• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Homosexuality Is A Birth Defect

Status
Not open for further replies.
So are happy gays not defective then? :roll:
 
So are happy gays not defective then? :roll:

I think in his view they do not exist, but you'll be waiting a long time for an answer on that.
 
Absolutely false.

You are saying that all misery related to homosexuality is caused by other people, bullies, who mistreat homosexuals.

Not only is that an obviously erroneous statement, it's dysfunctionally codependent, in that it ignores one's own culpability in the matter and blames everything misery-related in the matter all on other people.

The intrinsic misery caused by the birth defect condition of homosexuality itself, that causes exacerbation of existential angst, is reality, a reality that is intensified by bullying, not created by bullying.

If you do not think that having a physiological sex that is at defective cross-purporses with one's neuropsychological attracted-to gender isn't misery-creating in and of itself, then you are simply missing/denying the emotional realities associated with the abnormal condition of homosexuality.



Your attack of a strawman is meaningless.

I've clearly presented both the scientific birth defect etiology of homosexuality and the psychological impact of the abnormal condition of homosexuality.

So what if I am not miserable yet still homosexual? I am indeed very happy. So am I just a non defective homosexual? I don't suffer from "existential angst".

Your entire position is based on the assumption that gay people aren't happy. Either you are selectively clairvoyant or you are a charlatan.
 
So what if I am not miserable yet still homosexual? I am indeed very happy. So am I just a non defective homosexual? I don't suffer from "existential angst".
Your obvious denial that you suffered some existential angst misery when you were younger related to your birth defect of homosexuality, as all homosexuals and transsexuals do, is simply that.

Because you've politicized a birth defect to support a pre-conceived agenda, it is not reasonable that we'd accept your anecdote at face value.


Your entire position is based on the assumption that gay people aren't happy.
False, obviously.

Your over-generalization premise is meaningless, and, that you deny you were at one time in your life experiencing some degree of misery intrinsic to the birth defect of homosexuality coupled with your implicit denial that happiness in other areas or via coping mechanisms can't exist simultaneously with the misery of suferring from a birth defect is in violation of what we know about the human condition.

You are in essense saying that someone suffering from the birth defect of cleft palate can't experiencing happiness but is always just only miserable from their birth defect, an obviously erroneous conclusion.

The birth defect qualification of added misery exists simultaneous to other experiences of life that can provide other feelings and attitudes.

All that is necessary, though not required, to additionally validate the criteria for being a birth defect is that some degree of misery is at some times derived from the birth defect.

Homosexuality and transsexuality both most certainly always engendered that etiological degree of misery.


Either you are selectively clairvoyant or you are a charlatan.
Your unjustified ad hominem stems from your irritation that you know that everything I've said is true, that everything I've said is obviously true, that other casual readers passing this way from a Google search will respect the science and presentation style of the OP in and of itself and even more so once they read all the irrational responses to it, and that for some reason the birth defect reality of homosexuality is seen as a negative thing to you.

My question is: why does the birth defect status of homosexuality engender such a negative response from you and how will the birth defect status of homosexuality harm the gay agenda?

From my perspective, it seems like the birth defect reality of homosexuality will mean nothing but good things for everyone.

But you and others reacting here, seem to have a different take on it, and I want to know why the status of "birth defect" affixed to homosexuality bothers you so much.
 
Your obvious denial that you suffered some existential angst misery when you were younger related to your birth defect of homosexuality, as all homosexuals and transsexuals do, is simply that.

Because you've politicized a birth defect to support a pre-conceived agenda, it is not reasonable that we'd accept your anecdote at face value.



False, obviously.

Your over-generalization premise is meaningless, and, that you deny you were at one time in your life experiencing some degree of misery intrinsic to the birth defect of homosexuality coupled with your implicit denial that happiness in other areas or via coping mechanisms can't exist simultaneously with the misery of suferring from a birth defect is in violation of what we know about the human condition.

You are in essense saying that someone suffering from the birth defect of cleft palate can't experiencing happiness but is always just only miserable from their birth defect, an obviously erroneous conclusion.

The birth defect qualification of added misery exists simultaneous to other experiences of life that can provide other feelings and attitudes.

All that is necessary, though not required, to additionally validate the criteria for being a birth defect is that some degree of misery is at some times derived from the birth defect.

