|
~Sauron~
|
Do you know this is a fallacy? Naturality can't be quantified. How do you judge based on quality?
Sorry but your scale is rejected since it is not scientific.
Shut up, Michelin. What are you talking about here? How can you say Naturality can't be quantified. There's a reason God gave you vagina. Your butt-hole is meant to eject not to inject. |
|
|
|
|
|
bawomolo (m)
|
In this case, naturality.
naturality based on what conditions? yours? I'm really trying hard to see the open mindedness here. You do know these same arguments were used in the cases against interracial marriage right? the similarities are amazing. |
|
|
|
|
|
Sagamite (m)
|
then why do bonobos have bisexual tendencies? what does being highly sexually charged have to do with it. Bonobos would rub their genitals against anything. Even a tree, a elephant or a hedgehog just to get pleasure. They would do it morning til night. That is not a bisexual animal per se, it just has an over-the-top sexual urge it will satisfy by any means. the thing is they are hounding those who deny them their freedom. You can disagree with their lifestyle but why deny them their freedom or beat them to submission like sauron the Nigerian Taliban? They would not stop at freedom, the would demand equality and acceptance BY FORCE. They would want to infest society with their perversion so my stance is not to give them an INCH to even start with. |
|
|
|
|
|
Krayola (m)
|
haha u guys still dey argue this nonsense.
@bawomolo. If he doesn't believe it he won't no matter what argument you make. If he can honestly say he thinks that all the evidence is tainted, then thats just how he feels. You are not going to change his mind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sagamite (m)
|
Do you know this is a fallacy? Naturality can't be quantified. How do you judge based on quality?
Sorry but your scale is rejected since it is not scientific.
naturality based on what conditions?
yours? I'm really trying hard to see the open mindedness here. You do know these same arguments were used in the cases against interracial marriage right? the similarities are amazing.
State one thing humans do naturally or occurs naturally to them that does not exist in animal world. You can't? I am will be waiting until you can. Well, that is just a useful test of naturality for you. Which western people?  Is it same western society that y'all flock to gain a better standard of living? Keep deceiving ya self u hia or better still why didn't you just stay back in nigeria where homosexuality is still seen as something of a taboo. Money and security is a bitch, but you still have to chase them anyway. But people like us would never raise a child here. We need to raise them is a place with the right orientation. Here, child manners and mentality is at the bottom. While you at it(taking me back to the good age), why don't we also go back to the days when Blacks and other ethnic
minorities were discriminated against
As far as I am concerned this particular change is for the better.
Please stop equating blacks to gays, it is rude! |
|
|
|
|
|
michelin89 (f)
|
@ Sauron
Nothing between my legs has been used to contribute to this topic. I think your sexuality plays a big role in the way you perceive Homosexuality. Could you see it as a threat to your own sexuality?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sagamite (m)
|
haha u guys still dey argue this nonsense.
@bawomolo. If he doesn't believe it he won't no matter what argument you make. If he can honestly say he thinks that all the evidence is tainted, then thats just how he feels. You are not going to change his mind.
Next time scrutinise your evidence before presenting it to me so I don't cut it into shreds. The next thing you would be doing is providing me with a write-up by Mohammed Abacha as proof that Sani Abacha was not a kleptomaniac. |
|
|
|
|
|
chic2pimp (m)
|
I am with you.
I am against all forms of discrimination.
I don't see non-acceptance of homosexuality as discriminition, that is just one of the dysphemism gay-propagandists use to suppress views, I see it as a good moral-stance.
How can be you be 'with me' when on one hand you say you are against all forms of discrimination and on the other hand you refuse see the non- acceptance of homosexuality as discrimination? . If you ask me for proof of straight animals, I would show you instantly. Yes, my mind is made up but since I am very liberal and open-minded, I am open to changing it once reasonable evidence is shown that homosexuality exists naturally in the animal world. Under this criteria: http://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=279591.msg3990475#msg3990475 Liberal ma foot. From what i've seen read from your posts, I am in no doubt that you are indeed very close minded.
