The debate "Some men can extort sex from women by threatening them with police and status of a felon for life" was started by
an anonymous person on
May 7, 2018, 11:09 am.
6 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 12 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
Najam1 posted 4 arguments to the agreers part.
Gorgon posted 2 arguments to the disagreers part.
6 visitors agree.
tylathecat and 11 visitors disagree.
Ok, so NOW innocent gay people are liars covering for others.
Have you ever considered that most gay people talk about this issue *as much as* most straight people?
Ever consider the reason that's not a lot because, surprise surprise, most people don't talk about morbid subjects that hardly if at all affect their lives that, by and large, are either well known enough that the law is already on it, or so poorly known that you really shouldn't expect people to be talking about it?
Are you, as a straight person, required to talk about every sex slavery ring that caters to straight people?
Ever considered that most people who do focus on these issues, like feminists, focus on rape of women by men because that's where the most damage is done?
Ever considered that, when this issue is focused on, its the entirety of the issue, i.e. prison guards raping prisoners of ANY gender, not just gay prison guards? And that ignoring one while harping about the other is a serious logistical error?
Don't you sit there and assume that I believe every male homosexual is mighty enough to beat and rape grown men, adult unarmed nonmuslims.
Some of the homosexual males are pure pansies who get beat up by mere women.
They don't have the balls to beat and rape anyone, however they aren't eliminated from being amongst the witnesses who say and do nothing when they have knowledge it's happening to other men.
I feel like you're spinning your wheels here. My suggestion is writing this argument of yours down in syllogistic logic, using the statements you are trying to use to convince me as the premises, and see what you can logically work out.
What you have is a syllogism approximating this:
Some of population x is some of population y
Therefore, all of population x is population y and all population y is population x.
And yet you've ignored the obvious ramifications of such logic, if it did follow. All mammals would be elephants, all clouds cumulonimbus, all continents antarctica.
Sexual orientation is determined by who you're attracted to, not who you "have in your sexual regimen." Otherwise, no virgin would be gay, straight, or anything else.
A bisexual is attracted to men and women.
"Homo" means "same," "bi" means "two, " "hetero" means "other," "a" means "none," and "pan" means "all."
A much more clear, concise, sensible categorization method than "lul if its not straight its gaaaaaay."
But let's use your method: how does your logic follow? Some handful of gay male prison guards rape people in prison, some gay male people brag about how many women they sleep with, some gay male people from your culture resent being forced to marry.
And therefore, what, you conclude that all gay people are rapine, pro gun control, promiscuous, and hate women and children, and are possessed by spirits?
By what logical sequence do you get from one to another?
A bisexual does not lose status as a homosexual because he includes a few females in his sexual regimen.
The homosexual sodomites only beat and rape the unarmed nonmuslims in the prisons.
I don't think you understand why even hardcore gangsters refuse to tangle with Muslims in there.
"I don't give homosexuals classifications."
If you call someone homosexual, you are, by definition, classifying homosexuals. Indeed, you are classifying bisexuals as homosexuals. Which is inaccurate. Scientific literature references male intimacy with males as "same sex attraction," which covers both homosexuals and bisexuals. Want a general category? Use that one.
"If a man wants to have sex with men, why should I give special categories to the one who wants to engage in reproduction activities with men, women and children?"
If a man works as a cashier at a grocery store, why should I give special categories to the man who stocks a grocery store with goods?
Its not a special category, there are no special rights or privileges associated. They are just A category. A different one. That you don't want to acknowledge because it doesn't fit your narrative.
"You are claiming that homosexual men who only have sex with men never creep about in prisons in a quest for fresh unarmed nonmuslims to beat, rape, and plunder. No straight guys prowl about looking for men and boys to molest."
Nope, I said that the men you referenced as homosexual who brag about sleeping with women aren't homosexual.
I also claimed that there are straight men who creep about in prisons looking for fresh unarmed people, (muslims or not,) looking to beat, rape, and plunder women and girls. Plenty of straight boys prowl about to molest women.
Which fit into a further point that you've thus far ignored:
If straight people aren't all as a group to blame for the few who rape, homosexuals are not, either. Neither are bisexual men. Neither are pansexuals. No sexual orientation has an inherent tendency towards disregarding lack of consent.
I don't give homosexuals classifications. If a man wants to have sex with men, why should I give special categories to the one who wants to engage in reproduction activities with men, women and children?
