>>155610561
>The Simpson's was so based and totally not subversive, goys

>>155610561
I hate that I'm gay but a gigachud for hating trannies in cartoons and also a conservative Christian for having pedo gooner threads but also a sexual deviant according to people like OP.

Being a gay chud is hard bros.

>>155610561
The joke is that homophobia is born from ignorance. Homer is, canonically, not an intelligent person.

File: fb5f95187523a30e2c5f1d9e2(...).jpg (41 KB, 338x524)

41 KB JPG

>>155610561
¡Ya me conoces, Marge! ¡Me gusta la cerveza fría, la tele fuerte y los homosexuales locas, locas! Siii!

>>155610561
>inb4 /pol/ and the ten million kill all the gays posts that follow

>>155610717
>>155610752
I do feel bad for regular gay people who just want to live their own lives without being associated with woke shit.

>>155610561
They had to write homer as incoherent and babbling because even the most tepid or irrational objections to homosexuality, when delivered in a complete sentance, is scathing and highly damaging to their argumentation
>homer you're embarrassing yourself
John waters ate poop.

>>155610797
you can't really say what gays actually do with each other on network TV, it's too nauseating

>>155610717
Idk man. Why do you hate trannies in cartoons? Extend that reasoning outward. How do things resolve when you apply that same standard to real life, and even your own choices?

How is Homer wrong though?

>>155610723
The ASSERTION is that homophobia is born from ignorance. Jokes are supposed to be funny. Humor comes from truth. It is not true that objections to homosexuality come from ignorance. The opposite is the truth.

File: Spoiler Image (141 KB, 1024x728)

141 KB JPG

EVERYBODY DANCE NOW

>>155610717
Drawings aren’t real life

>>155610690
Stfu, troon

>>155610826
Only because he can't put together his argument. And the only reason he can't is because the writers said he couldn't. He's able to belt out impassioned speeches about how we need to be respectful to whores, but trying to explain why covering your dick in ahit and blowing out your sphincter muscles to the point of incontinence is too complicated for him.

>>155610912
can't show that on network TV lol

>>155610841
>The opposite is the truth
This seems like an oversimplification (as is the assertion that the show was making).
There are both valid objections to homosexuality AND objections to homosexuality based on ignorance. The same is true for many many topics.

>>155610988
Yeah it's cute how all our "decency" rules work to conceal the ugly truth of society's dregs.

i once lived in an artist's colony neighborhood with a lot of gay dudes. it was pretty grim.

>>155611026
Here's a funny joke
This guy swears up and down that he had "the time of my life". It was so much fun and he had a great time, but he can't stand up straight and has to sit on a donut to drive. He stuffs panty liners into his underwear to catch drips of shit water that continuously leaks out of his anus. The men who id to him are laughing at him behind his back because they know they're ruining his life, and that was their intent.

>>155610561
So it was "I'M SILLY!": The Episode?

File: Robotnik 07.jpg (52 KB, 302x434)

52 KB JPG

God, you morons are pathetic

>haw haw your objections to my life style are unfounded and amusing.
>no I can't actually explain why or how. Nor can I defend my life choices. But my ego demands i post SOMETHING

>>155611121
Nigga you ride cock. You don't have the right to look down on anyone.

Why are anti-gay crusaders so obsessed with anal sex? Do they genuinely believe that all homos are into that? It's really suspicious how much they talk about it.

Barbra Streisand despite being a lifelong ardent liberal never entirely warmed to her large gay fanbase and said that while she tolerated them, she didn't get the appeal of a lifestyle based entirely around sex and pain.

>>155610717
My wife is a faghag and her gay workhusband hates trannies, too. Maybe you people just hate transwomen because you think of them as effeminate men and you hate to be thought of as effeminate by association. Meanwhile, I'm a tall, hairy, broad-shouldered dude with huge feet and a tiny Asian wife. I'm the type of guy who breaks down whole animals to put in the freezer, and builds stuff but also fucking gardens and sews. I don't give a shit if that's femmy because fucking look at me. There's no way anyone would look at me and think anything other than "Grizzly Adams".