Homosexuality and transsexuality both most certainly always engendered that etiological degree of misery.



Your unjustified ad hominem stems from your irritation that you know that everything I've said is true, that everything I've said is obviously true, that other casual readers passing this way from a Google search will respect the science and presentation style of the OP in and of itself and even more so once they read all the irrational responses to it, and that for some reason the birth defect reality of homosexuality is seen as a negative thing to you.

My question is: why does the birth defect status of homosexuality engender such a negative response from you and how will the birth defect status of homosexuality harm the gay agenda?

From my perspective, it seems like the birth defect reality of homosexuality will mean nothing but good things for everyone.

But you and others reacting here, seem to have a different take on it, and I want to know why the status of "birth defect" affixed to homosexuality bothers you so much.

Blah, Blah, Blah, your arguemnts have been completely destroyed repeating them will not make them true
 
Your obvious denial that you suffered some existential angst misery when you were younger related to your birth defect of homosexuality, as all homosexuals and transsexuals do, is simply that.

Because you've politicized a birth defect to support a pre-conceived agenda, it is not reasonable that we'd accept your anecdote at face value.
So you pretend you are clairvoyant? Everybody suffers some existential angst in regard to their sexuality in their youth. It isn't reasonable to accept your evaluation of someone's personal feelings. There is no way you can know that.

You have claimed clairvoyance to further politicize my sexuality due to your existential angst. It threatens you that we homosexuals exist. Further more I chose to be homosexual because prior to my current boyfriend I was bisexual.


False, obviously.

Your over-generalization premise is meaningless, and, that you deny you were at one time in your life experiencing some degree of misery intrinsic to the birth defect of homosexuality coupled with your implicit denial that happiness in other areas or via coping mechanisms can't exist simultaneously with the misery of suferring from a birth defect is in violation of what we know about the human condition.
you now suffer from amnesia, because I did mention in my teen years I was not very happy about being bisexual. You are a clairvoyant fraud with amnesia, that is an odd mix.
You are in essense saying that someone suffering from the birth defect of cleft palate can't experiencing happiness but is always just only miserable from their birth defect, an obviously erroneous conclusion.
A cleft palate is a birth defect homosexuality isn't.
The birth defect qualification of added misery exists simultaneous to other experiences of life that can provide other feelings and attitudes.
Nonsense
All that is necessary, though not required, to additionally validate the criteria for being a birth defect is that some degree of misery is at some times derived from the birth defect.
Yes misery separate from everybody else. Everybody in their teems suffers some sexually induced misery. Ever had an embarrassing erection, by your definition that is a birth defect.
Homosexuality and transsexuality both most certainly always engendered that etiological degree of misery.
I am not very aware of transgendered issues. The two are completely unrelated. Homosexuality in and of itself would not cause any misery, look at societies where it was not just accepted but promoted.

Your unjustified ad hominem stems from your irritation that you know that everything I've said is true, that everything I've said is obviously true, that other casual readers passing this way from a Google search will respect the science and presentation style of the OP in and of itself and even more so once they read all the irrational responses to it, and that for some reason the birth defect reality of homosexuality is seen as a negative thing to you.
your OP is ad hominem, you posted no science that supports your claim, just an editorial from a biased source. Nobody will respect your perversion of science to suit your defect.
My question is: why does the birth defect status of homosexuality engender such a negative response from you and how will the birth defect status of homosexuality harm the gay agenda?
Gay agenda? Is there a gay mafia coming to get you? Paranoia is a defect. There is no gay agenda this is your prejudice creating a false boogie man in your mind so you can be justified making up crap perverting other peoples works to support Brian Fischer's insanity which you share.
From my perspective, it seems like the birth defect reality of homosexuality will mean nothing but good things for everyone.
your perspective is biased it means nothing.
But you and others reacting here, seem to have a different take on it, and I want to know why the status of "birth defect" affixed to homosexuality bothers you so much.
Because it isn't a defect. It can't be a defect if it doesn't take away from a person's value and worth. You dodged the simplest definition because you know you can't establish a person's value or worth.

You claim because gay people are unhappy in their teens they are defective. You don't even know why they are unhappy. I was because my parents kept telling me i was a pervert, a freak, an abomination. If any parent tells their kid that they are abominations they will likely not be happy, are all these people defective?

