[R.M. Schultz]That Axis History Forum Guy Again...

[Surlethe]

Just how badly formed is your bullshit detector, Big Orange, that you need us to tell you over and over again whether or not this guy you're debating is full of shit?

[RedImperator]

Just how badly formed is your bullshit detector, Big Orange, that you need us to tell you over and over again whether or not this guy you're debating is full of shit?

Seriously, this is getting ridiculous. This entire thread is turning into "debate this guy for me". If you're not competent to see through this guy's absurd nonsense, then don't debate him. SLAM is not your personal support group.

[Big Orange]

Update on the heated debate I am having with RM Schultz on Axis History Forum:

[quote="That "RM Schultz" Wanker"]
• Is it that Jews and Germans are of the same race?

Though there had been constant and frequent intermarriage between Germans and Jews, the root stocks of these two peoples are from different racial groups, the Indo-Europeans and Semites respectively. Whether or not we think race is important, it in no way serves the truth to mis-represent the facts of the matter.

Viewed objectively, the international Jewish population seems to be both Semitic and Indo-European - ditto for the Christians and Muslims (who were both off-shoots of Judaism anyway). Does Steve Berkoff or Brent Spiner look Middle Eastern to you?

• Is it that the Nazis were being “illogical” to kill Edith Stein for being Jewish?

A silly accusation. By there understanding it was perfectly logical. Remember, logic consists of reasoning by a set of rules from premises. If these premises are flawed, then any logical conclusions will depart from truth, no matter how keenly the rules of logic have been applied to the problem. The Nazis weren’t being unreasonable in spinning out their logic to its inevitable conclusions, they were being immoral in accepting that race mattered.

There is no logic in the minds of evil fanatics that want to destroy entire populations from the ground up. But if a sociopathic regime who for some bizarre reason wanted to exterminate people who were born left-handed with no mercy or exception, they would kill your left-handed father despite the fact he was trained to use his right hand. Fanatics do not care, because in their eyes your father was left-handed because he born left-handed and would not see him using his right hand as exemption from execution. Likewise with Edith Stein since even though she was practically a Catholic for presumebly most of her life, in the deluded eyes of the Nazis she was Jewish merely because she was born to Jewish parents.

• Is it that homosexuality is a “victimless crime?”

Perhaps it is, but it is also a matter of behavior and it is well within the purview of the state to regulate behavior. My point was not that homoeroticism should be illegal, merely that one need only to change one’s behavior to avoid prosecution, while there can be no avoiding genocide by changing one’s race.

Most homosexuals do not choose to be homosexual and would be merely suppressing their orientation if they "changed their behaviour".

• Is it that I am a homophobe?

Ha! Ha! Maybe you and Dan could debate the matter and come up with one accusation against me instead of attacking me from both sides of the issue? N'est-ce pas?

Well tactfully comparing homosexuals to paedophiles, kleptomaniacs and alcoholics gives a good enough hint.

But America still officially had eugenics laws before the Third Reich (although the Third Reich did it on a wider and industrial scale of course).

• Is it that America is just as racist at the Third Reich because they had Jim Crow laws?

Don’t let’s be silly! While America does indeed have a shameful past regarding our treatment of negroes, by 1940 it would be nothing short of insanity to compare the handful of lynchings then taking place with the calculated murder of millions of Jews, Gypsies, and Slavs. It becomes even more preposterous when you consider that in the succeeding thirty years virtually every legal form of discrimination by race was eliminated by democratic means. To equate the two régimes is moral relativism of the worst possible sort.

There you go in accusing me of being a "moral relativist".

Of course the Jim Crowe Laws did lead to a half-decade campaign that killed 12 million or more people on a industrial scale, but it was still highly racist and segregated blacks from the white population in the same manner the draconian Nuremberg Laws segregated Jews from non-Jews. And we cannot ignore the roughly 500 year plight of blacks being removed in their millions from Africa and sent to the Americas as slaves. America carried on with black slavery until the 19th century and then blacks themselves remained third class citizens until the 1960s (in the Deep South of course). And we too cannot also ignore the thorough obliteration of the Native Americans that occurred when the United States aggressively expanded Westward for living space (the Third Reich was merely expanding Eastward and was displacing Slavs instead of non-whites).

