The Glade 4.0

I imagine a 100% heterosexual person would be disgusted at the mere sight or thought of another member of the same sex being intimate.

Talya, Stathole, you guys are getting trolled hard.

Of course we are. We're conversing with Taskiss and Arathain.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

There are obviously other possible sexualities, and I don't think his assertion suggested otherwise. Asexual, non-sexual, exo-sexual, etc.

But that's irrelevant to my observation that the graph supported that single assertion. I didn't make it to throw sand in your snatch, I made it because it obviously supports his assertion that I quoted. There's only one category for straight on that graph, which is the common term for heterosexual.

If you or anyone else tries to make it more than that, well, good for you, but you're making a strawman.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

This is ridiculous. If a man is 99.9% sexually attracted to females and .1% sexually attracted to males, he is bisexual, not straight. There are no varying degrees of straight, or gay.

I'd say that makes you a hetrophobe. Just as much intelligence in that position as there is in being a homophobe.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

There are very few things we know to be absolute. I'm fascinated that you guys consider sexuality and attraction among them.

I've noticed that over the course of this thread, your position has changed from "that link supports his assertion" to "a single graph within the link supports his assertion".

As to this:


That's entirely dependent on your interpretation that any value bar with any blue shading whatsoever wouldn't bear the "straight" qualifier. There's no reason to make that assumption on the basis of the graph alone. It also continues to ignore the fact that the chart doesn't even use the terms "straight", "gay", or "bent". Moreover, it isn't supported by the description of the categories in the article, and it also ignores the fact that Kinsey rejected categories as an actual phenomenon, and only implemented them for the sake of statistical analysis. I.e. go read the last post Corolinth made, with special attention to "continuity of gradation". The only way you can conclude that the graph supports Arathain's theory is by completely ignoring its context. The context which, by the way, you originally claimed supported Arathain's theory before you changed your goalposts.

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.

Then nobody is straight or gay, and the terms are meaningless.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Entire field my ***. Link your 100% consensus.

You could imagine, but you would be wrong. Are you turned on by donkeys? Are you disgusted or repulsed by the mere thought of a donkey having sex?

I view tons of things every day that I am not attracted to. They don't disgust me.

Oh, right, because we disagree, we're trolling.

Suck it.

We don't. Read the thread.

So you say.

See, you are gay!




Don't need 100% consensus. You see, if anyone in psychology agrees, then the field is in agreement with me. If nobody disagrees, it's in agreement with you. Much the same your definition of "bent" vs. "straight."

Wait, you think it's ridiculous when I do it?

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Actually, with the exception of a few whackjob Christians, the entire field is in agreement with you.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

Sure you do.

No, you need the "ENTIRE FIELD" of psychology, per your statement.

You dont' have the entire field if anyone agrees. You're not making any sense.

No. Nice strawman though. Again, to help you out, there is hetero, homo, and... others (bisexuals, whatever you want to call it - these are not hetero or homo).

That is not "absolute".

Just like a little tiny bit of gay prevents the entire person from being straight, instead making them gay, so even a little tiny bit of agreement with me (or in this case, 99.99999% agreement with me) prevents the entire field from agreeing with you, and puts them on my side.

OR...

"No, you need the person's entire orientation to be gay. Or else they're straight!"

Which is also ridiculous, and despite being the opposite of your stance, is essentially the same thing.

In actuallity, yes I agree with you that a few people here and there would not constitute the entire field. (in this case, however, it is the prevailing overwhelmingly accepted view and has been for a century.) However, my statement with regard to "the entire field" is identical to your statement about the definition of "straight"...it is absurd. Which was rather the point, dumbass.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

See, we're just disagreeing. I don't think the absolutes of hetero and homo exist.

Considering I've never suggested the entire field agrees with me, and you have, you're wrong.



What the **** are you talking about?



You're not making any sense, people agreeing with a position has nothing to do with sexuality. Are you just trying to make a nonsensical argument, attempt to tie it to mine so you can make something of it?

You honestly don't believe there's a single person that isn't attracted to one sex or the other? Not a single one?

That's just silly IMO. There's tons. I'd say most, probably, but it's tough to speak for others.

Lots of things are silly, but I don't think my beliefs are. You don't think your beliefs are silly, either, but I might. Doesn't mean either of us are wrong, but it could explain why this thread hasn't (and wont) go anywhere. Much like the rest of Hellfire, we'll all vehemently disagree, no conclusion or consensus will be reached and we'll play the game again next week.

The graph is evidence of information aggregated at the link and it supports Arathain's assertion. There's been no change. The link is to "Kinsey scale", and the graph is, wait for it.. the very scale in question! woohoo!Arathain was using colloquialisms. I understood him just fine. Your ignorance of them is irrelevant. He can reject them all he wants, the link was to information that supported Arathain's assertion. I don't think using as evidence a graph of Kinsey's Scale is changing the goalposts, seeing's how that's the topic you apparently think you're talking about.

Here's the scale and other info, directly from the Kinsey Institute itself!
http://www.iub.edu/~kinsey/research/ak-hhscale.html

So, can we now argue about the difference between "majority" and "many"?

Personally, I think "majority" means "majority", and "many" is a much smaller subset thereof.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Who's side are you on?

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.