File: IMG_1455.jpg (135 KB, 894x1024)

135 KB JPG

>>155611440
Yeah, right

>>155611230
often gays have to eat a special low fiber diet because they can't hold their shit in anymore

>>155611440
1. Other queers naturally interact with trannies more often than straight people do, so we have to deal with their annoying bullshit while being expected to actually put up with it.
2. LG and B go together as sexual preferences and managed to achieve the most significant civil rights of our generation. T is an entirely separate issue that glommed onto the movement and has completely taken over public discourse.

>Dad, why did you take me to a gay steel mill?

AIDS didn't spread from drinking coffee tbqh.

>>155611604
>i… don't… know…

>>155611784

>This is a nightmare! You're all sick!
>Oh, be nice!

>>155611404
I know it's a tired cliché but all clichés have a grain of truth: a lot of homophobes are in the closet and envious of gay men who can be openly gay. They think it's unfair that they have to keep it on the down low while gay men in more tolerant places don't have to do the same. So they end up invoking an even more tired cliché: "If I can't have it, no one can."

>>155610561
I wanna be on your guy's side for this, but constant Loli threads that are borderline pedophile hubs at their worst being common here really harms that.

>>155611975
The difference is, only straight men have the magic "make bad things good when we do them powers". And only white straight men specifically. The powers don't work without a white penis that has never entered another man's orifices, nothing I can do, I didn't make the rules, my hands are tied.

>>155611975
tf do lolis have anything to do with this?

>why are homophobes obsessed with anal sex?!
>*proceeds to have anal sex everyday for his whole adult life and becomes incontinent before 40, not able to keep a normal job, and can only survive by being a sex slave to a tech worker.

>>155611975
>I wanna be on the anti-degenerate sex side but this other example of degenerate sex is making me pro-degenerate sex.
You just like degenerate sex.

>>155611855
>Arachnophobic? You must secretly want to fuck spiders!

>>155612264
Homosexuals pivot to pedophelia as a deflection in the hopes you don't notice the reality that the homosexual community and the pedophile community are the same community.

>>155611975
>but constant Loli threads that are borderline pedophile hubs at their worst being common here
It's funny when people say that on /co/ - that they expect /co/ to be a pedophile hub.
Like, brother, nice self-report, I guess?

File: uyauf13rz4id1.gif (2.25 MB, 480x360)

2.25 MB GIF

>>155610561
if homer is homophobic why is his favorite song raining man in season 6?? it's like the writers summoned back tracy ulman/season 1 homer for this episode, it was ooc for him at this point

>>155612341
Are you against straight people having anal sex too?
>inb4 it's always gay, even with a woman
Are you okay with gay men that just frot and cuddle, or maybe only have sex with thighs? If a homosexual couple abstains from anal sex, would you be okay with them?

>>155612014
So youre a gay brown cuck and somehow this is white men's fault?

>>155612393

He just appreciates disco.

>>155612396
>If if if if if

>>155612376
>Homosexuals pivot to pedophelia as a deflection in the hopes you don't notice the reality that the homosexual community and the pedophile community are the same community.
Not true btw.

>>155611855
A conservative not wanting homosexuality to be normalized (gay marriage given the same benefits as straight marriage, gay adoption, etc.) while also fucking men in private is irrelevant and doesn't discredit his point. If he wasn't guilty of it, it's not like you'll give him credit for it either so what's the point in bringing up closeted right wingers in the first place?

>>155612396
>are you against
You're revealing your moral guilt. If any person repeatedly penetrates their anus they will damage their body. This is just a true statement. Youre mad about me pointing out the truth because you feel guilty.

>>155612448
>>155612483
Okay, so you're against anal sex and not homosexuality in principle. Thanks for clearing it up.

>>155612451
Yeah the stonewall bar was 100% filled with adult men.

