Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
6 minutes ago, CrakHoBarbie said:

You should probably ask yourself why you're getting so upset over the insinuation that you may be a closeted gay.

There's more than one empirical study that supports the possibility that homophobes may be closeted gays. 

If you didn't believe there may be some truth to those studies, you wouldn't be denying their validity as clumsily as you are.

Stop giving yourself away.

It's embarrassing. 

 

You are really grasping at straws. I didn't clumsily deny anything. I quoted YOUR SOURCE. That source is over 30 years old. There is no study that claims to prove homophobia is associated with latent homesexual desire. Not your study and no study since.

Let's face it. You got pwned and you tried to respond but you just dug a deeper and deeper whole. My comment was about YOU being a HYPOCRITE. Because you were. Maybe don't throw shade when you are standing in the darkness.

The Rules for Liberal tactics:

  1. If they can't refute the content, attack the source.
  2. If they can't refute the content, attack the poster.
  3. If 1 and 2 fail, pretend it never happened.
  4. Everyone you disagree with is Hitler.
  5. A word is defined by the emotion it elicits and not the actual definition.
  6. If they are wrong, blame the opponent.
  7. If a liberal policy didn't work, it's a conservatives fault and vice versa.
  8. If all else fails, just be angry.
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, gatomontes99 said:

You are really grasping at straws. I didn't clumsily deny anything. I quoted YOUR SOURCE. That source is over 30 years old. There is no study that claims to prove homophobia is associated with latent homesexual desire. Not your study and no study since.

Let's face it. You got pwned and you tried to respond but you just dug a deeper and deeper whole. My comment was about YOU being a HYPOCRITE. Because you were. Maybe don't throw shade when you are standing in the darkness.

And you want to be grasping at penises.

"homophobia is significantly associated with straight identification among men with same-sex sexuality"

Boom!

I didn't make the rules, I just live here.

https://academic.oup.com/sf/article/97/3/1067/5045222

Edited by CrakHoBarbie
  • Like 1
Posted
34 minutes ago, CrakHoBarbie said:

And you want to be grasping at penises.

"homophobia is significantly associated with straight identification among men with same-sex sexuality"

Boom!

I didn't make the rules, I just live here.

https://academic.oup.com/sf/article/97/3/1067/5045222

In a Crack house.

  • Like 1

Its so lonely in m'saddle since m'horse died.

Posted
46 minutes ago, CrakHoBarbie said:

And you want to be grasping at penises.

"homophobia is significantly associated with straight identification among men with same-sex sexuality"

Boom!

I didn't make the rules, I just live here.

https://academic.oup.com/sf/article/97/3/1067/5045222

From you source: "First, homophobia was associated with increased odds of straight
identification in all groups."

You should read your sources.

The Rules for Liberal tactics:

  1. If they can't refute the content, attack the source.
  2. If they can't refute the content, attack the poster.
  3. If 1 and 2 fail, pretend it never happened.
  4. Everyone you disagree with is Hitler.
  5. A word is defined by the emotion it elicits and not the actual definition.
  6. If they are wrong, blame the opponent.
  7. If a liberal policy didn't work, it's a conservatives fault and vice versa.
  8. If all else fails, just be angry.
Posted
2 hours ago, CrakHoBarbie said:

 

If you didn't believe there may be some truth to those studies, you wouldn't be denying their validity as clumsily as you are.

 

Wait.... you're saying that if you know that a study is wrong and you state and provide evidence a study is wrong then that's proof that the study is right and you're gay?

LOL that's some special left wing logic there :) 

There are two types of people in this world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, gatomontes99 said:

From you source: "First, homophobia was associated with increased odds of straight
identification in all groups."

You should read your sources.

God your fu__ing dense.

I told you there are multiple empirical studies that supports my contention. 

The empirical article below says:

"homophobia is significantly associated with straight identification among men with same-sex sexuality"

That means that a significant number of homophobes (like you) are closeted gays.

You should work on those poor reading comprehension skills halfwit. 

https://academic.oup.com/sf/article/97/3/1067/5045222

Edited by CrakHoBarbie
Posted
23 minutes ago, CrakHoBarbie said:

God your fu__ing dense.

I told you there are multiple empirical studies that supports my contention. 

 

And then posted one that doesn't. Aren't you the bright little bulb :) 

There are two types of people in this world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data

Posted
1 hour ago, CrakHoBarbie said:

God your fu__ing dense.

I told you there are multiple empirical studies that supports my contention. 

The empirical article below says:

"homophobia is significantly associated with straight identification among men with same-sex sexuality"

That means that a significant number of homophobes (like you) are closeted gays.

You should work on those poor reading comprehension skills halfwit. 

https://academic.oup.com/sf/article/97/3/1067/5045222

No. The article that came from was cited in this article and that article cited the study you cited. It's all one big circle jerk.

The irony here is that you are the one that is insecure in who you are, not me.

The Rules for Liberal tactics:

  1. If they can't refute the content, attack the source.
  2. If they can't refute the content, attack the poster.
  3. If 1 and 2 fail, pretend it never happened.
  4. Everyone you disagree with is Hitler.
  5. A word is defined by the emotion it elicits and not the actual definition.
  6. If they are wrong, blame the opponent.
  7. If a liberal policy didn't work, it's a conservatives fault and vice versa.
  8. If all else fails, just be angry.
Posted
7 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

No. The article that came from was cited in this article and that article cited the study you cited. It's all one big circle jerk.

The irony here is that you are the one that is insecure in who you are, not me.

I understand. 

Transsexuals make you question your sexuality.  Theres no shame in that. Men are especially likely to report homophobic attitudes when they feel that their masculinity is threatened. So your worried you'll suffer from sexuality-based discrimination. That's natural. But you need to stand strong against those naysayers. Im here to give you moral support. 

Be strong.

Well get through this together. 

 

  • Like 1
Posted
8 minutes ago, CrakHoBarbie said:

I understand. 

Transsexuals make you question your sexuality.  Theres no shame in that. Men are especially likely to report homophobic attitudes when they feel that their masculinity is threatened. So your worried you'll suffer from sexuality-based discrimination. That's natural. But you need to stand strong against those naysayers. Im here to give you moral support. 

Be strong.

Well get through this together. 

 

Ok Skippy. You keep believing that. But let's recap:

I made fun of your hypocrisy

You tried to call me homophobic, I debunked your article

You called me names.

I called you out on it.

You tried to use the same debunked article.

I pointed out your article was already debunked.

You tried a new article

I debunked that.

What do you think will happen next? You can't support your opinion. And your opinion is based on a false assumption that I am homophobic. I am not. I made fun of you for being a hypocrite. And none of this has to do with a general giving an enemy aid and comfort...aka treason.

  • Like 1

The Rules for Liberal tactics:

  1. If they can't refute the content, attack the source.
  2. If they can't refute the content, attack the poster.
  3. If 1 and 2 fail, pretend it never happened.
  4. Everyone you disagree with is Hitler.
  5. A word is defined by the emotion it elicits and not the actual definition.
  6. If they are wrong, blame the opponent.
  7. If a liberal policy didn't work, it's a conservatives fault and vice versa.
  8. If all else fails, just be angry.
Posted
39 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

Ok Skippy. You keep believing that. But let's recap:

I made fun of your hypocrisy

You tried to call me homophobic, I debunked your article

You called me names.

I called you out on it.

You tried to use the same debunked article.

I pointed out your article was already debunked.

You tried a new article

I debunked that.

What do you think will happen next? You can't support your opinion. And your opinion is based on a false assumption that I am homophobic. I am not. I made fun of you for being a hypocrite. And none of this has to do with a general giving an enemy aid and comfort...aka treason.

Dude, she's just going to keep repeating the same lies and insisting you're gay or trans. 

It's what  she does, it's all she does.  She stopped responding to me because i made such fun of her every time she tried it with me that she'd get furious and freak out. :) 

This isn't a serious conversation, s/he's  not mentally well. 

Not to mention how messed up do you have to be to constantly be demanding we 'normalize' gays and trans and treat them like anyone else, and THEN try to use it as an insult to someone :) 

There are two types of people in this world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data

Posted
11 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

Ok Skippy. You keep believing that. But let's recap:

I made fun of your hypocrisy

You tried to call me homophobic, I debunked your article

You called me names.

I called you out on it.

You tried to use the same debunked article.

I pointed out your article was already debunked.

You tried a new article

I debunked that.

What do you think will happen next? You can't support your opinion. And your opinion is based on a false assumption that I am homophobic. I am not. I made fun of you for being a hypocrite. And none of this has to do with a general giving an enemy aid and comfort...aka treason.

Again, my opinion has been supported through multiple empirical studies. 

Deal with it cup cake.

Posted
3 hours ago, DUI_Offender said:

@User is the same way. Perhaps him and Gato could hook up. lol.

If you are this desperate to get my attention, you could own up to your lies or the garbage you post in the threads you run away from when I call you out. 

 

 

 

Posted
3 hours ago, CrakHoBarbie said:

Again, my opinion has been supported through multiple empirical studies. 

Deal with it cup cake.

All the Empires have fallen which make those studies obsolete. 

Posted (edited)
28 minutes ago, Legato said:

All the Empires have fallen which make those studies obsolete. 

Wrong.

I've posted two empirical studies (one from 2009) that supports my contention.

You attempted to debunk empirical studies with a blog/opinion piece.

What a halfwitted buffoon you are.

I think you'd be much happier if you'd crawl out of the closet you're hiding in and visit your local "bath house".

