'Gay' baby triggers row

Originally posted by dadudemon
Oh that's what I said? Then by all means that sounds great!!! How is it that hard to understand that it really IS essential to modern culture? (BTW, I should go back and read my posts before I decide that I didn't post things right. I should stop being so trusting to things people say that I posted.)

I think you should leave the definition and use of words up to other people who have a better handle on the English language.

here you go:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/essential

Originally posted by dadudemon
I think homosexuals are an essential element of modern culture...

Yes, it is in fact a direct quote (of yours). If it's that easy to understand, then you should have no trouble explaining/justifying your claim, right?

Funny, I used the definition found in Websters, I even quoted (see below) from the dictionary in one of my above post/responses to you. Besides, I'm not the one who says things like "my definition of the word..." as a debating tactic.

Originally posted by Robtard
That doesn't explain the "essential" aspect of it, now does it. You're just saying "it's good to have diversity", that has nothing to do with it being essential, i.e. 'of the utmost importance.' If homosexuality didn't exist, would we be worse off or even doomed somehow, the answer to that may explain your "essential" claim.

Originally posted by Robtard
Yes, it is in fact a direct quote (of yours). If it's that easy to understand, then you should have no trouble explaining/justifying your claim, right.

Funny, I used the definition found in Websters, I even quoted from the dictionary in one of my about post/responses to you.

aaaaaand that still doesn't change the fact that I used essential correctly. Why do you want to nitpick something that is obviously true? do you think homosexuality shouldn't be tolerated at all in modern society AND homosexuality and its acceptance would cause humanity to digress?

I think I understand what you are trying to get at...you are saying that I am thinking that homosexuality is the only thing that should be accepted for the betterment of modern culture, right? In that case, yes, you would be right, however, I am viewing homosexuality as simply individuality and it being part of that pie...the pie being individuality...yes indeed, if you may, homosexuality is just one of may essential elements.

But, I didn't say quintessential...now did I? Had I said quintessential, I could see your point.

Originally posted by dadudemon
aaaaaand that still doesn't change the fact that I used essential correctly. Why do you want to nitpick something that is obviously true? do you think homosexuality shouldn't be tolerated at all in modern society AND homosexuality and its acceptance would cause humanity to digress?

I think I understand what you are trying to get at...you are saying that I am thinking that homosexuality is the only thing that should be accepted for the betterment of modern culture, right? In that case, yes, you would be right, however, I am viewing homosexuality as simply individuality and it being part of that pie...the pie being individuality...yes indeed, if you may, homosexuality is just one of may essential elements.

But, I didn't say quintessential...now did I? Had I said quintessential, I could see your point.

You do realize that your very own dictionary/definition post doesn't support your usage of the word, right?

Anyhow, to answer your question... I don't think homosexuality is essential, which is the reason I wouldn't make the claim you made. I think homosexuality is and always was a part of humanity (as stated several post ago). If humanity were able to somehow stop gays from being born, I don't think humanity would be destroyed. Would there be a loss, most likely, humanity would go on though.

No, that isn't what I was trying to get at, you said "Homosexuality is essential", I merely asked you to substantiate that position.

Wait a second. That's a left advertisement?

I got it all wrong.

On a different note:

Originally posted by dadudemon
yeah...WTF does that shit mean? Explain that to the little man.

Didn't you say that you studied some physics and work in IT now? Because, this is so basic even I understood it.

Originally posted by Robtard
You do realize that your very own dictionary/definition post doesn't support your usage of the word, right?

Anyhow, to answer your question... I don't think homosexuality is essential, which is the reason I wouldn't make the claim you made. I think homosexuality is and always was a part of humanity (as stated several post ago). If humanity were able to somehow stop gays from being born, I don't think humanity would be destroyed. Would there be a loss, most likely, humanity would go on though.

No, that isn't what I was trying to get at, you said "Homosexuality is essential", I merely asked you to substantiate that position.

Give it up...I already gave you the word you are looking for...in other words, you failed at being bored for today.

Originally posted by Bardock42
On a different note:

Didn't you say that you studied some physics and work in IT now? Because, this is so basic even I understood it.

"living in a society that views sexuality as a 0/1 type dualistic entity versus living in one that supposes that sexual behaviour exists on a continuum."

