₦airaland Forum

Logicboy03: Sagatard the empty barrel.


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

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.

[quote author=*Kails*]sagamite you are a madman!! [/quote]I do not disagree with that statement.

Logicboy03: Thanks for your previous post. The Sagatard has clearly been exposed.

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!

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.

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!

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

You are really a true person!

You mean you wrote all these instead of showing me gay animals that meet my criteria or discredit my criteria?

Despite all the lecture I gave the moronicboy?

You are a severe person!

So basically we should come to the conclusion you can not show me gay animals? You want instead to have an argument on what is gay?

payless: @Sagamite

Pls, my girl has just been called to bar in Nigeria and currently doing her NYSC. She really intend to proceed to UK for her Masters in Law. I need you to give me five great schools in the UK that will not cost too much money to achieve her goal. Her intention is to come back to Nigeria after her Masters and look for a very good job.

You help is highly appreciated.

I really can't give 5 great schools that will not cost money. You get what you pay for.

For Law, the premier schools are:

- Cambridge
- Oxford
- LSE
- UCL
- KCL

The last 3 are quite strong because they are London based and literally 10-20 minutes walk/by bus max to the highest courts, top chambers or law firms. Some of the top lawyers even go to the schools to give part-time lectures. Furthermore, senior law lecturers, career-wise, literally rotate among those 5 universities and those 5 have the strongest law alumni (hence the people that will make the hiring decisions to the top jobs after graduation, if one is like them then they will have a better chance).

These other schools are quite top too for Law:

- Durham
- Bristol
- Warwick
- Edinburgh
- QMW
- Nottingham
- Birmingham
- Manchester
- SOAS
- Exeter

That said, apart from Barrister roles, law firms try not to be elitist. They are the only elite career that visit the widest range of universities to hire students for their premium roles (Banking and Consulting only offer the 'inferior' roles to universities outside their small select list of target universities). I know top law firms visit UEL and Greenwich too to get the best of ethnic diversity. So they are not that bad.

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

You are a person!

What you need to be doing if you are well-educated, which you obviously are not, is destroying the criteria instead of running like a mugu and throwing sophism and conjectures like a person. I honestly think you are one of the dumbest people I have come across, as daft as weedgraf is, he still has at least triple your intelligence because he can at least make an attempt, no matter how dumb his attempt is. Your cretinous arsse runs or claim some deluded victory. You are the same person that said any prisoner that engages in gay se.x in prison despite not ever the type to do it outside prison is gay. You are a pure person.

Take a swipe, destroy the logic of my criteria. Not even a Harvard, Yale, Oxford and Cambridge team of professors can. I am that fcking intelligent.

It is because of criteria like that that most of the academic people deceiving your gullible and moronic arsse dare not call the animals "gay animals", hence say "gay behaviour", because it they did, their research would be thrown in the bin, person!

Your intellect is below my feet!

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

sailor1234: Poland, Romania and Lithuania are not the only countries in Europe. From the data you provided, almost all the countries from Western Europe have higher monthly average wage than UK.

Take a look at your data:

Austria: 1873 Euro
Finland: 2321 Euro
France: 2041 Euro
Germany: 2234 Euro
Luxembourg: 3189 Euro
Netherlands: 2591 Euro
Belgium: 1882 Euro
Sweden: 19 596 SEK (2229.82 EUR)
Switzerland: 4 948 CHF (4,095.26 EUR)
UK: 1442 GDP ( 1,771.46 Euro)

When the guy mentioned Europe, I believe he is probably talking about Western Europe/ Scandinavian and not Eastern Europe.
Starting salaries in my profession in UK is: £25,000 - £27,000 while in Norway it is 3 times that amount.

If someone is talking about Europe, I expect them to be talking at least of EU countries if not the entire europe.

When you look at EU countries, the UK is not 10 out of 27 countries, so I would expect average to be below that of UK.

Not to talk of the term "minimum for graduates".

Tgirl4real: D closest I can say I'm kinda guilty of is no. 7 and it isn't exactly as OP put it. I don't see anything wrong in going on a date with a guy dat u don't intend to date as long as u aint leading him on in anyway. D date would most likely be d first and the last sha.

If you want to play fair and apply the rules and ethics women demand for their own benefit, then you should tell him before the date that you don't think it is likely to lead to anything. And then tell him to take some few days to think about it, so the embarassed type does not go through with setting the date, and decide if he still wants to go ahead with it.

If after that he is still keen, then you have done nothing wrong and you have been ethical and followed altruistic rules like women like to demand from men (as if we are mumus that shouldn't think of our own self-interest too).

Logicboy03:
Simple yes or no

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

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.

Viewing this topic: wiegraf, Sagamite(m)

person weedgraf is still sitting there thinking "what fcking angle can I go now so it does not show this guy is murdering me".

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]

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.

Viewing this topic: Sagamite(m), wiegraf and 1 guest(s)

I see you dumb arsse.

Come and tell us how I shifted the post, person!

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

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!

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

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!

[quote author=*Kails*] [/quote]Why are you fretting, baby?

Look, I wanna tell you something because you are very dare to me. .....


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vU-WUbaqPW4&

Logicboy03: yawn

Run, person!

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