Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style ... 94591.html


Study out of Western Carolina U. Probably read this board to confirm their findings.

dbackjon wrote:http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style ... 94591.html


Study out of Western Carolina U. Probably read this board to confirm their findings.

That's fucking gay.














Hey, we still on to do some red veining?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

dbackjon wrote:http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style ... 94591.html


Study out of Western Carolina U. Probably read this board to confirm their findings.

Like when you made fun of me for admitting to attending an Erasure concert?

Twink...

dbackjon wrote:http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style ... 94591.html


Study out of Western Carolina U. Probably read this board to confirm their findings.

I thought it was because they are funny?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Study: Gay men will grasp at anything to put down straight men who make fun of them.

Fact: Jokes are funny

AZGrizFan wrote:Study: Gay men will grasp at anything to put down straight men who make fun of them.

They certainly are willing to bend over backwards or in some instances, go low, to achieve their goals.

There's not enough int he article to really critique the study except for the statement "Researchers from the Western Carolina University in the US conducted two experiments..." It doesn't look like they conducted any experiments. It looks like they did an observational study looking for associations.

Otherwise: This is nothing new. Not in general. It's akin to the old thing of saying that if someone expresses the opinion that homosexuality is an abnormal condition it means they are secretly afraid of their own homosexual tendencies. I've always thought we have a problem with people in the psychological and psychiatric sciences in that they tend to have a persistent bias towards trying to "prove" that homosexuality is "normal" and that there's something "wrong" with people who disagree.

I think the conclusions of this study probably preceded the study. I think the authors knew what they were going to say before they ever issued the questionnaires.

It's all part of a general effort to broadcast the message, "if you don't conform to our philosophy with respect to sexuality you have deep insecurities. There is something wrong with you."

Whatever sissy la la................

JohnStOnge wrote:There's not enough int he article to really critique the study except for the statement "Researchers from the Western Carolina University in the US conducted two experiments..." It doesn't look like they conducted any experiments. It looks like they did an observational study looking for associations.

Otherwise: This is nothing new. Not in general. It's akin to the old thing of saying that if someone expresses the opinion that homosexuality is an abnormal condition it means they are secretly afraid of their own homosexual tendencies. I've always thought we have a problem with people in the psychological and psychiatric sciences in that they tend to have a persistent bias towards trying to "prove" that homosexuality is "normal" and that there's something "wrong" with people who disagree.

I think the conclusions of this study probably preceded the study. I think the authors knew what they were going to say before they ever issued the questionnaires.

It's all part of a general effort to broadcast the message, "if you don't conform to our philosophy with respect to sexuality you have deep insecurities. There is something wrong with you."

Homosexuality is NOT normal. Just like green eyes, red hair, and being born with two left feet is not normal.

People with green eyes, red hair, and two left feet are deviant.

Reminder to self, quit telling Iowa jokes to hide my insecurity about Minnesota Governor Dayton.

Jon's thread title does make sense though.

JohnStOnge wrote:There's not enough int he article to really critique the study except for the statement "Researchers from the Western Carolina University in the US conducted two experiments..." It doesn't look like they conducted any experiments. It looks like they did an observational study looking for associations.

Otherwise: This is nothing new. Not in general. It's akin to the old thing of saying that if someone expresses the opinion that homosexuality is an abnormal condition it means they are secretly afraid of their own homosexual tendencies. I've always thought we have a problem with people in the psychological and psychiatric sciences in that they tend to have a persistent bias towards trying to "prove" that homosexuality is "normal" and that there's something "wrong" with people who disagree.

I think the conclusions of this study probably preceded the study. I think the authors knew what they were going to say before they ever issued the questionnaires.

It's all part of a general effort to broadcast the message, "if you don't conform to our philosophy with respect to sexuality you have deep insecurities. There is something wrong with you."

But..but..but..Trump!

Well, "sexist" men get the vajahjah. There aren't any romance or dirty novels where the guy seduces the girl by talking about abortion rights or equal pay.

Pwns wrote:Well, "sexist" men get the vajahjah. There aren't any romance or dirty novels where the guy seduces the girl by talking about abortion rights or equal pay.

You read romance novels? Pussy.

Pwns wrote:Well, "sexist" men get the vajahjah. There aren't any romance or dirty novels where the guy seduces the girl by talking about abortion rights or equal pay.

Yes. The women who march for equal this and equal that and freedom from men love to have their asses tied up by men and smacked around a little behind closed doors. It's a double life they lead, the conflicted weirdos.

Pwns wrote:Well, "sexist" men get the vajahjah. There aren't any romance or dirty novels where the guy seduces the girl by talking about abortion rights or equal pay.

Is that a Jamaican pronunciation?

kalm wrote:

Pwns wrote:Well, "sexist" men get the vajahjah. There aren't any romance or dirty novels where the guy seduces the girl by talking about abortion rights or equal pay.

Is that a Jamaican pronunciation?

No. Muslin.

AshevilleApp wrote:

Pwns wrote:Well, "sexist" men get the vajahjah. There aren't any romance or dirty novels where the guy seduces the girl by talking about abortion rights or equal pay.

You read romance novels? Pussy.

No kidding what a fag

kalm wrote: Homosexuality is NOT normal. Just like green eyes, red hair, and being born with two left feet is not normal.

People with green eyes, red hair, and two left feet are deviant.

I've seen that argument many times. Except I haven't seen the two left feet thing. It's the idea that "normal" is defined by population proportions.

That's not what I'm talking about. Sex is a critical biological function related to sustaining the species. Like hunger. If you were to have a hunger drive directed towards eating sand you would have a hunger drive inconsistent with the critical biological function it is associated with.

