Homosexuality

[blazedaces]

Well, I could just pull out the fact that many animals - including primates and humans among others - don't purely use sex for the intention of procreating and also use it for gratification, stimulation, and enjoyment.

With that in mind, Dre's argument holds no weight. Where is this view of homosexuality being a corruption of sex coming from?



Dre was saying how homosexual acts are corrupt because there is not an intention to procreate.

What I'm trying to say is that both homosexual and heterosexual people share that same instinct regardless of whether or not there is an ability to procreate. There is no corruption of anything since such a view is 1) relative, and 2) biased. It's nature regardless of your opinion, fair and simple. Both share the same basic urge, and saying that sex is only done solely because of the need or instinct to procreate by higher lifeforms is not entirely true.

Oh ... then we completely agree lol

-blazed

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

If you guys think my arguments are so bad, to prove it's not just your personal bias affecting your opinion, I want you guys to tell me an anti-gay argument that you would have accepted as a good argument. If you can't give me one, then it's evident you guys are too biased to have an accurate opinion.

Right okay, I'll give it a go.

Being gay is rather like being a black. It's something you are. It's natural for them, they can't really choose to be heterosexual, just like heterosexuals can't choose to be homosexual. It's not fair to call these people evil, for being the way that they are.

Also, if I chuck on my moral consequentialist hat, I realise that it doesn't hurt anyone (aside from STDs, but heterosexuals get that anyway), and it's done between two people who gain pleasure out of it. What's the problem?

After that, the point I raised earlier is actually sound. Homosexuality is a natural process, it occurs in nature. It's not corrupting anything.

 

[SuperBowser]

Dre. I don't need to provide you an argument... though I arleady did and you ignored it. There is nothing ''biased'' about rejecting your argument; circular reasoning is simply stating your opinion ad nauseum.

 

[Dre89]

See look what I come back to. A wall of text from people who feel they need to put their personal opinion across, that's not what a debate hall is about. How on Earth is this a good debate when there are five people bombarding one person? I understand you guys all have opinions, but if somone was arguing for homosexuality and he was getting attacked by four people already I'd have more dignity than to jump in and bombard him as well, that's not being a mature debater.

What infuriates me more is that 90% of posts here are based on straw-manning my argument. People are saying 'Dre you said X, but X is circular because, or what if...' when X is not what I've said.

Guest's argument is the only good one I've seen, of course I have an anwer to it, but he's the only person who is remotely close to understanding my argument properly and giving it a legitimate counter. I'll also give credit to Bob for actually providing an argument back, although I've shown in my previous posts why his argument is wrong.

90% of people are confusing when I say 'natural' for just sensual impulses, I've explained the difference. And then about half you guys say 'well X happens, so is that natural too?' when I've already explained that humans can corrupt their natures and commit evil.

And seriously why is everyone still saying 'Dre you said sex is ok if you want kids, so what if a gay couple wants kids?'? I've explained about five times already that's not what I said.

I guarantee 99% of people here don't even properly understand my argument. If someone can actually tell me what my argument is, and get it correct, I'll take you seriously and try to refute your points. Or if you want to make some headway in this debate, just elect one person (I'd personally chose Guest, ocnsidering he's the only person who's put accross a legitimate argument without totally failing to misunderstand my argument), and then I'll have a one-on-one debate with them and we'll get somewhere.

And the thing is I know that it's not just me not making sense, because I've explained this argument to people who disagree with it and they understood straight away. They didn't agree with it, but had they argued back, their arguments wouldn't be absed on straw-manning my arguments.

You guys have to understand why I'm so frustrated. Everytime I come to a thread looking for a good debate, I get bombarded by five people who twist my words or haven't bothered reading previous posts, then I'm forced to constantly explain myself time and time aagin, then I get people like CK criticising me for repeating myself. You guys have to admit you'd be frustrated too.

 

[KrazyGlue]

That what is natural does not equate to what is good.

I completely agree with you. The problem is that Dre has defined the natural act as an objective good.

