being gay overall is perfectly fine. A lot of gay people really do get on my nerves though.
Like when my brother came out of the closet he went from a relatively normal dude, to like a fucking walking stereotype. Glitter, prancing around in public, gay lisp and all of the over-the-top, exaggerated shit gay people do for extra attention. I don't care that he's banging dudes, but if you act like that I'm not gonna speak to you and will actively avoid you.
So it's painfully clear Robeller hasn't actually been around many homosexuals like he claimed.
He also fits that whole "insecurity" portion I made in my first few posts.
Glad we got a real example of them in this topic.
Lmao what the fuck am I insecure about ? What am I saying can be directed towards a woman Im not interested either.
Do they tell you're not interested because of the gestures and hand movements you make too??
Im convinced yall live on this website and not the real world. Lol. Let me just say this. A gay guy will know Im not gay and if he continues to hit on me. Then theres goin to be a problem. Same as a motherfucking woman. We gon have problems lol
I'm not saying that the number of gay people who hit on straight guys after knowing they're straight is absolutely zero, but that number is just a couple of steps above absolutely zero. ---
There is no problem that can't be solved by applying more yuri to it. In Torque We Trust
Nope. I'm straight and I've been hit on by gay dudes, and had an acquaintance (friend of multiple of my friends) do things like sucking on the handle of a fork like it was a dick and put his hand on my leg when we were both drunk. Didn't phase me in the slightest. I just ignored it. In my head I was all "whatever dude. I told you I was straight. If you want to try to get me anyway, I've got no sympathy for you for blueballing yourself." ---
Place-holder sig because new phone and old sigs not saved :/
So it's painfully clear Robeller hasn't actually been around many homosexuals like he claimed.
He also fits that whole "insecurity" portion I made in my first few posts.
Glad we got a real example of them in this topic.
Lmao what the fuck am I insecure about ? What am I saying can be directed towards a woman Im not interested either.
Do they tell you're not interested because of the gestures and hand movements you make too??
Im convinced yall live on this website and not the real world. Lol. Let me just say this. A gay guy will know Im not gay and if he continues to hit on me. Then theres goin to be a problem. Same as a motherfucking woman. We gon have problems lol
I'm not saying that the number of gay people who hit on straight guys after knowing they're straight is absolutely zero, but that number is just a couple of steps above absolutely zero.
lol @ straight guys pretending a gay dude saying "Hey cutie" is horrid sexual harassment.
Kinda sounds like you aren't so sure of your heterosexuality as it is, if something that benign is enough to put you on panic mode.
Seems like yall cant read at all today. If a guy tells me hey cutie I would definitely give him a response that Im not interested. But if he keeps going after telling him I aint gay then thats harassment.
I wouldnt even like it if a girl came up to me and her first words were hey cutie I would be uncomfortable. Is that how yall hit on people? My goodness lol ---
Seems like yall cant read at all today. If a guy tells me hey cutie I would definitely give him a response that Im not interested. But if he keeps going after telling him I aint gay then thats harassment.
So you decide this is specifically about you when I was just talking about the ones who do react that way
So it's painfully clear Robeller hasn't actually been around many homosexuals like he claimed.
He also fits that whole "insecurity" portion I made in my first few posts.
Glad we got a real example of them in this topic.
Lmao what the fuck am I insecure about ? What am I saying can be directed towards a woman Im not interested either.
Do they tell you're not interested because of the gestures and hand movements you make too??
Im convinced yall live on this website and not the real world. Lol. Let me just say this. A gay guy will know Im not gay and if he continues to hit on me. Then theres goin to be a problem. Same as a motherfucking woman. We gon have problems lol
How fucking insecure are you?
So insecure I support gay marriage and what not. Shit like that you know.
So insecure that youre making up hypothetical scenarios where you fight gay men for not properly using the fake idea of gaydar. So insecure that a gay man cant even hypothetically hit on you without you going off on a tangent about how youre going to kick his ass. So insecure that youve made like 50 posts trying to say how youre so heterosexual that no one would ever accidentally hit on you.
So yeah, youre pretty damn insecure regardless of how you feel about gay marriage.
I never said I would fight him if he just flirted. I would only fight him if he kept harassing me. Theres a difference. Harassing = hitting on me after not being interested, especially touching. Me fighting a guy because of that would be generous. Believe me. Some of the people i know, would probably kill them lol
One thing youre not finna do is to debate me on harassment. Seeing loved ones being harassed in front of me has left its mark. No means no. Get the fuck over it. ---
Seems like yall cant read at all today. If a guy tells me hey cutie I would definitely give him a response that Im not interested. But if he keeps going after telling him I aint gay then thats harassment.