"0/1 type dualistic entity" is jargon...Binary code does not equate to "0/1 type dualsitic entity" in my logical brain. How often do you hear IT techs say type "living in a society that view sexuality as a 0/1 dualistic entity versus living in one that supposes that sexual behavior exists on a continuum"?

After he explained it as it being appropriately called "bipolar" it made perfect sense.

I literally thought that there were two specific types in his first version, they being referred to as type 0 and type 1.

But if you wish....

OMG, liek you are such teh coolies...I wish I culd b as smrt as u!!!!

Originally posted by dadudemon

"living in a society that views sexuality as a 0/1 type dualistic entity versus living in one that supposes that sexual behaviour exists on a continuum."

"0/1 type dualistic entity" is jargon...Binary code does not equate to "0/1 type dualsitic entity" in my logical brain. How often do you hear IT techs say type "living in a society that view sexuality as a 0/1 dualistic entity versus living in one that supposes that sexual behavior exists on a continuum"?

After he explained it as it being appropriately called "bipolar" it made perfect sense.

I literally thought that there were two specific types in his first version, they being referred to as type 0 and type 1.

But if you wish....

OMG, liek you are such teh coolies...I wish I culd b as smrt as u!!!!

Dualistic is actually the correct word. Bi-polar might have helped you (as you make up words yourself), but dualistic was what he meant. And it was amazingly clear what he meant too, I am wondering how you (who claims to be so intelligent) could not understand it. It baffles me. And I don't really think that you being IT specialist matters much, but for someone claiming to grasp higher physics, that was more than trivial.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Dualistic is actually the correct word. Bi-polar might have helped you (as you make up words yourself), but dualistic was what he meant. And it was amazingly clear what he meant too, I am wondering how you (who claims to be so intelligent) could not understand it. It baffles me. And I don't really think that you being IT specialist matters much, but for someone claiming to grasp higher physics, that was more than trivial.

Do you feel better now?

It was NOT clear. He was using jargon. look up the definition for jargon. Again, I literally thought that he was using psychology terms by posting 0/1. I honestly thought that there were two types being referred to in this first group...type 0 and type 1...and I thought that these types had two separate definitions but they could be grouped into one...which didn't make sense so I asked him to explain it to me.

You, who is the purveyor of everything correct, should know that one person could perform higher mathematics but certain simple things escape their mind.

Why don't you get back to me when you aren't so arrogant? You claim that it was easy to understand but it actually wasn't. It is not commonly used so common sense wouldn't work...it wasn't a colloquialism so it wouldn't make sense either.

Is it really that hard to understand that not everyone can understand everything I have never claimed higher intelligence...you claimed that. Nice try though!!! 😄

So, do we know why dudemon thinks homosexuality is essential to human society, yet?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Do you feel better now?

It was NOT clear. He was using jargon. look up the definition for jargon. Again, I literally thought that he was using psychology terms by posting 0/1. I honestly thought that there were two types being referred to in this first group...type 0 and type 1...and I thought that these types had two separate definitions but they could be grouped into one...which didn't make sense so I asked him to explain it to me.

You, who is the purveyor of everything correct, should know that one person could perform higher mathematics but certain simple things escape their mind.

Why don't you get back to me when you aren't so arrogant? You claim that it was easy to understand but it actually wasn't. It is not commonly used so common sense wouldn't work...it wasn't a colloquialism so it wouldn't make sense either.

Is it really that hard to understand that not everyone can understand everything I have never claimed higher intelligence...you claimed that. Nice try though!!! 😄

You do try to become the major moron of KMC, right? I can't explain your attitude any other way.

Oh well, I probably just overestimated you. I apologize, it won't happen again.

Originally posted by Devil King
So, do we know why dudemon thinks homosexuality is essential to human society, yet?

Careful, Bardock42 might make fun of you because I already "clearly" defined that in my posts.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You do try to become the major moron of KMC, right? I can't explain your attitude any other way.

Oh well, I probably just overestimated you. I apologize, it won't happen again.

lowest score 144 highest score 170+ (Off the scale...duh!)

Originally posted by dadudemon
lowest score 144 highest score 170+ (Off the scale...duh!)