Misery is part of life. It isn't a defect it is normal. Since you are so big into science, lets do an experiment to prove your theory. Lets eliminate the social pressures placed on gay people and completely accept them and see if the misery continues. Guarantee it will end. So there for it isn't a birth defect.

Look at societies that embrace and celibate homosexuality. The level of misery is not based on the sexuality but the social pressures put on gay people. You act like this doesn't exist, but it does. Depression was higher in black people in the 1950s, is being black a birth defect? it is higher among illegal aliens, does that mean that being an illegal alien is a birth defect?

You sound like a bigot. Saying things that cause misery are birth defects, is saying that being black is a birth defect, that being eastern Indian is a birth defect.

There are factors that contribute to misery, just because there is two things that exist at one place doesn't mean they are both caused by the same thing out even related.

Take for instance a citizen of new Delhi, chances are they suffer from more misery than the average American citizen, you are saying that being born Indian is a birth defect, when it is clearly a social issue.

The problem I have with your ASSUMPTION that homosexuality is a birth defect, is that you have jumped to the conclusion you want and you are passing your assumption as fact based on nothing but some false links to science that doesn't support your assumption

REMEMBER THIS POST THAT REFUTED YOU COMPLETELY USING YOUR LINKS THAT YOU COMPLETELY IGNORED BECAUSE YOU KNEW IT PUT THE FINAL NAIL IN YOUR COFFIN
I did read through your OP you are mistaken.What is epigenetics? | Laboratory News*This link explains what epimarks are, nothing about homosexuality being a birth defect.http://www.elsevierdirect.com/compan...hapter_041.pdfThis link doesn't support you eitherEpigenetics Is A Critical Factor In HomosexualitySorry you failed to make your point with this one some epigenetically caused things are defects, not homosexuality.Evolution Of Homosexuality Epigenetics - Business InsiderThis one simply explains that homosexuality may be rooted in epigenetics, not that it was a defect.Nutrition, Epigenetics and Complex Birth Defects -- Finnell 24 (1): 401.3 -- The FASEB Journal*This doesn't refute your claim that homosexuality is a defect. Sorry, fail again.Understanding the Epigenetics of Birth Defects : Denver Museum of Nature & Science*This article only states that some birth defects are caused by the same thing that causes homosexuality.Bryan Fischer: Homosexuality May Be A 'Birth Defect' That Could Lead Parents To Abort ChildrenThis article is the only one that supports you. Brian Fischer isn't an expert on epigenetics, genetics, science or anything but producing anti gay commentary, so you are refuted here as well.

of course you don't. You dodge everything that refutes you even if it is you. You are the only person in denial here. But its common that people in denial deny that they are in denial.
 
Your over-generalization premise is meaningless, and, that you deny you were at one time in your life experiencing some degree of misery intrinsic to the birth defect of homosexuality coupled with your implicit denial that happiness in other areas or via coping mechanisms can't exist simultaneously with the misery of suferring from a birth defect is in violation of what we know about the human condition.

