arguing for gay marriage cited inequality. Alma countered them, saying that it's already equal (per the above bizarro-logic).

To suggest that this "wasn't part of his argument against gay marriage" is mincing, at best. It was a counter to an argument for it. Anyone can take that for what it is.

Moron. What I said is, the why people do what you said.

I'm not sure what you getting at, but whatever.



Just as I said, I love to argue. If you bring up a topic, I will argue my point. If you use a stupid argument, I will argue against that regardless of my opinion. I still don't see how this is hard for you to grasp.

I state my positions in arguments. When it comes to SSM, most of the arguments are so faulty, that I just argue against their faulty logic (i.e. homosexuals are denied the right to marry). There's no reason to argue a point when people are thinking that nonsense. If someone were to say that gays shouldn't get married because that would increase AIDS, I would argue against that stupidity as well.

So, what part of that is so confusing?

In Every Thread. Fixed for accuracy.

It's not that he blames everyone else that kills me, though. Gbaji does that, and he's borderline tolerable. It's the way that he does it. It's the mental and argumentative gymnastics that he does to avoid having to consider that anything that anyone else says against his points has validity. The leaps and twists of logic are comically absurd on a never-before-seen level. And really, I had thought that I had seen the worst of that that the internet has to offer. Now I have to know that somewhere out there, Alma exists. It's sad.

Every post of his (the above included) is like a case study in a stubbornness disorder.

Edited, Jun 23rd 2011 4:33pm by Eske

I have admitted numerous times over that I don't always say things in the best way. The problem is when people admit to not reading my posts yet are somehow arguing against arguments that they didn't read, but made up. I counter with actual quotes and instead of saying "my bad, I misread your comment", you attack my "attitude" or some other irrelevant topic.

I can understand not understanding something the first few attempts of explanation, but after that, it becomes a comprehension problem.

I've admitted my horrible grammar and occasional bad wording, "you all" just don't listen. Perfect example, you complained about this debate about me, I'm asking again (three times now) to change the subject to something more interesting and here we still are, debating about me.

Why is that?

A few people have said that they don't read your posts (or skim them). I'd wager that some were being truthful, but I know that a few of them just said it to troll you. They're hardly the majority, however.

Also, you have a "knack" (if it can even be called that) for misremembering and misconstruing your previous posts. That, or you claim that they were actually about some originally unstated point that you never conveyed to anybody, as if you were trying to save it up as ammo against them when they inevitably took the posts at face value. Very weird.

To the last bit: I've never complained about this thread going off the rails. Frankly, I'm having more fun calling you an idiot.

Wait, wait, wait.. so people making up arguments to debate is due to my inability to comprehend? Really? Please explain that.



Trolling? How is that trolling me? That just makes them look stupid to admit to argue a point that they never read, but assumed. Then again, actually reading my posts and not comprehending simplicity is just as bad or even worse. You choose.



Really? I told Ugly that he was making stuff when he said that I never made that argument, when I went back and read where I made that argument. You butted in claiming that I told Ugly he was making stuff up about answering some question. Instead of admitting that you were wrong, you just left it.

You accused me of making stupid arguments of SSM and homosexuality. When I put those words in context, you quoted a block of text that you somehow thought meant something else. I yet again corrected you. And once again, instead of admitting to being wrong, you just left it.

So, as of now, the problem seems to be from people as you. I make mistakes all of the time, but when people put evidence in my face of my error, I man up, accept it and move on, unlike you.



Well, when the next person accuses me of "derailing" a thread, you should be vocal. Trust me, watching you sink in your own stupidity is quite amusing.

As I said, it's not "me", but people who are always against the "masses"