 

[Deleted member]

I aleady tried to reproduce your argument on the previous page (and it isn't circular, I don't get where people got that from) along with some question about it, but so it seems to have been ignored.

Dre, you are about the only one willing to defend that side of the argument.

That what is natural does not equate to what is good.
I'll take an exchange I had with Dre in the abortion thread as an example.

Flying is a natural process, but it's not natural for humans to fly, yet we have airplanes
In that sense, the airplane is wrong.
The goal of flying is transportation, transportation is natural goal for humans.
In that sense, the airplane is acceptable.

The mere fact that the idea of the airplane is contradictory following "natural goods" should make it evident that what is natural doesn't equal what is good.

Well, uhm, no.
The humans goal is indeed transportation, the birds' to flying is having the advantage when collecting food.
A good example of this are seagulls (and other birds alike) that a continuously flying over a piece of fish inhabited piece of sea.

Who says what certain things (flying, sex) are intended for?

 

[Dre89]

Sorry if I missed it Veri, you can put that down to me being ganged up on by too many people.

Is it where you say "He isn't appealing to nature, but a rband of philosophy"? Because I am appealing to nature lol.

The whole point of the theory is acknowledging that your own individual logic won't find all the answers, so I surrender my logic and appeal to the most evident and empirical universal authority, which is nature. I basically concluded that whatever we are supposed to do wouldn't be rocket science to figure out, it would be common sense, what is natural.

The only reason why my ideas seem so farfetch'd is becuase we love so dettached from nature, yet had we been the first humans, with no technology, what I say would seem alot more sensible.

But a good debator can argue both sides. They can say first that they're pro-gay, which would make it even more of a testimony to their skill if they produced a good anti-gay argument.

Mewter is the only person who understands the concept of debating, which is why I consider him the best debater here by far.

 

[Deleted member]

don't sweat it, can happen
http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=10448092&postcount=146

 

[Dre89]

Veri I edited my previous post.

Right now you're the one calling us biased which would be "evident" from our posts, just pointing that out.

What do you exactly define as "sexual" pleasure? Because there are people that get "sexual" pleasure from things like bondage, where you basically only tie up the other person.

Yeah but that's a corruption. This is evidenced by the fact that the sexual act, whatever it may be (we are not assuming anything yet) is fulfilled through ejaculation. The ejaculation itself cannot be consciously controlled, and we are not satisfied until it is achieved. The condition informally known as 'blue balls' is where pain is felt in the sack is a result of prolonged stimulation without ejaculation. All this points to the fact that the point of sexual stimulation is to result in the ejaculation.

Now the purpose of the ejaculation is to procreate, that is evident. It is the only purpose the sperm serves. Not only that, but the insertion of the ***** into the ****** is instinctual, and the ****** is the only place where the sperm has any effect and because we have already established that the point of the act is to ejaculate, this is how I concluded what the 'natural act' was.

So to those people who thought my argument was ciruclar, it clrealy isn't, because I've just justified how I arrived at what the natural act is.

This is the (part of your) essay where you describe why humans can do "wrongs"

Why must all beings that lack this moral capacity you describe be purely means to an end? Why can't those beings flourish as ends in themselves?

Because as the paragraph shows, they can't change what end they contribute to. Take a coffee machine for example. It is designed for a specific purpose, it can't change what it does, the only things that can change what it dos are external factors, it can't change on its own accord. Humans can.

EDIT: also, how would replacing "humans" with "monkeys" make this paragraph incorrect? because the only requirement would be the moral capacities you don't explain further.

Sorry I don't understand what you are saying here. If you re-word it I can answer it lol.

Now correct me if I'm wrong but your argument goes as follows:

-Homosexual intercourse is providing said persons with sexual pleasure.
-This sexual pleasure is (a mechanism) is a stimulus for procreation.
-Procreation is an objective good
-Homosexuals are not using the sexual pleasure for its intended goal, which happens to be an objective good, and therefore corrupt their nature.