You are claiming that homosexual men who only have sex with men never creep about in prisons in a quest for fresh unarmed nonmuslims to beat, rape, and plunder. No straight guys prowl about looking for men and boys to molest.
Let us count your fallacies:
Equivocation (of homosexual and bisexual)
Hasty Generalization (extrapolating the details of a general category (bisexualz) from a subcategory (bisexuals who commit rape))
Insensitivity to small sampling size and bias (extrapolating data about a population (bisexuals) from a small, biased sample, (bisexual police in prison))
Special Pleading (not applying standards to straight people you applied to bisexual people)
Guilt by Association (asserting guilt on part of one set of people (bisexuals) via some connection with another set (rapine bisexuals))
Ad Hominem (asserting I am lying in lieue of a rebuttal)
Ad Populam (asserting Theists are correct because they are common)
"Any man willingly having sex with men in any capacity is one of the homosexuals, even if it's only for so called blow jobs.
You don't fool me."
No, that covers both homosexuality, bisexuality, and pansexuality, which are relevant distinctions when you try to slander men who have no interest in women by confusing them with some evil doer interested in both men and women.
Confusion comes from the relative novelty of the term bisexuality, but researchers had need of the distinction to categorize different phenomenon.
"If the man is upright and godly, he would never choose sex with men and boys over actual eligible females."
Upright and godly aren't synonyms. And many morally upright homosexual people exist.
Demonstrably not. Psychopathy is an error in the brain associated with risk analysis that is typified by highly risk prone behavior that causes danger to self and others.
"You actually believe that men who aren't homosexuals plot to hide in prisons in order to beat and rape the unarmed nonmuslims?"
Yes. Women are raped by straight and bisexual men in prison all the time. I think your confusion lies in the fact that prisoners are kept apart from those of other gender, and so only homosexual prisoners get a chance to rape others.
"You will make excuses and say those fools are bi-sexuals.
I say they are homo-sodo."
Nope, you described people who like men who raped women and children. Thats bisexuality. I further added that there are straight people, including prison guards, who rape just women, and the rare sociopath with no homosexual or bisexual mentality who rapes men specifically to assert authority.
You are making excuses for the appalling acts of bigotry of you and your fellow believers, and I'll not stand for this blatant projection.
Any man willingly having sex with men in any capacity is one of the homosexuals, even if it's only for so called blow jobs.
You don't fool me.
If the man is upright and godly, he would never choose sex with men and boys over actual eligible females.
You actually believe that men who aren't homosexuals plot to hide in prisons in order to beat and rape the unarmed nonmuslims?
You will make excuses and say those fools are bi-sexuals.
I say they are homo-sodo.
I guess it must be pretty easy, dehumanizing whole demographics of innocent people with guilt by vague association, than to even brook the thought that maybe the people who started your religion were psychopaths and bigots.
Every religion started since psychology became a rigorous scientific discipline has been found to have psychological liars as their founders.
Many have psychopathology about sexuality, seeking to control the sexual behaviors of others for their own benefit or tastes, such as some who forbid it entirely, or some who organize harems for themselves and their inner circle while driving away young males. Many forbid sodomy, while engaging in child rape in secret, using homosexuals and bisexuals to distract from their crimes.
Commonly those who organize harems marry teenagers and sometimes younger. Some become jealous over their harems, providing strict rules over what clothes are permitted in order to make women less appealing to their possible rivals.
Your religion hoists all the red flags. But that's no surprise --- all religions do. I've yet to see a religion that doesn't have some signature trace of its founder's pathology. Even Gandhi slept with young women naked, with the excuse that it was to "test himself with temptation." Disgusting...
So.... are you upset because a transgender person almost "fooled you?" Is that what this all is about?
The purpose of surgery and HRT isn't to "fool men, " it alleviates gender disphoria caused by neural architecture differences in the part of the brain associated with self image. We've confirmed that transpeople have neural architecture that doesn't match controls of the same biological sex via MRI.
Transpeople don't so much seem to fool others as they do to be socialized as they see themselves. After all, would you not be highly insulted if someone called you a woman? Its the same emotions, illicited by the same region of the brain.
I think you need to brush up on what word games are. Gay is a colloquialism that is firmly rooted in the English language, and it's former definition is irrecoverable. Bisexuality and Homosexuality have a relevant distinction, particularly when in regards to who seeks sexual intimacy with whom.
What IS a word game is equivocating homosexuals with bisexuals. You're muddying the water so you can generalize from a small percentage of one group to the entirety of both. Homosexuals don't ever rape women because they have absolutely zero interest in women. That is by the definition of women.