WOW so the human condition is really a birth defect!:lamo
 
So you pretend you are clairvoyant? Everybody suffers some existential angst in regard to their sexuality in their youth. It isn't reasonable to accept your evaluation of someone's personal feelings. There is no way you can know that. You have claimed clairvoyance to further politicize my sexuality due to your existential angst. It threatens you that we homosexuals exist. Further more I chose to be homosexual because prior to my current boyfriend I was bisexual. you now suffer from amnesia, because I did mention in my teen years I was not very happy about being bisexual. You are a clairvoyant fraud with amnesia, that is an odd mix. A cleft palate is a birth defect homosexuality isn't. Nonsense Yes misery separate from everybody else. Everybody in their teems suffers some sexually induced misery. Ever had an embarrassing erection, by your definition that is a birth defect. I am not very aware of transgendered issues. The two are completely unrelated. Homosexuality in and of itself would not cause any misery, look at societies where it was not just accepted but promoted. your OP is ad hominem, you posted no science that supports your claim, just an editorial from a biased source. Nobody will respect your perversion of science to suit your defect. Gay agenda? Is there a gay mafia coming to get you? Paranoia is a defect. There is no gay agenda this is your prejudice creating a false boogie man in your mind so you can be justified making up crap perverting other peoples works to support Brian Fischer's insanity which you share.
your perspective is biased it means nothing. Because it isn't a defect. It can't be a defect if it doesn't take away from a person's value and worth. You dodged the simplest definition because you know you can't establish a person's value or worth. You claim because gay people are unhappy in their teens they are defective. You don't even know why they are unhappy. I was because my parents kept telling me i was a pervert, a freak, an abomination. If any parent tells their kid that they are abominations they will likely not be happy, are all these people defective? Misery is part of life. It isn't a defect it is normal. Since you are so big into science, lets do an experiment to prove your theory. Lets eliminate the social pressures placed on gay people and completely accept them and see if the misery continues. Guarantee it will end. So there for it isn't a birth defect. Look at societies that embrace and celibate homosexuality. The level of misery is not based on the sexuality but the social pressures put on gay people. You act like this doesn't exist, but it does. Depression was higher in black people in the 1950s, is being black a birth defect? it is higher among illegal aliens, does that mean that being an illegal alien is a birth defect? You sound like a bigot. Saying things that cause misery are birth defects, is saying that being black is a birth defect, that being eastern Indian is a birth defect. There are factors that contribute to misery, just because there is two things that exist at one place doesn't mean they are both caused by the same thing out even related. Take for instance a citizen of new Delhi, chances are they suffer from more misery than the average American citizen, you are saying that being born Indian is a birth defect, when it is clearly a social issue. The problem I have with your ASSUMPTION that homosexuality is a birth defect, is that you have jumped to the conclusion you want and you are passing your assumption as fact based on nothing but some false links to science that doesn't support your assumption REMEMBER THIS POST THAT REFUTED YOU COMPLETELY USING YOUR LINKS THAT YOU COMPLETELY IGNORED BECAUSE YOU KNEW IT PUT THE FINAL NAIL IN YOUR COFFIN of course you don't. You dodge everything that refutes you even if it is you. You are the only person in denial here. But its common that people in denial deny that they are in denial.
The OP is a scientific presentation on the obvious birth defect etiology of homosexuality, one that, despite whining to the contrary, has not been "refuted".

It was not, therefore, "an ad hominen" as well.

Your likely purposeful out-of-context misconstruence digression about misery is simply irrelevant.

The "gay agenda" is not anything "sinister" or "evil", just like the "liberal agenda" or the "conservative agenda" or the "NRA agenda"; it's simply a way of phrasing that the specified group has specific endemic political goals. Your diatribe diversion about "paranoia" was, again, irrelevant and meaningless.

The OP science is solid; nothing about itself or the posts of others has come anything close to refuting it. The epigenetic etiology of homosexuality stands as the only credible scientific presentation being offered. Indeed, so far, no scientific group is rejecting it.

If you have other current scientific presentations that counter the OP, that say scientifically homosexuality is caused by this or that, then please trot them out. Of course, I've searched, and have found none .. but you're welcome to try.

As I presented in detail in both the OP and posts subsequent to the OP, the qualification for the epigenetic etiology to be a birth defect is obvious.

Here's the link to the post where I reiterated the five criteria that clearly makes the epigenetic etiology of homosexuality a birth defect: http://www.debatepolitics.com/sex-and-sexuality/160480-homosexuality-birth-defect-47.html#post1061845049. It's scientifically crystal clear.

Here's the link to the post where I presented the misery specifically intrinsic to the condition of homosexuality, presented by homosexuals themselves ("IS BEING GAY RUINING YOUR LIFE" Is Being Gay Ruining Your Life? ) who were being honsest about that specific intrinsic misery: http://www.debatepolitics.com/sex-and-sexuality/160480-homosexuality-birth-defect-49.html#post1061847410.

And here is the link I presented to the long ago scientifically revealed physiological structural defect in the brain caused by the birth defect of homosexuality, a link everyone just "conveniently" ignored (I wonder why!): http://www.debatepolitics.com/sex-and-sexuality/160480-homosexuality-birth-defect-50.html#post1061848009

From the OP through now, I have presented nothing but solid scientific presentation on the epigenetic etiology of homosexuality and the obvious birth defect nature of that etiology, complete with scientific links and factual evidence.

So far, those opposed to the obvious birth defect reality have trotted out .. wait for it .. .. zero scientific link references in their attempted "refutations". They haven't even made an attempt to do so.

Scientifically, it's obvious that homosexuality is a birth defect.

From the debate perspective of this thread, there's been no rational conjecture to that scientific reality.

