Dumb****s who compare Homosexuality to Pedophilia or Bestiality.

[Metal Man]

and stop trolling badly

My belief is that the likes of IRHP and Guild have opinions which are set in stone. Discussing these matters like them is like turning on a television and trying to tell the television what you think; whether or not their opinions are good or bad doesn't really matter, as they just wind up the same way--no matter what you say, they say the same three lines back that they said earlier, making it more or less pointless.

So what do I mean when I said what I said earlier?

Their opinions should simply be left alone when they post in the thread, for there is nothing to be gained by arguing with them on it.

You, on the other hand, are just trying to throw around the word 'Troll' because I'm not in favor of the continual circular bickering. It is quite ironic, as I am against the way the arguments with IRHP and Guild derail and destroy the purpose of these sorts of topics.

So what do you think I should do instead--contribute to the circular bickering that has already thrown this thread down the garbage chute, TG? Oh wait... that would be trolling. My bad.

Not to mention, derailing the topic to talk about me? What do you think that is, hm? Oh, that can't possibly be trolling--TG is posting it. Better to throw stones while inside a glass house, I guess.

Oh, and Masa told IRHP to shut the *** up... but that doesn't get your attention. Selective, aren't we?

Now, onto the actual content of the thread, and the people fighting to the death over it.

I think people have these beliefs which are mutually incompatible, and that rather than bicker over it, it comes down to the government taking the solution that protects homosexuals from discrimination, and the people with the violently different opinions doing better things with their time than senselessly cock-fighting over which side is 'true.'

[Valigarmander]

^^ Why? It's getting so interesting.

[Deepfake]

When I say "defined as", I'm referring to the people who are too dense to learn the difference.

Also, my thoughts on the thread topic: Homosexuality is similar to the two in that it's a sexual preference that does not suit procreation. But that's where the similarity stops.

But pedophilia and rape suits procreation. If you cannot find a woman who willingly sleeps with you, force her to bear your child. All the better if she is young and less developed, so you can do so much more easily as her muscle mass is not built up and her ability to deal with the situation as being wrong against her mindset has not been developed.

Additionally, homosexuality and beastiality both carry some bonus toward traditional procreation as preparing the participants for engaging in sexual activity. You don't actually think you're a good, confident lover right off the bat, do you?

By the argument that procreation is the root good of heterosexuality, rape and bigamy are the ultimate in justifiable sex, for being the most viable ways to impregnate women.

You know who really suited procreation? Fritzl. He locked his daughter in his basement and raped her, and then raped her daughters. Great plan, 100% pedophilia and child abuse, 0% comparison to homosexuality beside involving making penises feel good as per a social taboo. Certainly, it was pro-active to developing more life.

[Bomby]

Old people who are no longer able to reproduce, men with low sperm count, and sterile women also do not suit procreation. No one gets up in arms when these people enter heterogeneous relationships.

[Deepfake]

I think people have these beliefs which are mutually incompatible, and that rather than bicker over it, it comes down to the government taking the solution that protects homosexuals from discrimination, and the people with the violently different opinions doing better things with their time than senselessly cock-fighting over which side is 'true.'

They can't believe it if they don't have a complete understanding of it. Rejecting information on the subject means they have erected their own delusion apart from belief.

Old people who are no longer able to reproduce, men with low sperm count, and sterile women also do not suit procreation. No one gets up in arms when these people enter heterogeneous relationships.

MAYBE THEY SHOULD

STOP HAVING SEX OLD PEOPLE

THAT'S DISGUSTING


Seriously, though, that's the argument? So what if we just **** with genetics so men have uteruses? Then gay sex would be the ultimate justifiable procreative act, because it brought about the inclusion of male pregnancies to the fold.

[Kil'jaeden]

Who got the idea that people only have sex to procreate anyway? One look around a college, highschool, place with a bunch of people, the Internet, or just being human would say otherwise.

[Deepfake]

Yes Kil, but those people are wrong for mysterious, unidentifiable reasons. Usually because some possibly influential persons who never even existed, who supposedly was never misquoted, said so without justifying it.

How could such a thing ever persist as a mainstream ideal, despite being potentially flawed and yet unquestioned? Well, it's not that it went unquestioned. It's just that, well, people die very easily. You... You wouldn't want something bad to happen to you, would you? Why, you might... You might even be made a criminal. You know what we do with criminals, right? The lucky ones, we put them in a box. The unlucky ones, well, they're a pain to clean up.

[Kil'jaeden]

What about banning homosexuality, in exchange for allowing bestiality openly? What would those opposed to homosexuality do in that situation?

[Apiary Tazy]

I don't even know where this argument is going anymore.

So screw it.

