Asexuals are fighting for representation too

Discussion in 'Gay & Lesbian Rights' started by kazenatsu, May 21, 2018.

  1. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    30,219
    Likes Received:
    6,665
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So you're not going to address my arguments I'm going to take that to mean it is because you can't. Boo-hooing about format is just an excuse.

    When you want to talk to other people you have to deal with the way they word things and structure them if you're too intolerant to have a discussion with another human being that is your problem.

    1. the word for this is actually plutonic.
    It certainly does not describe a sexual orientation
    bullshit.

    asexual organisms cannot have sexual orientations because there doesn't exist and opposite sex within their species.

    Generally speaking the organisms that are asexual lack cognitive brain function or a brain in general and therefore likely are unable to grasp higher Concepts.





    asexual organisms will not have the capacity for a sex drive within their species there exists no other sex.

    They reproduce through sporing budding or mitosis.

    I told you I was going to do this.

    I've heard this bologna about people claiming they are asexual that is just as ridiculous as someone claiming they are a unicorn or a leprechaun.
     
  2. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    2,951
    Likes Received:
    658
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Which means nothing towards the idea that the language evolve to include the sexual orientation among the definitions of "asexual". Arguing what was the only definitions, does not show that there are new definitions. This is why the words "gay", "******" and "queer" now include a sexual orientation among their definitions as well as their original definitions.

    You're free to walk away. I'm not posturing, but I cannot help how you view the post. That is your subjective view. I can only attest to my intent, not how you interpret it.

    The orientation is one of no sexual attraction, as opposed to sexual attraction to one gender or the other or to both. Keep up. You are correct that celibacy is not an orientation, and not a single person here has claimed such, lest of all me. Celibacy is an action as much as sex is an action. The act of sex or the act/decision of not having sex in no way is dependent upon one's orientation. A heterosexual can be celibate. Not having sex doesn't mean that they aren't sexually attracted to others. Likewise, physically having sex doesn't mean that they have a sexual attraction to others. A sexual orientation only deals with who one is sexually attracted to, not who they have or do not have sex with. Heterosexuals are attracted to the opposite sex or gender. Homosexuals are attracted to the same sex or gender. Bisexuals are attracted to both sexes/genders. Asexuals (or whatever other label you would prefer here) are attracted to neither sex or gender.

    Well with that logic, when you claim that a person is a ******, you are absolutely making the claim that they are a bundle of sticks. That is what ****** means.

    Merriam-Webster disagrees with you:

    Note: the tag inside the quote has been edited so that it shows, since it was in the original post as an unattached tag.

    Except this time it seems. I find it hilarious that you complain that my quoting wasn't right and then you failed to do it right or catch it in time for the edit. Or in simpler language: pot, kettle, achromatic.

    But in pity for you here you go:

    And your proof that there are no people out there who lack a sexual attraction to others and/or have no sex drive is......? Otherwise you are back to opinion.

    Humans as a group are right handed as well. Doesn't mean there aren't left handed and ambidextrous individuals out there.

    Hypocritical much? You responded to your own words from Daggdag's error in the use of the quote tags. So then your previous lack of answering my arguments was that you couldn't address them. I understand now. After all Boo-hooing about format is just an excuse.

    And yet you were unwilling to deal with the way I worded and structured them, even accidentally. So obviously, by your own words, that is your own problem.

    As noted, while you are indeed using one of the definitions of asexual, the dictionary itself, as cited above, has proven that you are wrong in that it is the only definition of the word.
     
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2018
  3. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    30,219
    Likes Received:
    6,665
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I am not reading all of this that's pointless anyway there is no such sexual orientation as asexual.

    I reject the concept.

    Deal with it.
     
  4. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    2,951
    Likes Received:
    658
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So you're not going to address my arguments? I'm going to take that to mean it is because you can't.
     
  5. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    30,219
    Likes Received:
    6,665
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If you buried your argument in that dissertation then no what you have to say just isn't that important I'm not reading all that gobbledygook.

    Learn to be brief or remain ineffectual.
     
  6. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    2,951
    Likes Received:
    658
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    When you want to talk to other people you have to deal with the way they word things and structure them. If you're too intolerant to have a discussion with another human being that is your problem.
     
  7. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    30,219
    Likes Received:
    6,665
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't really care to talk to you, if that wasn't clear already.

    I'm not reading all of that ****. It starts on the concept that asexual is a sexual orientation. A concept I reject. So it's pointless to address every point you make when I reject your concept.

    I reject asexual as a sexual orientation. I couldn't give any less of a **** if you find that "intolerant."
     
  8. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    2,951
    Likes Received:
    658
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    As previously noted, you are free to walk away at any time. No one is forcing you to respond to me.

    We'll first off the intolerant line is yours directly. When you throw out hypocrisy as you did I'll be happy to point it out for all to see, as I have done so twice now so far.

    Beyond that, you are also free to reject facts to your heart's content, but they remain facts, as presented in the posts above complete with reference links. If you dispute them, then present your evidence, as we have. Otherwise, enjoy your fantasy.
     
  9. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    30,219
    Likes Received:
    6,665
    Trophy Points:
    113
    as are you. I'm not the one complaining because you refuse to read my posts that's you complaining about me refusing to read your post or all of it.

    No ****. I'm responding to you because I feel like it.



    I couldn't give any less of a f*** about what you think is tolerant or not

    I'm not responding to your nonsense because of hypocrisy you going to have to explain that.

    I'm not rejecting facts. I'm rejecting bullshit newspeak. I'm making an effort to show people that they don't have to accept this boozgeois f****** Newspeak.

