Taps
New member
Burning_Inside said:
Duh man, how it's so easy to totally go off the boat and try to sound smart. I love these people that try to be champion flawed arguementalists to,, you know the kind that try and pick apart any little nuance of a post and twist and band and go all philosphical and sometmies even political just to make that "you're arguement is flawed sir" comment, god those people are good entertainment.
No taps, see if you don't like a girl to shit in your mouth, it means you don't like to eat shit, doesn't mean that you're prude. That was the most poor pathetic example of trying to twist words around or create alternate scenarios (and one that has nothing at all to do with the original anyway in any sense) to try and make my "arguement flawed". When you come out of 8th grade you'll learn about subjective reasoning, and maybe learn how to keep on target if you're trying to argue a point and not seem like a jackass.
If the act didn't turn you on, then you're not gay. That's all this is about. It's a cut and dry scenario. You'd actually have to perform the action first to see if you were turned on or not though. Stop trying to be mental superman everyone by tossing in other scenarios to try and make this whole thing seem flawed. By doing this you make yourselves seem more insecure.
Bottom line is, if there was a test of sorts you had to undergo to prove if you were gay or not, and this was the way, I bet a lot of you would fail haha. Especially those of you totally avoiding the question or trying to find some kind of allmighty FLAW.
Well, I'd be lying if I said that I'd expended a great deal of mental energy on answering your original post. I suppose from a purely logical point of view, what you said makes sense. Human sexuality is far from logical, however.
And how many people are truly objective anyway?