Starbucks is GAY?

[Castro]

Originally posted by cRitiCa:

Scientific integrity? biased research? Suspicious?

Motivated. You see, good, brave, kind, cRitiCa, there are two competing interests here. One, the legitimization of certain aspects of bahavior using scientific means. Two, the struggle to reconcile the tangible with the intangible. LeVay could be of the flaming variety as you are suggesting, but the obvious fervor of which he would be accused is shared with those, who having been told the final score, must ensure the play conforms to that score. For if it doesn't, hell (bad pun) has no fury as a "firm" believer vacillated in the wrong direction.

 

And seeming like a prosecutor who brought to the stand a witness with ties to the mob, neither taints my motives nor moves my thoughts into the "sagging" corner. What it does show is that when asked, you would give me the final score, and I will tell you what's happening on 2nd down and 10.

[Pig]

Brave Castro, inductive reasoning plays a very central role in science. The premises in inductive reasoning are usually based on good data or observations. One shouldn’t merely generate hypotheses, formulate theories and discover relationships with inconclusive data and present it as “scientificâ€. Such move would be below the belt and only diminishes the spirit of our discussion in this blessed SOL platform. Put forth any convincing scientific evidence that shores up your “homosexuality is genetic†standpoint and I wait.

 

Simon LeVay himself when confronted with the "bad data" uttered ..."this is a distinct shortcoming of my study,"

 

Brave Castro. Sagging thought indeed.

[Baluug]

I don't know who this Simon LeVay is,but I sure as hell wouldn't listen to his thoughts on homosexuality if he's the friggin head of some gay and lesbian committee.....That's like listening to the head of NAMBLA giving excuses for pedophilia and then using those excuses to say pedophilia is OK.

[Castro]

Originally posted by cRitiCa:

Put forth any convincing scientific evidence that shores up your “homosexuality is not a choice†standpoint and I wait.

Fully recognizing the poser may not be qualified to judge, may use a sliding scale to judge or may even reject such evidence altogether based on prior knowledge of the score, I accept the challenge as put forth.

 

P.S. I noticed, good cRitiCa, you've changed “homosexuality is not a choice" to “homosexuality is genetic" while I was writing this response. I hope you're not mistakingly trying to make it any harder than it already is. It's obvious from my tirade in this topic that one begets the other, in my view.

 

Edited: At least, unlike good and brave Mutakalim, you didn't dismiss psychology as quackery. The locomotive at the end of the tunnel is stationary.

[Animal Farm]

The argument continues and both sides are at a deadlock, soon one side will suggest lets agree to disagree resolution, as for since this argument is coming to a dead end, and no souls have been cut so far Castro--- what say you on the act of Abortion? Pro-choice or anti? [Not scientifically, if the woman is going to die case] the jargon of I don’t’ want to ruin my life plans/options rational argument.

[Castro]

Originally posted by Animal Farm:

what say you on the act of

Abortion

?

Waarya AF, colkaan wadhaf ku dayayaa ee maalin kale haynoo ahaato saaxib. You do understand, don't you? I'd hate to open another front when the insurgency in the first remains good and brave.

[Pig]

Originally posted by Castro:

I accept the challenge as put forth.

Brave Castro, by no means did the above remark struck me as being disingenuous.

[Castro]

^^ It shouldn't saaxib. I've got nothing to lose but pride (puny to start with) and much to gain. You're misreading Castro, I believe.

 

Edited: If nothing else, I'll sleep just a little better knowing I've almost recruited mighty cRitiCa into the one-line-trolling-brigade.

[Pig]

Aah, brave Castro, aren't we blowing the trumpets of some "imaginary" successes. Will continue another day Inshaalaah.

[Sharmarkee]

Salaaam,

 

Don't we have a pressing issues better than Starbucks is Gay, isn't it non-important arugment/reality went toooo faaaaaar?

 

Who cares if Starbuck is gay or Hermaphrodite!

 

Don't get me wrong Philosphers and later-day socrates.... just another point of view agree to disagree.

[NGONGE]

^^^^ Yet another example of gibberish that its author mistakes for an argument!

You’re not ‘agreeing’ to ‘disagree’, saaxib. You chose another path altogether. Starbucks being gay or not is one argument. The ‘philosophers’ you speak of are having another. You started a third (all by yourself) and decided to use the tired and tedious cliché of ‘agreeing’ to ‘disagree’. Who, pray tell, are you agreeing or disagreeing with?

 

...and people wonder why I get all haughty and uptight in this place.

 

99% of discussions in this place are below the level of the high school debating society (this includes many of mine by the way). People are getting lazy and spraying us with their trying nonsense.

 

I really don’t mean to offend (though I believe it to be a necessary evil here) but I refuse to accept that posts such as the one above have any place next to the words of Castro, Mutakalim and Critica.

 

Still, it would not surprise me if some eloquent buffoon retaliated with humbug arguments about equality, freedom of speech and some such nonsense. :mad:

[Sharmarkee]

Saxiib you miss the point here!!

 

Just another Somali intellectual - making mole out of mountain - bottom line is refering to the title of the thread what is in't for us STarbuck is a gay????