So I will ask again: given the debatel-won fact that homosexuality is a birth defect, why does that status bother you?

And, for those of you who can't bring yourself to accept the birth defect status of homosexuality, simply pretend that it had just been scientifically proven to you that homosexuality is a birth defect, and then tell me imagining that to be true why the birth defect status of homosexuality would bother you.
 
The OP is a scientific presentation on the obvious birth defect etiology of homosexuality, one that, despite whining to the contrary, has not been "refuted".

It was not, therefore, "an ad hominen" as well.

Your likely purposeful out-of-context misconstruence digression about misery is simply irrelevant.

The "gay agenda" is not anything "sinister" or "evil", just like the "liberal agenda" or the "conservative agenda" or the "NRA agenda"; it's simply a way of phrasing that the specified group has specific endemic political goals. Your diatribe diversion about "paranoia" was, again, irrelevant and meaningless.

The OP science is solid; nothing about itself or the posts of others has come anything close to refuting it. The epigenetic etiology of homosexuality stands as the only credible scientific presentation being offered. Indeed, so far, no scientific group is rejecting it.

If you have other current scientific presentations that counter the OP, that say scientifically homosexuality is caused by this or that, then please trot them out. Of course, I've searched, and have found none .. but you're welcome to try.

As I presented in detail in both the OP and posts subsequent to the OP, the qualification for the epigenetic etiology to be a birth defect is obvious.

Here's the link to the post where I reiterated the five criteria that clearly makes the epigenetic etiology of homosexuality a birth defect: http://www.debatepolitics.com/sex-and-sexuality/160480-homosexuality-birth-defect-47.html#post1061845049. It's scientifically crystal clear.

Here's the link to the post where I presented the misery specifically intrinsic to the condition of homosexuality, presented by homosexuals themselves ("IS BEING GAY RUINING YOUR LIFE" Is Being Gay Ruining Your Life? ) who were being honsest about that specific intrinsic misery: http://www.debatepolitics.com/sex-and-sexuality/160480-homosexuality-birth-defect-49.html#post1061847410.

And here is the link I presented to the long ago scientifically revealed physiological structural defect in the brain caused by the birth defect of homosexuality, a link everyone just "conveniently" ignored (I wonder why!): http://www.debatepolitics.com/sex-and-sexuality/160480-homosexuality-birth-defect-50.html#post1061848009

From the OP through now, I have presented nothing but solid scientific presentation on the epigenetic etiology of homosexuality and the obvious birth defect nature of that etiology, complete with scientific links and factual evidence.

So far, those opposed to the obvious birth defect reality have trotted out .. wait for it .. .. zero scientific link references in their attempted "refutations". They haven't even made an attempt to do so.

Scientifically, it's obvious that homosexuality is a birth defect.

From the debate perspective of this thread, there's been no rational conjecture to that scientific reality.

So I will ask again: given the debatel-won fact that homosexuality is a birth defect, why does that status bother you?

And, for those of you who can't bring yourself to accept the birth defect status of homosexuality, simply pretend that it had just been scientifically proven to you that homosexuality is a birth defect, and then tell me imagining that to be true why the birth defect status of homosexuality would bother you.

Blah, blah, blah, You have no science to back up your claims please stop claiming that you do
 
The OP is a scientific presentation on the obvious birth defect etiology of homosexuality, one that, despite whining to the contrary, has not been "refuted".

It was not, therefore, "an ad hominen" as well.

Your likely purposeful out-of-context misconstruence digression about misery is simply irrelevant.

The "gay agenda" is not anything "sinister" or "evil", just like the "liberal agenda" or the "conservative agenda" or the "NRA agenda"; it's simply a way of phrasing that the specified group has specific endemic political goals. Your diatribe diversion about "paranoia" was, again, irrelevant and meaningless.

The OP science is solid; nothing about itself or the posts of others has come anything close to refuting it. The epigenetic etiology of homosexuality stands as the only credible scientific presentation being offered. Indeed, so far, no scientific group is rejecting it.

If you have other current scientific presentations that counter the OP, that say scientifically homosexuality is caused by this or that, then please trot them out. Of course, I've searched, and have found none .. but you're welcome to try.

As I presented in detail in both the OP and posts subsequent to the OP, the qualification for the epigenetic etiology to be a birth defect is obvious.