Most of your criteria of accepting homosexuality also seems to approve of bestiality.
Deviant: a person or thing that deviates or departs markedly from the accepted norm.
Homosexuals = Deviants
Here you again. What utter rubbish!!!. How can you put homosexuality & bestiality in the same bracket? And you do know there used to be other things in the society not seen as the 'Accepted Norm', right? |
|
|
|
|
|
Krayola (m)
|
haha sauron sounds like Adolf Hitler on steroids!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Krayola (m)
|
Next time scrutinise your evidence before presenting it to me so I don't cut it into shreds. The next thing you would be doing is providing me with a write-up by Mohammed Abacha as proof that Sani Abacha was not a kleptomaniac. haha. . . u still don't get it. do u? |
|
|
|
|
|
Sagamite (m)
|
How can be you be 'with me' when on one hand you say you are against all forms of discrimination and on the other hand you refuse see the non- acceptance of homosexuality as discrimination? . Because it is not. Just like a necrophilic, a nudist, a peadophile or bestial can not use the word discrimination. Liberal ma foot. From what i've seen read from your posts, I am in no doubt that you are indeed very close minded. You want to define what open-minded is? Is your definition (like the Brirish people): Anyone that approves of homosexuality and support gays? Here you again. What utter rubbish!!!. How can you put homosexuality & bestiality in the same bracket? And you do know there used to be other things in the society not seen as the 'Accepted Norm', right? They both have pervert, unnatural sexual urges. Far better than you placing blacks and gays in the same bracket. One faces non-acceptance on a perception of superiority. The other on a percpetion of immorality. How can you intelltgently place them in the same bracket? Both bestiality and homosexuality are rejected based on morality. So please, the logic beats yours by far. |
|
|
|
|
|
chic2pimp (m)
|
haha sauron sounds like Adolf Hitler on steroids!!
I'll rather live with Adolf Hitler on steriods that's for sure. As the saying goes,the devil you know is better. . . . . . . .   |
|
|
|
|
|
Sagamite (m)
|
haha. . . u still don't get it. do u?
No, I got it. |
|
|
|
|
|
~Sauron~
|
@ Sauron
Nothing between my legs has been used to contribute to this topic. I think your sexuality plays a big role in the way you perceive Homosexuality. Could you see it as a threat to your own sexuality?
Threat to ma sexuality? Nothing threatens this dude, so save it!!! haha sauron sounds like Adolf Hitler on steroids!!
Adolf Hitler abi Idi Amin. |
|
|
|
|
|
chic2pimp (m)
|
Because it is not. Just like a necrophilic, a nudist, a peadophile or bestial can not use the word discrimination.
Oh c'mon now. You are just being strongheaded here. Because it is not. Just like a necrophilic, a nudist, a peadophile or bestial can not use the word discrimination.
You want to define what open-minded is?
Is your definition (like the Brirish people): Anyone that approves of homosexuality and support gays?
