Posted on 12/30/2005 4:57:09 AM PST by ShadowDancer
I described promiscuity in a way that leaked my moral judgment of promiscuity. Don't like it? Too bad.
Hey, it's your judgment you leaked.
I feel good, as it proves my point. You proclaim yourself as a slut expert..
But don't commit the error of pretending that it invalidated my argument; the argument stands, and the connotation of my wording was purely tangtential to its substance.
Not tangential at all. You've show us your bias to the substance of the issue.
Go look up special pleading. My bias has no bearing on the validity or invalidity of my argument. Your reply shows a poor grasp of logic.
Another nonsense claim. My logic is clear. You've show us your bias to the substance of the issue by using the word "slut"..
______________________________________
As you've said, that statement is pure nonsense.
You misread.
No, You clearly wrote that your first statement was "pure nonsense", not me.
It is well-attested fact that homosexual males have on the order of ten times more sexual partners than straights. In fact it's worse than that; the distribution is not standard normal. Gays are more heavily bunched at the high end than straights are. A straight man's risk is not raised to the 10th power, seeing that STD is not rampant in straight society. That's right--a gay man's risk is higher than a straight man's raised to the tenth power, because the risk from a single encounter is much higher for the gay man.
You claim "-- It is well-attested fact --" I say, where's the proof? All I see are your opinions on the issue.
______________________________________
Silly lecture considering that I'm not defending the gay lifestyle by opposing you on your slut terminology.
So far you have made no discernable point whatsoever. Feel free to do so any time.
Amusing.. You claiming I've made no points, but you rebut them with line after line of your 'factual" opinions.
______________________________________
Good grief man.. Who elected you our arbiter on confining sex?
Um, wow. If you can't tell the difference between me, and an inquisitor armed with thumbscrews, then you have a serious mental handicap.
You said "-- Anyone who deviates from the standard of confining sex to the context of marriage is a slut --" Now that, to me, is a serious mental handicap.
______________________________________
I have to admit though, I had no idea that slut experts existed, or that sluts confided in them.
Given all the foregoing, it's not surprising you failed to understand this point as well. I picked a number near a dozen precisely because that number is in the correct ballpark for people who would generally be called sluts by their peers. It doesn't take any special expertise to figure this out; your own high-school experiences quite probably would allow you to make a similar estimate. Recall who your peers called a skank, and estimate their number of boyfriends. (Hint: it'll be on the order of a dozen, and at least an order of magnitude smaller than "hundreds".)
Whatever.. You seem to believe that repeating your opinions gives them weight. Hint.. Dream on.
Um, please make at least a rudimentary effort to inform yourself before spouting off.
It is well known ----
You spouting off about how something is "well known" has become the subject of your rant.. - Spare me oh Israel..
Loving someone doesn't mean one has to approve of or agree with his or her actions or viewpoints. Real love means caring about the well being of that person. Real love doesn't mean "I approve of everything that person says/does".
Even husbands and wives who love each other dearly don't necessarly love every single thing about their spouse. What to speak of children!
Homosexual Agenda Ping.
Okay, here's a short article and a long thread. Can private schools expel a student for behavior that a public school can't? You betcha. Interesting that the lawyer for the two girls (who won't say much about the situation at hand) is suing the school to force it to admit homosexuals as students. Could this possibly have been a set-up for the purpose of changing the school's policies? Hmm?
Just wondering.
Freepmail me and DirtyHarryY2K if you want on/off this pinglist.
...and thus you dismiss three thousand years of judeo-christian morality with a few keystrokes. I stand in awe.
But seriously--given that you are apparently quite worked up, but have never hinted once what exactly has you so worked up, why don't you share? Do you find the word "slut" stinging because of your own promiscuity? Or is it my statements about homosexuals that are hitting too close to home? I've made my position plain, biases and all--howsabout you do the same?
Um, "well known" means, just as it suggests, that you can readily find out with minimal research. This is an area that has been researched quite vigorously for the last three decades; you clearly have no knowledge of any of that research.
I do not care to comment upon the heterosexual (I assume female) 'slut' tangent you seem obsessed with; however, I will comment upon the homosexual promiscuity and greater disease rate of homosexuals statement that seems to have initiated your tirade (which I consider but diversionary tactic and but attempted liberal attack dog intimidation by you upon the fine FR poster you wish to disparage but fail miserably doing so).
Regardless your heartfelt defense of heterosexual 'sluts' this topic is about homosexuals AND homosexuals tend to live shorter lives, tend to suffer more physical and psychological disorders, catch more sexually transmitted diseases, have a higher rate of HIV/AIDS AND sexually abuse children at a higher rate than heterosexuals... Of course males suffering the homosexual disorder that engage in homosexual activity are the 'worst' group of 'sluts' or whatever you may wish to call these self absorbed pariahs on society...
