Logicboy03:


yawn

Sagamite:

Run, person!

[img]http://1.bp..com/_NvF-IYZ0LtU/ShrPHWXHphI/AAAAAAAABYw/Cib7Ld59AZw/s400/20090522-_MG_5694.jpg[/img]

Logicboy03:



Empty barrels love to claim things that they havent done.

wiegraf:

And shift posts and redefine his parameters. Or claim there are no 'true' ghey females when it fits his agenda. One of the dumbest things I've come across on NL, and that's quite the achievement of course. Ignore posts. Mask inanity in rhetoric (or whatever shouting f.ucktard is). Chest thumping like a gorrilla, he might as well pick up their ghey as well if he's insistent on doing only natural things, and do some p.enis fencing like bononos while he's at it. And r.ape his mother. And kill babies. And not use the internet or watch tv, etc. Basically disregard science. Or insist his gf digests him after they have s.ex. Etc etc etc

Of course, not state his case clearly as well.

ADD riddled and shallow...meh

Sagamite:

You are a person!

Say "Yes, sir".

You mean I shifted posts and defined parameters by shifting and defining 3 years before the date?

https://www.nairaland.com/279591/could-it-really-person-born/16#3990475

Or you must have "imagined" that was not me making that definition?

You are a what?

A person!

Fooooooooooooooooooool!

wiegraf:

And shift posts and redefine his parameters. Or claim there are no 'true' ghey females when it fits his agenda. One of the dumbest things I've come across on NL, and that's quite the achievement of course. Ignore posts. Mask inanity in rhetoric (or whatever shouting f.ucktard is). Chest thumping like a gorrilla, he might as well pick up their ghey as well if he's insistent on doing only natural things, and do some p.enis fencing like bononos while he's at it. And r.ape his mother. And kill babies. And not use the internet or watch tv, etc. Basically disregard science. Or insist his gf digests him after they have s.ex. Etc etc etc

Of course, not state his case clearly as well.

ADD riddled and shallow...meh

Logicboy03:



The guy's case is just sad. He never puts forward an argument and then argues with evidence.



There are no gay animals? lol Sagatard

Sagamite:

Shut the fck up, person!

Have you been able to defend your moronic arguments?

You are looking for an angle to distract from them? FFFOOOOL!

Logicboy03:

You have been debunked. There are gay animals. Same sex animals have sex. The evidence has been tabled. You just shout person and close your ears


[size=18pt]
Sagatard [/size]

Sagamite:

person, there are gay animals but absolutely none of the people that "proved" to you there are gay animals called them gay animals, you just must have "imagined" (like person weedgraf) that they are gay animals?

Product of a failed education that is misinformed and screaming his misinformation.

Logicboy03:

Wait did the article say that same sex monkeys have s.ex with each other or not?

Sagamite:

You are a person!

What you need to be explaining at the moment, moronic cretin, is why the authors don't call them gay animals.

I told you to show me gay animals.

I know you would not still get it because you are dumb but I will enjoy toying with your moronic arsse.

Logicboy03:

Simple yes or no

Sagamite:

You are a person!

You think this is a product of your failed school?

Let me educate your dumb arsse since you are a person:

I gave you a set of criteria. You need to produce something that meets it or state why the criteria is not valid, THEN give an alternative criteria that is superior.

Cretin!

Logicboy03:
Your criteria based on stale air from your azzhole?

Sagamite:

You are a person!

Say "Yes, sir".

You mean I shifted posts and defined parameters by shifting and defining 3 years before the date?

https://www.nairaland.com/279591/could-it-really-person-born/16#3990475

Or you must have "imagined" that was not me making that definition?

You are a what?

A person!

Fooooooooooooooooooool!

Sagamite:

So person you want to tell me if there are gay animals?

wiegraf:

Define gay, eediot.

Sagamite:

You are a person if you don't know what gay means in the context of the thread you are on.

Is that your way of attempting to run?

You scared, nigga? You scared!

Pussyclat!

Sagamite:

You are a person!

Stop stalling. If you are going to run, run!

Pussyclat!

So person you want to tell me if there are gay animals?

*Come on hyena. Take the bait. Move closer to the Lion*

Sagamite:

You are a person!

I asked you a very simple question, ANSWER IT!

