Why won't gay people accept democracy ?

Quote from traderNik:

You can 'deduct', can you?

Too bad you can't claim a typo on that one, huh?

:)

By the way, you dodn't mean 'deduce', you meant 'induce', you just didn't know you meant it.

Thread closed.
More...

de·duct (d-dkt)
v. de·duct·ed, de·duct·ing, de·ducts
v.tr.
1. To take away (a quantity) from another; subtract.
2. To derive by deduction; deduce.

READ and inform yourself, Stupid fuck.

The breadth of your vocabulary is probably that of a third grader
 
Quote from kut2k2:

Incredibly, i find myself agreeing in large part with what AAA wrote. :eek:
More...
Yes, I'm in the same boat. It's pretty disgusting to be in agreement with AAA, but he has a good point. In fact I am not sure where I stand on the idea of gay marriage. If gays enjoy all the legal benefits of married couples via civil union, I'm not sure what the problem is. Maybe it's Christian gays that object.

In the end, I just can't help myself when I see these teenage wankers posting about how disgusted they are by homosexuals. Five minutes inside the mind of any one of us would be enough to write a book about our own dysfunction. oktiri is just parroting what he's heard from the the adults who raised him and the kids he hung out with, and he doesn't have the strength of mind to ask whether his brand of racism has any validity.

I'm not going to go on here, since in the election threads, we saw that oktiri is a T28 type who will just go back and forth with insults for 100 posts if necessary.
 
Yes, I read as opposed to watching cartoons like you do, young man.

I don't believe I'm going to do this but

Deductive reasoning

You live in Kitsilano, therefore:

1. You probably think Chinese are bad drivers

2. You probably fear stinky cabs driven by East Indians

Inductive reasoning

1. You think Chinese are bad drivers

2. You fear stinky cabs driven by East Indians

You therefore live in Kitsilano.

You used inductive reasoning to generalize the conclusion that I was from Kits.

You're in over your head with me, junior. Seriously. Just drop it. And get over your fucking 10th-grade hang-ups. Most fags are probably better men than you.
 
Quote from traderNik:

Yes, I'm in the same boat. It's pretty disgusting to be in agreement with AAA, but he has a good point. In fact I am not sure where I stand on the idea of gay marriage. If gays enjoy all the legal benefits of married couples via civil union, I'm not sure what the problem is. Maybe it's Christian gays that object.

In the end, I just can't help myself when I see these teenage wankers posting about how disgusted they are by homosexuals. Five minutes inside the mind of any one of us would be enough to write a book about our own dysfunction. oktiri is just parroting what he's heard from the the adults who raised him and the kids he hung out with, and he doesn't have the strength of mind to ask whether his brand of racism has any validity.

I'm not oging to go on here, since in the election threads, we saw that oktiri is a T28 type who will just go back and forth with insults for 100 posts if necessary.
More...


Yes, work on your vocabulary first. Because you know people who watch South Park are "juvenile."
 
Quote from traderNik:

Yes, I read as opposed to watching cartoons like you do, young man.

I don't believe I'm going to do this but

Deductive reasoning

You live in Kitsilano, therefore:

1. You probably think Chinese are bad drivers

2. You probably fear stinky cabs driven by East Indians

Inductive reasoning

1. You think Chinese are bad drivers

2. You fear stinky cabs driven by East Indians

You therefore live in Kitsilano.

You used inductove reasoning to generalize the conclusion that I was from Kits.

You're in over your head with me, junior. Seriously. Just drop it. And get over your fucking 10th-grade hang-ups. Most fags are probably better men than you.
More...


HAHAHAHAHA.

Very bright indeed. My God, what an idiot
/sarcasm
 
Quote from oktiri:
HAHAHAHAHA.

Very bright indeed.
More...
Thank you, but it doesn't take much to outmaneuver you.

If a gay got owned as badly as I just owned you, do you think he would pretend it didn't happen, like you're doing, or just stop posting?

Just some food for thought, Michelle.
 
Quote from traderNik:

Thank you, but it doesn't take much to outmaneuver you.

If a fag got owned as badly as I just owned you, do you think he would pretend it didn't happen, like you're doing, or just stop posting?

Just some food for thought, Michelle.
More...

Yes, in your dreams. Thank you for wasting my time trying to make a point based on the convoluted semantics of "induction" vs "deduction" use to describe the mechanics of an argument.......when in fact i used "deduct" colloquially to infer that I thought you're a Vancouverite.


I should have said, I "can induce" that you're a Vancouverite..... <---- and doesn't that make you sound like an idiot.
you might not be gay, but the adjective "anal" applies to you pretty well.....or because I'm a south park watcher, I'll call it "Gay sterile lawyer" language. But then even the most retarded of lawyers knows how to discriminate between use of language while writing an affidavit vs a forum post.

Anything else you feel the need to babble about ?



SORRY EVERYBODY, I should have written, I can Induce, Michelle is a Vancouverite .
HAHAHAHAHA, stupid bitch
 
I know a homosexual couple very well,(not that well :D ), but well enough to attend their annual summer cook out and again at a Christmas function. They are just you stereotypical gay couple. Both are very well educated, extremely well traveled and they have a wicked sense of humor.
When I use terms like fag and homo,(sadly I still do from time to time), I try to think of what they would think of me. Far as I know they consider me a friend.
I don't know that I'd approve of gay marriage amendments, but I don't believe I'd get all twisted up over it either. There are far too many pressing issues of importance to get upset over chickenshit.
Just my two cents. For some reason I felt compelled to express it.
 
Quote from oktiri:

.. the convoluted semantics of "induction" vs "deduction"...
I should have said, I "can induce"
More...
Convoluted? Perhaps to you. It's not too hard to grasp the distinction between the two. Was there something about my example that you didn't understand?

Anyhow, at least you have the stones to admit that you fucked up. That makes you slightly better than the garden-variety ET troll.

Just steer clear of me in debates and you should be fine. Good trading to you.
 
Quote from traderNik:

Convoluted? Perhaps to you. It's not too hard to grasp the distinction between the two. Was there something about my example that you didn't understand?

Anyhow, at least you have the stones to admit that you fucked up. That makes you slightly better than the garden-variety ET troll.

Just steer clear of me in debates and you should be fine. Good trading to you.
More...

Jesus Christ. you have the preachy whiny self-righteous tone of an average liberal Canadian, You're still wrong !!!
What part of it don't you get. You're being anal retentive, The fact that the mechanism was "induction" doesn't mean I should have used the word INDUCE ? got it ?
"I can deduct you're a Vancouverite" is more appropriate AND CORRECT in this case than "I can induce you're a Vancouverite".


If you don't want to make an idiot out of yourself, YOU steer clear of me. Thanks
This is a thread about Prop 8, and why did you add in terms of "value" ? 0.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top