Limbaugh attacks “gay lobby” over Penn State child abuse

[kochman]

Fixed.

I don't know why but you keep arguing he's homosexual when there's no way you can prove that. I demonstrated that to you by citing two scholarly articles and one scientific blog (hahahaha) and you countered with a half-baked Webster definition that completely ignores the context of the situation.

Wow.

Wow is right... the idea of considering Webster "half-baked", when Webster is the basis for the contemporary English language, is mind boggling to say the least. You are certainly correct that I cannot continue to debate this with you.

 

[emzie]

Ummm... that is the discussion... gay/straight. Is it not?
Because you add new categories, suxh as pedophilia or bestiality, it doesn't necessarily take away previous definitions.
So, look up homosexual sense... sex with same gender/sex (generally within same race!).
Gay pedophile, or if we prefer, in his case if his marriage is not only a cover... bisexual pedophile with a penchant for young boys (and not girls).

If he is not a gay pedophile... is he a hetero pedophile that likes boys? What would you prefer that we call him?

You're absolutely correct in agreeing with the assumptions you brought into the discussion. You do not have any interest in challenging those assumptions by reading up on some basic psychology / psychiatry. I'm pretty sure the 8 years of studying minds is mostly fluff work anyway.

So, as my signature says, I can't reason you out of an irrational position. Congratulations, you win the prize!


<snip>

 

[Crezth]

Wow is right... the idea of considering Webster "half-baked", when Webster is the basis for the contemporary English language, is mind boggling to say the least. You are certainly correct that I cannot continue to debate this with you.

Webster is the basis of the language, that's right. No language has ever been spoken nor existed ever without a dictionary to provide the basis. You know, I thought the language provided the basis for the dictionary, but - nah, no, you're right. The dictionary definitely preceded the language.

And you continue to ignore how the definitions are treated in the scientific world and what the subtle differences in the phraseology are and, most importantly, what qualifies as an educated assumption (psst, it's not reading a dictionary definition and going "seems utterly comprehensive to me" and then bashing your head into a keyboard). Pfft, who care what those scientists and bloggers say? Hey, buddy, I got a Webster's dictionary, which as everyone knows is all you need to do or know anything!

Now if you'll excuse me I'm off to build a car using only the dictionary definition of a car vroom vroom.

<snip>

 

[Camikaze]

Moderator Action: (Some) spam deleted and thread closed.