Serious LGBT Discussion

[Harm]

I don't think "people like same sex because they're abused/cannot attract opposite sex" makes sense, because none of them apply to me.

That's the key issue with those dogmatic monolithic descriptions, they can be invalidated on empirical evidence immediately, but they're palatable to certain repressive attitudes towards sexuality which are themselves presupposed and in search of post-hoc validations.

It's more likely that it's a biological consequence of some boring component of pre-natal development which doesn't lend itself to sensationalist rhetoric meant to prop up prejudices. What we see as "this 'straight' guy browsed too much Internet pornography and it turned him into a tranny faggot!" is probably more akin to "this 'gay/bisexual' dude was indoctrinated into rigid heterosexual experiences until he was able to explore his sexual arousals on his own and realized he's actually homosexual."

Somewhat of an aside, but the funniest thing to me about blaming the boogeyman known as "Internet pornography" or "porn addiction" for these things is how it ignores all the pre-Internet examples of feminine/homosexual men across all kinds of human civilization. There are still societies that haven't been industrialized which have maintained a certain "sect" of men in their social structures who, if they were to have been born in a modern society, would be blindly accused of being "abused/groomed/addicted to Internet pornography" absent any actual evidence.

It happens all the time online now where people will hear anything about your sexual predilections being something other than straight white couples having sex in missionary position while God cries as proof positive that you're a hardcore braindead gooner. They just make up the narrative in their head and then lie to themselves that everyone is walking proof and then don't even think "wait, then why were there faggots and trannies in a pre-Internet, pre-pornography world?" It's probably because God punished us for not loving Jesus enough or whatever the backwater losers want to believe that week.

 

[Hooked on phobics]

don't know. I don't think "people like same sex because they're abused/cannot attract opposite sex" makes sense, because none of them apply to me.

This is basically a fallacy of faggotry : it's not as simple as someone being unable to attract and being abused and THUS, immediately starting sucking cock. Willpower, resistance, opportunity, ect, all also effect it. And stuff like inability to find a partner exists in like 99% of people at some point, while generalized "abuse", Is also common. Really its more like a scoreboard of factors. The more factors, the worse odds for you. Being a male who's raped, without a father figure in your teens, and rejected heavily by women makes it EXTREMELY LIKELY to be a gay, but there's always exceptions. This isn't because it "doesn't work that way" but because theres so many circumstances that could counter it. Like maybe a boy got raped and no father figure, but through literature was able to help develop masculinity by pulling from masculine figures in books, while using martial arts to reforge the masculine fire : its possible, but we aren't going to list every circumstance like "unless you read books and identify and internalize literary masculine role model, and take martial arts to reforge your masculinity", because even THAT has exceptions

And if these all have exceptions, why believe them? Because despite exceptions, odds don't lie. Homosexuality is pretty predictable along many metrics like these.

 

[Unredacted TND]

This is basically a fallacy of faggotry : it's not as simple as someone being unable to attract and being abused and THUS, immediately starting sucking cock. Willpower, resistance, opportunity, ect, all also effect it. And stuff like inability to find a partner exists in like 99% of people at some point, while generalized "abuse", Is also common. Really its more like a scoreboard of factors. The more factors, the worse odds for you. Being a male who's raped, without a father figure in your teens, and rejected heavily by women makes it EXTREMELY LIKELY to be a gay, but there's always exceptions. This isn't because it "doesn't work that way" but because theres so many circumstances that could counter it. Like maybe a boy got raped and no father figure, but through literature was able to help develop masculinity by pulling from masculine figures in books, while using martial arts to reforge the masculine fire : its possible, but we aren't going to list every circumstance like "unless you read books and identify and internalize literary masculine role model, and take martial arts to reforge your masculinity", because even THAT has exceptions

And if these all have exceptions, why believe them? Because despite exceptions, odds don't lie. Homosexuality is pretty predictable along many metrics like these.

If you push child abuse as a reaon for homosexuality, your argument shatters if there's someone who's homosexual but is not abused. It's an either or situation.

 

[Hooked on phobics]

If you push child abuse as a reaon for homosexuality, your argument shatters if there's someone who's homosexual but is not abused. It's an either or situation.

This is like saying its ridiculous to say shooting kills people because your grandpa died in a car accident, and your uncle survived being shot 7 times in nam. There's seriously probably thousands of influencing factors at play, and hundreds of thousands of circumstances which can prevent the influencing factors from actualisation, and millions of details which could sabotage the actualisation prevention.