We've been through this before. When a male of our species reaches orgasim he ejects gametes. Sex cells. Why do you think that is? Why do you think those sex cells are ejected from an organ that fits nicely into a female vagina? Why do you think it is that we evolved so that the ejection of gametes is associated with intense pleasure?

Oh, and by the way, why do you think females of our species evolved so that the clitoris is at the entrance of the vagina?

Having your sex drive primarily directed towards members of your own sex is not at all like having green eyes vs. brown eyes. Totally different type of thing.

I'm not saying homosexuality should be illegal or anything. But for Pete's sake there IS a normal bottom line sexual orientation and homosexuality ain't it.

And when I say "bottom line sexual orientation" this is what I mean:

There are three possibilities:

1) Preference for sexual contact with members of the opposite sex.
2) Preference for sexual contact with members of one's own sex.
3) No preference.

#1 is clearly the normal bottom line orientation. And it's ridiculous to compare something like having green eyes vs. brown eyes or red hair vs. black hair to having a preference for sexual contact with members of your own sex vs. having a preference for sexual contact with members of the opposite sex.

JohnStOnge wrote:

kalm wrote: Homosexuality is NOT normal. Just like green eyes, red hair, and being born with two left feet is not normal.

People with green eyes, red hair, and two left feet are deviant.

I've seen that argument many times. Except I haven't seen the two left feet thing. It's the idea that "normal" is defined by population proportions.

That's not what I'm talking about. Sex is a critical biological function related to sustaining the species. Like hunger. If you were to have a hunger drive directed towards eating sand you would have a hunger drive inconsistent with the critical biological function it is associated with.

We've been through this before. When a male of our species reaches orgasim he ejects gametes. Sex cells. Why do you think that is? Why do you think those sex cells are ejected from an organ that fits nicely into a female vagina? Why do you think it is that we evolved so that the ejection of gametes is associated with intense pleasure?

Oh, and by the way, why do you think females of our species evolved so that the clitoris is at the entrance of the vagina?

Having your sex drive primarily directed towards members of your own sex is not at all like having green eyes vs. brown eyes. Totally different type of thing.

I'm not saying homosexuality should be illegal or anything. But for Pete's sake there IS a normal bottom line sexual orientation and homosexuality ain't it.

And when I say "bottom line sexual orientation" this is what I mean:

There are three possibilities:

1) Preference for sexual contact with members of the opposite sex.
2) Preference for sexual contact with members of one's own sex.
3) No preference.

#1 is clearly the normal bottom line orientation. And it's ridiculous to compare something like having green eyes vs. brown eyes or red hair vs. black hair to having a preference for sexual contact with members of your own sex vs. having a preference for sexual contact with members of the opposite sex.

JohnStOnge wrote:

kalm wrote: Homosexuality is NOT normal. Just like green eyes, red hair, and being born with two left feet is not normal.

People with green eyes, red hair, and two left feet are deviant.

I've seen that argument many times. Except I haven't seen the two left feet thing. It's the idea that "normal" is defined by population proportions.

That's not what I'm talking about. Sex is a critical biological function related to sustaining the species. Like hunger. If you were to have a hunger drive directed towards eating sand you would have a hunger drive inconsistent with the critical biological function it is associated with.

We've been through this before. When a male of our species reaches orgasim he ejects gametes. Sex cells. Why do you think that is? Why do you think those sex cells are ejected from an organ that fits nicely into a female vagina? Why do you think it is that we evolved so that the ejection of gametes is associated with intense pleasure?

Oh, and by the way, why do you think females of our species evolved so that the clitoris is at the entrance of the vagina?

Having your sex drive primarily directed towards members of your own sex is not at all like having green eyes vs. brown eyes. Totally different type of thing.

I'm not saying homosexuality should be illegal or anything. But for Pete's sake there IS a normal bottom line sexual orientation and homosexuality ain't it.

And when I say "bottom line sexual orientation" this is what I mean:

There are three possibilities:

1) Preference for sexual contact with members of the opposite sex.
2) Preference for sexual contact with members of one's own sex.
3) No preference.

#1 is clearly the normal bottom line orientation. And it's ridiculous to compare something like having green eyes vs. brown eyes or red hair vs. black hair to having a preference for sexual contact with members of your own sex vs. having a preference for sexual contact with members of the opposite sex.

No. What's ridiculous is trying to establish a hierarchy of what's important to nature/god because certain things make you feel all uncomfortable inside.

Me...I just try my best to sit back and marvel at the wonder of it all while not allowing my biases to get in the way.

Take bonobos for instance. They're a Randy, pervy bunch of primates. But hey...who am I to judge?

kalm wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:There's not enough int he article to really critique the study except for the statement "Researchers from the Western Carolina University in the US conducted two experiments..." It doesn't look like they conducted any experiments. It looks like they did an observational study looking for associations.

Otherwise: This is nothing new. Not in general. It's akin to the old thing of saying that if someone expresses the opinion that homosexuality is an abnormal condition it means they are secretly afraid of their own homosexual tendencies. I've always thought we have a problem with people in the psychological and psychiatric sciences in that they tend to have a persistent bias towards trying to "prove" that homosexuality is "normal" and that there's something "wrong" with people who disagree.

I think the conclusions of this study probably preceded the study. I think the authors knew what they were going to say before they ever issued the questionnaires.

It's all part of a general effort to broadcast the message, "if you don't conform to our philosophy with respect to sexuality you have deep insecurities. There is something wrong with you."

Homosexuality is NOT normal. Just like green eyes, red hair, and being born with two left feet is not normal.

People with green eyes, red hair, and two left feet are deviant.

Red hair isn't normal?

What is normal? There are so many genetic mutations that have evolved that I would say none of us are normal.

JohnStOnge wrote:

kalm wrote:

Oh, and by the way, why do you think females of our species evolved so that the clitoris is at the entrance of the vagina?

Micropenis