So you decide this is specifically about you when I was just talking about the ones who do react that way
Signs. Its all about signs when you talk or by the gestures you make.
That's not exactly correct. That's how you tell if someone is interested on not. But that's not always a clear indicator or sexuality. Sorry if someone has said this already. Topic is going fast. Haha. ---
Official King of Kings Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around.
So it's painfully clear Robeller hasn't actually been around many homosexuals like he claimed.
He also fits that whole "insecurity" portion I made in my first few posts.
Glad we got a real example of them in this topic.
Lmao what the fuck am I insecure about ? What am I saying can be directed towards a woman Im not interested either.
Do they tell you're not interested because of the gestures and hand movements you make too??
Im convinced yall live on this website and not the real world. Lol. Let me just say this. A gay guy will know Im not gay and if he continues to hit on me. Then theres goin to be a problem. Same as a motherfucking woman. We gon have problems lol
I'm not saying that the number of gay people who hit on straight guys after knowing they're straight is absolutely zero, but that number is just a couple of steps above absolutely zero.
Just speaking hypothetically
I'm about 99% sure you haven't had direct interaction with a gay guy. I'm making this assertion based off the fact I used to feel the exact same way you did. ---
There is no problem that can't be solved by applying more yuri to it. In Torque We Trust
I didn't realise being gay prevented you having children.
I guess some people seem to forget this.
I said nothing about gay people being sterile. But they don't have any desire to reproduce with the opposite sex. And that's kind of how you sustain a species.
Having no desire to reproduce with the opposite sex in the common way doesn't mean they don't want to reproduce at all. Which the science we have now, they can still do it. ---
Official King of Kings Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around.
It's obvious as hell that the guy probably never even interacted with a gay person. He's probably the type who lives in a basement and makes up stories on the internet to pass the time. ---
It's obvious as hell that the guy probably never even interacted with a gay person. He's probably the type who lives in a basement and makes up stories on the internet to pass the time.
So it's painfully clear Robeller hasn't actually been around many homosexuals like he claimed.
He also fits that whole "insecurity" portion I made in my first few posts.
Glad we got a real example of them in this topic.
Lmao what the fuck am I insecure about ? What am I saying can be directed towards a woman Im not interested either.
Do they tell you're not interested because of the gestures and hand movements you make too??
Im convinced yall live on this website and not the real world. Lol. Let me just say this. A gay guy will know Im not gay and if he continues to hit on me. Then theres goin to be a problem. Same as a motherfucking woman. We gon have problems lol
They won't always know. So, you sometimes have to tell them... ---
Official King of Kings Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around.
So it's painfully clear Robeller hasn't actually been around many homosexuals like he claimed.
He also fits that whole "insecurity" portion I made in my first few posts.
Glad we got a real example of them in this topic.
Lmao what the fuck am I insecure about ? What am I saying can be directed towards a woman Im not interested either.
Do they tell you're not interested because of the gestures and hand movements you make too??
Im convinced yall live on this website and not the real world. Lol. Let me just say this. A gay guy will know Im not gay and if he continues to hit on me. Then theres goin to be a problem. Same as a motherfucking woman. We gon have problems lol
They won't always know. So, you sometimes have to tell them...
And if they dont , I will tell them lol simple as that. ---
lol @ straight guys pretending a gay dude saying "Hey cutie" is horrid sexual harassment.
Kinda sounds like you aren't so sure of your heterosexuality as it is, if something that benign is enough to put you on panic mode.
Seems like yall cant read at all today. If a guy tells me hey cutie I would definitely give him a response that Im not interested. But if he keeps going after telling him I aint gay then thats harassment.
I wouldnt even like it if a girl came up to me and her first words were hey cutie I would be uncomfortable. Is that how yall hit on people? My goodness lol
Actually, I've seen lots of people use that line. I personally don't, but do find it a little odd that it would make you uncomfortable if anyone used it. But to each their own.
robellr13 posted...
I never said I would fight him if he just flirted. I would only fight him if he kept harassing me. Theres a difference. Harassing = hitting on me after not being interested, especially touching. Me fighting a guy because of that would be generous. Believe me. Some of the people i know, would probably kill them lol
One thing youre not finna do is to debate me on harassment. Seeing loved ones being harassed in front of me has left its mark. No means no. Get the fuck over it.