"So person you want to tell me if there are gay animals?"

Why are you a pussyclat?

You come on a thread about homosexuality and your cretinous arsse is asking for definition of 'gay'. That is you attempt at stalling your slaughter?

wiegraf:

You could slaughter me by answering my question though. It would be easy too

Sagamite:


Whoo! The 2 hyena fucktards are back after running.

Even 8 Hyenas can never take on a Lion.

wiegraf: You moronic ego has taken a bash and you came back?

Okay gay means a homosexual.

Now tell me, "So person you want to tell me if there are gay animals?"

Logicboy03: You are a person that says there are gay animals, you still stand by that?

Lets hear your moronic arguments for homosexuality.

Please don't run.

wiegraf: Sagamite, you du.mb $hit, of course gay means homosexual.

There is plenty gay activity in the animal kingdom, that is undeniable.

So ghey sex documented everywhere.

As for exclusively gay animals, which is what your inane argument will revolve around (and which is what I wanted you to explicitly specify your royal retar.dness, hence the question), it is not as common, but still exists in the animal kingdom. Famous penguin same sex couples are known for instance. Roughly 10% of rams would rather ghey sex. 33% of a flock of albatross and a lot more documented cases are mentioned in this article

www.nytimes.com/2010/04/04/magazine/04animals-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Sagamite:

You are a person!

So your moronic arsse waited till late into the night when I would soon be heading to bed to come out from hiding despite constantly being on the viewing list?

Is gay behaviours in animals evidence of animals being gay?

Your moronic arsse does not know there is nothing we are that is natural that is not in the animal world?

Let me protect you from making a moronic statement by warning you in advance so you don't get too burnt to eat: understand the meaning of natural before you comment on it.

Show me or direct me to where there are exclusively gay animals. And don't give me a tome in the middle of the night after you ran for hours. Dig out the area of the article you think validate your point and post it.

Cretin!

wiegraf:

On the very first page, oh ignorant one

Sagamite:



The 2 person hyenas that I was calling out throughout yesterday and they were running like sissies waited till I went to bed to start screaming "where is the Lion"?

Even the cretin called logic boy that was avoiding answering a question got all boastful and more confident and finally screamed "there are gay animals".



So you believe there are gay animals but you could not answer my question asking you that simple question yesterday for over 2 hours until you saw another hyena show up and you confidence grew?



Pussyclats!

Now lets have a BURN FIRE!

So person wiefgraf, I said you should show me gay animals and you went to bring me an article (after running for hours) late in the night where this is in it:

Young would never use the phrase “straight couples.” And she is adamantly against calling the other birds “lesbians” too. For one thing, the same-sex pairs appear to do everything male-female pairs do except have s.ex, and Young isn’t really sure, or comfortable judging, whether that technically qualifies them as lesbians or not.

So let me summarise:

1) Even the article itself and the scientitst do not claim the animals are gay.

2) The birds do not have sex.

3) The birds incubate eggs which was produced through sex.

So, person, that is your evidence that they are gay animals?

You are a person! Say "Yes, Sir"!

Your evidence of gay animals is to show us birds that are exhibiting gay behaviours, not ones that are gay.

You are a person!

Come back here for your roasting!

I would not even worry about the person called Logicboy03 because I know his liver would have gone by now and he would be running. He would wait till the lion is sleeping before he starts ranting and giving opinions.

new york times:
But moreover, the whole question is meaningless to her; it has nothing to do with her research. “ ‘Lesbian,’ ” she told me, “is a human term,” and Young — a diligent and cautious scientist, just beginning to make a name in her field — is devoted to using the most aseptic language possible and resisting any tinge of anthropomorphism. “The study is about albatross,” she told me firmly. “The study is not about humans.” Often, she seemed to be mentally peer-reviewing her words before speaking.

