Bruce/Caitlin afraid of going to men's jail

[Blutarsky]

(09-10-2015, 09:06 PM)Bengalholic Wrote: So, what if a person 'chooses' have sex with short people, tall people, fat people, bald people, old people, ugly people, or whatever the case may be?  What if a business owner doesn't like that particular 'choice' and doesn't want to serve that person?

How would a business owner know the sex fetish of the next customer off the street that walks in?

[JustWinBaby]

(09-11-2015, 09:10 AM)Blutarsky Wrote: How would a business owner know the sex fetish of the next customer off the street that walks in?

Are you implying that people with fetishes tend NOT to broadcast that information and then get all butthurt when people don't applaud their bravery?

[Blutarsky]

(09-11-2015, 07:12 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: So... you made shit up? 

I wouldn't say he's making shit up. This interview was a couple days ago, and its easy to discern that since his coming out, Jenners main concern now is for his own safety and welfare. A mens prison, do you blame him? Tell me that wouldn't be at the forefront of your concerns.

The accident occurred 7 months ago. His concern and or remorse for the victim has probably has worn off a tad by now anyway.

[Blutarsky]

(09-10-2015, 09:06 PM)Bengalholic Wrote: So, what if a person 'chooses' have sex with short people, tall people, fat people, bald people, old people, ugly people, or whatever the case may be?  What if a business owner doesn't like that particular 'choice' and doesn't want to serve that person?

(09-10-2015, 09:13 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The owner should be required to serve those; as folks are born to all those things.

It sounds to me Bengalholic was asking whether or not a business owner should be allowed to discriminate against individuals based on the sexual choices they make, not the against those types of individuals that he listed.

[Blutarsky]

(09-11-2015, 01:38 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Well, Matador, you've argued a reflex is a decision and peripheral nerve conduction is thought.  

The last time I remember someone so delusional was this . . .

If you're basing Bush's being delusional on that "Mission Accomplished" banner, then you are another suckup to leftist propaganda an misinformation.
Do the research on that banner.

How funny is it that this guy wasn't the last someone you found as being so delusional.






Commencing the thread topic:

Bruce Jenner is a ***** afraid of getting his ass reamed by some bubba in jail.

[BmorePat87]

(09-11-2015, 09:53 AM)Blutarsky Wrote: I wouldn't say he's making shit up. 

Quote:In the interview, Jenner's first thought is of going to men's jail.  Not compassion for the victim, but still just worried about one's self..  Very telling of the person behind all of the media sensationalism..

Given his admission that he didn't watch the interview and is just basing this off of what one article was reporting about the interview, he did make shit up as what he said is false.

[BmorePat87]

(09-11-2015, 09:10 AM)Blutarsky Wrote: How would a business owner know the sex fetish of the next customer off the street that walks in?

They ask for a wedding cake and show them the photo of their bald or fat fiance so that the figure on top matches it.

[SunsetBengal]

(09-11-2015, 11:01 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Given his admission that he didn't watch the interview and is just basing this off of what one article was reporting about the interview, he did make shit up as what he said is false.

Having an opinion is making shit up? 

I didn't 'make anything up', I simply stated an unfavorable opinion. 

[GMDino]

(09-11-2015, 10:57 AM)Blutarsky Wrote: If you're basing Bush's being delusional on that "Mission Accomplished" banner, then you are another suckup to leftist propaganda an misinformation.
Do the research on that banner.

How funny is it that this guy wasn't the last someone you found as being so delusional.






Commencing the thread  topic:

Bruce Jenner is a ***** afraid of getting his ass reamed by some bubba in jail.

Quote:According to the virtually universal political folk memory, former President George Bush prematurely declared “mission accomplished” in Iraq from the deck of an aircraft carrier in May 2003, when some of the worst fighting still lay ahead.


We all remember that, don’t we? And if not, Kevin Connolly of BBC News in Washington has just reminded us of Bush’s much mocked statement. Analyzing President Obama’s August 2 announcement that all U.S. combat operations would end in Iraq by the end of the month, Connolly said:

Quote:The president was careful not to repeat the mistake of his predecessor George W. Bush who famously declared that America's mission in Iraq had been accomplished seven years ago - long before the violence and instability were ended.