Generous? Not at all. The number of people who would kill them in a bar because they kept hitting on them is pretty low. The number of fights are probably higher, so not really generous. Also, even though that number is higher, it's probably not as high as people think. Most people probably would tell them they're or interest and either leave or forcefully tell them to stop. And I know this may come as a surprise, but most would stop. ---
Official King of Kings Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around.
Likely their views are in line with biology and how reproduction works with heterosexual species.
It's how they PERCEIVE those things. That doesn't mean they are correct.
A lot of perceptions on what is normal are based on biology and how effective certain traits have in the scope of evolution and heredity fitness. That said technology today has made it possible for those with unusual traits or genetic defects to survive. In the wild and in the absence of assistance it is less likely they would survive let alone reproduce.
How someone perceives nature, biological processes, and evolution in terms of genetics, is independent of the truth or actuality. As Balrog said it nicely, evolution doesn't care what you think, the genetic materials are all that matter. A homosexual person may not breed, but it isn't hindering evolutionary processes.
And are you trying to suggest that homosexuality wouldn't exist without 'technological aid?'
And taking it a step further, even the genetic material doesn't really "matter" in the sense that we typically mean. Rather, it's just the thing that's relevant to the process of evolution. The process doesn't have the capacity to "care about" or "value" the genetic material.
lol @ straight guys pretending a gay dude saying "Hey cutie" is horrid sexual harassment.
Kinda sounds like you aren't so sure of your heterosexuality as it is, if something that benign is enough to put you on panic mode.
Seems like yall cant read at all today. If a guy tells me hey cutie I would definitely give him a response that Im not interested. But if he keeps going after telling him I aint gay then thats harassment.
I wouldnt even like it if a girl came up to me and her first words were hey cutie I would be uncomfortable. Is that how yall hit on people? My goodness lol
Actually, I've seen lots of people use that line. I personally don't, but do find it a little odd that it would make you uncomfortable if anyone used it. But to each their own.
robellr13 posted...
I never said I would fight him if he just flirted. I would only fight him if he kept harassing me. Theres a difference. Harassing = hitting on me after not being interested, especially touching. Me fighting a guy because of that would be generous. Believe me. Some of the people i know, would probably kill them lol
One thing youre not finna do is to debate me on harassment. Seeing loved ones being harassed in front of me has left its mark. No means no. Get the fuck over it.
Generous? Not at all. The number of people who would kill them in a bar because they kept hitting on them is pretty low. The number of fights are probably higher, so not really generous. Also, even though that number is higher, it's probably not as high as people think. Most people probably would tell them they're or interest and either leave or forcefully tell them to stop. And I know this may come as a surprise, but most would stop.
I like talking to you. You make good conversation.
But honestly, the hey cutie line only works when its like after club hours or while under the influence. If its at a social setting at like 7 pm, a woman I dont know comes up to me saying hi cutie. I wont be turned on or anything. I would be uncomfortable because its an awkward greeting gesture to me. Now if she slips it in after having a brief convo , then it will be fine.
And Im only saying the killing thing is because I have few friends that are felons that wouldnt put up with that. Its wrong but thats how it goes down here. My other friends will fight you or ignore you. Im not any of those unless you physically touch me or keep bothering me. Like I said, Im high 95 percent of the time. ---
That was an entirely pedantic response that didn't actually touch on the content matter.
It's an important distinction to make because all too often people use words that typically imply some sort of agency or intention when talking about natural processes, which people who don't quite understand the content then misconstrue into ideas like "[x] shouldn't exist according to evolution," as though "shouldn't" has any place.
That was an entirely pedantic response that didn't actually touch on the content matter.
It's an important distinction to make because all too often people use words that typically imply some sort of agency or intention when talking about natural processes, which people who don't quite understand the content then misconstrue into ideas like "[x] shouldn't exist according to evolution," as though "shouldn't" has any place.
It is almost entirely irrelevant to the conservation being had.
Not to mention using the word 'matter' or 'care' in terms of evolutionary processes is just colloquial speech.
Of course it's relevant to the discussion at hand, which is about properly understanding homosexuality in the context of evolution. Being clear with what you mean and not just taking colloquial speech for granted is very important when that very same colloquial speech is exactly what gets misconstrued so often.
I didn't realise being gay prevented you having children.
I guess some people seem to forget this.
I said nothing about gay people being sterile. But they don't have any desire to reproduce with the opposite sex. And that's kind of how you sustain a species.
You don't have to have the desire to have sex with the opposite sex in order to have children.
Yeah but this is thanks to modern advancements. Obviously being gay doesn't hinder the sustainability and progress of mankind in today's age but without access to the medical technology we have today, homosexuals would not be able to have children.