>>155612487
Faggot me typing "if if if" wasn't an affirmative of whatever fuckass strawman you're trying to build instead of facing the words in front of you, I'm making fun of your entire argument being reduced to a very specific imaginary circumstance.
You really think your fuckass "if if if" shit applies to more of the parading faggots we're forced to pretend should be proud than not?
I'm guessing probably not, and you know that to, so there's no point! Categorically, these types of arguments that try to frame themselves as thought experiments because they can be made to demonstrate anything they want.
Watch:
Would you be against homosexuals if most of them were bugchasers? If someone was the type of swinger that sucked fifteen cocks in one night after letting them all buttfuck him, would you say that's healthy? What about the people that go in public pride parades, proudly brandishing their fetish gear, and stood horny in front of families, wouldn't you agree those are perverts? If you said "yes" to any of these, then by your logic you are against homosexual culture and not the simple act of sex

>>155612628
>Faggot me typing
Okay, so you're a self-hating gay. Thanks for clearing it up.

>>155612636
>No argument
I accept your concession.

>>155612628
There's no strawman. I want you to clarify if you're okay with homosexuals who engage in monogamous relationships without anal sex. Are you? Yes or no, please.

If yes, it's not the attraction to men by itself you're against. How common you believe this is doesn't matter, because they factually do exist. But if you deny that completely, treat it as a thought experiment.
>>155612652
I was typing it out, be patient.

>>155612487
>>155612636
>lose argument
>"thank for clearing it up"
You think shit like this is why people hate faggots? Why are you scummy and dishonest?

>>155612722
>No argument
I accept your concession.

>>155612730
Now you're just copying >>155612652

Is this to hide you're a pedo?

>>155612674
>There's no strawman
>>155612487
>Okay, so you're [strawman]
lol

>I want you to clarify if you're okay with homosexuals who engage in
Please respond to this point instead of trying to lead with weighted questions I have no interest in humoring:
>Categorically, these types of arguments that try to frame themselves as thought experiments [are worthless] because they can be made to demonstrate anything they want.

>If yes
Why the fuck are you here?
No, seriously? Why the fuck are you here? You clearly have this faggy-ass little flowchart of answers and responses you will only accept. You don't want to actually heara dissenting view, you want to try some pre-planned gotcha that was made by people too arrogant enough to see that it specifically is founded on a premise that's categorically not worth talking about. It's a black swan argument trying to paint an exception as a rule, and at that point, we can use the opposite to pass judgment.
If we MUST judge honosexuals by the outlier of celebates, why is it unfair for us to judge them for their hedonists? Especially since the latter are actually celebrated publicly!

>How common you believe this is doesn't matter
What a braindead statement on your part...

>I was typing it out, be patient
Go back to your faggot-ass Discord.

>>155610904
>If you don't like my favorite goyslop you're a tranny
Touch grass, retard.

>>155612730
There actually was an argument in anon's post, actually. Lol.

Remember how fags went from "We just wanna get married. " to "LET'S US CHOP YOUR SONS DICK OFF RIGHT NOW!" in less then a decade.

>>155612767
I'm not claiming this couple represents all gay people. I'm asking what justifies condemning their relationship. Calling them an exception doesn't answer that.

If your objection is anal sex, it doesn't apply to people who don't practice it. If you condemn them anyway, give the additional reason. That's what the hypothetical tests, not how common the example is.

Your hedonist example makes the same distinction: I can criticize someone's conduct without condemning everyone who shares their orientation.

So, what has this monogamous couple that doesn't practice anal sex done wrong, and how does someone else's behavior answer that?

>>155610561
they should have kept this characters
Before and after the whole homo Angst from Homer, dude's was a good friend

I think being gay is a-okay.

>>155612408
No no, that's the point of the magical powers. If you have them, then nothing can ever be your fault.

