They Made Me Gay

[musterion]

You're changing the subject to avoid dealing with the fallout of your lies and hypocrisy. I'm not going to enable you in that.

I saved you from an infraction for doing exactly what you doing right now.

I'm going to ask you one more time.

If I am not now a homosexual, as you and AB agree I'm not, then why do you call me a hypocrite for taking a stand against homosexuality?

 

[Arthur Brain]

This isn't that complicated. You were a homosexual by the very definition or criteria you offered in this very thread.

It's laughable that 'ban hammer' Sherman is protect you from being trolled when others are simply pointing out your hypocrisy if you're not going to apply your own definition to yourself.

Were you a homosexual before you were saved? Use your own definition in this thread if you need help deciding.


:flamer: - by your definition no less. I supposed the argument is that you weren't aroused but just "tempted".

:thumb:

 

[musterion]

Were you a homosexual for those two minutes?

If I was, I'm not now.

Again, use your own standard to measure yourself. How is this not sinking in?

I'm seeing your point perfectly clearly but you're leaving out the other half of it.

That man who briefly considered it...died. You're not really talking to him now.

 

[annabenedetti]

I saved you from an infraction for doing exactly what you doing right now.

You didn't save me from squat. If I got an infraction for calling you on your hypocrisy, I'd consider it a badge of honor.

I'm going to ask you one more time.

If I am not now a homosexual, as you and AB agree I'm not, then why do you call me a hypocrite for taking a stand against homosexuality?

I don't care how many times you want to ask it, you're asking the wrong question. We didn't call you a hypocrite "for taking a stand against homosexuality." That's just a bizarre shift of the goalposts.

Go back and find the post where I already stated how I saw your hypocrisy. Or look honestly at WizardofOz's posts. And while you're at it, engage in a futile attempt to find any post of mine that will support your lie about me.

 

[musterion]

You didn't save me from squat. If I got an infraction for calling you on your hypocrisy, I'd consider it a badge of honor.



I don't care how many times you want to ask it, you're asking the wrong question. We didn't call you a hypocrite "for taking a stand against homosexuality." That's just a bizarre shift of the goalposts.

Go back and find the post where I already stated how I saw your hypocrisy. Or look honestly at WizardofOz's posts. And while you're at it, engage in a futile attempt to find any post of mine that will support your lie about me.

Oh I think I get it now!

What you're saying is...according to MY definition...I must therefore STILL be homosexual now? And so any opposition I post to homosexuality is hypocritical and a lie?

Is that it?

 

[ok doser]

Well it's pretty stupid for him to deny given his own criteria of what a homosexual is. I wouldn't consider him one but I would have to if I were using his own criteria. He should just own up to it or correct himself and move on.

Reading through this thread has been comical

well. let's take a look at where it started

musty posted:

... if a man can also be aroused by the thought of homosexual contact, rather than be viscerally repelled at the thought, he is a homosexual.

musty can not, now, be aroused by the thought of homosexual contact

rather, musty now is viscerally repelled at the thought


clear so far?

then artie stumbles in drunk and blurts out:

Really? You once acknowledged that you entertained the thought of an intimate act with another man even if you didn't go through with it. By your 'logic' above you're a homosexual by your own definition...

do you understand (even if artie doesn't) where the disconnect is?

musty never said that if a man ever "entertained a thought" that proved he was "aroused by the thought" and thus was then and always going forward is a homo

 

[ok doser]

Oh I think I get it now!

What you're saying is...according to MY definition...I must therefore STILL be homosexual now? And so any opposition I post to homosexuality is hypocritical and a lie?

Is that it?

i believe that's it :thumb:


pretty retarded, but no less than we've come to expect from artie

 

[musterion]

well. let's take a look at where it started

musty posted:

musty can not, now, be aroused by the thought of homosexual contact

rather, musty now is viscerally repelled at the thought


clear so far?

then artie stumbles in drunk and blurts out:

do you understand (even if artie doesn't) where the disconnect is?

musty never said that if a man ever "entertained a thought" that proved he was "aroused by the thought" and thus was then and always going forward is a homo

True.

 

[musterion]

i believe that's it :thumb:


pretty retarded, but no less than we've come to expect from artie

To be fair, I think that's more Anna. Could be both, though...AB has said both that I am and am not a homosexual in this very thread.

 

[ok doser]

...AB has said both that I am and am not a homosexual in this very thread.

must be that double vision at work :chuckle:

 

[musterion]

Wonder where Anna went.

 

[annabenedetti]

True.

Find your comfort where you can, musterion. sod knows well how to help you forget about your hypocrisy and lies.

 

[ok doser]

... sod knows how help ....

 

[musterion]

This is getting boring so I guess I'll just have to conclude that no matter what I say, because of a two-minute incident 25 years ago Anna will continue to insist that I am now a homosexual, therefore a hypocrite. That's the only takeaway I get from it.

 

[musterion]

AB, Anna...I forgive your lies and trolling and you're welcome.

 

[ok doser]

This is getting boring so I guess I'll just have to conclude that no matter what I say, because of a two-minute incident 25 years ago Anna will continue to insist that I am now a homosexual, therefore a hypocrite. That's the only takeaway I get from it.

and a liar


don't forget that



God knows she never will

 

[annabenedetti]

This is getting boring so I guess I'll just have to conclude that no matter what I say, because of a two-minute incident 25 years ago Anna will continue to insist that I am now a homosexual, therefore a hypocrite. That's the only takeaway I get from it.

And of course I never said that, so another lie on your part.

Your lies are piling up, musterion.

 

[ok doser]

And of course I never said that, so another lie on your part.

Your lies are piling up, musterion.

see?


gee, i sure wish i could be perfect like anna :angel:

 

[musterion]

Although even though AB is the the more intelligent and direct of the two (he is a man), I honestly wonder if that's what he thinks as well. I guess I'll never know.

 

[annabenedetti]

And of course I never said that, so another lie on your part.

Your lies are piling up, musterion.

​

AB already explained it. You want to call another man a homosexual if he can be aroused by the thought of homosexual contact and yet you yourself entertained the thought once.

Since you know your thought didn't mean you were gay, show me where you have the right to make that assumption of other men.


There's your hypocrisy.