You may call me a "moral relativist" when I mention the crimes of the US, but the main difference was that the Nazis were much more quicker and industrial in killing it's victims when forming an empire than the Americans were. [/quote]

Surlethe and RedImperator I can fight my own battles thank you, but am I wasting my time here with this halfwit? Am I more or less talking to a brickwall here?

Oh, and he's also given me a PM message recently:

Just out of curiosity, what is your dog in this fight? Are you gay, or just so PC that you buy into the whole gay agenda?

Ahhh, he's also accusing me of being PC and suspects me of being gay....

[Ghost Rider]

but am I wasting my time here with this halfwit? Am I more or less talking to a brickwall here?

To put succienctly...yes. If you can't recognize this, then nothing we say will convince you otherwise.

[Big Orange]

but am I wasting my time here with this halfwit? Am I more or less talking to a brickwall here?

To put succienctly...yes. If you can't recognize this, then nothing we say will convince you otherwise.

Don't worry, Ghost Rider, I'm convinced that I am trying to get to somebody who is clearly beyond help or reason. If RM Schultz showed up here with his own brand of stupidity, I wager he would end up in the "Hall of Shame" soon enough and then get nailed in "Parting Shots". I'm guessing this is the type of idiot I'm dealing with.

[R.M. Schultz]

So — about three weeks ago I was doing a Google search on my name (just to see if the Nobel committee had come to a decision) when I found out that there was this forum where people were talking about me behind my back. Specifically, a fellow named “Big Orange” was quoting me out of context, misrepresenting my views, and just in general, bashing me in a forum where I could not post. Not only that, but his friends joined right in with the calumny and derogation.

Well, it took me three weeks to become a member and I would like to respond to a few comments:

And R.M. Schultz's bullshit ... Why does Axis History Forum let morons like him to sprout out his hypocrisy and intolerance?

R.M. Schultz is a cocklicking fuckwitif you think about it.

R.M. Schultz is a rather smug, very narrow minded fellow with a head like a pile of bricks.

... stupid prat ...

Well R.M. Schultz is not a logical guy who sees history or other things in a logical and objective manner. And of course he's a hypocritical, self-loathing bisexual who sees homosexuality as "wrong".

Why do even waste any time on this worthless piece of shit?

... And this what the fool said in return ... And of course the entire thread rapidly degenerated from there and I realised what a joke R.M. Schultz was ... And while R.M. Schultz is obviously a hypocrite and a fool, he is not a Neo-Nazi: he seems more misguided, rather than evil. And ironically I found another guy on Axis History Forum who was once in the Waffen-SS(!) to be a more open minded and wiser poster than R.M. Schultz ...

Fucking idiot. ... Moreover, his remarks on "prosecutions under out-of-date laws are not genocide" show that he's a retarded legalist, just as I thought him to be. ...

Why is R.M. Schultz such a dim asshat?

Because he's not very bright, but convinced he's right on the 'because I said so' platform. A vast majority of really obnoxious people who hold ludicrous views do so because they are unwilling to change their opinion, and to lazy to research the facts before making them.

Although I dislike R.M. Schultz for his hypocrisy and wildly out of date views on human sexuality, he's typically bullshitter in other areas as well ... I see R.M. Schultz as the idiot ... R.M. Schultz does not strike me as very objective or level headed and he has a mind seemingly still in the 19th century when it comes to minority groups.

Why do you even waste your time on the guy?

But either way, R.M. Schultz seems to be a smug, silly waste of space who is ejaculating over WWII and perhaps I shouldn't waste my time with the loony (or Axis History Forum in general - it's full of cranks).

... your right in thinking that I'm wasting time with this dolt.

Just how badly formed is your bullshit detector, Big Orange, that you need us to tell you over and over again whether or not this guy you're debating is full of shit?

