A drive-by commenter by the name of Ryu238 left comments on various random old posts of mine back in December, the posts themselves being related to stuff that I have written about homosexuality, gay “marriage”, and various related nonsensical ideas thereof – apparently because leftists have nothing better to do over the Christmas season than rage-vent their spleens on Hard Right blogs.
He left so many comments, in fact, that it’s hard to know exactly where to begin. But they all concentrate around my posts concerning gays, lesbians, transgenders, and the assorted forms of utter madness that have been inflicted by them upon the American population as a whole.
The comments also share two other traits, as you are about to find out.
First, Ryu238’s preferred method of argument appears to be the standard Leftist “Appeal to Amenable Authority” – i.e. every single comment is liberally (see what I did there?) interspersed with links to Leftist clickbait rags like Vox and Salon.
His secondary approach evidently involves bales of hay turned into men of straw. I can only surmise from this that he is some sort of gay farm hand with rather too much idle time.
And he is apparently gayer than springtime, because the comments are quite heavily sprinkled with references to “your side” – which is to say, those of us men who like dating, having sex with, and marrying actual women.
Our side, I would remind you, is the overwhelming majority of all men – well over 95% of us are straight as a ruler, given that only about 4% of the general population is homosexual and vanishingly smaller numbers are part of the whole LGBTWTFISTHIS menagerie in the various other flavours of that particular sandwich.
And second, his comments are full of classic examples of what we might call:
http:\Idontknowhowtoembedhyperlinksin2018.com.
Just sayin’. It’s not that hard to use HTML tags to embed links in comments nowadays. It took me only a few minutes to figure this stuff out back when I started doing it.
This ineptitude with basic HTML – and it is very basic – resulted in a rather a lot of time wasted on my part on the dreary task of cleaning up the results, but here they are.
So anyway, here we go with the comments. I’ve provided a link to my original post, along with the details of his comments. My original text is in bold italics, his comments are italicised, my responses are in plain text, and we’ll carry on from there.
Outward to Convert, Then Inward to Destroy
Drag queens, aka transvestites, are not permitted at events celebrating gay “pride”, because men dress up as women for a “hobby”. But men who think of themselves as women, aka transsexuals, and who actually do claim to be women, like Bruce Jenner, are to be welcomed with open arms.
In other words, the only distinction between being a drag queen, a fairy, and a man with severe mental issues is FEELZ.
So you think guys like Ben Shapiro are right?
I do not much care what a Neo-Palestinian like Ben “Littlest Chickenhawk” Shapiro thinks on the subject of drag queens or trannies, or pretty much anything else, for that matter.
That Salon article you linked to did not demonstrate that Ben Shapiro failed to “humiliate” a trans-woman (read: man) who calls himself “Zoey Tur”. All he did was state openly that Zoey Tur is a man.
If you watch a video clip of Little Benny’s “failed attempt” to “humiliate” Mr. Tur, you will realise very quickly that the one who came across as an ass was the tranny.
That this is even open to question simply shows how degraded the Western world has become. Every single cell in Mr. Tur’s body says that he is male, because he was born with an X-Y chromosomal pair. He might be mentally deluded enough to call himself a woman, but that does not make him one.
And drag queens and trans people are not the same.
I never said they were, you moron. Read what I actually wrote.
Since you are on the short bus, I will spell it out for you. I never claimed that transsexuals were the same as transvestites. The issue at hand is very simple: the organisers of that particular “Gay Pride” festival were drawing completely arbitrary distinctions and using totally made-up definitions of what is, and is not, a man or a woman.
That arbitrariness is both stupid and ridiculous, and is tying up the LGBTQWTFISTHIS community into absurd knots which could be cut through very easily with one stroke of a logical sword:
Your biology and genetics determine whether you are male or female. That’s all there is to it. To pretend that a man can be a woman, and a woman can be a man, is nonsense of the worst kind.
If homosexuals wish to indulge in their own peculiar… acts behind closed doors, that is between them and the good Lord; let them do so in peace.
How is this different from what heterosexuals do? Indeed the obsession with sexual activities comes from your side.
Right, here are the relevant quotes from the link:
CDC‘s National Survey of Family Growth:
“Percent of males and females 25-44 years of age who have ever had anal sex with an opposite sex partner, 2002: Males: 40.0% Females: 34.7%”
D. T. Haplerin, 1999, AIDS Patient Care STDS, 13(12), 717-730:
“In terms of absolute numbers, approximately seven times more women than homosexual men engage in unprotected receptive anal intercourse.”
Bruce Voeller, 1991, Archives of Sexual Behavior, 20(3), 233-276:
“Considerably more heterosexuals engage in the act than do homosexual and bisexual men, not all of whom participate in anal coitus.”
And the point here is… what, exactly?
First, these estimates are questionable to begin with. The CDC’s data are based on a special tabulation done by the NCHS, not on raw data. Other sources put the prevalence of anal sex among MSM – men who have sex with men, which is a superset of the population of outright gay and bisexual men – at about 90%, and at 5-10% among sexually active women.