The first point stands or falls on the definition of sexual pleasure (see beginning), but in general I agree with the first 3 points.
The last point I can't really address since I (a probably others here too) don't know much about nature philosophy.

could you expand some more on what this corrupting of nature is, and maybe give an example or 2?
(living is and objective good therefore murder is a corruption, yes. but maybe something more subtle)

That's the closest someone has come to defining my argument, and you did it pretty well, but you're slightly off.

The reason why homosexuality is wrong is because they are not practicing the natural act. The problem is that sexual pleasure is meant for procreation, therefore it should only be practised in the natural act.

Now I've explained above that sexual pleasure is meant for procreation, and the only act which achieves that is the natural sexual act. Now because this is the natural act, it is good to practise it, but homosexuality is taking sexual pleasure, which I've shown is only meant to be in the natural act, and puts it in an unnatural act, and that is where the wrongdoing is.

I hope that made sense for everyone.

 

[Crimson King]

You're still wrong though.

Humans are nothing if they lack reason. Through reason we have a few assessments:

1. Earth is MASSIVELY over populated.
2. Sex feels good (by design).
3. People try to fight sexual urges and fail (Larry Craig and Ted Haggart).
4. Contraception exists.

Since homosexuality appears in animals, three is explained as natural development. Also, recreational sex has been in human history for centuries and animals engage in it, explaining part two in why we indulge.

Now, no one will deny that the Earth is overpopulated. Thanks to science advancing medicine, people live longer, have more kids, and use up resources. Thanks to numbers one and two, four comes along in an attempt to curb growth.

These are knowns.

Using reason, which we are all capable of, you can see why casual sex with contraception and homosexuality is a good thing. By people only having sex to procreate, you create a large increase in the population. This increase will hurt your quality of life, and as rational people needs to stop. Sex feels good and is instinctively planted in us, but by conquering nature through reason, we can indulge and not destroy our world.

You say we must look at nature, and I agree. Biology is important to understand things of the world, but only through reason can we grow.

 

[Deleted member]

Yeah but that's a corruption. This is evidenced by the fact that the sexual act, whatever it may be (we are not assuming anything yet) is fulfilled through ejaculation. The ejaculation itself cannot be consciously controlled, and we are not satisfied until it is achieved. The condition informally known as 'blue balls' is where pain is felt in the sack is a result of prolonged stimulation without ejaculation. All this points to the fact that the point of sexual stimulation is to result in the ejaculation.

Now the purpose of the ejaculation is to procreate, that is evident. It is the only purpose the sperm serves. Not only that, but the insertion of the ***** into the ****** is instinctual, and the ****** is the only place where the sperm has any effect and because we have already established that the point of the act is to ejaculate, this is how I concluded what the 'natural act' was.

But this would mean lesbian couples having intercourse would be okay, since there obviously isn't an ejaculation involved and the female orgasm isn't required for procreation.

 

[blazedaces]

But this would mean lesbian couples having intercourse would be okay, since there obviously isn't an ejaculation involved and the female orgasm isn't required for procreation.

This has to be one of the most hilarious posts I ever read... not only were lesbians used in the argument legitimately, but lesbians were used to prove that being gay is natural... according to Dre.

-blazed

 

[Aesir]

A lot of people don't use sexual pleasure for it's intended goal though, so honestly who cares? Hell Animals don't even use sexual pleasure for it's intended goal.

casual sex and homosexuality who really cares? As long as it does not infringe on ones natural rights I don't see a big deal.

 

[blazedaces]

A lot of people don't use sexual pleasure for it's intended goal though, so honestly who cares? Hell Animals don't even use sexual pleasure for it's intended goal.

casual sex and homosexuality who really cares? As long as it does not infringe on ones natural rights I don't see a big deal.

The problem with the discussion is assumptions about the "intended goal"... as if there is one.

A lot of people need to go take more courses in biology. Evolution is not linear. It doesn't follow any logical path nor does it necessarily lead towards anything at all. The "goal" of evolution is not to survive or procreate. Even the statement "survival of the fittest" is misleading because it implies that those beings who are most "fit" will survive. It often doesn't work like that.

