people having sex in bathroom...oh the HUMANITY!!

Ok, but I don't live in countries like the UK or New Zealand where it's illegal. So I'll leave the judge to not care.

Well why not take your Peodophile etchings down to the Police station and test that theory? Frankly I'm unsure why your coming out of the closet here, unless you're hoping it means you come across as Edgy? I'm pretty sure everyone reading your posts is completely impressed :rolleyes:
 
Well why not take your Peodophile etchings down to the Police station and test that theory?
A fine idea. Let me just bring these etchings on down there and see what they think:
24qtw0l.jpg

Frankly I'm unsure why your coming out of the closet here,
You really don't visit the forums much, do you?
unless you're hoping it means you come across as Edgy? I'm pretty sure everyone reading your posts is completely impressed :rolleyes:
This is my only goal on hl2.net
 
I (understandably, I hope) haven't read the whole thread, but weren't you claiming that homosexuality was choice?

More culturally irrelevant tbh.

You really don't visit the forums much, do you?

I hate to break it to you so brutally, but a Vegeta897 post rarely registers as a must read on my forum radar I'm afraid :rolleyes: :dozey:

This is my only goal on hl2.net

Such ambition your parents much be soo proud :cheers:
 
Culturally irrelevant? Don't we have gay subculture because the culture disagrees with you?
 
Good thing drawings are not child pornography.

Although I don't agree with it, some kid in Virginia got 20 years for a lolicon drawing. ****ing ridiculous in my opinion, as drawings are victimless. I think it pissed off the judge because it was obscene.

Look up lolicon in wiki


Kadayi said:
Such ambition your parents much be soo proud

Please stop trolling, and get down off your high horse.
 
Is your goal on hl2.net to be a complete twat?

If you can't take the punishment, don't go asking for it Vegeta. Simple lesson really. :dozey:

You're good at it.

Probably because I don't waste my entire life on the internet, but read the odd book now and then. :rolleyes:
 
Without genetic evidence to support your position your pretty much clutching at interpretive straws and presenting them as fact. Hell, I can remember coming home one day from school and finding the dog ****ing the cat. Should we determine therefore that dogs are into bestiality and perhaps do a study? Or would it be just as fair to conclude that animals are dumb, horny and will happily accept any port in a storm?

Sure, if you find that roughly 5% of dogs consistently and exclusively prefer cats to have sex with, then I'd say you have a pretty good case for a study.

Homosexuality is incredibly common in nature, so you can't possibly claim that it's not "natural". The animals in that list are not all like one male dog humping another, which is an act of dominance, not so much sexual preference, but there are also plenty of species that form long term relationships with another one of the same sex and even raise young together, or exclusively prefer others of the same sex.

I'm sorry of this is not black and white enough for you, but there's no binary on/off switch for fag in genetics, nature's more complicated than that. Just like there isn't a single gene responsible for intelligence, there isn't a single gene or environmental factor that determines sexuality, but to claim that there's no biological component in sexuality is ridiculous.
 
I'm not sure what natural is even supposed to mean in this sense. How is anything humans do 'not natural'? We are creatures of this world.
 
unless you're hoping it means you come across as Edgy?

I can't speak for Vegeta but I most certainly don't give a damn what people think of me. I just like posting things that are relevant to my interests.

A fine idea. Let me just bring these etchings on down there and see what they think:
24qtw0l.jpg

You really don't visit the forums much, do you?

This is my only goal on hl2.net

file.php


I should correct the picture. It's 12 years if the child in question is under 14yo, so a few years less for a 17yo. Possession is 5 years or 7 if the child in question is under 14yo. That's just SA it's different in the other states. The laws pretty messed up

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24801358-29277,00.html
Kids playing in a pond, in public. Pervert takes pics with his phone, child pornography charge. Parents not arrested for making "live action kiddy porn". Presumably the prosecutions case is that "We know you were thinking of fapping over those pics".

Next up in my predictions of noobs ****ing our society: "Man gets arrested for possession of K-Mart catalog. Police claim that he was thinking of fapping over the teen clothes section".

The disturbing thing is now when you do a perfectly normal* activity like taking a photo of some kids playing in a fountain - instead of coming down to some pretty clear laws, it comes down to "how much someone holding a (the) grudge wants to **** your life up".

You see what happens when P platers smartmouth cops - they get shit defected (for sometimes no good reason). Now if you are taking photos at the beach and smartmouth a couple of cops you could be up on a life-ruining CP charge.

Its pretty hard to take a normal pic of something happening in public and have it come out as CP - unless the crown is allowed to use the argument "We know you were going to fap over it". I mean WTF is that shit, and whats next? Pic of kid playing shitty christmas carols in the mall? Creator we *know* you have a trumpet fetish - clearly you were making CP :P

* For certain values of normal.
 