How would you feel if I said that bisexual men, because they like women, are straight, and therefore, you're bisexual, and that anything one bisexual has done wrong, you've done wrong? You mistook me earlier for saying something very similar, so I suspect you wouldn't. And you'd be right you be upset. For the same exact reason I am right to be upset with you.
If someone is looking for women to rape, they are one of three things: straight, (attracted to women, possibly though not likely including transwomen,) bisexual, (attracted to men and women, and quite probably but not always transpeople,) or pansexual, (attracted to men, women, transpeople, intersex, it exists, they probably like it, though there are some probable exceptions.)
There is at least one more distinct sexual orientation, and that is asexuality. Asexuals never rape anyone, because they have no interest in, sometimes even detest, sex. I'm curious, are they satanic?
And if someone rapes a child, we call them a pedophile. Many pedophiles are straight. Some are not. But not all straight, gay, bisexual, or pansexual people are child rapists. That's absurd. It's an apologist lie to rationalize ancient bigotry born of superstition.
There you go again, hiding behind terminology and playing the word games.
Gay means happy.
I meet and speak to men who admit being homosexuals.
I have met and nearly became intimate with the transgender element.
The surgery and hormone pills can fool just about any man.
These are not the homosexual sodomites hiding in prisons waiting for the perfect oppurtunity to beat and rape an unarmed nonmuslim.
You think those nonmuslims who are running around outside of the U.S. prisons finding women or little kids to rape are straight?
Then you're in a whole world of hurt.
Najam, have you ACTUALLY MET SOMEONE WHO IS GAY?
You're worried about gay people voting for gun control, not because that's a popular sentiment in the political establishment that first offered gay people respite, but because somehow, these gay people are plotting on behalf of the very rare gay policeman against straight men in prison.... while ignoring what straight, anti gun control straight policemen sometimes do to women in prison, and how many straight men are anti gun control. Would it be plausible to suggest the NRA wants guns so that they can use them to threaten others into sexual favors? No, because that'd be stupid, right? So how does your logic follow then?
And seriously, I'M the one who's lying? I don't think you're objective enough to determine that, dude.
If gay people were anti gun control, I'm now certain that you'd say it was because they wanted to use guns to rape people. Typical confirmation bias.
You are lying on behalf of the sodomite homosexual ones who actually do despise the presence of their own biological children and those of the next man.
They aren't good guys. They just don't ever want to look at your children or their own. You are bamboozled by what they are able to accomplish in the midst of their plot, but the homosexual rapes are key evidence of why they hate any actual gun battle.
"It's dark because you want to sit there and tell lies on behalf of those homosexual sodomites lurking where they are almost certain the victim has no firepower."
No... Its dark because rape is a dark subject.
As for lying, you're the one claiming homosexuals hate children. Have you actually met any homosexuals?
"Why else would they remove free-weights and 100lb dumbbells from the prisons?
Are your cowards going to take their baseballs too in fear of firearms?"
Because police work is dangerous enough without having 100 lb dumbbells slung at your head during a prison riot.
I've never heard of removing weights from prisons being on the "Gay Agenda." Don't make me laugh.
Christians here are known to send children who come out as gay to "gay conversion camps," where they are treated absolutely horribly. These camps are now operating out of other countries, and use subterfuge to get the children in question to go there, and once they are, they can't leave, usually, because it's in a foreign country they didn't expect to be in until they're already on the plane.
There they are electrocuted, isolated, and relentlessly psychologically abused.
And it doesn't work at all. Plenty of cases of "remission" among the "most successful."
Neither do exorcisms, but have they ever been anything more than theatrics?
If spirits are behind homosexuality, then they seem to have a bias towards certain genes.
It's dark because you want to sit there and tell lies on behalf of those homosexual sodomites lurking where they are almost certain the victim has no firepower.
Why else would they remove free-weights and 100lb dumbbells from the prisons?
Are your cowards going to take their baseballs too in fear of firearms?
"Nobody can do anything to change skin color except tan."
Agreed. Nobody can do anything to change sometimes sexual orientation AT ALL.
"Nobody is using an armed teams coordinated with prisons, prisoners, guards, child services in order to force anything except homosexual orientation. "
Aaaaand you lost me.
Homosexuality is not something you can force on people. Homosexuality is a biochemical state determined largely by genetics and enigmatic processes in the womb.