It's not that we are smart or like sex today because that is the "right" course evolution took us towards... we just happen to be that way because the ancestors we had who were smart and liked sex tended to survive more...

Junk evolution is the biggest example to show this. We don't need our appendix today...

Along the same logical path, if homosexuality is wrong because it is unnatural, then it is JUST AS WRONG to remove your appendix.

-blazed

 

[Deleted member]

I completely forgot evolution is a goal in itself.

 

[SuperBowser]

To be fair, people remove their appendix because they will die.

 

[blazedaces]

To be fair, people remove their appendix because they will die.

Hence the foolishness in the argument...

Homosexuality is ok... ONLY if the alternative is death...

If the alternative is living a lie and never being with someone you love on the other hand... that's not quite bad enough to justify something "unnatural".

-blazed

 

[SuperBowser]

Oh I absolutely agree with you. I think we've had this discussion before haha.

But I think one could argue it is natural for a human to remove a diseased portion of their body from themselves without acknowledging that anal intercourse is natural in any way, shape or form. They are deciding what is natural rather than you

 

[Sieguest]

Well, uhm, no.
The humans goal is indeed transportation, the birds' to flying is having the advantage when collecting food.
A good example of this are seagulls (and other birds alike) that a continuously flying over a piece of fish inhabited piece of sea.

Who says what certain things (flying, sex) are intended for?

So do you deny that airplanes allow humans to fly?

Natural law holds that what is good = what is natural

Is flying in humans natural? No, else we would have wings, yet we fly using airplanes
through that logic, natural law would then conclude that the airplane is bad.

However transportation is natural, and in that sense natural law condones the use of the airplane.

This example shows how natural law contradicts itself. Therefore natural=/=good. Saying otherwise is allowing countless other contradictions to exist.

 

[Deleted member]

I implied that your example wasn't perfect, as the goal of flying (in nature) isn't transportation, while for humans it is.

I'm sure there are plenty other examples that works, this just isn't one.

but this is off-topic

(we should have a PG social room for things like this)

 

[blazedaces]

I implied that your example wasn't perfect, as the goal of flying (in nature) isn't transportation, while for humans it is.

There is no such thing as the "goal of flying in nature"...

Any possible "goal" you can provide I guarantee you I can find an example in nature that shows a different "goal"...

-blazed

 

[Sieguest]

I implied that your example wasn't perfect, as the goal of flying (in nature) isn't transportation, while for humans it is.

Then I'll refer you to Dre.'s post where he says that natural law varies from creature to creature.
Also, if the goal of flying in nature isn't transportation, then how come birds fly to warmer areas when winter comes.
Also, the definition of transportation is the process of being transported.
The definition of transport is to transfer or convey from place to another. If you are denying that the goal of flying isn't transportation, then how come the birds are in motion whenever they fly?

but this is off-topic

Not exactly, the center of Dre.'s post in natural law which states that what is natural equates to what is good. The center of this example is to prove that the thesis of natural law is not true.

A PG social room would be quite the luxury, but it's not like you're supposed to stay in the PG forever. At some point people will qualify to come into the DH and post in the social room there, which would make one in the PG kind of redundant in my opinion.

 

[Deleted member]

Then I'll refer you to Dre.'s post where he says that natural law varies from creature to creature.

Flying is a natural process, but it's not natural for humans to fly, yet we have airplanes
In that sense, the airplane is wrong.
The goal of flying is transportation, transportation is natural goal for humans.
In that sense, the airplane is acceptable.

What is the point of the example if it varies from creature to creature?

 

[Sieguest]

What is the point of the example if it varies from creature to creature?

To show that the thesis of natural law doesn't hold true, if you can prove the thesis in one area untrue, then transitively you can prove the other areas of it untrue as well.

 

[Deleted member]

To show that the thesis of natural law doesn't hold true, if you can prove the thesis in one area untrue, then transitively you can prove the other areas of it untrue as well.

hm okay, that sounds reasonable.