Seriously, this is getting ridiculous. This entire thread is turning into "debate this guy for me". If you're not competent to see through this guy's absurd nonsense, then don't debate him. SLAM is not your personal support group.

... I'm convinced that I am trying to get to somebody who is clearly beyond help or reason. If RM Schultz showed up here with his own brand of stupidity, I wager he would end up in the "Hall of Shame" soon enough and then get nailed in "Parting Shots". I'm guessing this is the type of idiot I'm dealing with.

Shame on you!

What kind of cowards say such things behind a man’s back? What would your mothers think of such behavior? This is just about the most spineless, reprehensible thing that I have ever seen on the internet. What kind of losers are you?

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Wait, so he's a loser, but you're the one who spent three weeks to get onto a private forum so you could wave your finger at him?




What exactly is your side of the story? What did he take out of context? Any evidence?

[Ryushikaze]

Don't worry dickless, this is SD.net. They'll say it to your face, now that you've made yourself a handy target.

So, yes, while you may "shame shame" the posters how called you names, shame shame on your for being such a feckless idiot to walk right into the proverbial lions dens while wearing proverbial slabs of raw meat.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Hey Schultzy, how about you refute BO's affront to your sensibilities with hard evidence that your quotes were taken out of context instead of blanket condemnations, ad hominems, and handwaving like a fucktard with no case?

[Medic]

Just out of curiosity, what is your dog in this fight? Are you gay, or just so PC that you buy into the whole gay agenda?

This would be what we like to call an 'appeal to motive' and won't fly on this board.

Before you do something rash and get kicked out I suggest reading the board rules.Make careful note of the Posting and Debating rules.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Why the hell do you keep bolding his name? Do you have some kind of fascination with this guy?

Huh? That's how I address everyone here Kuja, although your right in thinking that I'm wasting time with this dolt.

Honestly, I think Kuja has a very excellent point about the name bolding. I find it quite annoying and disruptive as well as detrimental to and distracting from whatever actual argument you may post. It smells like a very subtle almost subliminal ad hominem to me, and it hurts your debating IMNRATHO.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

EDIT: Discussiion of 'name-bolding as subtle ad hominem' with Ace Pace has led me to concede that it is not.

We do, however, agree that it is DAMN ANNOYING when used constantly, excessively, and to the exclusion of any quotes.

[Stark]

Who the fuck googles their own name? Jesus. Lameass AND zero debating skills? Who'da thought.

[R.M. Schultz]

Wait, so he's a loser, but you're the one who spent three weeks to get onto a private forum so you could wave your finger at him?

I applied for membership and it took three weeks before it was activated. It’s not my fault that the losers running this forum can’t process an application faster, and I certainly didn’t lay awake at night fretting about it.

... shame shame on your for being such a feckless idiot to walk right into the proverbial lions dens while wearing proverbial slabs of raw meat.

Oh, I am so scared. Now you are going to call me a bad name to my face — boo hoo!

You know, Ryushikaze, I will hand it to you for one thing. You are just about the only one I’ve seen on this site who isn’t cluttering up the board with an inane, space wasting “signature” at the end of each post.

... handwaving like a fucktard ...

“Fucktard” — what playground did you learn that one on? Did a first grader teach it to you? What is this forum about, who can come up with the most infantile name to call someone? Would I “top” you if I were to call you a “rim felching maggot?”

Just out of curiosity, what is your dog in this fight? Are you gay, or just so PC that you buy into the whole gay agenda?

This would be what we like to call an 'appeal to motive' and won't fly on this board.

Please note that Big Orange clearly states that I asked him that question in a PM, not in the clear on the Axis History Forum. This was in no way an attempt at “appeal to motive” but rather an honestly put question, asked in private. It was Big Orange that went public with this.

I simply wanted to know if BO were a PC liberal, who might be amenable to reason, or a convinced homosexual who would simply take any further attempts at persuasion as a personal attack. It has been my experience that people enmeshed in the homosexual lifestyle can almost never be argued out of their position (hence the high failure rate of faith based conversions by members of the “ex-gay movement”) and can only be approached by what communists used to quaintly call “horizontal recruiting.”

