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.
...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?