 

[thegreatkazoo]

So, I have a feeling that Dre. is starting to sound a lot like Hooblah2u2 & Shade613 in his posts regarding homosexuality (and perhaps other aspects as well.)

For those of you not a year into the debate game: Hooblah2u2 was essentially shamed away from the PG, and Shade613 room banned. Brass can correct me as needed.

Tonight, I'll see if my hypothesis is true and start digging the back logs of the PG. Good debating requires some good research.

 

[Sieguest]

To be honest, I don't think Dre. is like that. He just has a different view and his reasoning for his views rests on a philosophical basis. Philosophy isn't something everyone can agree on. Really it's agreeing to disagree. The only reason it may seem like we're completely ignoring each others points is because we're arguing two extremes of the continuum. Both saying that the other practically doesn't/shouldn't exist.

I do think that philosophy (in the term we're discussing it) is extremely hard to boil down to the least common denominator because of the nature of its subjectivity, in a sense, we can't really prove a philosophy factually wrong or right. It's almost like someone of one religion telling someone of another religion that they are wrong, neither can definitively prove it.
It's the agreeing to disagree in philosophy that makes it work, which makes it entertaining and stimulatiing although impossible to debate. That's my two cents.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Yeah, let's be mature here. Nobody should be insulting Dre, or making posts just to belittle him. This is supposed to be a place for intelligent discussion.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Dre, would you mind answering CK's point about the clitoris?

Before I reply to the quote, Dre, explain the function of the clitoris. It serves only for sexual pleasure and orgasms, has no method of procreation, and is easy to stimulate. If sex for pleasure only corrupts the biological intentions for the act of sex, why does it even exist?

 

[CStick]

philosophy and transitive thought aside, a different way of thinking does not change the fact that homosexuals of any species behave a certain way, such as having sex with each other.

the only thing to really argue about is how banning homosexuality is justified. In the many countries that support freedom (namely, freedom of expression and the pursuit of happiness and the freedom to live), I don't see how you can do that.

 

[Sieguest]

philosophy and transitive thought aside, a different way of thinking does not change the fact that homosexuals of any species behave a certain way, such as having sex with each other.

the only thing to really argue about is how banning homosexuality is justified. In the many countries that support freedom (namely, freedom of expression and the pursuit of happiness and the freedom to live), I don't see how you can do that.

This begs the question: Is Uganda one of those countries? No. This should also lead to another thing. Since Uganda is not like the countries that advocate freedom, should the countries that do advocate freedom impose their ideals on places like Uganda?

 

[Deleted member]

This begs the question: Is Uganda one of those countries? No. This should also lead to another thing. Since Uganda is not like the countries that advocate freedom, should the countries that do advocate freedom impose their ideals on places like Uganda?

Interesting question.
they would give freedom to those countries, but at the same time break with that very freedom by forcing it on a country.

I say no.
The USA has tried this in Afghanistan and is trying it in Iraq, and so far there mostly are civil wars going on.
even if you hypothetically could give (and by give I mean force upon) freedom to a country by simply flicking your fingers, it is debatable.

 

[thegreatkazoo]

To be honest, I don't think Dre. is like that. He just has a different view and his reasoning for his views rests on a philosophical basis. Philosophy isn't something everyone can agree on. Really it's agreeing to disagree. The only reason it may seem like we're completely ignoring each others points is because we're arguing two extremes of the continuum. Both saying that the other practically doesn't/shouldn't exist.

I do think that philosophy (in the term we're discussing it) is extremely hard to boil down to the least common denominator because of the nature of its subjectivity, in a sense, we can't really prove a philosophy factually wrong or right. It's almost like someone of one religion telling someone of another religion that they are wrong, neither can definitively prove it.
It's the agreeing to disagree in philosophy that makes it work, which makes it entertaining and stimulatiing although impossible to debate. That's my two cents.

Here's the thing: I'm not.