Before you do something rash and get kicked out I suggest reading the board rules. Make careful note of the Posting and Debating rules.

I suggest that BO read the board rules:

... do not start threads solely for the purpose of criticizing an individual member of the board. Only the administrative staff is permitted to attack people in that manner, and they generally do it because the person has broken the rules.

Oooops! I guess BO didn’t break that rule after all — since I wasn’t even a member of the board when he gratuitously attacked me!

What exactly is your side of the story? What did he take out of context? Any evidence?

I would be glad to outline my case, but right now I am at work and I should wish to do so comprehensively. Please allow me a few days to put together a really complete brief.

[Stark]

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. We're wasting space with signatures! How dare the members of this board be lame enough to have signatures! Damn the gall of it. He doesn't even understand the rules - even quoting them doesn't make it clearer to him.

So we've got two posts of personal attacks instead of actual claims or evidence. Can we go three for three?

PS, this thread was (ostensibly, but BO is a lameass) about your debate, not you. There's nothing wrong with insulting people who hold stupid positions - surely you noticed BO himself getting ribbed here? No? Awww.

[The Spartan]

I simply wanted to know if BO were a PC liberal, who might be amenable to reason, or a convinced homosexual who would simply take any further attempts at persuasion as a personal attack. It has been my experience that people enmeshed in the homosexual lifestyle can almost never be argued out of their position (hence the high failure rate of faith based conversions by members of the “ex-gay movement”) and can only be approached by what communists used to quaintly call “horizontal recruiting.”

Interesing ad hominem(s) thrown in with complete bullshit. (Oh no!! He called me a PC Liberal and a communist!!!!) Dumbass.

LinkyDinky

Homosexuality is not a "choice" or position or whatever the fuck you want to call it any more than my heterosexuality. That high failure rate you cited is the result of a failure of ideology (your's that is).

new study shows that gay men respond differently from straight men when exposed to a suspected sexual stimulus found in male sweat.

When homosexual men smelled the odor of male sweat—more specifically, a chemical in the male hormone testosterone—their brains responded similarly to those of women.

The findings suggest that brain activity and sexual orientation are linked. It also supports an opinion held by most scientists, that people are born—not bred—gay.

"This is one more line of evidence that there's a biological substring for sexual orientation," said Dean Hamer, a geneticist at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland.

Hamer is the author of The Science of Desire: The Gay Gene and the Biology of Behavior. He was not involved in the research, which was conducted by scientists at Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, Sweden.

The study was published today in the research journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Reproductive Behavior

The scientists exposed heterosexual men and women and homosexual men to chemicals found in male and female sex hormones. One chemical is a testosterone derivative produced in men's sweat. The other chemical is an estrogen-like compound in women's urine.

These chemicals have long been suspected of being pheromones, molecules emitted by one individual that evoke some behavior in another of the same species. Pheromones trigger basic responses, such as sexual attraction, in many animals.

But scientists have long debated if humans respond to pheromones. The new study suggests that pheromones indeed play a part in making humans sexually attractive to one another.

In a previous study a few years ago, the Swedish researchers showed that the brain's hypothalamus region, which is involved in sexual behavior, becomes activated when men smell EST (the estrogen derivative) and women smell AND (the testosterone compound), but not vice versa.

For their new study, the scientists added a sexual-orientation element, which revealed a difference in the brain activity of gay and straight men.

"It shows a different physiological response to the same external stimulus," said Ivanka Savic, a neuroscientist at the Karolinska Institute and the study's lead researcher. "This response [occurred] in the brain region involved in reproductive behavior."

When the study subjects sniffed scents such as cedar or lavender, all of their brains reacted only in the region that handles smells—not sexual behavior.

Biological Explanation

The results show that the human brain reacts differently to potential pheromones compared with common odors.

"It directly shows a link between brain activity and sexual orientation," said Hamer, the NIH geneticist.