I am in no way saying homosexuals aren't capable of raising children btw ---
Rockstar Games presents... AGENT coming soon to PS3
That was an entirely pedantic response that didn't actually touch on the content matter.
It's an important distinction to make because all too often people use words that typically imply some sort of agency or intention when talking about natural processes, which people who don't quite understand the content then misconstrue into ideas like "[x] shouldn't exist according to evolution," as though "shouldn't" has any place.
It is almost entirely irrelevant to the conservation being had.
Not to mention using the word 'matter' or 'care' in terms of evolutionary processes is just colloquial speech.
Of course it's relevant to the discussion at hand, which is about properly understanding homosexuality in the context of evolution. Being clear with what you mean and not just taking colloquial speech for granted is very important when that very same colloquial speech is exactly what gets misconstrued so often.
I see no reason why using the word 'matter' or 'care' in terms of evolutionary processes is relevant to the conversation, because you immediately understood what was said. So much so, that you decided to take a chance to be pedantic and flex your vocabulary skills.
"Flex my vocabulary skills"? Oh give me a break.
The point of my comment was not to rephrase it so that I could understand it. The point of my comment was to clarify a point that is often misunderstood by those who hear those words so commonly used in colloquial discussions of evolution, and then mistakenly (and even unwittingly) think about the process as though it were an agent acting with purpose and intent.
Why are you getting hung up on a simple clarification that wasn't even directed at you specifically?
Here is the specific section of the post I quoted that started this discussion about natural with you:
KillCommunism posted...
intended by nature for a man to want a woman.
This means that you are saying that gay people are unnatural, since to you the only thing 'intended by nature' is for a man to want a woman.
Furthermore, you suggest that same thing again here:
KillCommunism posted...
That's some glitch that occurs in nature. Sure you can say everything is natural. A person with 11 fingers instead of 10 has them naturally, but 11 fingers isn't supposed to occur.
Yes, we are supposed to multiply. That is the only way species survive, is by multiplying. You can't multiply by fucking the same sex, so logically, it can't be something nature would intend, it would have to be a glitch, like my 11 fingered example. Technically, having 11 fingers is natural by the mere fact that it occurred, but it isn't necessarily supposed to happen. Likewise, having a sexual attraction exclusively to males is natural, but it's not necessarily supposed to happen.
"Supposed to" is really just a version of the Is-Ought problem/fallacy. If it has occurred, it is by nature. Your perspective of how you interpret those things is just your perspective and goes no further. This plays a role in how you would see evolution, too. Species evolve in all kinds of ways, not just one narrow pathway.
The only way for a species to survive is to multiply. Is that true or not? If a species does not multiply, it cannot survive. If the only way humans can achieve sex is by butt fucking, then there would never have been a third human being. Every species' prime objective is to multiply, from bacteria, fish, mammals, reptiles all the way down the line. Every species that has ever existed has as it's primary goal multiplication. That cannot be achieved through same sex interactions, maybe in some species it can, but in humans it cannot. So yeah, we are SUPPOSED TO multiply. If we do not, we CANNOT exist. Anything that gets in the way of a person's ability to multiply, is most likely not something that was SUPPOSED to occur. It may be a natural thing, the very same way that a person born with an extra limb was born with it naturally, but it isn't necessarily supposed to happen. It isn't in the human blueprint, which is why almost none are born with extra limbs. It's why there are in reality hardly any gays. It's why there are barely any transgenders. Sometimes, nature.... just fucks up.
Here is the specific section of the post I quoted that started this discussion about natural with you:
KillCommunism posted...
intended by nature for a man to want a woman.
This means that you are saying that gay people are unnatural, since to you the only thing 'intended by nature' is for a man to want a woman.
Furthermore, you suggest that same thing again here:
KillCommunism posted...
That's some glitch that occurs in nature. Sure you can say everything is natural. A person with 11 fingers instead of 10 has them naturally, but 11 fingers isn't supposed to occur.
Yes, we are supposed to multiply. That is the only way species survive, is by multiplying. You can't multiply by fucking the same sex, so logically, it can't be something nature would intend, it would have to be a glitch, like my 11 fingered example. Technically, having 11 fingers is natural by the mere fact that it occurred, but it isn't necessarily supposed to happen. Likewise, having a sexual attraction exclusively to males is natural, but it's not necessarily supposed to happen.