I'm calling to question his debate style, which is something I am allowed to do, no? Especially if said style could be detrimental to getting his point across.

Yeah, let's be mature here. Nobody should be insulting Dre, or making posts just to belittle him. This is supposed to be a place for intelligent discussion.

See above.

 

[BOB SAGET!]

This is just how bad it is for homosexuals in uganda: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euXQbZDwV0w

Though very funny, this is complete ignorance.

 

[Crimson King]

This is just how bad it is for homosexuals in uganda: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euXQbZDwV0w

Though very funny, this is complete ignorance.

It's only funny at face value (yeah, the anti-gay guy admits to doing "research" into homosexual behavior). The problem is this is exactly how genocides start. Listen at the end, he has the people in a frenzy on his side. No idea how many in Uganda are gay, but I do know it's not possible to tell that someone is gay at skin level, so I can see a witch hunt/red scare situation developing over there.

 

[Sucumbio]

I'm calling to question his debate style, which is something I am allowed to do, no?

Absolutely.

Especially if said style could be detrimental to getting his point across.

I have advised him on several occasions how to better get his point across but ultimately it's up to him. I'm hesitant to compare him to those other two, but I'll also admit I don't really know those other two, so a comparison is difficult on this basis. I have come to understand Dre. as a Conservative Creationist. His approach to his position is typically unconvincing, and I do find most of the rhetoric he endorses to either be double-talk, non-talk, or some combination therein - lumping it as "philosophy" and then charging that those who cannot readily agree must be "missing the point."

That said, I'm not entirely sure what bringing light to this, or painting it equivocally would accomplish. Though there are some obvious opinions circulating about him as a DH poster, his ... angle, is unique (way unique, lol) and its this diversity that we ultimately encourage.

I believe your point is that there could come a time (if not already) when his style becomes disruptive? (and please correct me if I'm wrong) This would be why I recommended he read thoroughly and adhere to the "how to post" thread and its keen suggestions. I believe he has done this. In terms of his inability to post convincing arguments, well... it comes with practice, no doubt. In the past this practice would have been expected to be accomplished here in the PG. But, since the goal of the PG has shifted a bit, we'll just say that Dre. has room for improvement, and (if you're reading this, Dre.) I'd suggest he commit to this practice here in the PG -with other PG members- before tackling the debates in the DH proper, but this is merely a suggestion, and not trying to imply that he shouldn't be allowed to, or capable of posting in the DH.

 

[thegreatkazoo]

Absolutely.

I already knew that. I'll leave it to you to piece together why I would say that.

I have advised him on several occasions how to better get his point across but ultimately it's up to him. I'm hesitant to compare him to those other two, but I'll also admit I don't really know those other two, so a comparison is difficult on this basis.

During the Lakers/Celtics game, I read, reread, and read the Homosexuality thread and copied every single post that Dre. made here. Let's say that the parallels are pretty glaring.

Methinks it's better that you don't make that comparison as well, as I had the pleasure (or lack thereof) of debating against the two.

I have come to understand Dre. as a Conservative Creationist. His approach to his position is typically unconvincing, and I do find most of the rhetoric he endorses to either be double-talk, non-talk, or some combination therein - lumping it as "philosophy" and then charging that those who cannot readily agree must be "missing the point."

That said, I'm not entirely sure what bringing light to this, or painting it equivocally would accomplish. Though there are some obvious opinions circulating about him as a DH poster, his ... angle, is unique (way unique, lol) and its this diversity that we ultimately encourage.

Ch*ld please.

Being a Computer Engineer, one thing our major encourages, if not requiring flat out, the ability to see through situations logically.

Having taken a class in which such circumvention of logic is often encouraged for the sake of a good debate (Philosophical Significance of the Darwinian Revolution), I know the game being played here. And no, I don't have to be a philosophy major to see it. It's almost as if he is creating a double standard on the relativism front--saying many a time that he is being attacked by "relativists," yet @ the same time hiding behind the same shroud as needed to make his own points.