Hamer cautions that the gay men's different brain activity could be either a cause of their sexual orientation or an effect of it. But, he said, "it certainly seems unlikely that somehow being interested in men would cause the brain to rewire itself in such a dramatic way."

Other studies have also found that gay and straight men respond differently to the body odors of others.

Scientists at the Monell Chemical Senses Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, found that gay men preferred odors from other gay men, while odors from gay men were the least preferred by straight men and women.

The Monell Center's results were released yesterday and are to be published in the journal Psychological Science in September.

"There are many ongoing studies in the field, and I think that we soon will have better clarification," said Savic, the Karolinska Institute neuroscientist. "At the moment, there are no definite proofs."

However, the new studies boost the hypothesis that homosexuality has a genetic basis and is not simply the result of learned behavior.

"This, incidentally, is not in any way controversial for biologists," Hamer said. "It's completely expected from the basic tenets of biology. It's only controversial because of the social and political controversy over homosexuality."

[K. A. Pital]

It’s not my fault that the losers running this forum can’t process an application faster, and I certainly didn’t lay awake at night fretting about it.

...

inane, space wasting “signature”

...

Oh, I am so scared.

Oh. What's up with this one? You're not going to last with such an attitude.

It has been my experience that people enmeshed in the homosexual lifestyle can almost never be argued out of their position

What's this "position"? "Hello, gay. Did you know Nazis killed gays because of their unlawful conduct?"

Are you fucking serious? Why don't you, y'know, try to argue this up and loud here. I would enjoy watching non-gay people slam your sorry ass.

since I wasn’t even a member of the board when he gratuitously attacked me!

He didn't "attack" you, he has exposed your moronic notions for all to see, even if a bit over-the-top - usually only public morons (creationists, fundies and politicians) get slammed here in public, but he made an exception for you - a generic moron. See, if people say dumb things - like you do - it's ok to insult them here.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

... handwaving like a fucktard ...

“Fucktard” — what playground did you learn that one on? Did a first grader teach it to you? What is this forum about, who can come up with the most infantile name to call someone? Would I “top” you if I were to call you a “rim felching maggot?”

Learn to read, you trolling piece of pus-infected cuntrag. I said this:

Hey Schultzy, how about you refute BO's affront to your sensibilities with hard evidence that your quotes were taken out of context instead of blanket condemnations, ad hominems, and handwaving like a fucktard with no case?

Note the bold, hatfucker.

As for what the board is about, look up.

Get your fill of sci-fi, science, and mockery of stupid people

Again, note the bold. You qualify for it since the better part of you was obviously left on the bedsheets nine months before you were born, cumstain.

[Medic]

Oooops! I guess BO didn’t break that rule after all — since I wasn’t even a member of the board when he gratuitously attacked me!

You'd be correct; threads about morons on other boards or some corner of the internet immune to evidence, reason and/or logic are quite common in SLAM, DEBUNKING is in the description for fuck's sake!

Harsh language, much as it irks you and seems in your mind to make our points less effective, is not an object here when paired with evidence.

You will of course prove that homosexuality has no physical basis and is pure choice. Your previous conversations with Big Orange have made this clear, as does your continued assertion that homosexuality is a position.

Quoted and bolded just for you Axis Forum Guy

However, the new studies boost the hypothesis that homosexuality has a genetic basis and is not simply the result of learned behavior.

"This, incidentally, is not in any way controversial for biologists," Hamer said. "It's completely expected from the basic tenets of biology. It's only controversial because of the social and political controversy over homosexuality."

[SirNitram]

Oooops! I guess BO didn’t break that rule after all — since I wasn’t even a member of the board when he gratuitously attacked me!

Indeed he did not. However, since you are here now, you can debate, with logic, facts, and reason. Or you will be removed with far more speed than we demonstrated in letting you in. And then you can be pompous and self-righteous somewhere more inclined to your inferiorities.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

This is so boring. Is this Schultz guy going to even debate at all or just whine about people calling him names? I can already predict what's going to happen.

