Marionetta wrote:

Lol. Lala's been contributing almost nothing except b.s. with no proof to back her up. I really think she needs to come up with something that isn't backed by religious leaders. Ex-gays are backed by religious leaders. I'm rather annoyed by her ignorance, but I can live with that. What's really bothering me is that she's trying to play the victim, despite the fact that her argument is antagonistic in structure. My only request is that she tries to research more before trying to argue.

amersfoort wrote:


I understand your frustration, but please refrain from any personal attacks or name calling.
And pointing fingers saying she isn't contributing etc, doesn't mean you should do the same thing, be a good example.

Now I don't understand the victim argument, because nothing in her posts, or other posts look like that to me.
But I must admit I've been reading over the name calling etc done by DomFortress and others so she might be indeed playing the victim role.

Anyway, please this is an extended discussion, not a personal attack forum and not an one liner forum

Marionetta wrote:

I did. But my statement might be a few pages back.
Another annoyance is her statement of "being gay is not okay!"
It's almost like me saying "Speaking in the third-person is not okay!" And providing weak evidence as to why speaking in such a way is bad for her health and unnatural. That's bullying. She doesn't need to be doing that.

DomFortress wrote:

I think I've got some explaining to do, about why I stated an egocentric/egotistic personality is problematic, unhealthy and thus "socially aversive". And it has to do with the psychological discovery and understanding of the "dark-triad" of personality traits; machiavellianism, subclinical narcissism, and subclinical psychopathy.

Whenever we think of these three personality traits, we can visualize them forming a triangle on a relationship map. Depending on the social situation, a person can transit from whichever those said traits, in order to get whatever he/she wants in any relationship.


But the baseline for these personality traits is always narcissism, which is why it's a good starting point to determine how selfish, uncaring, and manipulative a person, a community, and ultimately a society as a whole might become. And sadly to say, our culture had been celebrating, encouraging, and spreading narcissistic behaviours worldwide with the help of the social medias dominating the social scene.

And subjectively all three traits share this initial viewpoint on other people: "is this person/group useful to me". The logic and rationale of this thinking is simple but discouraging: to perceive other human beings as mere objects based on their usefulness, not who they are as social organisms with thoughts, feelings, and thus emotional and social needs. It's the inability to feel connected on an emotional level which makes people with these traits dangerous to society.

Now if I was simply tossing names at random individuals, without myself pointing out just what's wrong with how they're behaving and why, then I'm no different than a bully with fancy vocabulary. And I do feel guilty whenever I did what I perceived as a wrong, and then I'll correct myself accordingly. But not to understand what makes a bully a bully is inviting ourselves to behave just like them, and I for one wouldn't allow myself stood to that level of ignorance.

amersfoort wrote:



I perfectly see where you are coming from, I too think that her opinions aren't, how can I put it most friendly, ''correct''.
Nevertheless to keep calling someone ''bully'' is being incredibly rude as well, if you're trying to make a point, call someone like that just once, that will or will not do the trick, but further pushing it is rude, uncivilized and in my eyes a form of (although slightly) bullying.

Now this is the problem in my eyes, thank to these small insults towards eachother, we all (including me) digress from the topic at hand.
So I beg you, and not only you, but everyone. Stay polite, and stay on topic, refrain from personal attacks and insults because those simply do not belong on a forum with the name ''extended discussions''.

DomFortress wrote:

Not unless it's a feedback, with consistent and clear sets of evidence,explanation, and indication of just what's happening. Patient is a virtue whenever it's most demanding, and I can be patient with my feedback, but I would much prefer myself being honest than forced to be polite.

Besides, since when did us being polite to bullies, had made the bully problem gone away throughout history? At least whenever I consistently and clearly explained myself to homosexuals that I'm heterosexual, they'll respect my sexual orientation and not to engage me in a romantic relationship. I don't see the same kind of self-respect coming from bullies, so you tell me how any society had managed to solve the bully problem with politeness. If anything, my confrontational and assertive attitude sends a consistent and clear message to the bullies that I won't stand to be manipulated.

amersfoort wrote:



Well the point I am trying to make is not to digress, wich we clearly are.
Now I would feel more than inclined to comment on your question if that was the topic at hand. (and I will if you make the topic)
However right now it is not, and your confrontational attitude isn't helping us staying on topic.