new your times:
[b]Once together, pairs will copulate and collaboratively incubate a single egg for 65 days. They take shifts: one bird has to sit at the nest while the other flaps off to fish and eat for weeks at a time. Couples preen each other’s feathers and engage in elaborate mating behaviors and displays. “Like when you’re in a couple,” Marlene Zuk, a biologist who has visited the colony, explained to me. “All those sickening things that couples do that gross out everyone else but the two people in the couple? . . . Birds have the same thing.” I often saw pairs sitting belly to belly, arching their necks and nuzzling together their heads to form a kind of heart shape. Speaking on Oahu a few years ago as first lady, Laura Bush praised Laysan albatross couples for making lifelong commitments to one another. Lindsay C. Young, a biologist who studies the Kaena Point colony, told me: “They were supposed to be icons of monogamy: one male and one female. But I wouldn’t assume that what you’re looking at is a male and a female.” [/b]

wiegraf:
Anyways, like I already stated, 10% of rams prefer gay (I hope I at least don't have to point out rams are male, yes?). Famous penguins, etc as well. Hint, google 'exclusively homosexual animals' if you need more.

But I'll give you just a little more here though. They later describe some scientists that altered some flies and turned them ghey, and the 10% ghey rams have noticeably different brains from the rest of the population. So there you go a biological basis. Some animals can be born, or be modified to become, ghey.

Sagamite:

You are a person!

Say "Yes, Sir".

I told you to show me gay animals you are telling me "described as behaving like loving couples". Is gay behaviour equals gay, cretin?

Foooool, you "imagined they might have"? That is your evidence. YOU ARE A person!

Show me animals that have no interest in the opposite s.ex like the gays we have.

person, and if you had any brains, your best and most convincing chance is to find animals that are close to humans. Cretin, PRIMATES!

But feel free to use any animal you can find that is gay, don't say Saga is restricting me. I am just advising your moronic arsse.

Don't come back here to show me animals exhibiting gay behaviours, show me gay animals! FOOOOOL!

Sagamite: person, if you want to show me a gay animal, make sure you have a brain and meet the following criteria:

a) The animals for the study must be in their natural setting hence nothing is forcing them to show unnatural traits as the aim of the research is to show a NATURAL behaviour.
b) The animals must have access to both sexes of animals for intercourse but yet specifically and exclusively choose same s3x intercourse over opposite gender intercourse.
c) The gay animals must be a sub-set of the animals, not all the animals, as this shows some where born gay and some straight, not an overly sexed specie.
d) The subset of gay animals must be decently large percentage of the animals and they frequently demonstrate this desire/behaviour. It is not a SINGLE, RARE OCCURRENCE which shows a crazed animal. Remember a crazed animal is not a gay animal. Otherwise all we have proved is that animals too have mad ones.
e) There is penetration and expulsion as this shows that it is actually a pleasurable se.xual intercourse that has resulted from AROUSAL of the mating animals and they want to get at it just like same s3x do.
f) Ideally also show that there is exhibition of mating rituals between the animals as this proves that those gays that behave (talk, dress, walk etc) like the opposite gender are not some demented souls but this criterion is relaxable as I know it is hard to show.
g) Ideally also show at least 10 different types of animals that demonstrate all these, but this is also relaxable because I am confident one cannot even be found.

f and g are relaxable so you don't claim I am stifling your moronic arsse!

wiegraf:

Do you think I don't know about bonobos and their p.enis fencing? Ffs iirc, I was the one who actually mentioned them to you on your last fu.cktardric adventure in /religion. I choose these birds for reasons I highlight in my post, but your reasoning skills are so good they completely missed them. According to your definitions, a sizable amount of those bonobos are just performing 'gay behaviors' (in your speak), these birds on the other hand are the real deal. They simply don't have p.enises you clown. And if lack of sausage is your problem oh shallow mind, what of the ghey rams anyways?

You also failed to note that in my 'imagine' paragraph I explicitly state that I might be wrong, depending on how they keep their records. I even go further and state that regardless, that point doesn't matter. I leave them in the post just to show the depth of your thinking.

Sagamite:

You are a person!

Say "Yes, Sir".

So you can't prove they engage in sexual pleasure?

You moronic arsse keeps on emphasising female? Is it only females that are in those birds? What about the males? Why can you not show me they engage in coi.tus?

So, person, you believe those birds are gay when only the females engage in the gay behaviour? Only the females are gay? FOOOOOOOOL

If animals are gay both the male and female would be gay.

You are a person! Bonobos are highly sexually charged animals, not gay animals. They even rub their di.cks on trees that does not make them arbosexuals, cretin!

