WAYWT shit talking thread

[jetlenoir]

i know this lesbian. she had a boyfriend but she wasnt really attracted to him but more to chicks. she couldnt help it. i tried getting her too....she's a hot lesbian.

I FUCK lesbians. Lesbians don't have sex with me... Beacuse I FUCK them. Want to know what it's like?

woah woah woah woah...

people read jayrock's posts?

He seems like an alright fella. His avatar makes me chuckle each time I see it.

8=========D

[mr fluffernutter]

i just read 3 pages of this garbage while eating 6 pork sausages.

YOU DO TH EMATH

[jpgm]

thats good eatin diamonds........no indigestion?

[fndmybetterhalf]

gay gay gay

ugly shirt

it doesnt seem like ur lanky girly legs can lift those cinder block boots

talkin my ish

he sjhould jus sell that shirt...really fits like shit

[mr fluffernutter]

i can barely breath

[jpgm]

drink some ketchup!

[fndmybetterhalf]

Why not.

generic angry sad man

[fadingblue]

haha no, the waist is not cinched. it's a slightly oversized shirt, and it must have draped funny.

Quoted for truff

[mr fluffernutter]

drink some ketchup!

I lol'd f'reals.

[lucky_cloud]

i also just ate some fried sausages, and a big plate of perogies. mm mmm.

I think what jayrock has been trying to say is that he believes the roots of homosexuality are more psychological than biological, which is not a thesis I'd reject out of hand.

I like worm's fit.

[ProfMonnitoff]

jayrock are you seriously going against every discovery science has ever made about gay people because if so lol (sorry to rehash the issue but i cant figure out if youre being ironic or not)

[kyo]

the old nature vs nurture debate... this isn't going to go anywhere.

[Brood_Star]

jpgm your my hero.

*you're

jpgm your my hero!

again

dont worry, your not the only one that tried toneg rep me but accidently gave me pos. whitney!!!! i snitch.

*you're

i imply your are a pussy man, pussy man is a man who was his penis inside out into his body. you are pussy man.

*you're

you can thank me sometime later

[Egbert- Joe]

Actually, he can't thank you later. He's banned...

[sean_]

man, jayrock really dug himself into a very amusing hole in the last couple pages

what a stupid asshole

[renski]

*you're

again

*you're

*you're

you can thank me sometime later

remember your post about how you went into the red? its about to happen again. this isn't niketalk grammer nazi.

[jayrock]

of course, by questioning (not condemning) the underlying cause for modern sexual identities I open myself up to questioning of intelligence, a typical tool of irrational tyrannical forms of thought. of course, you can now ignorantly assume that i hate all gay people and i am probably a bigot. this automatically makes me a homophobe/racist/xenophobe/bigot/chauvinist and my opinions or comments are to have no validity to the "enlightened" thinkers. because we all know that open discussion and debate cannot possibly lead to rational conclusions. we must exclude people who have differing opinions, lest we not be able to come to a conclusion that makes everyone feel good. much obliged to TransparentCranium for putting forth a logical analysis to the "born-like-that vs. it's-a-choice" debate, instead of relying of the local methods of moral/scientific debate ("you're a fucking moron"). many of the rest of you may not agree with what i have to say, and i hardly doubt you support my right to say it. therefore, you are the purpotrators of ignorance, sirs, not i.

in summary: fuck you sean. fuck you in your stupid ass. no homo

[RFKorp]

Jayrock, it's not that we simply disagree with you, it has more to do with the disparaging way you said you thought something had to have gone wrong to make a guy want to have sex with other men. Which is a pretty presumptuous thing to say, especially for someone who I assume has no personal experience being anything but straight.

I've known I'm attracted to dudes since I was in preschool. Sure I could "chose" to ignore that and pursue relationships with women - I've totally connected with some romantically over the years. But really, I mostly feel that physical, sexual pull with men. So, why deny that important bit of my nature?

Sure, open discussion can be productive, but if you can't back up what you say with first person testimony or scientific study, then it's not much of an intelligent debate, is it?