>>155612798
it was real in my imagination

>>155612892
Cope
>>155612773
Stop projecting

>>155612767
Shut up, Harold

>>155612818
>I'm asking what justifies condemning their relationship
The parts you keep deliberately ignoring:
>Categorically, these types of arguments that try to frame themselves as thought experiments [are worthless] because they can be made to demonstrate anything they want.
>It's a black swan argument trying to paint an exception as a rule, and at that point, we can use the opposite to pass judgment.

>If your objection is anal sex, it doesn't apply to people who don't practice it
That's not an argument, that's just a tautology. You're not actually saying why people shouldn't hate faggots, you're just trying to draw attention to a self-serving fantasy.
Do you think more fag couples (and I want to specify men here to preempt a semantic gotcha on your end that you're trying to steer towards) are actively avoiding anal sex? For fuck's sake, the thought of "responsible anal sex with condoms and moderation" doesn't even cross your mind, it's either shit-covered rawdogging or nothing at all in your structure! Funny implication aside though, that extraordinary case is only relevant if there's a sizeable amount of people that actually follow it. You are asking us to overrepresent the SEXless couples of homoSEXual relationships in our minds.
Calling Godwin's Law, here's a flipside of the argument you're trying to make:
>>Do you hate Nazis?
>Yes
>>Well what about the Nazis that didn't believe in the Aryan supremacy and didn't kill Jews? If you're okay with them, then it sounds like your problem is just antisemitism instead of Nazi Germany.

>I can criticize someone's conduct without condemning everyone who shares their orientation
And that's why I don't care about celebate couples as a distraction from saying fags are gross.

>>155612939
Herald lives rent free in your head and doesn't call anyone "tranny," tranny.

>>155612951
You keep changing "doesn't have anal sex" into "doesn't have sex." Those aren't the same thing.

That aside, calling the distinction a "tautology" doesn't make it irrelevant. If your objection concerns a particular act, you still need to explain why it justifies hating people who don't perform it. Repeating that they're an exception doesn't provide that explanation.

Nor does setting that act aside imply that every version of it is harmful. I'm testing whether your objection is actually about the act, or about gay people regardless of their conduct.

Your Nazi comparison confuses an ideology with an orientation. Being gay doesn't entail subscribing to a doctrine or endorsing what other gay people do.

So, you've repeatedly explained why you don't want to consider this couple. But you still haven't explained what they've done wrong. "I don't care about them; the group is gross" expresses your disgust for the group, but it doesn't justify hating this specific couple.

>>155612960
No, projecting troon

>>155612951
>sharing an attraction to men is just like joining the nazi party
You have the mind of a child.

>>155613037
Yes. What's that term for trannies that he constantly spams?

>>155613131
Harold

>>155610873
WE WORK HARD, WE PLAY HARD

>>155612384
There is literally a thread up with the words "Why is Luz so cute" written under it.

>>155613210
Drawings aren’t real life

>>155613036
>You keep changing "doesn't have anal sex" into "doesn't have sex." Those aren't the same thing.
Pedantic-ass response for the sake of response.
Ah, yes, all of those homosexual couples that do nothing except footjobs. How could I forget?

>calling the distinction a "tautology" doesn't make it irrelevant
I didn't; I specifically said that earlier quoted line was a tautology. You're twisting my words and trying to pivot this argument since your motte-and-bailey is failing.

>If your objection concerns a particular act, you still need to explain why it justifies hating people who don't perform it.
I defer to my earlier hypothetical: Why should something that's maybe true for less than 1% of a demographic make me reconsider something the rest of it partakes in or, sizeably, actively celebrate? Why should some imaginary celebate/mouth-only-fag (the distinction here does. not. matter for my greater point) somehow undo the people goin out wearing furry BDSM suits in government-sponsored pride parades for the public? Why don't you want me to look at what you're "proud" of?

>Your Nazi comparison confuses an ideology with an orientation
You don't understand what an analogy is, do you?

>Being gay doesn't entail subscribing to a doctrine or endorsing what other gay people do.
No, but it does entail having a sexual attraction. You're trying to argue that a deviant that avoids a large portion of the common factor in a demographic should be used to consider judgment of said faction, and trying to use that to dictate what opinions of it people are allowed to have. That is the core of my argument that remains unaddressed, not "an orientation is like an ideology!"

