Jacanuk's forum posts

#1 Posted by Jacanuk (4576 posts) -

@thegerg said:

@Jacanuk said:

@thegerg said:

@Jacanuk: I took bio on school, and my girlfriend has a bio degree. Neither one of us remember being taught in any bio class that the definition of "natural" has anything to do with reproduction. Care to share your source?

You need to learn to read what i wrote, But since you claim to have a GF with a biology degree, you should know that for a species to survive it has to reproduce, and since that takes 2. It´s pretty obvious that its pretty natural for a species to mate with the opposite sex, its again pretty obvious that it's unnatural for a species to "mate" with its own gender.

And since you still haven´t with your waste knowledge of biology been able to link, prove or otherwise that animals have the same concept of sex and gender, its again not even once proven that homosexuality happens in nature, since its again and you with your biology knowledge should know this, not just about sex with the same gender, unless you also start to claim that it is what makes you gay.

Please provide your source showing us that definition of "natural."

There are countless acts that are not possible of resulting in reproduction. Is my mother and father's sexual relationship unnatural because she doesn't have ovaries?

"its again not even once proven that homosexuality happens in nature,"

Yes it has: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

And here you have your biggest problem.

You and Wikipedia have yet to prove that animals have the same understanding of sex and gender as humans and that the "homosexual" behaviour witnessed is actually that and not just basic instincts and a fluke because the animal either isent in contact with the opposite sex, like with the gay penguins in a zoo (People forgot in their gay thoughts that penguins in nature has a behaviour where males take care of the egg, and females gather food, and that the two male penguins just showed normal behaviour, not to mention that they usually stick to one mate for life) or a case of a male/female exerting its dominance over other males/females.

So again prove that and we can agree that homosexuality exists in nature, otherwise stop trying to prove something that you can't.

#2 Posted by Jacanuk (4576 posts) -

@Jacanuk said:

@thegerg said:

@Jacanuk: I took bio on school, and my girlfriend has a bio degree. Neither one of us remember being taught in any bio class that the definition of "natural" has anything to do with reproduction. Care to share your source?

It´s pretty obvious that its pretty natural for a species to mate with the opposite sex, its again pretty obvious that it's unnatural for a species to "mate" with its own gender.

Saying "it's pretty obvious" is no substitute for sourcing your claims.

Right and i don't have to prove to anyone that the sky is blue or that fire can burn.

So sorry i don't have time to waste explaining kindergarten things to you, so ask your teacher or mom.

#3 Posted by Jacanuk (4576 posts) -

@thegerg said:

@Jacanuk: I took bio on school, and my girlfriend has a bio degree. Neither one of us remember being taught in any bio class that the definition of "natural" has anything to do with reproduction. Care to share your source?

You need to learn to read what i wrote, But since you claim to have a GF with a biology degree, you should know that for a species to survive it has to reproduce, and since that takes 2. It´s pretty obvious that its pretty natural for a species to mate with the opposite sex, its again pretty obvious that it's unnatural for a species to "mate" with its own gender.

And since you still haven´t with your waste knowledge of biology been able to link, prove or otherwise that animals have the same concept of sex and gender, its again not even once proven that homosexuality happens in nature, since its again and you with your biology knowledge should know this, not just about sex with the same gender, unless you also start to claim that it is what makes you gay.

#4 Posted by Jacanuk (4576 posts) -

@Jacanuk said:

@GreySeal9 said:

@Jacanuk said:

@GreySeal9 said:

@Jacanuk

Are you creating some new style of debate where you don't have to actually give any evidence for your claims?

Do you mean if i am creating a way of debating like you where i think education is intelligence? then no.

At least i dont run around like you Grey seal and just invent things.

lol. Still asshurt about that thread? (The awful reading comprehension that led you to believe I was saying education=intelligence demonstrates the importance of education).

Anyway, you've completely invented a definition of natural in which procreation is mandatory. Why don't you show us, with a credible source, where you're getting that definition?

Disclaimer: your ass doesn't count as a source.

Are you disputing facts you should have learned in biology 101 in first grade? and you claim education makes you intelligent....

Also you clearly need to learn to read and understand english, you claimed that education was key in the ability to reason, i proved you wrong and even pointed out that intelligence is what makes you able to reason. You because of clearly being aware of your mistake, then kept trying to pull the debate in another direction, i kinda pity your attempt because it failed miserably and you were schooled by several others also.

Haha. I know you're angry about what happened in that thread, but you really need to let it go. This thread is about homosexuality, it's not a place for you to lick your wounds.

Again, if these are facts I should have learned in Biology 101, it should be easy for you produce a credible source that says that procreation is mandatory is something being natural. So where is your source?

What planet are you on? or are you really asking me to educate you on how a species survive?

Wow, i have heard some dumb things on gamespot but you really do take the cake and the stand and everything else.

#5 Posted by Jacanuk (4576 posts) -

@Jacanuk said:

@GreySeal9 said:

@Jacanuk

Are you creating some new style of debate where you don't have to actually give any evidence for your claims?

Do you mean if i am creating a way of debating like you where i think education is intelligence? then no.

At least i dont run around like you Grey seal and just invent things.

lol. Still asshurt about that thread? (The awful reading comprehension that led you to believe I was saying education=intelligence demonstrates the importance of education).

Anyway, you've completely invented a definition of natural in which procreation is mandatory. Why don't you show us, with a credible source, where you're getting that definition?

Disclaimer: your ass doesn't count as a source.