Here's the link to the post where I reiterated the five criteria that clearly makes the epigenetic etiology of homosexuality a birth defect: http://www.debatepolitics.com/sex-and-sexuality/160480-homosexuality-birth-defect-47.html#post1061845049. It's scientifically crystal clear.

Here's the link to the post where I presented the misery specifically intrinsic to the condition of homosexuality, presented by homosexuals themselves ("IS BEING GAY RUINING YOUR LIFE" Is Being Gay Ruining Your Life? ) who were being honsest about that specific intrinsic misery: http://www.debatepolitics.com/sex-and-sexuality/160480-homosexuality-birth-defect-49.html#post1061847410.

And here is the link I presented to the long ago scientifically revealed physiological structural defect in the brain caused by the birth defect of homosexuality, a link everyone just "conveniently" ignored (I wonder why!): http://www.debatepolitics.com/sex-and-sexuality/160480-homosexuality-birth-defect-50.html#post1061848009

From the OP through now, I have presented nothing but solid scientific presentation on the epigenetic etiology of homosexuality and the obvious birth defect nature of that etiology, complete with scientific links and factual evidence.

So far, those opposed to the obvious birth defect reality have trotted out .. wait for it .. .. zero scientific link references in their attempted "refutations". They haven't even made an attempt to do so.

Scientifically, it's obvious that homosexuality is a birth defect.

From the debate perspective of this thread, there's been no rational conjecture to that scientific reality.

So I will ask again: given the debatel-won fact that homosexuality is a birth defect, why does that status bother you?

And, for those of you who can't bring yourself to accept the birth defect status of homosexuality, simply pretend that it had just been scientifically proven to you that homosexuality is a birth defect, and then tell me imagining that to be true why the birth defect status of homosexuality would bother you.

None of the links in the OP support your claim accept the link to Brian Fischer's opinion.

The OP is ad hominem, the claim that it is a birth defect is not supported by the links therefore it is only your opinion. You aren't an expert
 
You'll find that Ontologuy's messages and logic on LGTB issues and any women's rights issues are bizarrely worded hate mongering mixes with personal ego-centricism. That is all he really proves.

Once again, by his bizarre logic of what defines "birth defects," he is a birth defect. By his logic, all homo sapiens are birth defects because they have evolved. In his opinion, any evolution or diversity is "birth defects," which of course is a ludicrous proposition.
 
You'll find that Ontologuy's messages and logic on LGTB issues and any women's rights issues are bizarrely worded hate mongering mixes with personal ego-centricism. That is all he really proves. Once again, by his bizarre logic of what defines "birth defects," he is a birth defect. By his logic, all homo sapiens are birth defects because they have evolved. In his opinion, any evolution or diversity is "birth defects," which of course is a ludicrous proposition.
Your typical strawman-leveled ad hominems are simply that, your typical M.O. in this thread, which validates that, with respect to topically relevant proper debate facts, you have nothing with which to reply in opposition to the OP and related post facts.

When you find yourself relegated to attacking the messenger because you have no proper debate refutation for the message, you simply validate the last few paragraphs of the OP, and thereby support my position.
 
Your typical strawman-leveled ad hominems are simply that, your typical M.O. in this thread, which validates that, with respect to topically relevant proper debate facts, you have nothing with which to reply in opposition to the OP and related post facts.

When you find yourself relegated to attacking the messenger because you have no proper debate refutation for the message, you simply validate the last few paragraphs of the OP, and thereby support my position.

^ That is more pointless words trying to disguise still another illogical conclusion you assert. Do you really think the way you use 10 times as many words as necessary proves you're of superior intelligence? That message within all the words really is nonsensical.
 
Your typical strawman-leveled ad hominems are simply that, your typical M.O. in this thread, which validates that, with respect to topically relevant proper debate facts, you have nothing with which to reply in opposition to the OP and related post facts.

When you find yourself relegated to attacking the messenger because you have no proper debate refutation for the message, you simply validate the last few paragraphs of the OP, and thereby support my position.

More Blah, blah, blah and still no science behind the false claims
 
Moderator's Warning:
The threads gone round and round and has now largely devolved to trolling, baiting, flaming, and borderline hate speech. The OP has made his point, people have debated it, and the conversation has now spiraled into mostly bickering and rules violating. This thread and topic are now closed
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom