Friday, April 22, 2016

@ Matt...

I have to continue our debate here because I can only post responsive comments with my smartphone because I cannot post via Blogger; my complaints to Blogger have been ignored, probably due the political incorrectness of my blog.

Anyhow, the additional level of insanity of glbt body modifiers can be seen here and here.  I have yet to see a heterosexual body modifier go so far as to deny their own species or age.  Isn't it obvious to you that the glbt mind is capable of more denial than the heterosexual mind?

Please post any responses on this page instead of the original. 


  1. First of all, thanks for letting me know I should post here instead. :)

    Based on what you said, I'm not getting the impression that our main sticking point lies in the 7 statements I made per se...instead, I'm getting the impression that you think my 7 statements missed your main thoughts/message.

    As I read your post, I realized there are some things that are fuzzy/unclear for me. I'll need a bit of clarification if I'm to respond well. I'm going to tackle everything you said, but I'll just ask one thing at a time for simplicity sake.

    "I have yet to see a heterosexual body modifier go so far as to deny their own species or age."

    The mention of heterosexual people threw me off because:
    - There are men attracted to men who claim they identify as women. (ie gay men who later go on to identify as transgender)
    - There are men attracted to women who claim they identify as women. (ie straight men who later go on to identify as transgender)
    (And the same can be said for women who identify as transgender)

    Can you clarify/define what population you'd like to talk about in this conversation? Transgender individuals specifically? Glbt individuals in general? Knowing will help me as we continue to discuss.

    (Just to warn you in advance - I'm going away for the next week, so I won't be able to respond for awhile)

  2. Must I explain "heterosexual" to you? A man who identifies as a man who is attracted to women, and a woman who identifies as a woman who is attracted to men. My point was; heterosexuals are not in as much denial as non-heterosexuals. Also, I was specifically talking about "transgenders," but my blog covers all glbt disinformation.

  3. @Matt. It's been twelve days now. I'm beginning to think that you all emotion and no substance.

  4. Interesting, I've never heard the term heterosexual defined that way by anyone. That helps clarifies things for me - for the purposes of this discussion (since our discussion is about transgender issues), when you use the term non-heterosexual I'll interpret that as being synonymous with the term transgender. I'm just glad I understand now.

    So back to your post:
    "Anyhow, the additional level of insanity of glbt body modifiers can be seen here and here"

    The first link was to a video about the exact same person we've been talking about this whole time, so that didn't add any new information.

    The second link was about a man claiming he is a little girl - yet your sentence was talking about the insanity of glbt body modifiers. Are we assuming that man has had genital surgery?

    1. When I say non-heterosexual, I mean exactly that and nothing more. You are not understanding what I'm saying. You are altering and miscatagorizing what I'm saying.

  5. Please help me understand then, because I never intended to miscategorize.

    I think my confusion is rooted in your definition of heterosexual, which seems to be unique to you and different from the dictionary definition. Maybe if you can more fully explain how you define sexual orientation that would help?

    1. My Lord Jesus Matt! What is YOUR definition of a heterosexual?!??

  6. If you google "define heterosexual," it says - "(of a person) sexually attracted to people of the opposite sex."

    That's the same definition I go by (as does, from my understanding at least, the vast majority of the English speaking world).

    But you seem to have added the concept of gender into your definition. And this confused me because I have yet to meet any other person, Christian or non-Christian, who defines the word in the same way you do.

    Say there is a man who is attracted to women, and also identifies as a woman.

    By your definition, that person would be non-heterosexual.

    Other Christians would call this person a heterosexual man with severe psychological issues, who is in need of counselling.

    I guess I understand your definition now, it just caught me off guard since I didn't expect that the term "heterosexual" would mean different things to both of us.

  7. I'm not exactly sure how that would help. If we start talking about the details of who I am, the only possible way that could impact the discussion would be in an ad hominem sense - and your blog indicates those arguments are not allowed here. And I definitely agree with you on that point - ad hominem arguments only serve to distract us from real discussion.

    If we can go back a bit, I'd appreciate it if you'd try to tackle one of the questions I asked a few posts above. Can you talk about the question I asked earlier, about how the man who claims to be a little girl relates to body modification? The inclusion of him seemed like a bit of a tangent to me.

    1. Your age is critical to my response. Why not answer such a simple question?

  8. I didn't answer the question because I know how easy it is for people to fall into the trap of logical fallacies (ad hominem being just one such fallacy). And I fear that you might be about to fall into that trap if I tell you, since I just don't see the scenario where knowing my age could possibly help this discussion in a constructive way.

    But if you truly want to know, I will tell you. Just mention it again in your response, and I'll put my age in my next post. I didn't put it in this post solely because I wanted to raise the possibility of logical fallacies first, in case it was enough to make you reconsider your desire to know.

    Also, is there any chance you can answer my question as well? I've brought the topic up twice now, but you haven't even acknowledged it yet.

    1. But your age is a fact. Why withhold a fact from me? Do you wish to withhold the truth? My request to you is a simple inquiry for a fact; please tell me how old you are.

  9. I'm 34.

    Given that the thesis for our discussion boils down to "I (Matt) believe you (Mantronikk) regularly omit relevant information when drawing conclusions about glbt people," I'm interested in seeing how you'll try to use my age to shed light on that. And I'm definitely interested in seeing how you will manage to avoid logical fallacies while doing so.

    Also, if possible, I would appreciate it if you would stop using constant loaded questions. They are nothing more than a distracting logical fallacy, and do not add anything to a real discussion.

    "Why withhold a fact from me? Do you wish to withhold the truth?"
    I explained my reasoning for delaying very clearly in my last post. So contrary to what you implied here, you knew exactly why I delayed, and it was not because I was trying to withhold the truth. Your implication was quite disingenuous, I must say.

    Would you finally be willing to address my question, about the connection between the man masquerading as a young girl and body modification? This is literally the fourth time I've brought it up. You seem to have quite the selective reading/hearing.

  10. I'm crafting a response and plan to post it within 48 hours.

  11. @Matt... Look for a detailed response, in a new post, on Monday, 30 May.


Debate and discussion are welcome here, but attitude and ad hominem attacks will get you banned.