This alone illustrates why the Appeal To Authority is such an irritating and stupid debate tactic; you can find virtually any factoids you want to support your argument, but if they are not backed up by clear deductive or inductive logic as well, they are empty.
Now, homosexuals amount to less than 4% of the US population – not the oft-cited but false 10%. The CDC’s own data from that very same National Survey of Family Growth provides figures in line with this estimate. So the absolute numbers comparison is garbage – of course more heterosexuals engage in anal sex than homos, there are more of us than there are of them. It’s blindingly obvious.
Moreover, if we look at the quotes from the cited studies, the fact that men have anal sex with women has nothing to do with the question of whether homosexuality is wrong. The former is an empirical fact; the latter is a moral judgement. The latter can be supported by the former, but the former has nothing to do with the latter.
As I said in my original writing – sexual acts between consenting adults are their business. As long as homos do not flout their degeneracy in public, what they get up to is their problem.
Why do I consider homosexuality to be wrong and disgusting, particularly of the male kind? For several reasons – not least of which is the fact that the human body is not designed for anal sex.
Most straight men – not all – find the idea of anal sex to be quite disgusting. That is because the anus is designed for removal of waste from the human body. It is designed for excretion, not insertion. (Some straight men find the idea quite stimulating due to the way that the prostate gland affects men, but that again is not the norm.)
Moreover, there are some serious health risks associated with anal sex: tissue tearing, rectal prolapse (DON’T Google this, for God’s and your sake), infection from all of the bacteria in the poop-chute, exposure to all manner of nasty diseases such as hepatitis, herpes, HPV, and other things, and of course HIV/AIDS.
Saying that “anal sex can be performed safely”, as that homo-apologist blog would like you to believe, is like saying that chainsaws can be juggled safely. Yeah, they can – but it’s still stupid to try doing it.
And all of that is before we get to the other major reason why people like me think that male homosexuality, in particular, is wrong and disgusting: homosexual men are vastly more promiscuous than heterosexual ones, and are vastly higher risks for disease transmission. The highest rates of HIV infections and disease transmissions, by far, are to be found among injectable-using gay men.
While I strongly advocate safe sex wherever possible, especially among the more sexually active men out there, the plain fact is that raw-dogging your latest Tinderella on the first date is, statistically speaking, less dangerous than having unprotected gay sex in a San Francisco bathhouse. (Still, if you do the former, you are probably too stupid to be allowed to vote, or reproduce.)
The reason why straight people care about the sexual conduct of homosexuals, especially homosexual men, is because the lifestyles of gay men are rapidly becoming a huge health hazard for everyone else.
That isn’t my view – that’s the WHO’s view, and the CDC is calling the spread of HIV/AIDS an “epidemic”. Since gay men, and specifically injectable-using gay men, are driving the vast majority of new infections, the conclusion follows naturally.
We are now at the point where large corporations are falling in line with the pro-gay agenda out of fear of being sued- up to and including surveys that ask employees whether or not they are “allies” of the LGBT movement.
Your link literally goes to a source about how JP Morgan Chase sent out an “anonymous response” survey to employees asking them whether they were LGBT allies. And JPM made it impossible to access that survey without providing your employee ID number. Thanks for proving my point.
Moreover, are you seriously going to listen to a bank’s PR department trying to defend itself? These are the same people who blew billions of dollars of other people’s money, repeatedly, over the last 20 years.
I know how they operate. I worked in two such institutions – both of which were caught up in massive market-rigging and manipulation scandals dating back to 2008.
I used to work in a bank similar to JPM – located in a building not far away from their corporate headquarters in New York, actually. When Gay Pride month came around in 2016 and 2017, we were given little paper placards that we could display in our cubicles, proclaiming ourselves to be an “ALLY” of the LGBT movement. The more “virtuous” of us would display two or even three placards. (Like my last boss before I was let go, for instance – my opinions about him are well known by this point.)
My previous employer did something similar with a survey that they sent around in 2017. Needless to say, I dumped the placard into the bin and deleted that survey link right out of my inbox.
The idea that corporate America is not in thrall to the Rainbow Mafia is so ridiculous as to be unworthy of comment by this point.
Read that again, because it’s quite important: a major character subtly outs himself as gay in a movie MARKETED TOWARD SMALL CHILDREN.
Heterosexuals are in these movies too. Is this appropriate for small kids?
You might want to take a note here: repeating a link to a previously used source is not an argument.
Moreover: heterosexuals, and heterosexual couples, are normal. Homosexuals are not. And homosexuals, particularly homosexual men, aresignificantly more likely to molest and sexually abuse children, especially boys, than heterosexual ones.
(Incidentally, one of my most loyal readers is a military man who was sexually abused and “groomed” as a child. I imagine that his take on Ryu238’s “arguments” is rather shorter and fruitier than mine.)
It is usually at this point that someone would attempt to counteract Ms. Barwick’s arguments, based entirely on anecdotal evidence, by attempting to drown out such horrendous badthink by shouting about how THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED.