"Supposed to" is really just a version of the Is-Ought problem/fallacy. If it has occurred, it is by nature. Your perspective of how you interpret those things is just your perspective and goes no further. This plays a role in how you would see evolution, too. Species evolve in all kinds of ways, not just one narrow pathway.
The only way for a species to survive is to multiply. Is that true or not? If a species does not multiply, it cannot survive. If the only way humans can achieve sex is by butt fucking, then there would never have been a third human being. Every species' prime objective is to multiply, from bacteria, fish, mammals, reptiles all the way down the line. Every species that has ever existed has as it's primary goal multiplication. That cannot be achieved through same sex interactions, maybe in some species it can, but in humans it cannot. So yeah, we are SUPPOSED TO multiply. If we do not, we CANNOT exist. Anything that gets in the way of a person's ability to multiply, is most likely not something that was SUPPOSED to occur. It may be a natural thing, the very same way that a person born with an extra limb was born with it naturally, but it isn't necessarily supposed to happen. It isn't in the human blueprint, which is why almost none are born with extra limbs. It's why there are in reality hardly any gays. It's why there are barely any transgenders. Sometimes, nature.... just fucks up.
False. In evolutionary biology, it is often advantageous to have some members of society not reproduce and instead focus on other areas that benefit the species as a whole. It is called kin selection and is visible in tribal/colonial organisms. More gay people = more people to help raise kids. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kin_selection
Here is the specific section of the post I quoted that started this discussion about natural with you:
KillCommunism posted...
intended by nature for a man to want a woman.
This means that you are saying that gay people are unnatural, since to you the only thing 'intended by nature' is for a man to want a woman.
Furthermore, you suggest that same thing again here:
KillCommunism posted...
That's some glitch that occurs in nature. Sure you can say everything is natural. A person with 11 fingers instead of 10 has them naturally, but 11 fingers isn't supposed to occur.
Yes, we are supposed to multiply. That is the only way species survive, is by multiplying. You can't multiply by fucking the same sex, so logically, it can't be something nature would intend, it would have to be a glitch, like my 11 fingered example. Technically, having 11 fingers is natural by the mere fact that it occurred, but it isn't necessarily supposed to happen. Likewise, having a sexual attraction exclusively to males is natural, but it's not necessarily supposed to happen.
"Supposed to" is really just a version of the Is-Ought problem/fallacy. If it has occurred, it is by nature. Your perspective of how you interpret those things is just your perspective and goes no further. This plays a role in how you would see evolution, too. Species evolve in all kinds of ways, not just one narrow pathway.
The only way for a species to survive is to multiply. Is that true or not? If a species does not multiply, it cannot survive. If the only way humans can achieve sex is by butt fucking, then there would never have been a third human being. Every species' prime objective is to multiply, from bacteria, fish, mammals, reptiles all the way down the line. Every species that has ever existed has as it's primary goal multiplication. That cannot be achieved through same sex interactions, maybe in some species it can, but in humans it cannot. So yeah, we are SUPPOSED TO multiply. If we do not, we CANNOT exist. Anything that gets in the way of a person's ability to multiply, is most likely not something that was SUPPOSED to occur. It may be a natural thing, the very same way that a person born with an extra limb was born with it naturally, but it isn't necessarily supposed to happen. It isn't in the human blueprint, which is why almost none are born with extra limbs. It's why there are in reality hardly any gays. It's why there are barely any transgenders. Sometimes, nature.... just fucks up.
So what? I'm fucked up because I'm straight I never want to have kids? Something is wrong with me because procreating is something I want nothing to do with? "I've fucked clear off the human blueprint" because producing offspring to continue the species is of no interest to me? I'm "supposed to" for some assbrained reason WANT to put up with everything that implicitly results from progeny? Am I defective in the eyes of my species for being completely indifferent toward its continuation? For having complete apathy in regard to its preservation? Am I meant to feel a sense of genetic obligation to perpetuate the imposition of human life? I mean... if people want to have kids... fuck it. More power to them, go for it. I just want to know, via an expert such as yourself, what might be causing me to be an outlier in this genetic debate. ---
Place-holder sig because new phone and old sigs not saved :/
Here is the specific section of the post I quoted that started this discussion about natural with you:
KillCommunism posted...
intended by nature for a man to want a woman.
This means that you are saying that gay people are unnatural, since to you the only thing 'intended by nature' is for a man to want a woman.
Furthermore, you suggest that same thing again here:
KillCommunism posted...
That's some glitch that occurs in nature. Sure you can say everything is natural. A person with 11 fingers instead of 10 has them naturally, but 11 fingers isn't supposed to occur.
