Are you born gay?

[The ClayTaurus]

how was last call? 10 at 2 and 2 at 10 huh?

Excuse me?

 

[1549]

you have read the recent studies that claim it is tied to hormones in the womb and not genetic?

No, in high school biology I learned how dominant and recessive traits work.

I am sure countless gay men in the distant past had sex with women. They did it because everyone else was, perhaps they wanted a son, perhaps they just wanted to screw something...the reason is irrelevant. That event is all it takes for the gene to get passed on for all of eternity. Most likely a recessive trait that manifests itself every so often. Just like numerous other genetic conditions that exist today.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

if i am an ompnipotent creator with virtually unlimited authority, influence and power

can i not define perfection and hold all to my definition....why yes i can

Sure. But I doubt any of us would be clued into it, especially when we have our own non-omnipotent definition that doesn't seem to quite work.

 

[manu1959]

Excuse me?

bar.... last call...rollin in late? get it....nevermind

 

[The ClayTaurus]

bar.... last call...rollin in late? get it....nevermind

It's only midnight here.

Tigers just beat the shit outta your boys. I was in front of the TV.

 

[Dr Grump]

You can insult someone all you want and see nothing wrong with it, and then when called on it you claim the insultee is overreacting or simply doesn't understand.

America haters do this kind of thing all the time. They post articles and links to the worst kind of anti-American bullshit and when someone objects, or replies with a counter argument, they say "take it up with the author".

I never claimed I don't insult people. If I think someone deserves it, I'll call them whatever I think they deserve to be called.

I have to say, though, that I don't understand why stupid people object to being called stupid, except that they're too stupid to realize how stupid they are.

Like you I happily insult people if it is warranted. I just don't see using a dictionary definition to accurately display someone's behaviour as an insult.

I just love how neocons are the ones who call others Amerihaters. Weak argument...very weak. It's a sure sign they've lost the argument and know it...

 

[Dr Grump]

this has always facinated me....why is being liberal (tollerant in your thinking) an insult and why is being a neocon (new conservative) an insult.....

seems to me if i was one of those and belived in what the words stood for i would say thank you.....

I agree.

 

[nt250]

I know what a neocon is. Is this the part where you take me to that site that explains that all this time liberals and normal folk have been using the term incorrectly? Been there, done that. Outsida that, I didn't know it was an insult. However, calling me a liberal is!

I'll assume you are half joking about being insulted by being called a liberal, but I do find it perplexing that many liberals are insulted by being called a liberal. It's probably due to the intent of the person who calls them that. If it's meant as an insult, it is only natural that you would take it as an insult. It's a concept liberals never seem to understand when they use similiar labels to insult others.

Most liberals have no idea what a "neocon" is. They think all conservatives are neocons because they only read liberal view points. I've never come across a liberal on a message board yet who understands what a real conservative is.

Do you ever read George Will? Pat Buchanan? Armstrong Williams? Phyllis Schafly? Bill O'Reilly? Michelle Malkin? Ann Coulter?

There are a lot of conservatives out there who do not hold to the PNAC view. But most liberals on message boards don't seem to know that because they refuse to read anything written by anybody who they perceive to be a conservative.

They'll read any far-out, left wing, nutjob, Tin Foil Hat Brigade, blog but they won't read a single word Ann Coulter writes without a vomit bucket.

It's really pathetic.

 

[Dr Grump]

I'll assume you are half joking about being insulted by being called a liberal, but I do find it perplexing that many liberals are insulted by being called a liberal. It's probably due to the intent of the person who calls them that. If it's meant as an insult, it is only natural that you would take it as an insult. It's a concept liberals never seem to understand when they use similiar labels to insult others.

Most liberals have no idea what a "neocon" is. They think all conservatives are neocons because they only read liberal view points. I've never come across a liberal on a message board yet who understands what a real conservative is.

Do you ever read George Will? Pat Buchanan? Armstrong Williams? Phyllis Schafly? Bill O'Reilly? Michelle Malkin? Ann Coulter?

There are a lot of conservatives out there who do not hold to the PNAC view. But most liberals on message boards don't seem to know that because they refuse to read anything written by anybody who they perceive to be a conservative.

They'll read any far-out, left wing, nutjob, Tin Foil Hat Brigade, blog but they won't read a single word Ann Coulter writes without a vomit bucket.

It's really pathetic.

I'm not insulted at all by being called a liberal, only that I am not one. It's hardly a bad thing. There are a lot worse things to be called.

Most conservatives on this board are conservatives. There are only a couple of neocons IMO...

I have read Coulter, Buchanan, Malkin and O'Reilly. Have not read Will (although I know who he is) and I have not heard of Schafly...

 

[nt250]

I'm not insulted at all by being called a liberal, only that I am not one. It's hardly a bad thing. There are a lot worse things to be called.