Of course IF you had been a memmber of FR for awhile and on the homosexual agrenda pingl list -following atrticles and news on the topic you would already know the facts...
If you wish to learn facts you might do better by asking questions or using the search function on FR rather than attempting to fillibuster an issue and personally attack FR members -yes, restrain yourself --EVEN if you feel the need to defend heterosexual 'sluts'...
For a reckless lifestyle? Who said they were? They were expelled from a private Christian school because of their "scandalous and immoral" behavior.
My point is that these girls went beyond the mere "sexual excitement" you'd have us believe. Their conduct, though obviously subtle, forced the school to make a decision. Too bad. They should have been more discreet.
Well, now I know. Dopey me to assume that "decent point" meant that you thought it was a decent point.
As to statistics, the following table shows that after 5-10 years, the odds are greater for the marriage failing between different races.
| Table 21. Probbility of first mariage disruption by duration of marriage and selected characteristics: All races, women 15 - 44 years of age, United States, 1995. | |||||
| -- | Probability of Disruption After-- | ||||
| Characteristic | 1 Year | 3 Years | 5 Years | 10 Years | 15 Years |
| Race Difference: Same Race Different Race White/other Black/other |
0.03 (0.003) 0.03 (0.006) 0.03 (0.009) 0.06 (0.036) |
0.11 (0.005) 0.14 (0.016) 0.14 (0.016) 0.21 (0.051) |
0.18 (0.006) 0.25 (0.021) 0.24 (0.024) 0.34 (0.058) |
0.31 (0.008) 0.41 (0.025) 0.40 (0.027) 0.48 (0.062) |
0.40 (0.010) 0.47 (0.030) 0.46 (0.033) 0.54 (0.060) |
| Source: Cohabitation, Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage in the United States. Vital and Health Statistics, Series 23 Number 22. July, 2002. National Center for Health Statistics | |||||
A decent point can mean lots of things, but it rarely means to agree.
A decent point is when one extends the index finger and indicates his preference for things affixed on the horizon of the aftermath of the happening. Immeasurably, it can be a good point for a good view, or a bad view with a good point, as pointed out before. Thus, it can be pointed out that pointing out the good point is sometimes pointless, especially if it is a bad view or the views are bad, particularly if the person cannot make a point having no index finger. The person that cannot make a decent point, thus has to have a substitute method, often consisting of a middle finger, which is more than apt for some to make a point, but terribly inadequate to get a nice view.
""Their entire support network was pulled out from under them because of suspicions about their sexual orientation,"
It's not sexual orientation. These girls have been brainwashed and inculcated with aberrant behavior by the mass media, the internet and other lesbians. Were these girls previously attending public education? Because this might have played a role also in their brainwashing. They now need some good, old-fashioned deprogramming.
Is another person's sexual taste something we need to know? Is that something other students or other employees need to be made aware of?
Or is it, and should it, be kept private?
You have this "thing" about people being persecuted for their feelings. No. That isn't what's happening here. People are choosing to make their sexual tastes known to others, then are surprised and offended that others disapprove. Cry me a river.
Some coworker tells me that he likes to have oral sex with his dog, and I'm supposed to go buy him a drink at the local pub? Geez Louise. Take your oh-so-politically-correct understanding attitude somewhere else.
"It's a private school and they have the right to enforce timeless rules."
Agree.
"They should be shamed and humiliated."
Agree. This may, in fact, the best route to recover them, if at all recoverable.
So, gays are just like heterosexuals -- they just happen to prefer people of the same sex. Is that what you'd have us believe?
au contraire.
(That's French for "a really good porno film".)
"-- being for or against a person's sexual taste makes no sense. It really is what it is.
To the extent that acting on it violates a legitimate public policy (taste for minors, for example), a culture is entirely within its right to prohibit that behavior. --"
I replied:
-- Sure, criminal law can 'prohibit' criminal behavior (sexually abusing minors, for example); -- but neither the States or the Feds have the power to deprive people of their rights by prohibitive laws; - laws that are not, and never can be 'reasonable regulations'
Paulsen' reply to the same comment:
Is another person's sexual taste something we need to know? Is that something other students or other employees need to be made aware of? Or is it, and should it, be kept private? You have this "thing" about people being persecuted for their feelings.
No paulsen, we have this thing about people being 'persecuted' for non-criminal private behavior.
No. That isn't what's happening here. People are choosing to make their sexual tastes known to others, then are surprised and offended that others disapprove.
Sure, others can disapprove, even 'reasonably regulate' public aspects of such behavior; -- the line is drawn at criminalizing/prohibiting such private nonviolent behaviors..
Cry me a river.
Some coworker tells me that he likes to have oral sex with his dog, and I'm supposed to go buy him a drink at the local pub? Geez Louise. Take your oh-so-politically-correct understanding attitude somewhere else.
Geez paulsen, where do you work with coworkers like that? And what can you expect if you discuss doggy sex while working?
There's something fishy about all this.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.