Gay animals will meet criteria (b) and (c), you dumb shyt! Bonobos fail!

Your moronic arsse brought "I imagine" as evidence to Sagamite?

You are a person!

wiegraf:


And what of the rams? Even on the basic, introductory wiki page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

"One report on sheep cited below states:

Approximately 8% of rams exhibit sexual preferences [that is, even when given a choice] for male partners (male-oriented rams) in contrast to most rams, which prefer female partners (female-oriented rams). We identified a cell group within the medial preoptic area/anterior hypothalamus of age-matched adult sheep that was significantly larger in adult rams than in ewes...[29]

In fact, apparent homosexual individuals are known from all of the traditional domestic species, from sheep, cattle and horses to cats, dogs and budgerigars."

Wiki -> sources.

And just about every other thing you ignored in my post? Like the flies turned ghey?

http://www.livescience.com/2094-homosexuality-turned-fruit-flies.html

Or the different physiology of the ghey rams

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3008-homosexuality-is-biological-suggests-gay-sheep-study.html

These as proof for biological factors in the ghey. And all the other things you willfully, or stoopidly, ignore or fail to comprehend in my post?

Enjoy another article, this one from Time this time

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1582336,00.html


And the birds are gayer then your bonobos you dip$hit, another time article written by someone with a functioning brain may perhaps explain to a sagatard what I mean. Hopefully, he can dumb $hit down to your level

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1905237,00.html

"[b]One particularly charged finding is that in most species besides humans, same-gender pairings rarely lead to lifelong relationships. In other words, when one attractive bonobo male eyes another in a lovely patch of Congo swamp forest, they occasionally kiss and then move on to other oral pleasures, but they don't bother anyone afterward about trying to legalize their right to an open-banana-bar ceremony. In fact, they are likely to move on to girl bonobos: most animals that engage in same-gender sex acts do so only when an opposite-sex partner is unavailable.

And yet the study's authors, Nathan Bailey and Marlene Zuk of UC Riverside's biology department, report some exceptions, like the laysan albatross. Last year, researchers studying a Hawaiian colony of albatrosses found that nearly a third of all the couples involved two females who courted and then shared parenting responsibilities. (Albatrosses don't have U-Hauls, so no lesbian jokes, please.) Male chinstrap penguins also form long-term relationships, at least in captivity. And some male bighorn sheep will mount females only after the females adopt male-like behaviors.[/b] "



EDIT: Google, brah, is a useful tool. For instance, this is fun, and actually sourced

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/the-25-gayest-animals

Sagamite:

You are a person!

Say "Yes, sir".

When did I post it? No, I did not post it, I bribed Seun to slot it in 5 minutes ago, moooron!

The criteria is dumb? How? Because it is above your level of thinking? That is the kind of challenge geniuses would put forward to even any Harvard professor instead of moronically nodding your head to whatever anybody with a PhD says.

Instead of even wasting time typing epistles, let me challenge your moronic, dumb, cretinous arsse to state why you think the criteria is dumb.

Let me clunk your daft brain with that your cretinous assertion first.

Oya, I am listening.

Sagamite:

You are a person!

Say "Yes, sir".

So I told you to show me an homosexual animal and then you show me a bisexual animal?

Is that not a matter of "are you reetarded?" or "what schools failed you?"

Cretin!

Sagamite:

You are a person!

Say "Yes, sir".

You mean I shifted posts and defined parameters by shifting and defining 3 years before the date?

https://www.nairaland.com/279591/could-it-really-person-born/16#3990475

Or you must have "imagined" that was not me making that definition?

You are a what?

A person!

Fooooooooooooooooooool!

wiegraf:

And shift posts and redefine his parameters. Or claim there are no 'true' ghey females when it fits his agenda. One of the dumbest things I've come across on NL, and that's quite the achievement of course. Ignore posts. Mask inanity in rhetoric (or whatever shouting f.ucktard is). Chest thumping like a gorrilla, he might as well pick up their ghey as well if he's insistent on doing only natural things, and do some p.enis fencing like bononos while he's at it. And r.ape his mother. And kill babies. And not use the internet or watch tv, etc. Basically disregard science. Or insist his gf digests him after they have s.ex. Etc etc etc

Of course, not state his case clearly as well.