[e0d9n0b5]

of course, by questioning (not condemning) the underlying cause for modern sexual identities I open myself up to questioning of intelligence, a typical tool of irrational tyrannical forms of thought. of course, you can now ignorantly assume that i hate all gay people and i am probably a bigot. this automatically makes me a homophobe/racist/xenophobe/bigot/chauvinist and my opinions or comments are to have no validity to the "enlightened" thinkers. because we all know that open discussion and debate cannot possibly lead to rational conclusions. we must exclude people who have differing opinions, lest we not be able to come to a conclusion that makes everyone feel good. much obliged to TransparentCranium for putting forth a logical analysis to the "born-like-that vs. it's-a-choice" debate, instead of relying of the local methods of moral/scientific debate ("you're a fucking moron"). many of the rest of you may not agree with what i have to say, and i hardly doubt you support my right to say it. therefore, you are the purpotrators of ignorance, sirs, not i.

in summary: fuck you sean. fuck you in your stupid ass. no homo

um not gonna read all this but thanks!

[conan.]

this is not jokes NOT JOKES

[sean_]

i feel like if i ever met jayrock, within 5 minutes we'd either be best friends or in a fistfight.

[jayrock]

the thing is, by claiming that you are gay through your innate "nature" you completely dismiss the possibility of developing homosexual tendencies through life experiences or social upbringing. as i said before, i don't think one can simply "choose" their sexual orientation, but at the same time i think it's entirely presumptious to assume that the same sexual identity is predetermined through a biological gene. that is a way of seperating "us" from "them" and i don't think that is an effective way to assess sociological interaction. instead, i am raising the question as to whether or not an individual's different experiences can lead them to their own conclusions. i'm not saying that something wrong had to happen per se, but is it entirely out of the question that someone who desires a stronger connection with a male father figure can fill that void in the arms of another man? or to say that one has a horrible experience with the opposite sex, and as a way of developing a protection mechanism for their own well being they reject heterosexuality? by having these events occur, one cannot rationally "choose" their sexual orientation, but instead they arrive at it based on their own life experiences.

it's hard for me to back up what i say with first person testimony, because i'm speaking in a completely hypothetical mindset. on one hand you have people saying, "i didn't choose to be this way, i was born this way!" and on the other you have people saying "you choose to be gay, and you could choose to be straight if you wanted to!" i don't think either of these positions easily answers the questions at hand, and by claiming one or the other to be absolute truth we are selling ourselves short of other possible underlying "causes" (that are not necessarily negative).

[Guest]

Talk shit about some fucking clothes you fags.

[minou]

go on like this and jayrock might just be the one to get the 1000000th post.

[conan.]

nah prolly not it will be me.

i will get he nudies

[minou]

well good luck then. we'll see if i get them before you. haha!

[conan.]

how will they know which is millionth post, wtf..

i am confused.. no chance

[minou]

prolly gona dig up their servers to check the history for posts i guess.

[RFKorp]

It's nice to see you being reasonable, Jayrock.

I think the currently most accepted thought is that we are not innately homosexual, but rather we have varying levels of innate propensities for it. This doesn't apply just to intragender attraction, but our whole sexuality. People aren't innately into blonds (probably), but they are innately into certain anatomical proportions, for example.

Yeah, something along these lines. And, to expand the thought, I'm pretty sure the last study I read on the topic was pretty convinced these propensities are likely determined based on ratios of hormones present in your mother's womb rather than explicit genetic markers.

But Meat Grinder raises a good point. Isn't this thread supposed to be about ugly clothes?

[jayrock]

People aren't innately into blonds (probably), but they are innately into certain anatomical proportions, for example.

this is a good way to look at it. that being said, i submit to you: throughout much of history those anatomocial proportions have been decided by societal norms and values. today, modern culture is obsessed skinny models. women and girls everywhere diet and exercise to try to fit into desired mold of "attractiveness." whereas, many generations ago the women who were deemed attractive where those who were a bit larger, thus they would be able to reproduce and deal with all the pains of pre-modern childbirth. in the same respect, it was attractive for a woman to have pale white skin because this deems her of a noble class that didn't have to work in the fields under the heat of the sun, while in today's world bleach blondes with orange skin pass as the epitome of attractiveness.

in today's world of moral relativism homosexuality is deemed as normal and entirely acceptable to modern society. this is not a bad thing, as i hold an individual's personal liberty to be of the utmost importance. but can one not question societal norms as a possible reason for homosexual promiscuity? in my opinion, to denounce the possiblity is illogical and counterproductive to understanding the human experience.