My definition of open mindedness is 'Someone Who Is Inclined To Respect Views And Beliefs That Differs From Your Own'. You definitely don't come under ths category. They both have pervert, unnatural sexual urges. Far better than you placing blacks and gays in the same bracket. One faces non-acceptance on a perception of superiority. The other on a percpetion of immorality. How can you intelltgently place them in the same bracket? Both bestiality and homosexuality are rejected based on morality. So please, the logic beats yours by far. You might see it as an unnatural sexual urge, I certainly don't. I certainly did not place blacks & gays in the same bracket. I was only using it as an example to show to you that all forms of discrimination is not acceptable. You really do think the world of yourself, don't you? . What is so morally wrong about two men having sex? Or do you believe that you are far superior to them? |
|
|
|
|
|
Sagamite (m)
|
Oh c'mon now. You are just being strongheaded here. No. I am I drawing valid parallels which is further boosted by the arguments by pro-gays for advocating acceptance of homosexuality. My definition of open mindedness is 'Someone Who Is Inclined To Respect Views And Beliefs That Differs From Your Own'. You definitely don't come under ths category. Well I am very inclined to respect views and beliefs that differ from my own in a vast majority of cases but not all. One of the exception is homosexuality and for some reason, despite my acceptance for a vast majority, you want to use one objection to label me as close-minded. Typical of gay-propagandists and western media brainwashing. I guess if you do not respect the view and beliefs of Al-qaeda and Taliban OR Bestiality but respect a vast majority of others, then I am entitled to label you close-minded too? Quality open-mindedness needs a FILTER. You might see it as an unnatural sexual urge, I certainly don't. If it was natural, you would see it in Nature rampantly. There are more than 10 million species of animals on earth, yet gay advocates are struggling to catch homosexuality comprehensively in one specie on camera. Yet, IN THIS DAY AND AGE, we are filming some giving birth in odd places, or going miles underwater to see creatures never seen before. But yet can not capture homosexual sex, only write that it exists. That tells me it is not natural. Sonthin wrong! I certainly did not place blacks & gays in the same bracket. I was only using it as an example to show to you that all forms of discrimination is not acceptable. Thank you. We are getting somewhere. You can place sexism, semitism, ageism, fatism, ethnicism in the same bracket as they are all discrimination based on SUPERIORITY. But GAYS? HELL NO! Cheap credibility tactics used by gay-propagandists. You really do think the world of yourself, don't you? . You can say that again. My swagga is serious. I am the star up in the skies. <![CDATA[<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch/v/LyaNlZaVOpc&feature/related" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch/v/LyaNlZaVOpc&feature/related</a>]]>What is so morally wrong about two men having sex? Or do you believe that you are far superior to them? Oh please! Disgust!!!! That is like me asking you what is morally wrong with a horse shagging a woman. It is unnatural, disturbing and an AWFUL sight. |
|
|
|
|
|
chic2pimp (m)
|
I'll get back to you. Lemme watch the champs lge footie first |
|
|
|
|
|
Krayola (m)
|
its not just a personal thing, its a societal thing to the extent that if we were all gay, humanity would go extinct. Any act that holds such a potential once adopted universally is a macro social danger and should accordingly be discouraged under law[/quite]
How could homosexuality possibly lead to human extinction? How could we all go gay? Are u comfortable and secure with your sexuality? |
|
|
|
|
|
bawomolo (m)
|
How could homosexuality possibly lead to human extinction? How could we all go gay? Are u comfortable and secure with your sexuality?
that's what homophobia does to the mind. why would someone think such a thing is possible in a genetically diverse human population. |
|
|
|
|
|
Chrisbenogor (m)
|
Just some years ago an argument like this raged on, only that time it was if black people should be accepted as human beings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sagamite (m)
|
Just some years ago an argument like this raged on, only that time it was if black people should be accepted as human beings.
Yeah. Peadophiles would soon be referencing this too as back in the day, as well as the similarity of their discrimination with that of the Palestinians in the present day. Moronic analogy. |
|
|
|
|
|
Deep Sight (m)
|
How could homosexuality possibly lead to human extinction? How could we all go gay? Are u comfortable and secure with your sexuality?
that's what homophobia does to the mind.
why would someone think such a thing is possible in a genetically diverse human population.