ADD riddled and shallow...meh

Logicboy03:


Your criteria based on stale air from your azzhole?

wiegraf:

Yes, that very much describes his rather subjective and uncertain criteria. Thank you very much.
Changing positions left, right and centre. Shooting himself in the foot. You'd think he was running for some office, like maybe the Local Champion Award.

wiegraf:

Let's explore the various tactics of a species of eediot, sagatards, in action. Shall we?



Simple question











After I became mildly irritated



You could have just condensed most of those posts to one sentence. Just the one immediately bolded above. Note how long, and how much work was involved in getting you to do one simple thing, define your term. And note, that despite all that dancing around, you could only come with a moronic and inane definition.

Now, dictionary meaning of homosexual

Someone who practices homosexuality; having a sexual attraction to persons of the same sex

or

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homosexual

"1 : of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex
2 : of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex "

But let's take wiki's definition, which stresses primary interest

"Homosexuality is romantic or sexual attraction or behavior between members of the same sex or gender. As an orientation, homosexuality refers to "an enduring pattern of or disposition to experience sexual, affectionate, or romantic attractions" primarily or exclusively to people of the same sex; "it also refers to an individual's sense of personal and social identity based on those attractions, behaviors expressing them, and membership in a community of others who share them."

Of course, as you're an im.becile, I have to do your work for you. Official descriptions are simple enough, but you stress your definition as including orientation. I had define it for you so we don't waste time, yes? So we have a definition now, yes?




Examples and a link.



First bolded. What sort of gay? You've not stated you eediot. But what you mean is more or else orientation, or primary interest. You had not stated that, I had to for you, more or else. So now, I'll count it as the first instance of you shifting goal posts.

Second bolded, you do not define a term earlier, 'natural', but seek to use that to get an advantage here. Consider also, that you've shown clearly that you're quite the re.tarded and need others to define your terms for you (while you shout 'fu.cktard')

Third bolded again, stressing your shifting post. You've now added 'exclusive'



The evidence



First bolded, the irony is staggering

Second bolded, just hold on to that. Then add this which was stated immediately after, in the same @deity damned paragaraph, she explains why she doesn't call them gay, something you seem to have missed:



Her criteria for determining homosexuality are different from ours, you eediot.

Third bolded. You've now added another criteria, specifically coitus, or actual penetration between a male and a female. Why do I conclude that, because they specifically say this:

"For one thing, the same-sex pairs appear to do everything male-female pairs do"

And from that article, on that very page before you get to the bit you've quoted (out of context) they state this:



Anyone with half a brain would deduce that when she says this:
"For one thing, the same-sex pairs appear to do everything male-female pairs do except have s.ex"

She means all they don't do together is actual pipi penetrate vagoo. That is all they do not do. Therefore, as you're moaning about lack of co.itus making them not gay, your criteria for being gay after being shown gay animals is to now include the gay animals having co.itus. Something possible only between a male and female.

Do you understand how 4king stoopid you are now?

And again, shifting goal posts again, to include something impossible no less.




Okay, since it seems you want co.itus, I can at least give you penetration by male homosexual animals. Note of course, that with this stance you now imply there are no true gay lesbians. I pointed this out to you, but knowing how eediotic you are, I just indulged anyways. So there you have it, gay male animals, which I have already shown you, of course. I also provide evidence of biologically altering animals to become gay as a bonus.




First bolded I just find hilarious. And it's a ridiculous strawman. If I have to show you how then there is no hope for you, really.

Second bolded, mmm, I just did, more than once even, and both sexes to boot. Strawman or whatever you're doing much?

Third bolded, leading up to another strawman, I'll call it strawman B




The mother of all post shifting. I will ignore this for now. Don't even think I've read it more than once




These just highlight your folly.

First bolded, showing your strawman B. Deliberately changing history or reinterpreting it.

Second bolded, showing another strawman. Deliberately skipping details to misinterpret my position.



First bolded, wow. In your defense you've added 'pleasure' and tried to hide your emphasis on co.itus, probably after realizing your eediocy of implying only male animals can be gay (good sign that you can at least do that). Shifting post again, cowardly. You think the play on words, adding 'pleasure' here, will give you an advantage if you can somehow hide your earlier gaffes. By say, obfuscating by bringing up bonobos and stressing other inane $hit, strawmen, like what I'm going to show below.