Drink:Wine

:uhoh3:

/me falls over

[Deepfake]

What about banning homosexuality, in exchange for allowing bestiality openly? What would those opposed to homosexuality do in that situation?

I don't see the connection. Legalizing one shouldn't affect the other.

[Kil'jaeden]

I just want to know which one most people would hate more.

[Deepfake]

I think Bestiality is largely less accepted, although I don't have anything to support that.

[CaptHayfever]

Seriously, though, that's the argument? So what if we just **** with genetics so men have uteruses? Then gay sex would be the ultimate justifiable procreative act, because it brought about the inclusion of male pregnancies to the fold.

But then a bad Arnold Schwartzenegger movie would look like a profound social prophecy!

And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

[heh]

tons of **** about trolling or whatever

i really don't care about your opinion or whatever you just wrote

i mean sorry for bitching at you when we have mr and mrs gayhater roaming around but you literally make the "heh irhp will never listen to you guys, stop trying bro!" post in basically every one of these threads and if i see it one more time i'm going to fly off the handle


luckily irhp appears to have ceased posting so the thread is basically over

[Rainbow Dash]

as a sidenote i'm glad you noticed the similarities and changed your name accordingly

[Metal Man]

but you literally make the "heh irhp will never listen to you guys, stop trying bro!" post in basically every one of these threads

luckily irhp appears to have ceased posting

One of these things is connected to the other.

To be honest, trolling to make people angry is weak noobsauce. It takes artistic ability, on the other hand, to strangle a thread to death.

The reason I keep popping up and saying this is simple: if my memory has not failed me, these circular arguments have been uselessly spinning for over three years. Once upon a time I would join in the arguments; but there I found nothing I said to change the opinion of the people taking the 'gay people are evil' or similar positions.

Other, less cynical people continued to hammer on their beliefs, believing they were more a delusion or some sort of hole they could Perp Sweat/Perry Mason/Phoenix Wright away by poking holes.

But this I have witnessed to its painful conclusion over and over again; where ultimately, nothing is accomplished but telling people who believe changing their mind is ultimate defeat and that they must 'win' every argument, even if they discover they are wrong half-way through.

So I brought in my counter: if they aren't going to change their minds, then I will simply relentlessly prod them for it, just as even Dai Grepher was eventually dragged through the mud for refusing to budge on the silliest and flimsiest parts of his arguments despite being shown his mistakes over and over and over and over again.

Lo and behold; endless attempts to inform them fail, but relentlessly beating them over the head with their inability to compromise eventually makes them stop the senseless ritual of 'DIE LIBERULZ' and find something better to do with their time. Because their opinion has already been posted, time and time again, and of course, they can post it again; but beyond that it's just repeating the same pattern over and over again.

So sorry if my technique annoys you; but it in turn was caused by my own annoyance at the irrational stubbornness of some people repeating over and over and over again over the course of most of the 10 years I've been here.

So why am I saying this if my trick worked and, by all means, have no reason to tell anyone and just continue stonewalling conversations like this into the ditch?

Because after a point it would just make me as annoying as the people I in turn was annoyed by, and your annoyance at me indicates that I have made my point and now can safely stop repeating myself.

So you will not hear me denounce them for being repetitive, counter-argument ignoring brick walls again, TG. Since after this point it would truly devolve from a way to stop things that annoy me into trolling you, and that... would be a terrible waste of brainpower.

*Salute* Good luck on the next attempt to tell the rock to become a fish, AI. I wish I could believe that people could change their opinions like you could, but... I guess I am just too bitter and jaded to believe that anymore.

/me wanders off to check if Traveller replied to his opening post in the Gunjin.

[Deepfake]

MM, you are being foolish, and have no grasp of the larger picture.

If people like Guild or IRHP were inherently wrong, and therefore needed to be the most vocal, it will appear to outside parties that their opinion was majority. Persons will then, like the Spark did with her assumptive stance on the psychology of homophobia, make the assumption that while they do not initially agree, that there must be some large unseen reasoning behind that.

Others might misrepresent my or your opinion for being a part of a group, which then largely appears to be in this case reasonably sure of the justice of their own bigotry. There is a social justification in making my voice heard so it is familiar. We have the ability to, through a few persons, affect a larger portion of future generations via familiarity with our opinions as being one held. Even if my opinion is that assumptions such as those I mentioned should not be made, they will and I wish to steer people from that.

Moreover, a person like IRHP or Guild may appear unreasonable to you. This is in part due to your little patience. As you are impatient, you will undoubtedly not observe that opinions can be influenced even in some small way by repeated exposure to an opponent. I respect IRHP and Guild for their emphasis of their convictions.