Krayola/ Bawomolo - please endeavour to read my post more carefully: I NEVER suggested that it was possible or likely that homosexuality would lead to human extinction. I stated that: ANY action which would lead to such if universally adopted, was a macro social reverse, or danger. What i simply mean is that a great parametre for judging the acceptability of an act would be an imaginary postulation of macro effects if universally applicable. We know that no act will ever be universally applicable but we use this postulation as a test for judging the acceptability or natruralness of any act. For example, in assessing the acceptability of being a vegetarian, we can try this test. If the whole world decided to become vegetarian (note: this cannot happen), no significant reverse would result to humanity. Indeed there would be great benefits such as excess cattle for wool, leather, clothing and many other cattle based commodities, thus leading to an economic boom. Also many meat-based dieseases would evaporate. The general well-being of humanity would soar, heart dieseases and cancer would be reduced, and people will live longer. It can thus be deduced that being vegetarian is not only acceptable, but to be actively encouraged. However apply the test to something like cannibalism. You will find that if the whole world choses to adopt cannibalism (note again: this cannot happen) then humanity is finished. Some persons can make a case that cannibalism is ok if limited to already dead persons who may have given consent for their bodies to be eaten. However we note that once human meat becomes general fare, the ripple effects will lead to a commercialization of human meat, and the sources of such meat will include murder. Humanity will be on a slippery slope to perdition. Consequently we can deduce that cannibalism is naturally wrong. Thus it is simply an imaginary way of testing that which is right, and in tandem with nature and that which is wrong, unnatural, and deductively reverse. Now, under no circumstances can you deny the efficacy of this test: it simply reveals things that are good and things that are bad in a very simple fashion. I challenge you both to apply the test to any other act or human tendency in existence (not homosexuality, since that is the present issue) and you will see the inviolable efficacy of this test. Now if you cannot produce ONE SINGLE human act or tendency that debunks the efficacy of this test, then you both must unconditionally and rationally accept that the test is also right as per its deductive result on homosexuality: to wit: that it is unnatural and an unnacceptable reverse. |
|
|
|
|
|
Sagamite (m)
|
To summarise:Homosexuality is immoral because it is unnatural! How is it unnatural?Point A: There is nothing we do naturally or occurs to us naturally that does not exist in the same fashion in the Animal Kingdom. Homosexuality cannot be natural if it does not exist in the same fashion in animal kingdom, hence homosexuals are not born gay (lest we forget, the major premisal question of the thread). It is either a choice or a malfunction in the human reproduction process that needs to be corrected, not accepted. Examples of natural occurences in humans that occurs in animal kingdom are birth defects, dwarfism, albinoism, race etc which one can easily get the evidence for through the web (Thank God, this is not the 80s when information is hard to get and facts can not be backed up except one is in the field). For gay-propagandists, there are 2 options left to you: 1) Prove my Point A is invalid. E.g. state ONE thing that occurs naturally to us that is not in existence in the Animal Kingdom. By doing this, you have proved it is not a valid test for naturality in humans. 2) Prove that homosexuality exists in the Animal Kingdon in the same fashion as it exists in the human kingdom i.e. meeting my criteria. Point B: http://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=279591.msg3990475#msg3990475Please don't show me pix where some moron faggot is saying some animals " appear to be kissing" and tell me the author has a PhD so I must believe whatever they spew as their reputation is on the line. Show me solid facts (a few scenarios) of an animals opting for the same sex despite the availability of opposite sex and engaging in sexual intercourse that involves ejaculation (which sex inevitably leads to). And don't tell me you can't show it but still maintain homosexuality is natural and exists in the animal kingdom when all other natural things can be shown EXCEPT the "natural" homosexuality in this ADVANCED DAY AND AGE! That would just be a dumb debater I should not was my time on. Or you can prove that any (or all) of the criteria in Point B is not valid assessment of homosexuality in animals. Otherwise, stop wasting my time with lame arguments. Arguments of "just accept it because homosexuals exist and it was practised in Greek and Roman times".Tight arguments!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Krayola (m)
|