If you can't think deeper than "person+Abuse=gay", then yes, you'll never get it, because its more like person+abuse rate in relation to gender, - stability, multiplied by neuroticism/ family issues= chance to be gay, and even THAT is a very simple calculation.

Think of it like "reasonable suspicion" used by cops, there's no way you can legislate every single scenario, so there has to be some common sense injected somewhere because we could be here all day otherwise

 

[Unredacted TND]

This is like saying its ridiculous to say shooting kills people because your grandpa died in a car accident, and your uncle survived being shot 7 times in nam. There's seriously probably thousands of influencing factors at play, and hundreds of thousands of circumstances which can prevent the influencing factors from actualisation, and millions of details which could sabotage the actualisation prevention.

If you can't think deeper than "person+Abuse=gay", then yes, you'll never get it, because its more like person+abuse rate in relation to gender, - stability, multiplied by neuroticism/ family issues= chance to be gay, and even THAT is a very simple calculation.

Think of it like "reasonable suspicion" used by cops, there's no way you can legislate every single scenario, so there has to be some common sense injected somewhere because we could be here all day otherwise

I don't think you understand what i am trying to say. If you take something as the cause of someone being homosexual, then your argument is shattered if someone who is homosexual without that cause. Nothing else matters.

 

[Hooked on phobics]

I don't think you understand what i am trying to say. If you take something as the cause of someone being homosexual, then your argument is shattered if someone who is homosexual without that cause. Nothing else matters.

Causal FACTOR.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE between causal FACTOR and CAUSE???

They are very different. And they even blend together. For instance you could argue CUTTING A DOGS HEAD OFF, would be a CAUSE of death, and 99% of times you'd be correct, but what's this??!

Spoiler: Gruesome animal stuff, be warned

Oooooh, THIS TIME CUTTING THE DOGS HEAD OFF DIDN'T KILL IT?!! WOW!!!

Same applies to everything, ever hear how hummingbirds "shouldn't fly"? This is because by aviation understandings it didn't work. This doesn't mean we junk 747s because they are junk based on pseudo science, they work, but maybe they are 5% flawed of whatever, but still good enough to fly.

This is made worse that homosexuality in humans is ethically difficult to study. Like in a hypothetical lab setting where you had lab controlled rape, abuse, no father figure, limited testosterone, ect, I'm confident you could make an outcome over 95% homosexual, which is a damning as fuck number.

"Hurr durr, what about that 5%".

Exceptions exist, maybe factors lab couldn't control for, shit, some people survive being shot in the head, but we don't doubt the lethality of guns.

 

[Harm]

lol calm down fag

 

[Unredacted TND]

Causal FACTOR.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE between causal FACTOR and CAUSE???

They are very different. And they even blend together. For instance you could argue CUTTING A DOGS HEAD OFF, would be a CAUSE of death, and 99% of times you'd be correct, but what's this??!

Spoiler: Gruesome animal stuff, be warned

https://youtube.com/watch?v=KhzEMJHQt2I

Oooooh, THIS TIME CUTTING THE DOGS HEAD OFF DIDN'T KILL IT?!! WOW!!!

Same applies to everything, ever hear how hummingbirds "shouldn't fly"? This is because by aviation understandings it didn't work. This doesn't mean we junk 747s because they are junk based on pseudo science, they work, but maybe they are 5% flawed of whatever, but still good enough to fly.

This is made worse that homosexuality in humans is ethically difficult to study. Like in a hypothetical lab setting where you had lab controlled rape, abuse, no father figure, limited testosterone, ect, I'm confident you could make an outcome over 95% homosexual, which is a damning as fuck number.

"Hurr durr, what about that 5%".

Exceptions exist, maybe factors lab couldn't control for, shit, some people survive being shot in the head, but we don't doubt the lethality of guns.

I think you should calm down.

 

[Harm]

DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND!? BEING GAY IS NOT NATURAL. I AM A HAPPY WELL-ADJUSTED STRAIGHT MAN TYPING IN ALL CAPS TO STRANGERS ABOUT HOW MENTALLY WELL I AM FOR PREFERRING VAGINA!

 

[Inco G. Nito]

If you push child abuse as a reaon for homosexuality, your argument shatters if there's someone who's homosexual but is not abused. It's an either or situation.

Bullshit tangents like this is the 'reaon' this thread never works. As soon as one group has a foothold on the other the other just stops playing ball to deflect from the possibility of losing an internet debate. People who are abused have fucked up sexual upbringings, people with fucked up sexual upbringings are more likely to be homosexual. It's that simple, the evidence has continually pointed to it. Weren't abused? Congrats, you're the outlier. They happen.

DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND!? BEING GAY IS NOT NATURAL. I AM A HAPPY WELL-ADJUSTED STRAIGHT MAN TYPING IN ALL CAPS TO STRANGERS ABOUT HOW MENTALLY WELL I AM FOR PREFERRING VAGINA!

lmao shoving dick into the poop chute is as mentally deranged as saying men are women. Next up: Sky's red.

 

[Unredacted TND]

Bullshit tangents like this is the 'reaon' this thread never works. As soon as one group has a foothold on the other the other just stops playing ball to deflect from the possibility of losing an internet debate. People who are abused have fucked up sexual upbringings, people with fucked up sexual upbringings are more likely to be homosexual. It's that simple, the evidence has continually pointed to it. Weren't abused? Congrats, you're the outlier. They happen.

lmao shoving dick into the poop chute is as mentally deranged as saying men are women. Next up: Sky's red.

Nigger anal sex is probably more common with straight man at this point

It's not a bullshit tanget and you know it. If you can confidently say homosexuality is caused by abuse, you can't deflect by saying "uhm, outliers exists.." when faced with someone who's not abused. There must be a reason for this "outlier" and it ruins your argument. It's an either or situation.

 

[Hooked on phobics]

Figures the "serious discussion" gets devolved by faggots insecure at people making serious argument against it.

I'm not asking you to like it or agree or whatever, but ffs lets keep this thread from being a flamewar shit post bs. Its designed to NOT be that.

Weren't abused? Congrats, you're the outlier. They happen.

I think he specifically said he WAS abused (abuse here is so fucking vague its doing immense heavy lifting btw) and isn't gay, so its wrong (in his argument) to say abuse causes gay.

Course this isn't really a talking point. I've ALSO been abused and stated and such, but feral phallic fascination didn't effect me either.

Also note above unredacted, I presented your argument whole, without straw man or misrepresenting it.

That's called iron manning. Opposite of straw manning. Doing that in general helps a lot to keep an actual dialogue. Remember, if you TRULY BELIEVE I'm wrong, there's absolutely no need to misrepresent my argument.

 

[Harm]

Figures the "serious discussion" gets devolved by faggots insecure at people making serious argument against it.

Ah, yes, who could ever forget the ever serious ALL CAPS "canine decapitation" argumentation in the homosexuality discourse:

Causal FACTOR.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE between causal FACTOR and CAUSE???

They are very different. And they even blend together. For instance you could argue CUTTING A DOGS HEAD OFF, would be a CAUSE of death, and 99% of times you'd be correct, but what's this??!

Clearly, people are simply too butt hurt to engage with such intellectual rigor.

I've ALSO been abused and stated and such, but feral phallic fascination didn't effect me either.

So, you can be wholly refuted with empirical evidence on both ends. Talk about a rhetorical spitroasting.

EDIT: My favorite part is I don't have to convince anyone in any direction. I get to have my wonderful homosexual relationships while you continue writing dumbass shit about cutting off a dog's head in "not-angry" ALL CAPS screeds

 

[Hooked on phobics]

So you're either being intentionally obtuse, or are intellectually incapable of understanding what a causal factor / risk factor is.

The dog head experiment is to illustrate how its not always "THIS ABSOLUTELY CAUSES XYZ" but how cause is influenced by all surrounding factors. But I see it falls on deaf ears.

This is fallacy 101 btw "cigarettes can't cause cancer because my grandpa smoked since 10 and is 100 years old and hes fine".

That's called an anecdote.

 

[Harm]

There we go, the midwit's prayer. "You don't agree? You clearly didn't understand me. Let me reiterate the very thing you disagreed with over and over in circles."

 

[Inco G. Nito]

The Serious LGBT Discussion Cycle:​

• Thread is revived after a period of inactivity from someone new or returning posting something innocuous.​
• Minor debate about tangential LGBT adjacent topics begins.​
• Anti-LGBT sentiment ITT grows.​
• LGBT users begin posting. Minor debate continues.​
• Someone states something as though it is definitive.​
• Minor debate about miscellaneous topics becomes focused on a single topic.​
• Debate continues until weaseling becomes necessary for one side to save face.​
• Logic breaks down as the losing side begins to pretend to not understand what is being said to epicly own the other. (YOU ARE HERE)​
• Winning side gives up on serious debate, thread devolves into name calling.​
• Thread loses momentum as debate opponents lose interest and stop replying.​
• Thread dies.​

 

[Jacques1194]

People are often drawn to Fandom online communities because they "ship" the characters, so ofc the "loudest minority group" are going to be sexual minorities.