This is common with you. You keep avoiding the points being made, then drone on about incomplete details you take out of context.

TL;DR: Stop playing dumb.

>But you still haven't explained what they've done wrong
They haven't "done" anything. They're imaginary. They're not evidence, they're your fantasy.

>>155613210
It's a public board. People can make whatever thread they want as long as it's about comics and cartoons. You're not obliged to enter any thread.

>>155613252
>You don't understand what an analogy is, do you?
It was a terrible analogy.

>>155613252
A couple avoiding an activity wouldn't change how common it is among everyone else. I've never claimed otherwise. You keep rebutting a claim I've explicitly rejected.

You just acknowledged that being gay doesn't entail endorsing what other gay people do. So why are you treating someone else's parade behavior as an answer to what this couple has done wrong?

The hypothetical isn't survey evidence. It tests your standard: do you judge people by their own conduct, or condemn them for conduct they neither engage in nor endorse? Calling the example imaginary doesn't answer that question.

You're free to criticize particular behavior. What you haven't justified is extending that criticism to people merely because they share an orientation.

>>155613252
>They haven't "done" anything. They're imaginary. They're not evidence, they're your fantasy.
Also, no they're no imaginary. Such couples do exist, common or not. And people still tell them they're disgusting and going to hell.

>>155610815
Futas do make money, and there is a market.

>>155612798
That has been going on since Carter, you were just sheltered.

>>155613252
>do nothing except footjobs
>footjobs
There's also thighjobs, frotting, oral, etc.

>>155613312
>>155613343
>>155613354
You know you can make one post, right? There's a lot there that can be trimmed if the word count is an issue.

>You keep rebutting a claim I've explicitly rejected.
I'm pointing out that this makes your pestering flowchart of an argument irrelevant. You're trying to pigeonhole the conversation into something that you are now willing to acknowledge does not matter, and you have been since I entered with that "if if if" reply. THAT'S the core of my argument that you have still yet to even acknowledge ("at all," at that even, since I'm struggling to remember if you ever even copypasted any actual WORDS from the times I mentioned that argument in any of your greentexting).

>So why are you treating someone else's parade behavior as an answer to what this couple has done wrong?
Because I've seen video of the gimpsuit faggots, not whatever shit you're making up.
Kirk got shot because TPUSA was showing evidence of LGBT degeneracy.

>The hypothetical isn't survey evidence
That's literally what I keep telling you about why "but what about this couple" isn't an argument or worth humoring.

>Calling the example imaginary doesn't answer that question.
I... what?
Faggeroni, my man, you are seriously trying to say that it doesn't matter if you're just making shit up.

>What you haven't justified is extending that criticism to people merely because they share an orientation.
How about "an overwhelming majority of the people in the orientation perform the behavior?" Is it that not a fair justification?

>Also, no they're no imaginary. Such couples do exist, common or not. And people still tell them they're disgusting and going to hell.
Cool story bro.

>>155613424
The fuck is frotting?

>>155613525
google it

>>155613525
Rubbing your cocks together

>>155613393
Retard

>>155613509
>Because I've seen video of the gimpsuit faggots
Why were you watching those?

>HOT SSTHUFF COMIN' THROUGH!

>>155613509
>How about "an overwhelming majority of the people in the orientation perform the behavior?" Is it that not a fair justification?
No. Even if you established that, it would justify saying the behavior is common. It wouldn't justify condemning someone you know neither practices nor endorses it.

That's precisely why the distinction matters. You're confusing how common something is with who is responsible for doing it.

A video of someone behaving badly (in your opinion) is evidence about that person. Sharing their orientation doesn't make someone else responsible for their behavior.

I acknowledged that my hypothetical doesn't establish prevalence. You keep treating that as conceding it can't test your standard. Those are different things. Your answer now makes the disagreement clear: you're offering group membership as grounds for condemning people regardless of their own conduct.