Even if they will not immediately see what I am sure is the truth in my statements, they will be made wiser by my participation in this argument - they will come to expect my statements and accept that arguments will be made against their opinion in my fashion. If they consider how my arguments will be designed as they consider their own arguments, to trim them down to appeal to me with a new angle, my opinion has infiltrated their thought process and they and I will both benefit from it through their own evolution.

I will not, unlike yourself, experience the same frustration time and again through the same few people. I will not have to be told the same flawed statements by every individual person. While you are lumping all persons you find disagreeable into one, I am not and I am benefiting from it, in a psychological and in a philosophical sense.



I agree that there is a time where you cut your losses. IRHP and Guild might appear disrespectful of my ideas, but they are not intentionally so. They do not believe I am speaking to them out of hatred. They are representing their opinion, and I do not judge their capacity for truth out of their ability to argue. If they started to behave like MM, however, I would then denounce them as you have. They do not, however, behave so disrespectfully as to construct my opinions for me in such an unproductive and insulting fashion as MM does.

If someone starts to tell you of your opinion, and you notify them that they are doing so, yet they refuse to agree with you that you are taking insult to their accusations, then you will be justified in trolling them. This is why you personally come to such a stand-still in arguments, because you provoke this even in me. You have, many times, told others of their own opinions rather than asking for an explanation and pointing out its flaws. It is denigrating, and a person aware of that will then (oftentimes unconsciously, as it is occasionally a learned behavior) renounce your credibility as you are unable to perceive another person's argument appropriately for the purpose of criticizing that argument. They are then an impassible wall to you.




Beside this, I'm at a discussion forum to voice my opinion regardless to whoever agrees with it. If I wanted to go to youtube to watch idiots faceplant into tables, I would, but I'm not doing that because I didn't want to.

[Metal Man]

Perhaps in your worldview it works that way, but sometimes you seem to forget other worldviews than yours exist and, for whatever flaws they may appear to have to you, work.

I have, in my time, converted people from one opinion to another, and even masterfully deflected equivalents of Metal Mario into either self destructing or realizing the flaw of their arguments. My strategy, however, and the people I reach, however, are of a different category than what you do.

I am simply not good at talking to those who I see as brick walls. They remind me too much of myself, and so the most I ever get going is two sides stonewalling one another, and nothing else happening. I accept that as a limitation... it's not in my personality to be able to reason much with those people, just as much as others I've seen in the past, even those who had good ideas, could not reason with me.

But in this big picture you speak of, there are multiple types of people, and I have the luxury of simply ignoring or stonewalling away the other stonewalls. Other, more receptive or curious people I have had no problem either finding a middle path or agreeing to disagree with. The effort for me to do this with them, furthermore, is thrice times easier than to even begin to try to dissect stonewalling.

Therefore, I ask you what you think is more foolish for me: To try and reason with the minority of people I suck at reasoning with, or to stick with the large amount of other people with whom I have, by and large, been able to do just fine with.

For in my experience, any progress I have obtained with stonewallers is fleeting and often followed by them doublecrossing me if I bother to trust them. I know, it's a mental hangup I have, especially since my golden rule is "Do not say you will do one thing and do the opposite" to the extreme that people who hate me don't really bother me at all, but bad liars (the good ones usually avoid making direct doublecross statements) make me want to choke them to death.

However, I was wrong in extrapolating my quirks onto everyone else. I guess it only makes sense those who want to play the game of ping-pong with stonewallers and who are not bad at it, may as well.

I'm just not touching it with a 10 foot pole anymore, as all I've found is it to be a waste when it comes to my attempts in such style arguments.

[Deepfake]

Well, frankly, you're still missing the point. The people you describe here as being a stone wall become more receptive to opposition as time goes on, provided you know how to treat them respectfully.

My point is that you are mistaking them for an MM situation, a person who at times will never consider your opinion because he blocks out your opinion(as understanding it will often lead to having to admit the truth) and substitutes what he would prefer to be your opinion. You can't affect the way he thinks of your opinions, because he doesn't think of your opinions at all. He merely sets up an imaginary opinion for you to have, a straw man so he can knock it down easily and feel good about it.

IRHP and Guild may unintentionally do that from time to time, but it's not as though these guys won't address discrepancies in their ideas if you point them out. MM wouldn't because he doesn't listen to you at all. If you ever had a moment of clarity to him, it was likely only over a subject to which he was already receptive. The same goes for Dai Grepher.

You can learn to encourage people to consider you better by paying attention to how they think rather than how you think. You're being counter productive, instead. It's not as though they are a round hole and you are a square peg, you're simply not considering your direction of approach. Instead of considering even this, you're setting up a very nice wall of your own.

