General statement of fact. Everyone that has been around for any period of time knows that you are always right in your own mind and can't admit when you are wrong
In the future, all the best women will be men.
- Thread starter andy4theherd
- Start date
Fact: rifle posted a specific quote from herdman stating that a child was incapable of knowing what gender they wanted to be.
Fact: rifle responded to this statement (the very one he chose to quote) by arguing that he understood his sexuality at a very young age.
Fact: even rifle admits that sexuality and gender identity are two completely different concepts.
Fact: rifle will never admit that he used an inconsistent position to argue his point.
Fact: rifle responded to this statement (the very one he chose to quote) by arguing that he understood his sexuality at a very young age.
Fact: even rifle admits that sexuality and gender identity are two completely different concepts.
Fact: rifle will never admit that he used an inconsistent position to argue his point.
No, that is an alternative fact. If you go back and read Herdman's post, the majority discusses homosexuality. You keep claiming that Herdman's post was only talking about gender identity. The overwhelming portion of Herdman's quote was about homosexuality. Then, Herdman changes to also talk about gender identity at the end. This is seen in his statement which reads: "Plus, some of these fathers should be ashamed not getting the kids to participate in man stuff. Guns, hunting, fishing, baseball, knives, cars, football, running a weed eater." This last statement deals with gender identity, not homosexuality. In other words, the majority of Herdman's post was about homosexuality, but he then flipped to also discuss gender identity.
Next, Thunder claimed that Herdman was discussing gender identity. In reality, if you look at Herdman's post (which is the exact thing I quoted in my response to him), the majority of his post talks about homosexuality, with only the end briefly referencing gender identity. Thunder claimed that my inclusion of sexuality somehow muddied the waters, changed the topic, or was out of my own confusion of the two. In truth, it was clearly none of those. Thunder mistakenly claimed Herdman's post was just about gender identity (which it only briefly touched on after more of a post about homosexuality).
No, that's an alternate fact. If you look at my post, you will see two main paragraphs. The first main paragraph discusses homosexuality, since that is what the majority of Herdman's post was about.
The second main paragraph, since it was a different subject, was about gender identity, since Herdman's post first discussed homosexuality then touched upon gender identity.
Not only did I response to both parts, but I did it in chronological order to Herdman's discussion of both topics.
Want definitive proof of how wrong you are? Look at my opening paragraph to start that post: "What makes you think these kids are confused? The majority of them are not confused at all and continue with their identity/preference throughout their life."
Make sure you observe that I have posted "identity/preference" showing the difference between the two. In my opening paragraph, I mentioned both, showing a difference with the backslash, then went on to discuss each one of those in separate paragraphs.
If you'd like, I can even take the time to break up Herdman's post by paragraph to show how he discussed homosexuality in a few paragraphs and then touched upon gender identity in a short paragraph at the end.
There isn't any confusion. It wasn't written poorly. It wasn't muddied or confusing. Not only did I respond to both parts of Herdman's post about homosexuality and gender identity, but I also did it in the same order he presented both. I also clearly showed that they were two different things.
You aren't sort of wrong about this.You are completely wrong, just as you were by claiming that Herdman's post was about gender identity when the majority of it was about homosexuality and just like you were about claiming it was my "original" only to claim it was after that.
This is Herdman's first paragraph. This is clearly about homosexuality.
This is his second paragraph. It is clearly about homosexuality.
This is his third paragraph. It is clearly about homosexuality.
This is Herdman's fourth paragraph. This is where he changes and discusses gender identity.
Now, how did I respond? I responded by showing a clear divide between homosexuality and gender identity (easily shown with the backslash separating the two). Then, I further showed the divide by first responding to Herdman's homosexual discussion in my first main paragraph, then responding in the second main paragraph to his comment regarding gender identity.
As I said earlier, anyone who takes the time to read this thread couldn't be confused at all with my comments. They will see that 1) you were wrong by claiming that Herdman's post was about gender identity while alluding that it wasn't about homosexuality, when in reality it was mostly about homosexuality with only a touch upon gender identity 2) you were wrong about your use of "original" with my comments 3) you were wrong about your entire premise.
Two extremely long posts, neither of which explains why you quoted herdman discussing ONLY gender identity, followed by your 2 paragraph response discussing ONLY sexuality. I'm not making it up. Post #15 in this thread. You're the one twisting and turning facts, trying to cover your mistake.
All in fake defense of queers. What a waste.
That's why I didn't play the game back when I wanted whores. Price is too high. Same with promotions at work. Once you get above this level, it's all nauseating ass kissing and dainty social grace PC rules.
BOOOOOOOO
Woody Hayes and Bob Knight would have never made it in this era.
That's why I didn't play the game back when I wanted whores. Price is too high. Same with promotions at work. Once you get above this level, it's all nauseating ass kissing and dainty social grace PC rules.
BOOOOOOOO
Woody Hayes and Bob Knight would have never made it in this era.
I know I constantly harp on you and some others about a lack of reading comprehension, but this is yet another great example of it.
First, how about quoting specific sections you are responding to? That way, we won't have to guess what the hell you are talking about. It makes it even harder when you claim "original" but don't really mean "original."
Now, for post #15 in this thread. Based on my prior posts in this thread, it should have been clear to even Houston Herd Fan's son that I know the difference between sexual preferences and gender identity. With that in mind, read Herdman's quote and my response in post #15. He asked how children were able to know they wanted to be the opposite gender. My answer was that they know the gender they want to be the same way that young children know which sexual gender they are attracted to at such a young age. I went on and explained that children exhibit homosexual signs/preferences at a very young age. Likewise, that is the same exact thing as how children are aware that they want to be the opposite sex. Was that really hard for you to understand?
But, lets really dumb this down and dissect it for you. Pretend that my earlier post clearly showing the difference between homosexuality/gender identity didn't exist. You could then assume I don't know the difference between the two. Even under that circumstance, my response to Herdman in #15 clearly shows exactly the opposite of what you are claiming!
Herdman: "How in the hell does a prepubescent child know that they want to be the other gender?"
Would it make sense for me to say "the same way that Justin in first grade knows he wants to be a girl?" That wouldn't make sense for me to say, since it would be simply restating the question. So, when somebody starts with "the same way," they would have to show an example of something else other than the original comment. In other words, young children are aware that they want to be the other gender the same way that young children are able to know they are attracted to the opposite sex.
Herdman had trouble understanding how a young child could know they want to be the opposite gender. I showed him that they have the desire and knowledge of being the opposite gender the same way children at that age have the desire and knowledge of whom they are attracted to sexually. He didn't say that he had trouble understanding how children at a young age could know they were homosexual. He said that he couldn't understand how children knew they wanted to be the other gender. So, I explained that they had that desire/knowledge "the same way" that they were able to have the homosexuality desire/knowledge.
Really, do you read things other than sports message boards? This isn't rocket science stuff here. The things you contest make absolutely no sense.
I'm really glad you didn't try that line on me...that would be beyond some Wilt Chamberlain shit.
After reading this, I think the amoeba may have it all figured out in terms of sexuality.
Is there a damn ball game on.
Is there a damn ball game on.
The Reds are actually winning. They were supposed to go 0-162. Sure they'll make a run at it soon, but until they do it's actual baseball on TV. After they start losing 6 games a week, it'll be back to wishing the Leah Remini series lasted more than 7 episodes.