And behaving like Forrest Gump when he's asleep. Yeah, I will go with my impression over your numbers.

And no, you idiot, you didn't define it, nor explain what you specifically meant. You are just dancing around the matter at hand.

Originally posted by Bardock42
And no, you idiot, you didn't define it, nor explain what you specifically meant. You are just dancing around the matter at hand.

Yes I did. I clearly defined it. Any idiot can clearly see what I meant after reading my subsequent posts.

As the purveyor of all that is correct, you certainly don't understand things when they are defined clearly.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Careful, Bardock42 might make fun of you because I already "clearly" defined that in my posts.

Call me an idiot then. Can you quote it for me?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Yes I did. I clearly defined it. Any idiot can clearly see what I meant after reading my subsequent posts.

As the purveyor of all that is correct, you certainly don't understand things when they are defined clearly.

Well, I read the thread...and what I noticed is that you didn't define what you meant, you didn't elaborate on your point and you seem to have changed your argument by about 180° at least once. You might see why I am confused. I suppose DK seems similar problems. But, bygones, lets just start over, explain to us please how homosexuals are essential to society in your opinion and what this "essential" constitutes, thanks.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, I read the thread...and what I noticed is that you didn't define what you meant, you didn't elaborate on your point and you seem to have changed your argument by about 180° at least once. You might see why I am confused. I suppose DK seems similar problems. But, bygones, lets just start over, explain to us please how homosexuals are essential to society in your opinion and what this "essential" constitutes, thanks.

No.

You are right, I am such failure. What should I do to make myself better?

I don't think homosexuals are essential to society. That is such a lame and stupid thought. Diversity tolerance in no way reflects the betterment of human society.

We should start impaling them, again, in the a**holes with red hot pikes. Society was much better back then and humans were much more civilized.

Originally posted by dadudemon
No.

You are right, I am such failure. What should I do to make myself better?

I don't think homosexuals are essential to society. That is such a lame and stupid thought. Diversity tolerance in no way reflects the betterment of human society.

We should start impaling them, again, in the a**holes with red hot pikes. Society was much better back then and humans were much more civilized.

Ohhhhh, so you mean homosexuals are a useful part in furthering your moral notions.

Why didn't you say so right away. I agree.

Originally posted by Devil King
Call me an idiot then. Can you quote it for me?

Sorry I missed your post.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Because it is another form of diversification and acceptance of diversification and acceptance OF that diversification is another way humans can better themselves i.e. less violence and persecution of others....HENCE it being essential for modern culture

Originally posted by dadudemon
I have always believed that developing a more tolerant society and a more understanding society was ESSENTIAL for humanity to progress.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Toleration and acceptance are essential to the development of a civil society.

Does that help?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Ohhhhh, so you mean homosexuals are a useful part in furthering your moral notions.

Why didn't you say so right away. I agree.

Oh brother....gonna play the old "morals are not objective and universal" card? Sure, you can do that all day...but I will not take part in it because my morals have and always will be subjective...

You know., us idiots have to have a proverbial meter stick for measuring societal norms.

Originally posted by dadudemon

Oh brother....gonna play the old "morals are not objective and universal" card? Sure, you can do that all day...but I will not take part in it because my morals have and always will be subjective...

You know., us idiots have to have a proverbial meter stick for measuring societal norms.

N-no, actually I am not...though they are of course. I just agreed with you.

Though I still feel essential is the wrong word.

Originally posted by Bardock42
N-no, actually I am not...though they are of course. I just agreed with you.

Though I still feel essential is the wrong word.

Well, I disagree. I think you dudes are wanting essential to mean quintessential...which it doesn't. More than one thing can be essential for the same objective...in this instance...religious toleration and coexistence would be ANOTHER essential item for the success of modern society...by my meter stick.

Anyway, there is a strange feeling I have right now...I can't explain it...am I always supposed to feel like this when Bardock42 actually agrees with someone?

Also, I hope that I didn't offend you on a personal level...this, to me, is supposed to be entertainment and if I saw you in real life, I would buy you a drink or something...I offended Schecter one time so I want to make clear that I totally and honestly don't think you are an idiot.

I don't take personal shots at my intellectual capacity personal either...I take it as point you are trying to make.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Does that help?

Yes.

But, isn't all of that what I said?