DomFortress wrote:

You mean all the mental and emotional harms done by the ex-gay ministries/movement? I don't see how's that constitutes as "rehabilitation". You liar.

It's not as uncertain as science has come to know.

Homosexuality doesn't make people less sociable or insane, therefore it needn't fixing.

To discourage is synonymous as to bully, you bully.

DomFortress wrote:

And how is yourself discouraging/disheartening/dispiriting homosexuals aren't mental and emotional violence/bullying?

And paedophilia isn't a natural desire when it's a mental disorder listed in DSM IV. Therefore you can't compare it to homosexuality which isn't a mental disorder.

Syndicaidramon wrote:

Lala should crawl back to the neanderthal cave she came from and stay there.

Marionetta wrote:

Here, here!
Lala is saying rude things and wondering why she's being called out for it. Because Lala is bullshitting everyone and tossing red herrings to try to make herself sound smart and well-informed.
Don't hate Lala for her ignorance, hate her for her third-person speek.

LalaSatalin wrote:



#1: Whatever.

#2: Pedophilia can be both natural and caused by upbringing. Social conformity plays a role in telling people that it is not okay to be a pedophile, and that role should be played on homosexuality too.

amersfoort wrote:

My apologies for entering this conversation in the middle of the action, but I am quite interested in a person who doesn't want homosexuality to be accepted in society, but doesn't do this on a religious base.

Now I have several questions of course, but I wont try to digress and thus ask the following questions or make the following statements.

I'm afraid Lala, that the burden of proof does not lie on DomFortress, but it lies on you, because you state that the relations individuals have with eachother have a hiarchy, and thus some relations are better or worse than others.
Now why should we not accept homosexuality? It happens in nature, and us humans are part of nature as well.

You say that we should not compare humans to animals, and as an argument you use a lion attacking a person.
Now I will try to show you that you are no different from that lion.
You claim that you will try and help that person, but what if a lion saw on of it's pride members being attacked, for example by hyena's, there are videos (I don't have a link unfortunatly, but if you demand I shall search and probably find one) showing that the other lion will defend the member of it's pride.

Now how about attacking, the lion might either attack out of defense or as hunt. The person might have threathend the habitat of the lion, or threatend cubs, or their food source.
Humans are known to attack each other for many many reasons, and trying to protect their offspring ortheir livelyhood, and many other reasons.
If the lion is hunting then it's not really ''attacking'' now is it? I'm not attacking chicken when I'm eating chicken. (I know it doesn't look like hunting, but it's our way of hunting in modern society)

Now homosexuality most certainly doesn't occur as much as heterosexuality, but as DomFortress stated, quanity does not equal equality.
There are many fetishes in the world, I for one am attracted to breast, other males are attracted to blonds or large butts. And some people like people from their same gender. When you say that homosexuality should not be accepted, then what sexual preference SHOULD be accepted? And why should we ask you as an authority on that field?

Now the point you make about pedophelia is indeed a good one, however in pedophelia there is one factor that makes it ''immoral''.
The partner is in most cases either hurt, or does not grasp the concept of what is going on, and thus their freedom of choice is being denied.
Thus the reasons why pedophelia is bad and why we want it treated (even though I personally doubt it can), is because victims are usually hurt or their freedom of actions is being denied.

This is not the case in homosexuality, or any other sexual fetish (except for rape, wich is also wrong).

Now again, tell us why homosexuality should not be accepted, is immoral, unnatural or not equal.

Marionetta wrote:

Comparing homosexuality to something like pedophilia and calling them both similar in evil is why you are being called antagonistic. "Whatever" means you have no argument