Schultz: "Waaah! You guys are calling me names!"
SD.NET: "Back up your assertion, dickwad!"
Schultz: "Waaah! You called me dickwad!"
Yada yada yada, ad nauseum
Admin: "I've had enough of your bullshit"
BAN

Really, why don't we just stop this totally wasteful use of bandwidth already?

[Darth Wong]

Shame on you!

What kind of cowards say such things behind a man’s back? What would your mothers think of such behavior? This is just about the most spineless, reprehensible thing that I have ever seen on the internet. What kind of losers are you?

What kind of loser are you, for reading through this entire thread, picking out all the insults, and not bothering to respond to even a single point raised against your bullshit? Either defend your points or go fuck yourself, asshole.

Do you really expect us to feel bad that we insulted your idiocy without politely contacting you first to see if you're OK with that? Would you like some cheese with that whine of yours? Oh no Mommy, the bad people are saying bad things about me! Boo hoo! Grow the fuck up, tard. People say bad things about me on other boards too, and I don't run around to all those places and sign up just to whine and cry like a bitch.

I applied for membership and it took three weeks before it was activated. It’s not my fault that the losers running this forum can’t process an application faster, and I certainly didn’t lay awake at night fretting about it.

It's true what they say; denial ain't just a river in Egypt. You waited three weeks just to sign up and squeal like a stuck pig about how some people on an Internet forum insulted you, and you expect us to believe that you weren't upset? Next time you lie, at least try something believable

[RedImperator]

Shame on you!

What kind of cowards say such things behind a man’s back? What would your mothers think of such behavior? This is just about the most spineless, reprehensible thing that I have ever seen on the internet. What kind of losers are you?

And now you're here and free to respond to Big Orange. So why don't you go ahead and do that, and quit whining about the big meanies who said bad things about you. Because if all you have is off topic pissing and moaning, then your stay here is going to be considerably shorter than your time on the waiting list to get in.

[R.M. Schultz]

I applied for membership and it took three weeks before it was activated

... You waited three weeks just to sign up and squeal like a stuck pig ...

Are you even paying attention? I just said it took three weeks for my membership to be activated — I didn’t wait, the administrators did!

And what is with all this name calling? My son is only thirteen and even he can carry on a conversation for more than five minutes without calling someone an infantile name or making a fart joke. Are any of you adults?

And now you're here and free to respond to Big Orange. So why don't you go ahead and do that, and quit whining about the big meanies who said bad things about you. Because if all you have is off topic pissing and moaning, then your stay here is going to be considerably shorter than your time on the waiting list to get in.

I haven’t much time right now, but I will begin to respond with the understanding that there are more misrepresentations that I should wish to address later.

Quotation out of context #1: BO would lead one to believe that the issue under discussion was homosexuality per se.

Before you even begin to think about this, throw out all notions of “Gay” and “Straight” because these are mere Bourgeois proprieties that will only complicate the issue. The current agitprop of the “Gay Community” would have us believe that “Gay” is something innate (like blue eyes) when in fact it is more a matter that ranges from disposition (like left-handedness) to circumstance and experience (like a taste for curry) that becomes a matter of mere preference.

The real matter at issue here is dominance, a matter of “Top” and “Bottom.” About 15 to 20% of persons are naturally dominant, while only one in twenty is an actual leader. A person’s sexuality is fixed in inverse proportion to their dominance. Thus, a passive personality type is likely to conceive of themselves as being “born” gay or straight, as this is a matter of disposition and they will lack the will to chose their sexuality. Conversely, a dominant type is more likely to put on and take off sexual roles as the situation demands, a matter of preference. In heterosexual relationships the Top role ordinarily falls to the male (since even between matched men and women the man enjoys a certain natural aggressiveness that gives him enough of an edge to hold this role) and if it does not, then the relationship usually becomes dysfunctional in some way. In homosexual relationships, if there is a naturally dominant person, then he takes that role, if there is a difference in the power relationship (age, size, social position) then this might influence who takes this role, and if there is no natural dominance then there is usually a tacit agreement to alternate this role (the role of Top being undesirable if you are naturally passive). As Tops are out-numbered by Bottoms by about five-to-one, a Top can pretty much write his own ticket in the Gay world.