Get your freak on, so to speak.

Edited by CrakHoBarbie
  • Haha 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, CrakHoBarbie said:

I think you'd be much happier if you'd crawl out of the closet you're hiding in and visit your local "bath house".

Funny. You liberals couldn't figure the whole bathhouse thing out when you were fear-mongering about Monkey Pox. 

 

  • Haha 1

 

 

Posted
40 minutes ago, CrakHoBarbie said:

Wrong.

I've posted two empirical studies (one from 2009) that supports my contention.

You attempted to debunk empirical studies with a blog/opinion piece.

What a halfwitted buffoon you are.

I think you'd be much happier if you'd crawl out of the closet you're hiding in and visit your local "bath house".

Get your freak on, so to speak.

which Empires? which blog?

You cannot be content with your contention if you consider a dull knife attack as a valid retort.

 

  • Thanks 1
Posted
5 hours ago, CrakHoBarbie said:

Again, my opinion has been supported through multiple empirical studies. 

Deal with it cup cake.

Except the papers you published literally said the opposite.

  • Like 1

The Rules for Liberal tactics:

  1. If they can't refute the content, attack the source.
  2. If they can't refute the content, attack the poster.
  3. If 1 and 2 fail, pretend it never happened.
  4. Everyone you disagree with is Hitler.
  5. A word is defined by the emotion it elicits and not the actual definition.
  6. If they are wrong, blame the opponent.
  7. If a liberal policy didn't work, it's a conservatives fault and vice versa.
  8. If all else fails, just be angry.
Posted
1 hour ago, gatomontes99 said:

Except the papers you published literally said the opposite.

If that's what you think, then you must have poor reading comprehension. 

The studies clearly state:

"homophobia is significantly associated with straight identification among men with same-sex sexuality"

You certainly are welcome to deny reality (over and over and over).

Reality doesn't care, and neither do I.

As ive already suggested,  perhaps night school would be a prudent consideration on your part.

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Legato said:

which Empires? which blog?

You cannot be content with your contention if you consider a dull knife attack as a valid retort.

 

Although feining ignorance is a time honored MAGA trait,  I still find it childish.

The empirical article below states quite clearly:

"homophobia is significantly associated with straight identification among men with same-sex sexuality"

https://academic.oup.com/sf/article/97/3/1067/5045222?login=false

Go find the blog that some other MAGA fool posted ealier in an attempt at debunking empirical evidence. 

Yall just keep getting stup!der and stup!der.

 

2 hours ago, User said:

Funny. You liberals couldn't figure the whole bathhouse thing out when you were fear-mongering about Monkey Pox. 

 

Speaking from experience,  I see.

Edited by CrakHoBarbie
Posted
3 minutes ago, CrakHoBarbie said:

Speaking from experience,  I see.

Of course. I witnessed firsthand the leftists in the media and others trying to fearmonger about Monkey Pox to the general public. 

 

 

Posted (edited)
23 minutes ago, CrakHoBarbie said:

If that's what you think, then you must have poor reading comprehension. 

The studies clearly state:

"homophobia is significantly associated with straight identification among men with same-sex sexuality"

You certainly are welcome to deny reality (over and over and over).

Reality doesn't care, and neither do I.

As ive already suggested,  perhaps night school would be a prudent consideration on your part.

Actually, that is your source quoting another paper. Your source came to the conclusion: "First, homophobia was associated with increased odds of straight identification in all groups."

Your source says homophobia is associated with identifying as heterosexual. As a man that identifies as a woman and demands everyone else believe that, how can you claim that homophobic people that identify as straight are anything other than straight? Unless....you are a hypocrite?

tenor.gif?itemid=4485240&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=

 

Edited by gatomontes99
  • Thanks 1

The Rules for Liberal tactics:

  1. If they can't refute the content, attack the source.
  2. If they can't refute the content, attack the poster.
  3. If 1 and 2 fail, pretend it never happened.
  4. Everyone you disagree with is Hitler.
  5. A word is defined by the emotion it elicits and not the actual definition.
  6. If they are wrong, blame the opponent.
  7. If a liberal policy didn't work, it's a conservatives fault and vice versa.
  8. If all else fails, just be angry.
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

Actually, that is your source quoting another paper. Your source came to the conclusion: "First, homophobia was associated with increased odds of straight identification in all groups."

 

At first, homophobia was associated with increased odds of straight identification in all groups."

If you read further, they then concluded:

"homophobia is significantly associated with straight identification among men with same-sex sexuality"

You are so uneducated,  you dont even realize your reading comprehension is whacked.

Sorry, but your gay (or at the very least you have underlying homosexual tendencies). And the way you deal with that is by lashing out at gays.

Deal with it you halfwitted closet queen.

 

Edited by CrakHoBarbie

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,911
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    AlembicoEMR
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...