Most conservatives on this board are conservatives. There are only a couple of neocons IMO...

I have read Coulter, Buchanan, Malkin and O'Reilly. Have not read Will (although I know who he is) and I have not heard of Schafly...

George Will is probably the most intelligent and even handed conservative columnist there is. But it's tough to get through any of his columns without a dictionary handy. Let's just say he like words. If you're a baseball fan, you'll love him. When he doesn't write about politics he writes about his true love: baseball.

Phyllis Schafly is a very accomplished woman. She was one of the first female graduates of her law school. She was a real pioneer in womens rights. But she's an extreme conservative in the sense that doesn't believe in the concept of feminism. Feminists hate her guts. She's a traditional conservative like Will, and traditional conservatives have no use for Bush or the neocons. But she's a really fascinating person. I like reading her columns but they can be on the dry side.

 

[manu1959]

It's only midnight here.

Tigers just beat the shit outta your boys. I was in front of the TV.

hate baseball...stupid sport really.....cricket without the tea

 

[manu1959]

I agree.

now now now .... don't be all nice like this ... people will start talking

 

[glockmail]

No, not name calling. Look up the words bigot and homophobe. Name calling is things like "dickhead" and "motherf....er" stuff like that. I don't think you are those things. I think you are a bigot and homophobe - words used to describe certain behaviour.

This is childish behavior, you calling me something that you have no proof of. What if I called you a poop pusher? You would be insulted, no?

 

[glockmail]

So define perfection, please. Clearly it isn't "optimal in all aspects", as that is your definition of omnipotent.

Look the terms up. Perfect can be destroyed, omipotent cannot.:spank3:

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Look the terms up. Perfect can be destroyed, omipotent cannot.:spank3:

Perfect:
1. Lacking nothing essential to the whole; complete of its nature or kind. 2. Being without defect or blemish: a perfect specimen. 3. Thoroughly skilled or talented in a certain field or area; proficient. 4. Completely suited for a particular purpose or situation: She was the perfect actress for the part. 5a. Completely corresponding to a description, standard, or type: a perfect circle; a perfect gentleman. b. Accurately reproducing an original: a perfect copy of the painting. 6. Complete; thorough; utter: a perfect fool. 7. Pure; undiluted; unmixed: perfect red. 8. Excellent and delightful in all respects: a perfect day. 9. Botany Having both stamens and pistils in the same flower; monoclinous. 10. Grammar Of, relating to, or constituting a verb form expressing action completed prior to a fixed point of reference in time. 11. Music Designating the three basic intervals of the octave, fourth, and fifth.

Omnipotent:
Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful.

Actually, I don't see any mention of the word destruction anywhere. I guess you think something can be perfect even if it can be sullied by something less than perfect.

I disagree. "Lacking nothing essential to the whole" leads me to believe that continued existence is pretty essential to the whole, and therefore the ability to destroy something renders it imperfect.

Beyond that, there is no mention in the defintion of omnipotent of perfection. Omnipotent deals not with characteristics but merely power/authority/influence.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

This is childish behavior, you calling me something that you have no proof of. What if I called you a poop pusher? You would be insulted, no?

Probably depends on if he was a poop pusher or not.

 

[Abbey Normal]

Perfect:
...
I disagree. "Lacking nothing essential to the whole" leads me to believe that continued existence is pretty essential to the whole, and therefore the ability to destroy something renders it imperfect.
...

Clay, Clay, you are much smarter than this. Perfection and indestructability are not in any way synonymous. Picture a butterfly, fully formed, perfect wings, etc. Now picture your foot coming down on it. Or a rose, with every petal formed into the ideal rose shape, not a blemish in sight. Crushed in your hand.

In both cases: Perfection, destroyed.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Clay, Clay, you are much smarter than this. Perfection and indestructability are not in any way synonymous. Picture a butterfly, fully formed, perfect wings, etc. Now picture your foot coming down on it. Or a rose, with every petal formed into the ideal rose shape, not a blemish in sight. Crushed in your hand.

In both cases: Perfection, destroyed.

I guess it depends on semantics as to whether the working definition of perfect is true to the technical definition. Your examples do illustrate the working definition of something perfect quite well, and I will admit I was getting caught up in the technicalities.

I suppose I have difficulty comparing our existence with a butterfly underfoot or a rose in clenched fist. But perhaps that has to do with my innate belief that life evolves so as to not crush underfoot so easily the next time. Wouldn't a butterfly that was capable of dodging a life-threatening foot stomp be more perfect than the regular, dead, squished butterfly?

 

[glockmail]

....

Actually, I don't see any mention of the word destruction anywhere. ......

You have gone so far outside the realm of reasonableness here.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

You have gone so far outside the realm of reasonableness here.

Probably. But we've moved on from that post. I understand it's easier to just take potshots rather than discuss.