But is there a reason why these spaces are filled with self proclaimed "Queer" people? Especially teenagers, since there's been a lot. I've herd the argument that these spaces provide a "safe space" for "queer" kids to express themselves, but I've never been convinced by this. I feel like a lot of it truly is chronically online kids who probably aren't even really LGBTQ. I've followed this one artist on Twitter and he claimed to be a "Cis, straight, white boy" but lately he's been very anti anything straight and now identifies as a "Demiboy". Its clear he's been heavily influenced by his online "queer" followers to identify and act like this.

I know some people in this thread will go "Being queer is trendy right now" but like, hasn't this "trend" been going on for over 10 years already? Wouldn't these kids move on to something more "hip" by now? Personally, I feel like its more than just a trend because I've seen people change the definition of queer to where its now define as being "Cool, rebellious, logical thinker, and different" and its like these people are adopting the LGBTQ as something that you aren't born into, but an alternative cool life style. Its pretty much become a new kinda religion to them.

 

[Unredacted TND]

Figures the "serious discussion" gets devolved by faggots insecure at people making serious argument against it.

I'm not asking you to like it or agree or whatever, but ffs lets keep this thread from being a flamewar shit post bs. Its designed to NOT be that.

I think he specifically said he WAS abused (abuse here is so fucking vague its doing immense heavy lifting btw) and isn't gay, so its wrong (in his argument) to say abuse causes gay.

Course this isn't really a talking point. I've ALSO been abused and stated and such, but feral phallic fascination didn't effect me either.

Also note above unredacted, I presented your argument whole, without straw man or misrepresenting it.

That's called iron manning. Opposite of straw manning. Doing that in general helps a lot to keep an actual dialogue. Remember, if you TRULY BELIEVE I'm wrong, there's absolutely no need to misrepresent my argument.

You literally went full MATI on a thread that doesn't affect you whatsoever.

Maybe you should atop and read what you wrote and realize how much of a faggot you are.

But is there a reason why these spaces are filled with self proclaimed "Queer" people? Especially teenagers, since there's been a lot. I've herd the argument that these spaces provide a "safe space" for "queer" kids to express themselves, but I've never been convinced by this. I feel like a lot of it truly is chronically online kids who probably aren't even really LGBTQ. I've followed this one artist on Twitter and he claimed to be a "Cis, straight, white boy" but lately he's been very anti anything straight and now identifies as a "Demiboy". Its clear he's been heavily influenced by his online "queer" followers to identify and act like this.

I know some people in this thread will go "Being queer is trendy right now" but like, hasn't this "trend" been going on for over 10 years already? Wouldn't these kids move on to something more "hip" by now? Personally, I feel like its more than just a trend because I've seen people change the definition of queer to where its now define as being "Cool, rebellious, logical thinker, and different" and its like these people are adopting the LGBTQ as something that you aren't born into, but an alternative cool life style. Its pretty much become a new kinda religion to them.

Fandom species lean more female, who like gay ships because it's hot. It isn't that complicated and it's unlikely to change.

If you're talking about taking on new genders, isn't this trend over by now?

 

[Namekian George Floyd]

I hate fags and you were all molested

 

[Toxic BRAAAAP Mask]

and its like these people are adopting the LGBTQ as something that you aren't born into, but an alternative cool life style. Its pretty much become a new kinda religion to them.

Replace queer with 'activist' and it'll make sense. Queer theory is the rejection of heteronormativity, or normativity in general. Two sexes bad, gender ideology good. Marriage bad, polyamory good. Capitalism bad, comunism good. Etc., etc. It's been around for decades but has gone mainstream as they're a useful idiot political tool, even back in the 70s when there was division of gays who wanted to wear suits and have families and be married, there was a sect that saw that as traitorous and wanted to have debauched sex parties in the streets.

If a gay man says he's queer, it's a red flag because queer =/= sexual orientation like LGB, it's a 'proggressive' social activism. Now some young and ignorant kids won't be aware of this at first, so there's a sliding scale here, but that serves to indocrinate more to the agenda. First they're some color of queer non-binary/tranny instead of gay/bi/lesbian, then they're communists for open borders, then they're non-monogamous, then they're MAP; a continuous downhill slide intended to create oppressed minorities and disrupt society. It's honestly the seed that starts shit like the Weimar Republic with their child brothels and human mutilation experiments alongside the financial collapse of the country.