For example, in assessing the acceptability of being a vegetarian, we can try this test. If the whole world decided to become vegetarian (note: this cannot happen), no significant reverse would result to humanity. Indeed there would be great benefits such as excess cattle for wool, leather, clothing and many other cattle based commodities, thus leading to an economic boom. Also many meat-based dieseases would evaporate. The general well-being of humanity would soar, heart dieseases and cancer would be reduced, and people will live longer. It can thus be deduced that being vegetarian is not only acceptable, but to be actively encouraged. Universal B12 deficiency is a potential hazard of everybody being a vegetarian. If everybody became a vegetarian we could all suffer as a result. Therefore laws should ban vegetarianism. Vitamin B12 Deficiency What Is It? Vitamin B12 is needed to produce an adequate amount of healthy red blood cells in the bone marrow. Vitamin B12 is available only in animal foods (meat and dairy products) or yeast extracts (such as brewer's yeast). Vitamin B12 deficiency is defined by low levels of stored B12 in the body that can result in anemia, a lower-than-normal number of red blood cells. Vitamin B12 deficiency can develop for the following reasons: Absence of intrinsic factor, also called pernicious anemia Intrinsic factor is a protein secreted by cells of the stomach lining. Intrinsic factor attaches to vitamin B12 and takes it to the intestines to be absorbed. An absence of intrinsic factor is the most common cause of pernicious anemia, and it typically causes the stomach lining to shrink (atrophy). This condition often is seen in elderly people of African-American or Northern-European descent. In these people, pernicious anemia develops at about age 60. In children, decreased levels of intrinsic factor can be an inherited (genetic) condition. When this happens, low levels of intrinsic factor produce symptoms of juvenile pernicious anemia in patients younger than age 10. Pernicious anemia occurs more commonly in people who already have diseases that are linked to immune-system abnormalities, such as Graves' disease, hypothyroidism (under-functioning thyroid gland), thyroiditis (inflammation of the thyroid), vitiligo and Addison's disease (adrenocortical insufficiency). Removal or destruction of the stomach Vitamin B12 deficiency can develop in people who have had surgery to remove part or all of the stomach. Overgrowth of bacteria Some people develop vitamin B12 deficiency as a result of conditions that slow the movement of food through the intestines (diabetes, scleroderma, strictures, diverticula), allowing intestinal bacteria to multiply and overgrow in the upper part of the small intestine. These bacteria steal B12 for their own use, rather than allowing it to be absorbed by the body. Dietary deficiency Vegans (strict vegetarians who do not eat any meat, fish, egg or dairy products) can develop vitamin B12 deficiency because they lack vitamin B12 in their diets. In patients with bulimia or anorexia nervosa, vitamin B12 deficiency also can be related to diet. However, your liver can store vitamin B12 for up to five years, so it's rare for diet to cause this anemia. http://harvardatoz.demo.staywellsolutionsonline.com/57,232756 However apply the test to something like cannibalism. You will find that if the whole world choses to adopt cannibalism (note again: this cannot happen) then humanity is finished. Some persons can make a case that cannibalism is ok if limited to already dead persons who may have given consent for their bodies to be eaten. However we note that once human meat becomes general fare, the ripple effects will lead to a commercialization of human meat, and the sources of such meat will include murder. Humanity will be on a slippery slope to perdition. Consequently we can deduce that cannibalism is naturally wrong. If the whole world decided to only have protected sex (could never happen but that is irrelevant, right?) we would all go extinct. Therefore protected sex should be banned. Thus it is simply an imaginary way of testing that which is right, and in tandem with nature and that which is wrong, unnatural, and deductively reverse. very little, if anything, is homogeneous in nature in terms of animal behaviour. Different species adapt to their environments differenly, and do what works in the system they have to live in. Also, some animals eat their young, and kill their sex partners. Should humans do that? The argument that what occurs in nature should be the model on which humans base their lives, IMO, makes our rationality irrelevant. We should just look at the wild and emulate? reproduction is not the only function sex serves. . . it can relieve stress, strengthen relationships, and contribute to happiness and overall quality of one's life. We do not intend to have children every time we have sex. If you feel that whatever value u get from those intimate moments with your lover should not be universally accessible to all human beings, because of their sexual orientation, then you are guilty of violating your own premise that what is good should be encouraged, and must be applicable and accessible universally. |
|
|
|
|
|
Krayola (m)
|
Point A: There is nothing we do naturally or occurs to us naturally that does not exist in the same fashion in the Animal Kingdom.