How is miss Barwick not anecdotal at all and somehow statistically representative?
Your reading comprehension is pathetic. What I actually said was related to Ms. Barwick’s critics.
This observation has been borne out in several studies and was documented extensively in Robin Baker’s groundbreaking classic Sperm Wars.
You mean that piece of shit book?
Why don’t you check your facts?
Why don’t you learn how to debate like an adult, instead of a little bitch? You are engaging in what is known as the “genetic fallacy” – go look it up, you might learn something useful.
My reference to Robin Baker’s book had nothing to do with the link to the reddit post that you provided as an “argument”. You attempt to discredit the whole book by looking at a few specific things that the authors got wrong – which, by the way, I will be happy to concede that they did.
What I was referring to, on the other hand, comes along much later in the book, and has to do with how gay men and women behave. That has nothing to do with whether or not men produce “blocker” and “killer” and “egg-getter” sperm.
Except… it turns out that the science is not settled.
First link has nothing whatsoever to do with the article I cited in my post; the name “Xiradou” does not appear once in any of the cited studies in that article. Second link goes nowhere. That was a particularly stupid and inept straw-man attack.
It is easy to blather on about the virtues of gay “marriage” when you don’t have to think about the consequences. But when you realise that the consequences involve potentially destroying the lives of young children, it is rather a lot more difficult to simply ignore the train-wreck that is the logical end-result of your ideas.
If you can’t get the facts right, why should we think you do care?
The one getting his facts wrong here is you, repeatedly. And I don’t care what you do with your own degenerate lifestyle – but leave children out of it.
From the perspective of us normal people, we do not like your lifestyle and do not approve of it. We tolerate it as long as you keep it out of our faces and do not insist on special rights to legitimise your degeneracy. That tolerance has its limits, and you are going to find that out one way or another, very likely the hard way, if you insist on continuing to ram your rainbow agenda down our throats. We don’t like it and we will not stand for it.
Sliding rapidly down that slippery slope
Despite what Hollywood and the mainstream media would like you to believe, there is in fact a rather pressing need for a father (a bloke, usually the head of his household, who provides the firm hand and moral guidance that only a man can- you may have perhaps come across the idea?) in a child’s life. Especially if that child happens to be male. The consequences of children, especially boys, being raised by single mothers are well known and well understood by now- and they are disastrous.
Except the source you use is stupid.
Have you ever actually bothered to read Charles Murray’s work? I did. Try doing that, instead of quoting what liberal New York magazine writers think of him.
In fact your critique uses the same flaws as this study. Stop trying to use single mothers as if they were the same as a couple!
I am aware of the problems with the Regnerus study about children raised by gay parents. Unfortunately for you, I mentioned nothing about that study in my post – and in fact that study has very little to do with the context of my statement.
Let’s see if you can follow this simple logical syllogism:
- Children raised without fathers are statistically likely to have serious social and economic problems in later life.
- Three women were “married” together into a “throuple” with no male presence involved in a parenting role.
- Therefore, any children born or adopted into such an arrangement are likely to have significant social and economic problems later in life.
The first leg of that stool is empirically rigourous and well known. The second leg is a plain and simple fact. The third leg follows naturally through straightforward deduction.
Lest I have overly taxed your poor tired brain, allow me to give it some rest and state things plainly:
You can’t argue your way out of a paper bag.
Furthermore, I did not state or even imply that single mothers are the same as a couple. Again, look at the syllogism above. It’s very straightforward.
Lesbians are fat and ugly?!? Say it ain’t so!
Like I said, the BMI has a lot of issues.
That being said, anyone who has spent any significant time in the USA knows quite well that this country is full of heffalumps.
So you know its [sic] bullshit but it confirms biases [sic]? Why the double standard?
I didn’t say that BMI is useless. I said that it is a problematic metric. As a very general guide, it has some uses, but for men like me, who work out frequently and have a decent amount of dense muscle, it does not apply very well.
It’s not a “double” standard, it’s just a standard standard. The distortions in BMI usually occur with people who have large amounts of dense muscle mass. That does not apply in the case of fat lesbians, or anyone else who is overweight/obese and does not have large amounts of muscle mass.
Yet, overall, gay men act like women- the gay-fairy stereotype exists for a reason– and gay women act like men, as anyone who has ever had to deal with the distasteful aftermath of a gay pride rally has found out.
It is therefore unsurprising that gay men think that, like, they look totally fat in those jeans, darling- while gay women would be more interested in the donuts and Twinkies Danishes muffins pastries.
Why is being concerned about weight the same as a stereotype in your eyes?
This line of “argument”, isn’t one. It doesn’t even make sense.
That was quite a tedious exercise, it must be said. Not to worry, the usual routine of Godly Scripture and linkage will resume from tomorrow onward, so you may now enjoy your weekend in peace.
2 Comments
You are vastly more patient than I.
I sort through the homo bullshit so that you don't have to…