The above quote was taken from a thread discussion whether Ernst Röhm was a Top or Bottom in his homosexual relationships. I made the above comments only after a lengthy discussion of the historical evidence and used this theoretical digression to back-up my contention that Röhm was basically a Top.

Misleading accusation #1: I am reviled for believing that homosexuality is something less than innate.

I actually find that I can stand behind my first statement: that the most important factor in sexuality is not “orientation” but rather dominance. I person of great “ego strength” (as the current jargon would call it) is free to use there sexuality as they wish, while a passive personality type is doomed to become the slave of their desires. I would contend that what is “innate” is dominance or lack thereof.

Misleading accusation #2: That I am ignorant of “scientific” research that “proves” homosexuality to be innate.

I am fully aware of the much hyped idea that it is innate and I find three reasons for rejecting it:

1] Psychology is the least rigorous of the sciences. Things that were once considered neurotic are not accepted, while simple vices (like gluttony) have been re-conceptualized as “diseases.” Freud, the putative founder of the “science,” is now completely discredited. If there is anything that we can actually say about psychology it’s that virtually none of its claims can be verified by reproducible experiment.

2] The experience I see around me is against it. I cannot begin to count the number of women I have known who have gone through lesbian periods absolutely convinced that they will never love a man again only to settle down with a husband and have some kids. Similarly, every dominant self-identified homosexual that I have met was actually bisexual with at lease some successful experience of women, while I have never met a passive homosexual who has been in a genuinely heterosexual relationship with a woman. I can also think of several cases of “horizontal recruiting” where a really good lover has been able to “change” the orientation of someone.

3] My personal experience is against it. I have had no trouble adapting to whatever form of sexuality I thought best suited my purpose at the time.

Misleading accusation #3: That I “don’t understand what being a bisexual means.”

The subject under discussion was Ernst Röhm, who was heterosexual before the Great War, introduced to homoeroticism shortly thereafter, and homosexual ever afterwards. When exactly was he bisexual? It seems to me that there was no time in his life when he either desired or coupled with both women and men; first it was the one, then the other.

Misleading accusation #4: That I spend a lot of time thinking about homosexuality

In the most recent thread, the subject under discussion was Ernst Röhm, and homosexual, so it would naturally follow that the subject would come up.

Much more suspicious was a thread on Nazi science and medicine where, out of the blue, BO brought up homosexuality:

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=6021

My point in that discussion was that the Nazi régime, however scientifically advanced they were, suffered from all the talent lost due to their persecution of Jews and other groups. BO then comes in with the accusation that —somehow— the British were just as bad because (years after the war) they had convicted Allan Turing (whose name BO continually misspells as “Turin”) on a homosexuality charge.

Check it out — I’m not the one with an agenda.

Out-andout fabrication

Oddly enough in his younger years he claimed that he had homosexual relationships, but "grew out of it", married and has become a devout Catholic in his 50s.

I am now forty-five years old.

Misleading accusation #5: That I play down the suffering of homosexuals under the Third Reich.

In more than one discussion on the Third Reich Forum I have contended that Genocide (persecution by genetic group) is worse than Democide (persecution by social group) because someone can take measures to avoid Democide, but not Genocide.

That is to say the execution of Edith Stein is morally worse than the suicide of Alan Turing because Turing could have kept his pants on and avoided persecution while Stein was killed for being racially Jewish even though she had become a Catholic nun. Similarly, there are documented cases of homosexuals in concentration camps being allowed to “prove themselves” with prostitutes and being released upon evidence of the ability to function heterosexually.

A persecution you cannot escape is self-evidently more oppressive than one you can escape by changing your behavior.

[Darth Wong]

I applied for membership and it took three weeks before it was activated

... You waited three weeks just to sign up and squeal like a stuck pig ...

Are you even paying attention? I just said it took three weeks for my membership to be activated — I didn’t wait, the administrators did!