>>155613509
>Cool story bro.
Telling how you avoid a real response to that.

>>155613566

>Stand still, theres a spark in your hair!

>>155613566
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5ufOqhWCb8

>>155610561
homer was reacting to a changing world, a changing world that was leaving him behind, a changing world that demanded change for the sake of change without asking were that change was leading to
are people born gay? unlikely
is being gay something you can cure? probably not
is there reason why gay people end up being communists?

>>155610717
Force yourself to become straight. Watch a shit ton of lesbian porn.

>>155613393
cf. Anita Bryant the first victim of cancel culture

>>155613553
>>155613574
>>155613587
You know, you really don't need to make a new reply AS SOON as you think of a quip. This isn't Discord. Nobody is rushing you.

>Why were you watching those?
Have you tried reading the very next line in that post?
You spend enough time on websites like this too and you're going to see fucked up shit. And since we're taking "dude trust me" seriously, I have a lot of hobbies that put me close to annoying leftiefags and actual fags.

>No. Even if you established that
Even if I established "most gay men have gay sex"...

>Sharing their orientation doesn't make someone else responsible for their behavior.
You keep trying to change my argument. My argument is that most of the homosexual community either approves or let those kinds of people stand on display proudly, or chastize us for noticing or for our asking that you reign those faggots in.

>I acknowledged that my hypothetical doesn't establish prevalence. You keep treating that as conceding it can't test your standard
Midwittiest statement made all thread...
Please reread that and truly appreciate how pretentiously stupid it is.
That's not even my argument either. You keep avoiding quoting my argument and keep trying to reframe it. You're hoping that I don't notice you being pedantic about terminology YOU keep bringing up.

>you're offering group membership as grounds for condemning people regardless of their own conduct.
If I said anything like "only good homosexuals can do (...)," then this strawman would hold.
But it isn't.
The crux of my point is that imagining these black swans can't dissuade people's opinions of homosexuals, because the opposite are there, prominently, and celebrated by the group (or at least treated equally).
This is an idea you keep avoiding, instead trying constantly to rework it.
Probably because you lack an answer to it.

>Telling how you avoid a real response to that
Telling how you don't recognize an old meme. Then again you do think this is Discord...

>>155613548
No, that was the case, you were sheltered as it's why your parents put you in Special ED in the first place.

>>155613788
Different reasons (USSR spy during the Cold War, died in Moscow in 2024).

>>155610690
>jewish cartoon
>considered based by anon
Funny joke anon, funny joke. I'm rofling.

>>155613895
Matt Groening isn't Jewish.

>>155613797
>Telling how you don't recognize an old meme. Then again you do think this is Discord...
You're still avoiding responding. Probably because it exposes you for being irrationally hateful of people.

>>155613277
so we've moved from "there's not really a lot of pedo threads" to "it's fine if there's pedo threads just ignore them bro"

>>155613797
Since you're incapable of following me, here's a blunt version: Anal sex isn't nearly as harmful as you believe, straights also practice it, and blaming all gays for pride parade behavior or whatever else you're angry about is unfair. Also, you don't seem to object to people abusing all gays or treating them all as abominations regardless of their personal behavior.

>>155613912
>You're still avoiding responding
Newfag "cool story bro" means "You're making shit up." You're literally asking me to argue against your imagination.

>>155613962
>and blaming all gays for pride parade behavior or whatever else you're angry about is unfair.
"Why?"

>>155612393
did you see the episode? a major joke of it is that many things Homer enjoys are, unbeknownst to him, pretty gay
>>155610561
I miss episodes like this. They handled things evenly, Homer made tons of salient points, even if they weren't delivered very articulately... he's right, it's no fun to be surprised by something like that, you'd rather it be obvious
Of course the joke is it WAS obvious to everyone else. and he's also right, it's not usual! For a while, they embraced that, now it's all "we demand you act like it's usual" it's fuckin not. it's the OTHER thing. the RC Cola.
I also like how John wasn't pissy or anything, and didn't gloat when he won them over. John Waters is the best gay, prove me wrong.