Yes, we are supposed to multiply. That is the only way species survive, is by multiplying. You can't multiply by fucking the same sex, so logically, it can't be something nature would intend, it would have to be a glitch, like my 11 fingered example. Technically, having 11 fingers is natural by the mere fact that it occurred, but it isn't necessarily supposed to happen. Likewise, having a sexual attraction exclusively to males is natural, but it's not necessarily supposed to happen.
"Supposed to" is really just a version of the Is-Ought problem/fallacy. If it has occurred, it is by nature. Your perspective of how you interpret those things is just your perspective and goes no further. This plays a role in how you would see evolution, too. Species evolve in all kinds of ways, not just one narrow pathway.
The only way for a species to survive is to multiply. Is that true or not? If a species does not multiply, it cannot survive. If the only way humans can achieve sex is by butt fucking, then there would never have been a third human being. Every species' prime objective is to multiply, from bacteria, fish, mammals, reptiles all the way down the line. Every species that has ever existed has as it's primary goal multiplication. That cannot be achieved through same sex interactions, maybe in some species it can, but in humans it cannot. So yeah, we are SUPPOSED TO multiply. If we do not, we CANNOT exist. Anything that gets in the way of a person's ability to multiply, is most likely not something that was SUPPOSED to occur. It may be a natural thing, the very same way that a person born with an extra limb was born with it naturally, but it isn't necessarily supposed to happen. It isn't in the human blueprint, which is why almost none are born with extra limbs. It's why there are in reality hardly any gays. It's why there are barely any transgenders. Sometimes, nature.... just fucks up.
False. In evolutionary biology, it is often advantageous to have some members of society not reproduce and instead focus on other areas that benefit the species as a whole. It is called kin selection and is visible in tribal/colonial organisms. More gay people = more people to help raise kids. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kin_selection
Could be that. It could also just be a glitch. You're attributing this to homosexuality without any evidence. I can say the same of someone born without a dick. As far as evolution goes regarding homosexuality, all you have to go on is a bunch of perhapses, maybes, ifs... there is no real reason to believe that the reasons gays exist is to help raise kids.
lol @ straight guys pretending a gay dude saying "Hey cutie" is horrid sexual harassment.
Kinda sounds like you aren't so sure of your heterosexuality as it is, if something that benign is enough to put you on panic mode.
Seems like yall cant read at all today. If a guy tells me hey cutie I would definitely give him a response that Im not interested. But if he keeps going after telling him I aint gay then thats harassment.
I wouldnt even like it if a girl came up to me and her first words were hey cutie I would be uncomfortable. Is that how yall hit on people? My goodness lol
Actually, I've seen lots of people use that line. I personally don't, but do find it a little odd that it would make you uncomfortable if anyone used it. But to each their own.
robellr13 posted...
I never said I would fight him if he just flirted. I would only fight him if he kept harassing me. Theres a difference. Harassing = hitting on me after not being interested, especially touching. Me fighting a guy because of that would be generous. Believe me. Some of the people i know, would probably kill them lol
One thing youre not finna do is to debate me on harassment. Seeing loved ones being harassed in front of me has left its mark. No means no. Get the fuck over it.
Generous? Not at all. The number of people who would kill them in a bar because they kept hitting on them is pretty low. The number of fights are probably higher, so not really generous. Also, even though that number is higher, it's probably not as high as people think. Most people probably would tell them they're or interest and either leave or forcefully tell them to stop. And I know this may come as a surprise, but most would stop.
I like talking to you. You make good conversation.
But honestly, the hey cutie line only works when its like after club hours or while under the influence. If its at a social setting at like 7 pm, a woman I dont know comes up to me saying hi cutie. I wont be turned on or anything. I would be uncomfortable because its an awkward greeting gesture to me. Now if she slips it in after having a brief convo , then it will be fine.
And Im only saying the killing thing is because I have few friends that are felons that wouldnt put up with that. Its wrong but thats how it goes down here. My other friends will fight you or ignore you. Im not any of those unless you physically touch me or keep bothering me. Like I said, Im high 95 percent of the time.
I don't think "Hi cutie" is suppose to turn you on, exactly. It's just a greeting where you also let someone know you think they're cute. And Idk why you would say hi cutie in the middle of a conversation... well, most conversations...
Also, just because you know a few felons who would kill for a stupid reason like that doesn't mean much. I also know a good number of felons. And I know that a good number of them wouldn't care. At the same time, something like this doesn't happen much. Most people would stop as soon as the either figured out the other person isn't interested, or the other person tell them they're not interested.. ---
Official King of Kings Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around.