And you'll have to pardon me if I take offense to this:

That said, I'm not entirely sure what bringing light to this, or painting it equivocally would accomplish. Though there are some obvious opinions circulating about him as a DH poster, his ... angle, is unique (way unique, lol) and its this diversity that we ultimately encourage.

It almost sound like you are calling me a liar on my claim. Please tell me that I'm just reading that wrong.

A few months ago, I said that Dre.'s debating style was smart trolling. for the same reasons you stated in your posts. I really hoped that I was wrong about that--as it turns out, I'm probably not.

Oh yeah--bringing the posts to question is definitely worth the time. Think about it--if the exact same posts gets someone booted from the PG altogether, then shouldn't similar action be @ least considered. This does not mean that I want Dre. stripped of his pink, provided that he use this as a learning experience as how to debate better.

Stuff.

As I said, this will be a pretty big post on my part when I'm done. So, it may take a little longer than originally expected. Stay tuned...

 

[Sieguest]

I'm increasingly skeptical as to the parallels you(Kazoo) are going to make. I've recently looked back at the posts of the two users you referenced earlier and I'm not quite sure the parallels are as glaring as you claim.

Also, I feel you call more than Dre.'s debating ability to question when your birng this up. Looking back at those other two users makes it seem more of an indiscreet insult as well as a bias on your part. I'll not assert that until after you make your next post concerning him.

Also, making your post here is going to further derail the topic than we've all ready had. If anywhere I would say post your accusation in the Center Stage.

 

[thegreatkazoo]

I'm increasingly skeptical as to the parallels you(Kazoo) are going to make. I've recently looked back at the posts of the two users you referenced earlier and I'm not quite sure the parallels are as glaring as you claim.

Also, I feel you call more than Dre.'s debating ability to question when your birng this up. Looking back at those other two users makes it seem more of an indiscreet insult as well as a bias on your part. I'll not assert that until after you make your next post concerning him.

Also, making your post here is going to further derail the topic than we've all ready had. If anywhere I would say post your accusation in the Center Stage.

You're right, this should head to the Center Stage.

I'll be sure to leave no doubt to my evidence as well.

 

[Dre89]

From CK
Before I reply to the quote, Dre, explain the function of the clitoris. It serves only for sexual pleasure and orgasms, has no method of procreation, and is easy to stimulate. If sex for pleasure only corrupts the biological intentions for the act of sex, why does it even exist?

The clitorus is also considered to consist of the ******l walls as well.

Sucumbio, I'm not a creationist. You say that when someone disagrees with me I just 'you're missing the point', but that's because they straw-man my argument and twist my words. Not that they disagree with me.

90% of people here do that. Guest is an example of someone who doesn't.

Also, you make that my arguments are so obviously flawed that they're indefensible. I find that hard to believe because the arguments I've used in this forum have earned me really good marks from lecturers who disagree with them.

In fact, there's a paragraph from one of my recent essays in this thread and the life is unfair thread. That essay as marked by a lecturer who disagreed with my argument, and gave me an 88.

Now at my uni, 80 is a high distinction, and in senior philosophy units very rarely does someone ever get over 85. My lecturer actually runs the uni, and he told me that in his entire career that is the fourth highest mark he has ever given.. Again, this lecturer disagreed with what I argued yet still gave it an absurdly high mark.

I didn't bring this up to brag. This doesn't mean my arguments are right, but what it shows is that the idea that my arguments are so flawed that they're indefensible is absurd, for people who are far more qualified in the field than any of us give them alot of credit.

I don't even understand how anyone here could consider themselves in the position to make a claim like that about my arguments, when 90% of you don't even understand what they are.

 

[Deleted member]

You know that you can't defend your point with high grades. just saying.

The clitorus is also considered to consist of the ******l walls as well.

Why? First you define sexual stimulation, or a sexual act, s something that involves stimulation of the male genitalia or a male orgasm, and now you just say the above without giving any further reasoning why.

There are also a lot of obscure "sexual" acts that don't even involve stimulation of either genders genitalia. how do you think about these acts?