>>155611975
How do you figure? Those are on opposite sides.

>>155613946
People are here for comics and cartoons, and most of the threads aren't that one. That thread ain't pushed by the mods or site admins, and nobody's trying to gaslight you for calling it disgusting.

>>155613988
Yes, I understand you think something real is something fake and you're incapable of understanding hypotheticals. You're still pretending not to understand
>>155614005
Blaming people for things they haven't done is wrong. Basic morality here, try to keep up.

>>155612393
It is one of those episodes where a character is twisted in order to serve the story being told. I'm sure he'd have a gay panic if someone tried to kiss him etc but we know he's openminded. It's not like if it had been Hank Hill.

>>155613846
Seethe

>>155613946
>>155614047
Stfu, fags

>>155614075
>>155612435

>>155614074
>Yes, I understand you think something real is something fake and you're incapable of understanding hypotheticals
If it's a hypothetical then it IS nonexistent by default until proven or acted on otherwise. That's literally how hypotheticals work.

>Blaming people for things they haven't done is wrong
Okay. So you can't hate Nazis for being a genocidal ethnostate because not all of them believed in killing the Jews.

>>155614123
>Okay. So you can't hate Nazis for being a genocidal ethnostate
Yes, you shouldn’t

>>155614123
"Hypothetical" means assumed for the sake of argument, not nonexistent. "Suppose a married couple has separate bank accounts" doesn't imply such couples don't exist. The example alone establishes neither existence nor nonexistence.

Also, you actually can condemn the Nazi regime and ideology without claiming every member had identical beliefs or responsibility. Oskar Schindler was a Nazi Party member. He's honored for saving Jews. Someone can also be culpable for what they supported or enabled without personally endorsing every crime. That's still judging their own conduct.

We've already established that the Nazi analogy sucks. Being gay doesn't mean joining an organization, supporting a regime, or endorsing what other gay people do. Your analogy needs that connection to work, and it doesn't have it.

>>155614096
No, that is the case, touch grass.

>>155614123
>nonexistent by default until proven or acted on otherwise
It's common enough that they've even got a term for gay men like that - sides (not top or bottom)

>>155614265
>sneeding

>>155614284
No, far from it.

>>155614199
>"Hypothetical" means assumed for the sake of argument, not nonexistent
Anon you keep deliberately conflating that with me (allegedly) needing to disprove an assumed case, and your wording has gone over that line several times to the point where you tried to use its (assumed) truthfulness as an argument instead of just a premise.

>doesn't imply such couples don't exist
The possibility of something being true does not mean that hypothetical is granted relevance.

Let's take the structure of your logic and apply it to another claim. "You can't judge ants as being smaller than two inches." Under the way you keep trying to argue, an ant could be engineered to be larger, and because we assume this as true to humor the train of thought, and you can't prove that it can't be, the black swan is established and your previous notion is wrong.
And before you start, and do that annoying thing where you try to misrepresent the point by fixating on one partial detail, that was an appeal to ridicule aimed at your argument's structure, not literally about genetically-engineering ants.

>We've already established that the Nazi analogy sucks.
Have we? Because...
>imagining these black swans can't dissuade people's opinions of [X], because the opposite are there, prominently, and celebrated by the group (or at least treated equally)
... Never got a counterargument in any capacity any of the times I posted it, just (you) repeating yourself over and over again because he seriously needed a flowchart to argue earlier.

>>155614436
An imagined giant ant wouldn't disprove a factual claim about actual ants. Agreed. That isn't how I've used the hypothetical.

I'm asking: if someone neither does nor endorses the behavior you condemn, what makes that person blameworthy? You don't have to disprove the assumed case. You have to explain how your stated reason applies to it. That's a question about your standard of judgment, not a claim about population statistics.

And here's a direct answer to the sentence you keep reposting:
>imagining these black swans can't dissuade people's opinions
Whether an example persuades someone and whether their judgment is justified are different questions. Someone refusing to reconsider an opinion doesn't establish that it's reasonable.