So what? I'm fucked up because I'm straight I never want to have kids? Something is wrong with me because procreating is something I want nothing to do with? "I've fucked clear off the human blueprint" because producing offspring to continue the species is of no interest to me? I'm "supposed to" for some assbrained reason WANT to put up with everything that implicitly results from progeny? Am I defective in the eyes of my species for being completely indifferent toward its continuation? For having complete apathy in regard to its preservation? Am I meant to feel a sense of genetic obligation to perpetuate the imposition of human life? I mean... if people want to have kids... fuck it. More power to them, go for it. I just want to know, via an expert such as yourself, what might be causing me to be an outlier in this genetic debate.
You will want kids. Maybe you don't now, but you will when you get older. That's almost an inevitability. Maybe you won't, but you probably will. I didn't want kids when I was in my late teens, and through my mid 20s. I'm nearing my 30s now and that impulse is starting to hit harder.
Am I defective in the eyes of my species for being completely indifferent toward its continuation? For having complete apathy in regard to its preservation? Am I meant to feel a sense of genetic obligation to perpetuate the imposition of human life?
Waaaaay too much edge. You sound like I did when I was 16.
Here is the specific section of the post I quoted that started this discussion about natural with you:
KillCommunism posted...
intended by nature for a man to want a woman.
This means that you are saying that gay people are unnatural, since to you the only thing 'intended by nature' is for a man to want a woman.
Furthermore, you suggest that same thing again here:
KillCommunism posted...
That's some glitch that occurs in nature. Sure you can say everything is natural. A person with 11 fingers instead of 10 has them naturally, but 11 fingers isn't supposed to occur.
Yes, we are supposed to multiply. That is the only way species survive, is by multiplying. You can't multiply by fucking the same sex, so logically, it can't be something nature would intend, it would have to be a glitch, like my 11 fingered example. Technically, having 11 fingers is natural by the mere fact that it occurred, but it isn't necessarily supposed to happen. Likewise, having a sexual attraction exclusively to males is natural, but it's not necessarily supposed to happen.
"Supposed to" is really just a version of the Is-Ought problem/fallacy. If it has occurred, it is by nature. Your perspective of how you interpret those things is just your perspective and goes no further. This plays a role in how you would see evolution, too. Species evolve in all kinds of ways, not just one narrow pathway.
The only way for a species to survive is to multiply. Is that true or not? If a species does not multiply, it cannot survive. If the only way humans can achieve sex is by butt fucking, then there would never have been a third human being. Every species' prime objective is to multiply, from bacteria, fish, mammals, reptiles all the way down the line. Every species that has ever existed has as it's primary goal multiplication. That cannot be achieved through same sex interactions, maybe in some species it can, but in humans it cannot. So yeah, we are SUPPOSED TO multiply. If we do not, we CANNOT exist. Anything that gets in the way of a person's ability to multiply, is most likely not something that was SUPPOSED to occur. It may be a natural thing, the very same way that a person born with an extra limb was born with it naturally, but it isn't necessarily supposed to happen. It isn't in the human blueprint, which is why almost none are born with extra limbs. It's why there are in reality hardly any gays. It's why there are barely any transgenders. Sometimes, nature.... just fucks up.
But if everyone were to multiply, would the population expand to much. That seems bad. Also, just because our species needs to multiply, it doesn't mean everyone needs to multiply...
Also, did you know that there are fish and a certain lizard that can change there sex? ---
Official King of Kings Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around.
So what? I'm fucked up because I'm straight I never want to have kids? Something is wrong with me because procreating is something I want nothing to do with? "I've fucked clear off the human blueprint" because producing offspring to continue the species is of no interest to me? I'm "supposed to" for some assbrained reason WANT to put up with everything that implicitly results from progeny? Am I defective in the eyes of my species for being completely indifferent toward its continuation? For having complete apathy in regard to its preservation? Am I meant to feel a sense of genetic obligation to perpetuate the imposition of human life? I mean... if people want to have kids... fuck it. More power to them, go for it. I just want to know, via an expert such as yourself, what might be causing me to be an outlier in this genetic debate.
You will want kids. Maybe you don't now, but you will when you get older. That's almost an inevitability. Maybe you won't, but you probably will. I didn't want kids when I was in my late teens, and through my mid 20s. I'm nearing my 30s now and that impulse is starting to hit harder.
Am I defective in the eyes of my species for being completely indifferent toward its continuation? For having complete apathy in regard to its preservation? Am I meant to feel a sense of genetic obligation to perpetuate the imposition of human life?