But Bush didn’t say that. In fact, in his speech aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, Bush declared: “Our mission continues.” It is true that Bush’s speech, in which he announced the end of major combat operations, was far too triumphant about U.S. military achievements. But he never “famously declared that America’s mission in Iraq had been accomplished.”

On the contrary, he said that following the fall of Baghdad, “now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country... We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We're bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous.” Bush's goal in Iraq was never purely military – his mission was to bring freedom and democracy to a vital part of the Middle East.

Here are some more quotes from the speech:

• “The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done and then we will leave and we will leave behind a free Iraq.”
• “Our mission continues. Al Qaida is wounded, not destroyed.”
• “The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11th, 2001 and still goes on.”
• “America and our coalition will finish what we have begun.”
  

 
So how did the belief that he declared “mission accomplished” become so deeply embedded in the public consciousness? The reason is that the ship’s crew, in collusion with White House staff, had strung a large banner bearing the words “mission accomplished” behind the spot where Bush was due to speak. The banner was seen on TV throughout the president’s speech.

But Bush himself knew nothing about the decision to display the banner, and certainly did not approve it.

I buy the first half of that last sentence.... 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-11-2015, 10:57 AM)Blutarsky Wrote: If you're basing Bush's being delusional on that "Mission Accomplished" banner, then you are another suckup to leftist propaganda an misinformation.
Do the research on that banner.

How funny is it that this guy wasn't the last someone you found as being so delusional.






Commencing the thread  topic:

Bruce Jenner is a ***** afraid of getting his ass reamed by some bubba in jail.

Where did I write anything about that banner?  Bush declared an end to major combat operations while I was in Iraq still involved in major combat operations.

I'm sure Jenner is afraid of "getting his ass reamed by some bubba in jail" as I am sure you and the OP would be if in the same situation.  But, that isn't how this thread started.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-11-2015, 11:11 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Having an opinion is making shit up? 

I didn't 'make anything up', I simply stated an unfavorable opinion. 

Having an opinion isn't making shit up.  Claiming his first thought was about his own welfare when Jenner has discussing his worst fear, not his first thought, is making shit up.

[BmorePat87]

(09-11-2015, 11:11 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Having an opinion is making shit up? 

I didn't 'make anything up', I simply stated an unfavorable opinion. 

Quote:In the interview, Jenner's first thought is of going to men's jail

That isn't an opinion. In what world is telling us something happened an opinion? You stated that the first thought Jenner had in the interview was about going to prison. Given the fact that we can play the interview and see that it takes 5 minutes before this is said, we can say that this is a lie.

I can't say "SunsetBengal said in his first post that dogs are better than cats" and just claim I was stating my opinion and not making something up. Everyone can look at your first post and see that I am lying.

[*bfine32*]

(09-11-2015, 03:11 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: That isn't an opinion. In what world is telling us something happened an opinion? You stated that the first thought Jenner had in the interview was about going to prison. Given the fact that we can play the interview and see that it takes 5 minutes before this is said, we can say that this is a lie.

I can't say "SunsetBengal said in his first post that dogs are better than cats" and just claim I was stating my opinion and not making something up. Everyone can look at your first post and see that I am lying.

Well to be fair, you have no idea what Jenner's first thought was, you simply know when she articulated this thought. To claim it was not her first thought is also making things up.

[BmorePat87]

(09-11-2015, 03:15 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Well to be fair, you have no idea what Jenner's first thought was, you simply know when she articulated this thought. To claim it was not her first thought is also making things up.

Lauer could have asked about the accident out of order of how it is cut, but it isn't even the first thing she talks about regarding the accident, something I pointed out.

Unless you're suggesting that we abandon the context in which Sunset is using "thought" and debate what Caitlyn Jenner was reflecting on in her head but did not actually speak.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-11-2015, 02:28 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: *sighs

Waste of time again.

Yes I'm very well aware there is no evidence that supports your side.

 
There is no evidence to support either side.

Quote:I understand how MF genetics work. I said that if homosexuality was genetic, then it would most likely fall under the MF category because it doesn't really fit into any of the other genetic mutations and it mimics other MF disorders. You're the one denied it as a possibility.

You don't understand at all.  You went on and on about how multifactorial genetic disorders are environmental.  They are multifactorial.  Meaning more than one factor.  It's in the name.  One of those factors is genetics.  It is also in the name.  They are the result of both intrinsic and extrinsic factors, e.g. genetics and environment combined.  You wouldn't admit the genetic component.  I never denied it was a possibility.  I wrote it was one of many possibilities and there was no evidence which supported multifactorial genetic disorder over any other genetic disorder. 