Humans have critical awareness. We can manipulate complex concepts and use very sophisticated language, We also have the capacity to plan, reflect, deliberate as a group, make rational choices, and for the most part we accept responsibility for acting. Since most of these characteristics do not occur in the animal kingdom as they do in humans, going by your premise humans are, by definition - UNNATURAL!! If, based on your premise, humans are unnatural, why should we act "naturally"? |
|
|
|
|
|
Sagamite (m)
|
Humans have critical awareness. 'We can manipulate complex concepts and use very sophisticated language, We also have the capacity to plan, reflect, deliberate as a group, make rational choices, and for the most part we accept responsibility for acting'. Since most of these characteristics do not occur in the animal kingdom as they do in humans, going by your premise humans are, by definition - UNNATURAL!!
If, based on your premise, humans are unnatural, why should we act "naturally"?
Everything you stated exist in the animal world. We are just better at doing it. Animals have awareness, communicate, plan, reflect, delibrate as a group, make rational choices and I bet accept responsibility for acting. Most of what you have stated is not natural per se, it is choice but it does exist in animals. My premise can never say humans are unnatural. Read it again. |
|
|
|
|
|
Krayola (m)
|
Everything you stated exist in the animal world. We are just better at doing it.
Point A: There is nothing we do naturally or occurs to us naturally that does not exist in the same fashion in the Animal Kingdom.
1) Human beings are autonomous and self-directing rational moral agents 2)We can make long-range and long-term plans, anticipate their consequences, choose among alternative courses of action, take responsibility, make and follow rules, engage in rational moral discussion and behaviour that affect both ourselves and others and are subject to moral appraisal. 3)We constitute a community of interacting autonomous beings, that have the characteristics above ^^, where moral concepts can develop, evolve, and be understood. I rest my case. . . . . . NEXT??!! |
|
|
|
|
|
Sagamite (m)
|
1) Human beings are autonomous and self-directing rational moral agents
2)We can make long-range and long-term plans, anticipate their consequences, choose among alternative courses of action, take responsibility, make and follow rules, engage in rational moral discussion and behaviour that affect both ourselves and others and are subject to moral appraisal.
3)We constitute a community of interacting autonomous beings, that have the characteristics above ^^, where moral concepts can develop, evolve, and be understood.
I rest my case.
. . . . . NEXT??!!
You struggle to differentiate between human choice and human naturality/biology. To you, going to school is as natural an occurrence as sweating. I am not surprised you will struggle to see homosexuality as a choice if it is. I don't debate at that level. My intellect is imperious to that, move. |
|
|
|
|
|
Krayola (m)
|
hahaha. this guy is very confused. You struggle to differentiate between human choice and human naturality/biology. Do we choose to be capable of being rational creatures, capable of doing all those things I listed, or are we born with that potential? Think hard this time. . .U're starting to look desperate. To you, going to school is as natural an occurrence as sweating. I never used "naturalness" as a criterion for how humans should behave. You did. That is your baggage not mine. But just for the hell of it, I'll respond to that straw-man The capacity to learn concepts taught in school occurs naturally in most humans and not in the rest of the animal kingdom. here is your video. . . <![CDATA[<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/IE0e0hCb7ME&hl=en&fs=1&" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/IE0e0hCb7ME&hl=en&fs=1&</a>]]>I'm done with you. U're an empty barrel. |
|
|
|
|
|
~Sauron~
|
Humans have critical awareness. 'We can manipulate complex concepts and use very sophisticated language, We also have the capacity to plan, reflect, deliberate as a group, make rational choices, and for the most part we accept responsibility for acting'. Since most of these characteristics do not occur in the animal kingdom as they do in humans, going by your premise humans are, by definition - UNNATURAL!!
You are talking trash. Termites have more organisation and are more responsible than Nigerians. Animals can do the basic things humans can do. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
bawomolo (m)
|
You are talking trash.
Termites have more organisation and are more responsible than Nigerians.
Animals can do the basic things humans can do.
humans are considered higher animals for a reason. Krayola is really going in. Let me just sit back and watch |
|
|
|
|
|
![Nairaland [Nigerian Forum] Home](http://www.nairaland.com/Themes/default/images/english/home.gif)
Author
