Printable View
Don't call me 'love', thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-
I'm intolerant of *REMOVED*, yes. I don't need to prove you wrong as I know myself, and any other intelligent individual who reads your posts will also know you are wrong. I also can't be bothered getting into an argument with your silly, pedantic babble.
Edited by Jordan (Forum Moderator): Please do not be rude to other members
Don't show an attitude then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick.
But being tolerant isn't to agree, I tolerate people who I disagree with because nobody should be silenced using silly words or by force which is what was attempted against the member earlier. That is my point, but if you think people who disagree with homosexuality should be barred from speaking or silenced then please step forward and say it out loud and we'll then see who the tolerant ones are, won't we?Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick.
If not [with the italics question], then it turns out we actually agree.
N!ck implying he has a lesser intelligence because he disagree's with you is extremely stupid. It also brings fault to your argument.
You obviously feel strongly about this, I obviously do too. We could go on about it all night. I don't think people who disagree with homosexuality be barred from speaking I just think they should keep it to themselves. It's the way in which they compose themselves when referring to/talking to homosexuals in public. (Edit: I see Jordan has edited my post, I wasn't calling OR implying YOU were a narrow minded idiot, just to clear things up. You asked if I was intolerant of people who are against homosexuality, I said I'm against narrow-minded idiots. I definitely WASN'T implying you were one :L)Quote:
Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-
Also, Casanova, I wasn't implying he has 'a lesser intelligence' than me? I was implying people who disagree with homosexuality are usually less intelligent people (and I'm not saying this to insult them, in general, the majority of people who show a great dislike to homosexuals are). Undertaker isn't against homosexuals, therefore I am not implying he is of lesser intelligence than me.
(P.S It's Nick. not N!ck)
I'm confused by where this argument came from. Is this about Zyzz trolling the forums with odd one liners to entice you all to argue? Because he's succeeded :P
It's a bit unnecessary to argue in a thread where you post your sexuality. it's not asking what you think about it, especially when these arguments stem from someone not knowing (or acting as though they do not know) what a bisexual is.
I'm aware there's been studies in which it's been proven those of a gay inclination are 20% more likely to have further education and a direct corralation between homosexuality and a higher IQ.
His argument isn't invalid and he's probably one of our most intelligent members; i'm simply stating you either come across bad in an debate or you implied he was silly/not as intelligent.
PS he is gay y'know!?
PPS your -rep was really invalid.
gay :)
I'm going to say mostly straight.
Homosexual
Imma gay.