Second bolded, you lifted the levels of re.tardation, again. Goal post shifting, now both sexes must have gay members. So they are not gay unless there are gay males? You 4king im.becile. So if there were no lesbian humans that would mean that gay men were not homosexual? 4ck you're stoopid. Anyways, strawman again. And note, there probably are gay males in virtually every vertebrate species at least, there just wouldn't be many. In this particular species it seems they just don't steal eggs (unlike penguins, which actually do). But that's besides the point.

Third bolded, strawman B again. I've told you the exact same thing, more than once sef.



First bolded, note also how they stress that every domesticated species has primarily gay animals, just not too many in some of their ranks

The second bolded, again, related to your silly strawman B. And why am I explaining to you how your position works anyway?

Third bolded, 25 4cking sourced cases of homosexuality as I had to define it for you (ie, orientation), in 25 different species...

The rest of the post is just awesome, related to biological differences and their correlation to homosexuality, which you've been ignoring




No, you 4king eediot, you don't even know what your assertions are. And I've already told you, virtually all the valid things in that list have already been demonstrated.




Just left this in for gigggles. Highligts your eediocy.

Man, I wanted to play some vidya games and maybe do a bit of work, yet I spent an hour plus on this $hit. Far too much folly for one person one would have thought, and I couldn't even cover it all. I'll be editing it hopefully soon. So, considering the resources I've expended on you, I would have to say your trolling was effective, good work sagatard! Though, again, I'm probably giving you too much credit, as most of that was not deliberate, it was rather genuine re.tardation

Also, don't worry, I know you have ADD as well, so you can digest this at your pace. Re.tard

wiegraf:

Yes, that very much describes his rather subjective and uncertain criteria. Thank you very much.
Changing positions left, right and centre. Shooting himself in the foot. You'd think he was running for some office, like maybe the Master Local Champion.

Logicboy03:

Thanks for your previous post. The Sagatard has clearly been exposed.

Sagamite:

What makes it subjective, person!

That is the exact form you find it in the human specie where we even have rules, why can't you find it in that form in animal specie where there are no rules?

Cretin!

Sagamite:

This is what this person is good at: sophistic claims of victory even when he is too dumb to defend his statement.

Sagamite has been exposed he shifted the goal post on an argument today based on his goal post being more than 3 years old?

What a shift it is then. person!

Logicboy03:
Sagatard the empty barrel.


Remember when you put forward a logical argument against gays? oh wait...you didnt. Fool

Sagamite:

You are a person!

Are you looking for a distraction from the fact you cannot defend your statement?

I will not give you an avenue to distract. Defend your statement logically and then you can move to arguing something else, fooool.

Logicboy03:


lolz....the argument was over ages ago when you were debunked with evidence

wiegraf: It's now rather sad...

Don't you have any more pics of lions and hyenas? That would at least mask some of your stoopid. Also no sagatarded post is complete without those, and of course an army of strawmen.

For one, you imb.ecile, you shifted posts several times on this thread. You refused to answer simple questions lucidly, and provided asinine definitions when eventually cornered. While fumbling and feeling the heat you brought out criteria from 3 years ago, which you may or may not still agree with. Either ways, looking at your criteria, it was all pretty much met actually, hence your shenanigans continued. In order to mask your failure, at one time or the other it was

gay people have to have co.itus...
females can't be gay...
Both sexes have to be gay...

WTF do you smoke? These demands are worthy of consideration as the most asinine reasoning on NL you mo.ron. None of them are on your 3 year old list of course, you just created the ultimate in egregious strawmen and post shifting on the fly to compound on the already rank stoopidity you had displayed.

You've gotten examples, and an ample supply at that. Also terms clarified for your reta.rded ass. As well as other arguments, like the flies altered to become gay, proving you can biologically turn some animals gay. You've refused to explain why your argument holds either ways, even if there really were no ghey animals. Again, why don't you rap.e your mother? It happens a lot in nature. And why are you typing and reading, surely these activities are not natural? Or you know any animals in the wild that can type?

My work here is done. Work on your stoopid when you can, it may be beneficial.

Kudos