Quote:Or are you denying that you said this?

"oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: [url=http://bengalsboard.net/Thread-Target-removes-gender-based-signage-for-kids?pid=54189#pid54189][/url]Multifactorial disorders are only one of many types of genetic disorders.  You have zero evidence homosexuality is a multifactorial disorder instead of any of the other genetics disorders.  None.  Nada.  Zip.  Zilch.  Zero.  "

Yes, I wrote that and if you didn't have a problem with reading comprehension you would understand the last half of that sentence means you can't claim it is a multifactorial genetic disorder over any other genetic disorder without evidence.  You're making an assumption and passing it off as fact.  Science and medicine doesn't work that way.  You need evidence to support your hypothesis and you don't have any evidence to support you hypothesis.

Quote:You're line about heterosexuals has no point. I already stated many different types of sexual gratification that people get from various types of sex and that included both Heterosexuals and Homosexuals. So you really have no point there other than you are trying to say that heterosexuals have problems too, as a means to quantify homosexuality. Strawman argument sprinkled in with your favorite the argumentum ad hominem.

You mean "qualify" not quantify.  You don't understand what a strawman argument is.  You don't understand multifactorial genetic disorders.  Your opinions in this arena are ignorant, uneducated, and have the naivete of a child.  Hell, you can't even use quantify and qualify correctly.  I don't care you believe combating blatant ignorance is ad hominem.  Especially when you incorrectly classifying homosexuality as a mental disorder or "an addictive sexual behavior" because you're ignorant of the basic definition of a mental disorder.

Quote:I didn't abandon that route, you made it very clear to me that it's not a possibility so I decided that there was no need to pursue that angle anymore.

I never wrote it wasn't a possibility.  You tried to pass off an assumption as fact without any evidence.  In addition, you didn't even understand your own assumption.
 

Quote: You brought up that it's possible for it to happen in the womb, I won't completely disagree with that, but it's not a true statement. 

Have you heard of fetal alcohol syndrome?  It is caused by extrinsic factors (maternal alcohol consumption) that occur in the womb.  Maternal alcohol consumption has been linked to autism spectrum disorder.  It is possible autism is caused by alcohol exposure while in the womb, but signs of autism behavior don't begin until the child is at least 6 months old or older.

Quote:Last but not least, which groups criteria do you wish to use to figure out if it is a disorder or not?

How about we use what the professionals use?  DSM-V

[Vas Deferens]

(09-10-2015, 09:06 PM)Bengalholic Wrote: So, what if a person 'chooses' have sex with short people, tall people, fat people, bald people, old people, ugly people, or whatever the case may be?  What if a business owner doesn't like that particular 'choice' and doesn't want to serve that person?

|
V

(09-10-2015, 09:13 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The owner should be required to serve those; as folks are born to all those things.

|
V

(09-11-2015, 10:22 AM)Blutarsky Wrote: It sounds to me Bengalholic was asking whether or not a business owner should be allowed to discriminate against individuals based on the sexual choices they make, not the against those types of individuals that he listed.

I read it as bfine believing that people are genetically predisposed to having sex with fat people...  Right?


I'm trying to keep up with all you brainiacs, but I'm still missing just one piece.  To those who are so vehemently against homosexuality; rather the very act of being, or giving them equal rights: Why does someone elses sexual orientation matter to you?

Its not as if there is an entire subset of individuals being subjugated to homosexuality, a hetero woman bound there by their homosexual companion.  Its classic free will from a lifestyle perspective.  I'm sure a lot of you here have obese wives and your'e fine with that, even procreated with them.  I'm personally not a fan of fat girls, can't even imagine bedding one, not in a million years.  But, I'm also just fine with you carrying that load.  Completely you're call.  Does not affect me one bit.  You know why?  BECAUSE I WASNT GOING TO SLEEP WITH YOUR FAT OLD WIFE IN THE FIRST PLACE!  I promise I won't.  Anyone here staunchly (and genuinely) opposed to homosexuality wasnt going to pork some gay dude's hubby either.  

I'm really not trying to be a dick, I honestly believe my stance above but cannot grasp the opposing side between all the back and forth.  So again, please try to explain to me.  Why does someone else's sexuality orientation matter to you?