Waaaaay too much edge. You sound like I did when I was 16.
Maybe... maybe not... there are a lot of people these days that don't want kids. I also know married couples who have never had kids and don't want them. I also know people who have gotten married and one has kids, but the other doesn't. And they don't want more. Even if they never helped to raise them... ---
Official King of Kings Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around.
lol @ straight guys pretending a gay dude saying "Hey cutie" is horrid sexual harassment.
Kinda sounds like you aren't so sure of your heterosexuality as it is, if something that benign is enough to put you on panic mode.
Seems like yall cant read at all today. If a guy tells me hey cutie I would definitely give him a response that Im not interested. But if he keeps going after telling him I aint gay then thats harassment.
I wouldnt even like it if a girl came up to me and her first words were hey cutie I would be uncomfortable. Is that how yall hit on people? My goodness lol
Actually, I've seen lots of people use that line. I personally don't, but do find it a little odd that it would make you uncomfortable if anyone used it. But to each their own.
robellr13 posted...
I never said I would fight him if he just flirted. I would only fight him if he kept harassing me. Theres a difference. Harassing = hitting on me after not being interested, especially touching. Me fighting a guy because of that would be generous. Believe me. Some of the people i know, would probably kill them lol
One thing youre not finna do is to debate me on harassment. Seeing loved ones being harassed in front of me has left its mark. No means no. Get the fuck over it.
Generous? Not at all. The number of people who would kill them in a bar because they kept hitting on them is pretty low. The number of fights are probably higher, so not really generous. Also, even though that number is higher, it's probably not as high as people think. Most people probably would tell them they're or interest and either leave or forcefully tell them to stop. And I know this may come as a surprise, but most would stop.
I like talking to you. You make good conversation.
But honestly, the hey cutie line only works when its like after club hours or while under the influence. If its at a social setting at like 7 pm, a woman I dont know comes up to me saying hi cutie. I wont be turned on or anything. I would be uncomfortable because its an awkward greeting gesture to me. Now if she slips it in after having a brief convo , then it will be fine.
And Im only saying the killing thing is because I have few friends that are felons that wouldnt put up with that. Its wrong but thats how it goes down here. My other friends will fight you or ignore you. Im not any of those unless you physically touch me or keep bothering me. Like I said, Im high 95 percent of the time.
I don't think "Hi cutie" is suppose to turn you on, exactly. It's just a greeting where you also let someone know you think they're cute. And Idk why you would say hi cutie in the middle of a conversation... well, most conversations...
Also, just because you know a few felons who would kill for a stupid reason like that doesn't mean much. I also know a good number of felons. And I know that a good number of them wouldn't care. At the same time, something like this doesn't happen much. Most people would stop as soon as the either figured out the other person isn't interested, or the other person tell them they're not interested..
I just never said hey cutie to anyone. Seems premature for me personally. But yes it comes up after while they are under the influence. ---
Likely their views are in line with biology and how reproduction works with heterosexual species.
It's how they PERCEIVE those things. That doesn't mean they are correct.
A lot of perceptions on what is normal are based on biology and how effective certain traits have in the scope of evolution and heredity fitness. That said technology today has made it possible for those with unusual traits or genetic defects to survive. In the wild and in the absence of assistance it is less likely they would survive let alone reproduce.
How someone perceives nature, biological processes, and evolution in terms of genetics, is independent of the truth or actuality. As Balrog said it nicely, evolution doesn't care what you think, the genetic materials are all that matter. A homosexual person may not breed, but it isn't hindering evolutionary processes.
And are you trying to suggest that homosexuality wouldn't exist without 'technological aid?'
A homosexual person who does not breed via natural means indicates that this type of trait is not a suitable evolution path to take as natural selection dictates that the most successful traits will be passed on more often while unfavorable traits will not be passed onto future generations as often.
Removing technology would not prevent homosexuality as human behavior is shaped by both nature and nurture. To say removing technology would prevent homosexuality assumes incorrectly that technology consists of all of the environment and the genetics. There are multiple factors, both genetic and non technological environmental that influence human behavior. That said, technology does allow homosexual couples reproduce to an extent which increases the likelihood of their genetic traits being passed on in comparison to the distant past. In addition technological progress has significantly altered the environment of today. In the past homosexual behavior was frowned upon, but today it has become more acceptable in part because of the advancement of communication technology and research into the matter. The improvement in the environment would positively affect this type of behavior. So while removing technology would not have necessarily prevented homosexual behavior, technology has promoted it above a certain baseline amount. ---