Frankly, if I think Guild is a bit miseducated, it's not like I blame him for it. He's at least cluey enough to realize, IMO, that his experiences and thoughts are limited by the sources he allows input. The real question is, why doesn't he question his sources? They might be trustworthy people in themselves, but just like he might be doing so himself - they might be trusting others who trust the wrong sources. In a lot of these cases, you find out that the people they trust are only eachother. If they're all wrong, then it's a great big circular confusion.



But this isn't even about Guild and IRHP as such, it's about making myself known to others around so they can judge for themselves what to think. If somebody comes around this site and just sees them criticizing something I would defend, and I don't, and no one else does; that reflects on all of us. Ideas are powerful, because they can spread simply by being relatable. Don't you want your ideas to at least be seen as ideas?




The only real criticism I have of IRHP and possibly Guild is how they treat the argument itself. There have been many, many times where IRHP or Guild has attacked an idea, and I have deflected their attacks. Because I cannot somehow miraculously prevent their future attacks, they are left with the impression that the argument is ongoing and I have not made any concrete assertions.

So, the subject remains open to them, despite my repeated deflection of any attacks they make - they rarely if ever seem to consider that they are merely trying new angles of justification. That's not universal, though. It's not as though IRHP has never conceded a point or ended an argument, he just does not concede the subject of an argument. That's a logical thing to do, actually, but it's probably the root of your frustration.

You're right, at least in that, where there is a time and place to stop and accept that someone isn't understanding you. That, however, is supportive of my assertion that patience is a quality you could use more of.

[Metal Man]

The issue is that you misunderstand me and my patience. By all means, I am the stubborn jerk. 4 years I waged war with Sean Kelly on SMBHQ. 5+ I loitered around SSS until it got back up on its feet. Similar amount of time I worked to help restore a forum I liked elsewhere. Many years I have banged on the door of NLBFT's trophy, being denied every time.

It is just that, in the greater scheme of things, there is little to gain and much to lose with those who are set in their ways. Much as you speak of the good of trying to honestly explain your ideas to others, I speak of saving your breath for conversations that have a decent rate of going somewhere decent. These philosophies are contradictory, but they both have their uses.

And right now, I will make use of my strategy, though I will explain why, for your benefit.
1. Attempts to explain the nuts and bolts of my thought process are insanely convoluted and are unlikely to be understood by anyone else. Not because they're dumb, but because I utterly fail at describing these things in under 3 books worth of text.
2. Your viewpoint and mine are 90 degrees apart. Unlike IRHP or Guildmaster, you are open to hearing what I have to say, but 90% of my meaning seems to be lost somewhere. It's just weird, and in my experience, limited to you. As a result, I have to more or less consider these esoteric topics impossible for me to communicate to you. No hard feelings. There's just nothing I can do without inflection and my hands to explain it with.
3. Whatever 'understanding' is gotten consists of one of us copy-pasting the main idea the other made and rephrasing it, usually without understanding what they have done. This is forgotten and in the next topic we once again do this hopeless dance to nowhere.
4. The most important one. The one nugget I will explain to you here. You actually got this one in another topic. Just as you spoke of me, an American, being unable to understand Australian politics or why the censorship/whatever is how it is, I, as someone who has historically failed to get any concepts through to people attached to VGF (And yes, almost exclusively VGF people, especially post-2004 people or those in administration), have a viewpoint that I will call 'Old-VGF.' This viewpoint is understood by few people here, the few I will note are Tazy, Jay, Codiekitty, Lurch, WEAPON, Joker, AS, Demonoid, Bolt, Cravdraa, Golem, Kirbyking, Repster, Tunbs, pre-troll RealGTX, Jolteon, DARTH BOWSER, IRHP, Metal Mario, Mattias Liedholm, etc.

These people are, mostly, gone. My viewpoint is from when these people were here all the time. Back then I did what I did now and nobody bothered me about it. You weren't here for the first two years of it, and didn't become the large figure you are now until later. For years you were about on par with me, in fact.

So, for the same reason I do not believe Lurch would accept what you're saying or have anything much to say back than questioning why you're so obsessed with everyone getting along, I have no more to say on the topic. I appreciate your attempt to understand my idea just as I had tried to understand yours (and, vaguely, succeeded)...

...But in the end, we have two different, incompatible moral views, and trying to bridge them is not really feasible.

Besides, I believe in giving the other party the choice to their free will. Just because I disagree with them doesn't mean I need to try and make them conform; my opinion is not 'right' and therefore if I don't bother talking about it, I'm not going to be doing anyone a disfavor. I have to seriously question your own wish to make everyone conform to your ideas, as, for the ups and downs they may have, they aren't the right answer for everyone else, despite what you may think. No one knows all the answers, and to argue with the idea that your ideas are a gift to the world seems deceitful to me.