I'm sorry of this is not black and white enough for you, but there's no binary on/off switch for fag in genetics, nature's more complicated than that. Just like there isn't a single gene responsible for intelligence, there isn't a single gene or environmental factor that determines sexuality, but to claim that there's no biological component in sexuality is ridiculous.

It's not that it's not black or white enough for me, it's basically not black or white enough to pass a simple but indisputable rule of logic.
 
There is evidence that genetics and pre-natal hormone conditions affect sexual preference, yes. The 'gay gene is a myth' is because some people used to think it was the a major factor, or the sole one. It's largely accepted that biology does play a role, the debate is over to what extent.
 
Great points made on both sides. After reading the thread, I'm inclined to prefer Kadayi's logic.

However,

He raised the point that actions and only actions decide what a human being is, be it labeling what a person's career is, or what his sexual preference is. Desires, then, are irrelevant to what a person is, because desires are not actions.

I'm going to have to disagree with Kadayi's use of the following statement in response to Actions Vs. Desires:

So by that rationale even though I never killed lil timmy at school I'm a murderer because I thought about it?

Where I agree that a person with a desire to murder isn't the same as the murderer himself by rule of semantics (Murderer: one who murders. A murderer must murder in order to become a murderer, it is inarguable that the action is required), I disagree that this rule applies to sexuality.

If we take the assumption that homosexuality only exists to stimulate a sexual pleasure, then a person whose lusts yearn for sexual stimulation from the same sex makes that person by default a homosexual.

Taking that assumption, heterosexuality, then, exists only as sexual stimulation from partners of opposite sexes. Likewise, we are assuming bisexuality is and only is sexual stimulation from either (not regardless of) sex.

So we can't assume a man who only finds pleasure from homosexual behavior who has sex with a woman for whatever reason, and derives no pleasure from that woman, is a heterosexual, since the above assumption is that heterosexuality exists for the sexual pleasure from opposite sexes. A gay man that gets no pleasure from sex with a woman doesn't meet that definition of heterosexuality.

It should also be stated that outwardly, yes. The man would be judged by observers in the world as a heterosexual since he engaged in relations with a woman. However, what a man is and what a man is judged as can be two completely opposite things.

This then poses the previous-mentioned point raised by Stern, "is there more to heterosexuality than 'insert genital A into genital B'?"

Also, a separate question: A lot of people, understandably, make the point that people are who they are. A homo is a homo, etc. But can a person change his entire sexual preference from homosexuality to hetero, or vice versa? If so, would that contradict the belief that genetic coding dictates a person's default sexuality?
 
Like I said, the thinking is that genetics and pre-natal form part of the picture, environmental and indeed emotional factors are also important. There's clearly no single reason that determines if someone will be gay or not.
 
from what I've gathered, kadayi is saying you aren't gay til you've ****ed a man. Does that mean you're not straight till you **** a woman?
 
For most of you, it's an inevitability.
 
@jet_porkins

Glad your enjoying it. However:-

If we take the assumption that homosexuality only exists to stimulate a sexual pleasure, then a person whose lusts yearn for sexual stimulation from the same sex makes that person by default a homosexual.

Sexual pleasure involves physical action, unless there is physical action there can be no definition. Actions are of a time and it's presumptuous to assume that an action carried out is eternally definitive of future behaviour. Logically it cannot be assumed.

However, what a man is and what a man is judged as can be two completely opposite things.

On the contrary, you can only judge a person by their actions, nothing else matters in the face of empirical evidence as to what they occurred. Personal intention is wholly irrelevant.

from what I've gathered, kadayi is saying you aren't gay til you've ****ed a man. Does that mean you're not straight till you **** a woman?

Heterosexuality is equally as irrelevant, because as a definition it presumes future behaviour of the individual. The only time you can accurately qualify what a person was or wasn't with any real degree of accuracy is when they are dead and therefore in retrospect. Anything else is an assumption rather than a fact.
 
I think I like where you're going with this. So... kill everybody, and you would know each of them more intimately and individually then any of their closest friends.

bwahahaha.
 
it's a sad world where sexuality is based exclusively on physical acts ..the brain plays no part in t, it seems
 
"braiins?"

"BRAIIIINS"

"hahahBRAIIIIIIINShahaha"

"SEEEEEX?"

"no BRAIIINS no sex"
 
it's a sad world where sexuality is based exclusively on physical acts ..the brain plays no part in it, it seems

Bunch of electro-magnetic chemical receptors firing away, nothing more.

Love, hate, all these pathetic emotions are nothing compared to the power of the dark side Stern NOTHING!!!

* Clenches fist

;)
 
What the hell do you mean "nothing more", as if that isn't awesome enough.
 
Back
Top