Even an accurate claim that a behavior is widespread wouldn't establish that a known nonparticipant deserves blame for it. You're defending a general impression in response to a question about individual responsibility. Comparing that to measuring ants doesn't answer the question.

>>155614292
Nah

>>155613962
>Anal sex isn't nearly as harmful as you believe
all possibility of rational discussion ends here

>>155614575
Because you refuse to accept a true statement, yes.

>>155614522
Yes, what makes you think otherwise?

>>155611744
/thread

>>155614512
>An imagined giant ant wouldn't disprove a factual claim about actual ants.
That's not true, imaginary giant ants disprove claims whenever they want. It's happening in my brain right now.

>>155611744
most AIDS cases are in ultra-conservative, homophobic Russia and Africa though

>>155614512
>An imagined giant ant wouldn't disprove a factual claim about actual ants. Agreed. That isn't how I've used the hypothetical.
>>>155612396

For fuck's sake, anon, you're even trying to do that with your entire next paragraph.

>You have to explain how your stated reason applies to it.
I would ask you, again, to please address or even just stop deliberately ignoring
>these black swans can't dissuade people's opinions of homosexuals, because the opposite are there, prominently, and celebrated by the group (or at least treated equally).
...But at this point I'd be an idiot to expect you to suddenly want a discourse.

>Whether an example persuades someone and whether their judgment is justified are different questions. Someone refusing to reconsider an opinion doesn't establish that it's reasonable.
You not only chopped off the second half of the quote which DOES give that justification just to, again, misrepresent my point, but you didn't say anything. Not in the sense of "not saying a counterargument," but this isn't even anything at all. If I could abridge that clusterfuck stroke, the closest I could surmise is "yeah, but I have an opinion and disagree!" It's just word soup that doesn't actually address anything I said!

>Even an accurate claim that a behavior is widespread wouldn't establish that a known nonparticipant deserves blame for it.
"Known?" So it's not just a "hypothetical" anymore? Huh, weird how you didn't copypaste anything from my first paragraph in that post...

>You're defending a general impression in response to a question about individual responsibility.
The (literal) argument we are having is about homosexual dudes that have anal sex, and you trying to discredit an anon taking the piss out of the effects of that by inventing some couple that's, deliberately, imagined to be an exception to what you know everyone justifiably assumes about gay men. Your entire presence of bitching here is exactly what you are accusing me of doing.

>>155614602
>It's hypothetical! But also I assume it's true because you can't prove otherwise!

>>155614855
The core question is this - Is an individual being gay itself enough to deserve your contempt?

There's nothing inherently immoral about consensual anal sex between adults. Asking whether you'd also condemn gay men who don't have it wasn't conceding that those who do are doing something wrong. It was testing how far your objection to homosexuality extends.

>>155610723
>The joke is that homophobia is born from ignorance
na it's a biological reaction to something that's a negative on society
fags end up spreading disease and parasites like crazy

>>155614875
I never said your inability to disprove it makes it true. Assuming a case for discussion isn't claiming that the assumption proves it exists. It's asking what your reasoning would imply in that case.

Also, the type of person I'm describing exists. The particular couple in my example is hypothetical.

>>155614023
but "it's raining men" is sung by a woman

>>155610717
Protestants arent christians due to lack of good works so you were going to hell one way or the other

>>155614998
Homophobia undermines disease prevention. Research in America and Europe has linked greater acceptance and legal equality to better sexual-health outcomes, including lower HIV and STI rates.

Stigma can discourage testing and treatment, the very things that help prevent transmission of diseases.

>>155615411
>linked
You really think that's because of homosex, and not because countries where it's legal ALSO tend to pour more money into sex education?

>>155614968
Why is it unfair to assume they're like most of the group?

>>155615044
>never said your inability to disprove it makes it true.
>>155613354
>Also, no they're no imaginary. Such couples do exist, common or not