The vice president of the country I live in, one of the world's superpowers, used to run an organization that would kidnap ELECTROCUTE gay people.
In what's *considered* the "most free" country on earth.
"Only the homosexual sodomite men are part of the scheme to beat and rape unarmed nonmuslims in the prisons.
The straight men don't hate the presence of guns, wives, and their own biological children. "
Already refuted this one. Gay people don't hate children, LGTBQ organizations campaign for the right of gay people to adopt, and recent medical advances may allow gay people to have biological children with eachother. And gay men shouldn't HAVE wives, they're GAY. If you force them to marry a homophobic religious zealot, of course you're going to get strife. How would you like it if you had to marry a man for fear of your life?
"You must be blind to miss the perception in the lens which follows the schemes of men who despise the presence of their own children and the children of the next man.
Of course they want to hide in a gun free zone to beat and rape."
I've talked to a lot of homophobes, and you are the only one to mention this conspiracy theory....
On the contrary, rape of women and prostitution are major issues in prison systems that far outpace rape of men in prisons. I'll get you statistics once I'm home, if you want. Local wifi here has rules, and this subject matter is rather dark. Don't want to trip an algorithm.
Nobody can do anything to change skin color except tan.
Nobody is using an armed teams coordinated with prisons, prisoners, guards, child services in order to force anything except homosexual orientation.
Only the homosexual sodomite men are part of the scheme to beat and rape unarmed nonmuslims in the prisons.
The straight men don't hate the presence of guns, wives, and their own biological children.
You must be blind to miss the perception in the lens which follows the schemes of men who despise the presence of their own children and the children of the next man.
Of course they want to hide in a gun free zone to beat and rape.
Well? What say you?
So then you admit homosexuality is no more inherent rapine than heterosexuality? Then you concede you should focus rapists in genetal, as proportional if not greater numbers of heterosexual rapists exist? Then you concede that, as you demand others not use divisive words like white and black, you should drop the term Sodomite? You concede that this phenomenon you expounded upon here is not convincing demonstration of homosexuality being evil?
No, it is you who are trying to claim all men are homosexual sodomite rapists on my behalf.
Only some men are gun hating homosexual sodomites, hiding and lurking about in prisons, only some homosexual sodomites have jobs inside prisons where the unarmed nonmuslim men are beaten and raped.
I guess, judging by your silence, I must clarify:
You claim some homosexual men use the prison system to rape men. You then conclude this demonstrates Homosexual men are all rapists.
My counter point is that if we take your standard, (not mine, yours,) and apply it equally to all demographics, we must conclude straight men are all rapists, as well, since some straight men use the prison system to rape women.
My point is NOT that straight men are, therefore, all rapine, but the opposite: that the logic used to conclude that straight men are rapists used here is fallacious, and thus cannot be used to conclude all homosexual men are rapists.
This isn't a defense of homosexual rapists. Its not an attack on innocent straight men. Its an attack on the standard you applied that would, if applied consistently, condemn those straight and gay men who have raped no one. Understand now?
I see you have absolutely zero reading comprehension. Absolutely none. You took a reductio ad absurdem argument meant to show your logic can be used to reach ludicrous conclusions and took it for me claiming the conclusion.
Reread what I said and get back to me.
You are a desperate fool. You yourself being homosexual have no business or authority attempting to protect the actual homosexual sodomites beating and raping folks. Why the hell would you try to lie and place blame on the straight men?
If you personally aren't campaigning for an oppurtunity to beat and rape an unarmed nonmuslim, you have no authority to lie on behalf of those who happily engage in such behavior.
I hit enter trying to scroll up on my phone.
That would be pretty slanderous of me. Do you not see how slanderous it is to assume these things of normal, law abiding gay people?
Do you honestly believe the shit you say about homosexuals?
How many homosexuals do you think would actually do that in that situation?
Let me tell you something: I've met a LOT of gay men. This describes exactly zero of them.
And even if any had the mindset, the vast majority are not exactly....errr...."strong."
Though admittedly, you find a lot of sex offenders in jail of all stripes, including gay. What a surprise. Prison populations don't exactly represent normal civilians. Do you want me to extrapolate the moral caliber of religious people from religious prisoners? Because that'd be pretty
If both men are inside a prison, then the homosexual sodomite will try to beat and rape the other prisoner.
And here is something we agree on.
Do you recognize, then, that any men using the same process to abuse other men does not reflect on homosexuality in general, anymlre than this reflects on heterosexuality in general?