[Viking]

NGONGE,

No one is trying to censor you or anything you say dude, so chill out! You try to make it look like as if you represent a force of intelligent debate in contrast to those who say "jazakallah khayr" (as if it was something bad :confused: ) when responding to a post they benefitted from. Mullahs, beard-strokers? Muslims ought to speak and think from an Islamic point of view (I know this sounds crazy to your liberated self) and it is inappropriate to call people names (and also unislamic).

 

Irshad Manji and Salman Rushdie do make people uneasy and you knew pretty darn well when you used her (Ms Manji) opinions and claimed that "she had a point". You like controversy but lack the balls to take responsibility for what you exude.

 

Castro,

Mighty dauntless of you to take on the slippery slope.

[NGONGE]

Viking,

This is the final reply you’re going to get from me on this subject. Read it slowly.

 

NGONGE,

No one is trying to censor you or anything you say dude, so chill out! You try to make it look like as if you represent a force of intelligent debate in contrast to those who say "jazakallah khayr" (as if it was something bad ) when responding to a post they benefitted from.

Not a force of intelligent debate, no (I doubt if I have such great skills, I merely have the basics). Those that use phrases such as ‘jazakallah’ and the like (the ones I was referring to) mostly go on to prove that they don’t know much about their faith. The affected decoration is what I mock, blind Viking (other than e-mailing you a painting of my meaning, I really don’t know how to get such simple ideas past your stubborn resistance). Affected decoration means: put on, fake, phony, pretend, cantar baqash..

 

Mullahs, beard-strokers? Muslims ought to speak and think from an Islamic point of view (I know this sounds crazy to your liberated self) and it is inappropriate to call people names (and also unislamic).

Muslims aught to speak and think from an Islamic point of view indeed! The beard-strokers and Hijab-adjusters speak out of emotion, ignorance and haste (stop being a tedious child by the way and fully quote me if you’re going to ‘tell me off’ – I talk about fake-mullahs, pseudo-mullahs, artificial-mullahs and not muallhs per se). Viking, if you called me a donkey, you would be calling me names (though I would understand why you might decide to refer to me as such), if you called me fake and proved that I am fake, it does not become an insult, it is simply stating fact. Like the fact that most of your statements when addressed to me are obtuse (calm down, saaxib. At least I didn’t call you a donkey). I am criticising a whole phenomenon here. If you’re really that protective of Islam (and twice as pedantic), why did you not ‘correct’ the brother that claimed some nonsense, which another Nomad wrote was part of the Quran? You were a participant in that thread after all, o Mr unislamic. Will you ever stop being duplicitous, brother?

 

Irshad Manji and Salman Rushdie do make people uneasy and you knew pretty darn well when you used her (Ms Manji) opinions and claimed that "she had a point". You like controversy but lack the balls to take responsibility for what you exude.

So? What’s your point, caller? It sounds to me as if you’re saying that because some comments make people ‘uneasy’ such comments should not be discussed (now, you’ll come back and say it’s not censorship). What exactly is your point?

Rushdie and Manji wrote stuff about Islam, I posted the stuff and asked you to discuss them. If it makes you feel uneasy, stay away. Though, if that were the only reason you would stay away, it wouldn’t say much about your wisdom and adulthood (little girls allow things that make them uneasy to overwhelm all their thinking, Viking).

 

I’ll return to reading comprehension once more (at least you’ve accepted it now). Viking, regardless of what is written on your screen, regardless of how uneasy it makes you and how nonsensical you think it is; still, always deal with the argument and not the arguer, saaxib.

 

I know you’re a football fan so let me give you a football analogy. Imagine playing a game of football against some skilful Brazilian. He’s running rings around you. He’s flipping the ball over you, under you and through you. Nonetheless, you’re coping with him ok. Someone whispers in your ears that this opponent is gay! Will you still play the ball or will you decide to play the man, saaxib? In all your ‘arguments’ thus far, you’ve been playing the man and not the ball (Irshad manji is this, Salaman Rushdie is that).

 

This whole spat is childish and I regret having fallen into it, however, my shock at your inability to read brings me back again and again. Show improvement and I’ll come back once more. But if you repeat the same thing, this reply should suffice. Just read it slowly like I told you.

[Viking]

Well aren't you back to the same ol' NGONGE tactics! You (again) managed to call me obtuse and you still question my comprehension skills, but this time the icing was "this is the final reply..." so all the roads are closed. Hooray!

 

That football analogy was so of the mark and I'm suprised a man of your 'callibre' would partake in such a delusion, albeit unconscious. Islam is a way of life (that you and I have accepted) and when someone who TOTALLY opposes and mocks it has something to say about it, (to your dismay) I tend not to give it too much attention.

 

When Rushdie and his ilk call for "reform" in Islam, it is dangerous for a Muslim to heed the voices of these warped individuals, however compelling their opinions/arguments may sound.

 

When the testimony of someone is heard in a court of law, their credibilty is one of the central issues that the court pays attention to. You should do the same to the people whose articles you use as a base for discussion for they surely have sinister intentions.

 

PS: Don't hestitate to reply if you feel compelled for I'm still the obtuse ol' Viking with impaired comprehension; but others may benefit from your wisdom-crammed paragraphs