Obviously, you're too fucking stupid to understand the definition of "wait". You did wait for three weeks. Do you think you're not "waiting" in a traffic jam because it's not your fault? Go to school and learn English, you idiot.

And what is with all this name calling? My son is only thirteen and even he can carry on a conversation for more than five minutes without calling someone an infantile name or making a fart joke. Are any of you adults?

Yes, and guess what: Winston Churchill could insult people something fierce too. It is, in fact, a hallmark of immaturity to assess someone else's intellect solely by his use of naughty words. "Oh teacher, Jimmy said a bad word!" Grow the fuck up, moron. Real maturity is taking responsibility for your own words and deeds; something that you are quite notably not doing.

I actually find that I can stand behind my first statement: that the most important factor in sexuality is not “orientation” but rather dominance. I person of great “ego strength” (as the current jargon would call it) is free to use there sexuality as they wish, while a passive personality type is doomed to become the slave of their desires. I would contend that what is “innate” is dominance or lack thereof.

Of course, you have studies to support this claim? You do realize that this is not the "unsupported claim" forum; we have higher expectations here. If you make a contentious claim you're supposed to back it up.

I am fully aware of the much hyped idea that it is innate and I find three reasons for rejecting it:

1] Psychology is the least rigorous of the sciences. Things that were once considered neurotic are not accepted, while simple vices (like gluttony) have been re-conceptualized as “diseases.” Freud, the putative founder of the “science,” is now completely discredited. If there is anything that we can actually say about psychology it’s that virtually none of its claims can be verified by reproducible experiment.

Psychology is indeed the least rigorous of the sciences. However, that does not mean that any psychology study can be glibly dismissed just because it is a psychology claim; you must still show why you think that the study's conclusions were flawed, otherwise you are engaging in a hopelessly obvious ad-hominem fallacy.

Moreover, a lack of conclusive evidence would be much more of a problem for your position than mine, since you are casting aspersions against gay people and therefore, you bear the burden of proof. The burden of proof is upon the accuser remember? Not the defendant. If you want to prove that homosexuality is harmful or voluntary, you must produce the evidence rather than challenging us to disprove your claims.

2] The experience I see around me is against it.

After dismissing psychology studies for being inadequately rigorous, you cite personal anecdotes? Those are far less rigorous than psychology studies, you blithering idiot. Your sample size is miniscule compared to a typical study.

3] My personal experience is against it.

See above, moron. A sample size of 1 is even worse.

The subject under discussion was Ernst Röhm, who was heterosexual before the Great War, introduced to homoeroticism shortly thereafter, and homosexual ever afterwards. When exactly was he bisexual? It seems to me that there was no time in his life when he either desired or coupled with both women and men; first it was the one, then the other.

Why the fuck are you obsessing over one individual? Do you have even the vaguest notion of what "sample size" means? Let's not even talk about the fact that your argument seems to be based upon telepathic mind-reading of this individual.

Check it out — I’m not the one with an agenda.

The presence or absence of an "agenda" has precisely nothing to do with the validity of the argument, fucktard. That's the "Appeal to Motive" fallacy.

I am now forty-five years old.

That's what we call a red-herring nitpick. The fact that he got your age wrong has nothing whatsoever to do with the points being made.

In more than one discussion on the Third Reich Forum I have contended that Genocide (persecution by genetic group) is worse than Democide (persecution by social group) because someone can take measures to avoid Democide, but not Genocide.

That is to say the execution of Edith Stein is morally worse than the suicide of Alan Turing because Turing could have kept his pants on and avoided persecution while Stein was killed for being racially Jewish even though she had become a Catholic nun.

Explain what moral system you subscribe to. It is obviously not utilitarianism, because utilitarianism does not make any such distinction. It is obviously not humanism, because the concept of human rights makes no such distinction. What does it mean when you say something is "morally worse" if we have no idea what you think defines morality?

A persecution you cannot escape is self-evidently more oppressive than one you can escape by changing your behavior.

And what if you can't achieve an erection for a girl? Oops. Saying that people can escape your clutches if they fool you into thinking they're not on your hit list does not make you a better person.