Are you disputing facts you should have learned in biology 101 in first grade? and you claim education makes you intelligent....

Also you clearly need to learn to read and understand english, you claimed that education was key in the ability to reason, i proved you wrong and even pointed out that intelligence is what makes you able to reason. You because of clearly being aware of your mistake, then kept trying to pull the debate in another direction, i kinda pity your attempt because it failed miserably and you were schooled by several others also.

#6 Posted by Jacanuk (4576 posts) -

@MrGeezer said:

@farrell2k said:

You don't have to admit anything. Nothing you do changes the fact that it is a gun issue. You are just deflecting.

So you agree that this is also a car issue?

No. It's a gun issue.

@Jacanuk said:

@farrell2k said:

@MrGeezer said:

@farrell2k said:

You're deflecting, again. Still a gun issue.

So you agree that this is also a car issue, and that in order to prevent such further incidents we should take cars away from police officers?

If you can admit that, then I'll admit that this is a gun issue.

You don't have to admit anything. Nothing you do changes the fact that it is a gun issue. You are just deflecting.

This case has nothing to do with guns, the issue here is the fact that a rookie cop was sent into a situation where he would fear for his safety so much that he felt the need to draw his gun. If he had been accompanied by a veteran cop, you can be 99% sure that his experienced would have kept the guns in the holster and this tragic accident would never have happened, its nothing to do with race, guns or anything but the fact that NYPD messed up and paired two rookies together and put them in a situation they never should have been in.

Except the fact that the cop shot him with a gun...

And? the issue is still not the gun itself. The reason this happened is not because the rookie cop had a gun, the reason it happened is because the rookie cop only had limited experience and was sent out in a situation he wasn't equipped to handle with another rookie cop exactly like himself.

#7 Posted by Jacanuk (4576 posts) -

@Jacanuk

Are you creating some new style of debate where you don't have to actually give any evidence for your claims?

Do you mean if i am creating a way of debating like you where i think education is intelligence? then no.

At least i dont run around like you Grey seal and just invent things.

#8 Posted by Jacanuk (4576 posts) -

@Jacanuk said:

@toast_burner said:

@Jacanuk said:

@thegerg said:

@Jacanuk: " But anyways of course you are and your likeminded need to prove that animals have the same perception of sex/gender as humans, otherwise its pointless to compare two things"

Not true. Whether homosexuality exists doesn't not depend on the perceptions of those participating. It only depends on whether or not those of the same sex are having sex.

Also, you've presented nothing that proves that homosexuality is not natural.

Well, again with the idea of being literal jane and thinking that homo-sexuality just means "having sex with the same gender" sexuality doesn't even come close to just meaning putting your wang in someone´s dong.

But you want the biggest argument for homosexuality not being natural, is that its simply not possible to reproduce, thereby its clearly a deviant behaviour.

The vast majority of things people do doesn't result in procreation.

You are right and thats why in the end does it really matter if something is natural or not?

I know why some tend to fire up the debate about homosexuality being natural because if its natural they can claim its somehow more normal which is just stupid.

People argue that it's natural because to say it's anything else is incredibly stupid. No it doesn't matter but why would anyone argue that it's unnatural when it so obviously is?

You must mean that its incredible stupid to claim that it is natural.

#9 Posted by Jacanuk (4576 posts) -
@thegerg said:
@Jacanuk said:

@toast_burner said:

@Jacanuk said:

@thegerg said:

@Jacanuk: " But anyways of course you are and your likeminded need to prove that animals have the same perception of sex/gender as humans, otherwise its pointless to compare two things"

Not true. Whether homosexuality exists doesn't not depend on the perceptions of those participating. It only depends on whether or not those of the same sex are having sex.

Also, you've presented nothing that proves that homosexuality is not natural.

Well, again with the idea of being literal jane and thinking that homo-sexuality just means "having sex with the same gender" sexuality doesn't even come close to just meaning putting your wang in someone´s dong.

But you want the biggest argument for homosexuality not being natural, is that its simply not possible to reproduce, thereby its clearly a deviant behaviour.

The vast majority of things people do doesn't result in procreation.

You are right and thats why in the end does it really matter if something is natural or not?

I know why some tend to fire up the debate about homosexuality being natural because if its natural they can claim its somehow more normal which is just stupid.

In what way is it unnatural or abnormal for two consenting adults who are sexually attracted to each other to engage in a sexual relationship?

In what way do you care if it is or isn't?

And what 2 human adults do in their bed should be their business no one elses.

But since you ask , since the natural thing for any species is to secure the survival of its race, any behaviour not tuned to that is unnatural.

#10 Posted by Jacanuk (4576 posts) -

@Jacanuk said:

@thegerg said:

@Jacanuk: " But anyways of course you are and your likeminded need to prove that animals have the same perception of sex/gender as humans, otherwise its pointless to compare two things"

Not true. Whether homosexuality exists doesn't not depend on the perceptions of those participating. It only depends on whether or not those of the same sex are having sex.

Also, you've presented nothing that proves that homosexuality is not natural.

Well, again with the idea of being literal jane and thinking that homo-sexuality just means "having sex with the same gender" sexuality doesn't even come close to just meaning putting your wang in someone´s dong.

But you want the biggest argument for homosexuality not being natural, is that its simply not possible to reproduce, thereby its clearly a deviant behaviour.

The vast majority of things people do doesn't result in procreation.

You are right and thats why in the end does it really matter if something is natural or not?

I know why some tend to fire up the debate about homosexuality being natural because if its natural they can claim its somehow more normal which is just stupid.