    I presented my evidence humans do not reproduce with a cloud of spores they do not do it through mitosis and they do not reproduce through budding humans are sexual the words sexual and asexual refer to how a creature reproduces.

    There it is for a second time but go ahead and ignore it and pretend like this new speak is the way that everyone means the word when they say it and I will continue rejecting it on precisely the grounds that I just have.
     
  10. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    2,951
    Likes Received:
    658
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You don't want to talk to me, yet you feel like talking to me. Contradictory much? Oh yes, you are, as I have shown twice, now thrice, already.

    I'm not even using my own standard, but yours. As I said, I simply used your words in the same manner as you used them on others.

    In post 21 you complain about my "poor posting quality" in specific response to my talking about a quotes tag typo, and in that very same part of the quote, not only do you have your usual lack of punctuation, creating run on sentences (poor posting quality indeed), but you too made a typo with your quotes tags. You additionally admonished me to use the edit feature when such occurs, a feature to which you also failed to avail yourself to.

    The when Daggdag, in post 25, quoted post 21, your quotes tag error resulted in a single line of yours looking as though he wrote it in response. Here let me put it here so you don't have to strain yourself looking it up.

    You then, in post 26, quote that line, which was actually your own, but treated it as his saying:
    I used that first line when you refused to respond to my points, referenced and linked no less, thus showing your hypocrisy from where he didn't address your arguments. I then used the second line to show that your own standard of one who is too intolerant to have a discussion with another human being applies to you as well as shown by your own postings. When someone did those things to you, you complained, yet you did them yourself. That is the very definition of hypocrisy.

    You are indeed rejecting facts. On the plus side you are not arguing with a false statement, in and of itself. Your error and fact rejection is in your assertion that such is the only definition of the word "asexual".

    Well look there, three whole definitions of the word "asexual" that have nothing to do with what you are claiming and 3b being exactly what we are claiming.

    Merriam-Webster not good enough for you? Let's look at Dictionary.com:

    Interesting. There it is again, only they summed it all into a single definition.

    What? Still not good enough? Oh I know! The Oxford and Cambridge dictionaries. Practically the foundation of the English language:

    In both of them as well. Deny facts all you want, call it newspeak all you want, but you are proven wrong. The word "asexual" does indeed refer to an individual's sexual orientation of not being attracted to either gender. And yes, your definition are in all of those as well, but then no one has yet to deny that such was another definition of asexual, at least not on this thread.

    This seem to say that you think we are saying that asexual as the orientation is now suppose to be the only use of the word. Not true. And the only grounds that you have rejected it on is one of "LALALALA! I can't hear any other definition but the one I want. I'm going to stick my head in the sand now.!" Seriously, if you have any kind of factual counter argument, present it. You haven't yet.
     
  11. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    30,219
    Likes Received:
    6,665
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How can people be asexual show me that they reproduce through mitosis or spores if you can't then they're not and I dismiss your arguments
     
  12. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    2,951
    Likes Received:
    658
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You didn't read a bloody bit did you? There are 4 dictionary entries, cited and linked, that show that the word has more definitions that reproducing through mitosis or spores.

    Like I said, your response is "LALALALA! I can't hear any other definition but the one I want. I'm going to stick my head in the sand now.!"

    I now await your next dodge where you try to make the same destroyed argument.
     
  13. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    30,219
    Likes Received:
    6,665
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No. I disagree worn the fundamental.

    The dictionary is a lexicon its descriptive not prescriptive.

    I told you 5 posts ago that I reject the concept of asexual as a sexual orientation. Seems foolish of you to keep insisting.

    Nothing you say matters.

    You aren't going to shame me into agreeing with you. This is stupid humans aren't asexual.

    Dodged? Wtf i directly told you that I reject asexual as an orientation. You just can't dominate me in this discussion so you are just throwing a temper tantrum.
     
  14. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    2,951
    Likes Received:
    658
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You have been presented proof of the multiple definitions of "asexual". You refuse to accept these facts. Yeah the dictionary is descriptive. It shows the use of words in the English language and follows, or lags if you prefer, evolutions in the language. The fact remains that the definition of the word "asexual" includes both of the things we are claiming. I have provided proof of my claim. What factual evidence do you have that the word "asexual" only has the one definition that you claim? That is your dodge. The tantrum here is yours, rejecting facts.
     
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2018
  15. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    30,219
    Likes Received:
    6,665
    Trophy Points:
    113
    you are incorrect it shows common use. It doesn't matter if common use is right or wrong. Take for instance the word literally. It had some common use as the word figuratively. That it's not evolution of language that is de-evolution of language.

    You have shown me no facts. You have shown me common usage by retards that don't know any better.
     
  16. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    2,951
    Likes Received:
    658
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So then what is your evidence that your definition is the only definition? You still have not presented any factual evidence to uphd your point. You again dodge.
     
  17. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    30,219
    Likes Received:
    6,665
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Do you think before you type?
     
  18. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    2,951
    Likes Received:
    658
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Do you? Because all your arguments boil down to "because I say so" with no proof to back it up. I have at least backed up my arguments.
     
  19. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    30,219
    Likes Received:
    6,665
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I as not the one insisting someone accept what they said clearly they reject.

    I have made no argument. I said I rejected something. You seem to be butthurt about it.

    I don't know how much clearer I can make it.
     
  20. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    2,951
    Likes Received:
    658
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Oh really? Let's review.

    Look at all of those arguments you presented. You even explicitly state that you have presented arguments.

    All your arguments have been centered around the concept that the reproduction definition of "asexual" is the only definition that there is. And yet you have done nothing to factually back this up. Reject a concept all you want, that still doesn't prove any of the above statements or that the reproduction definition the only definition of the word "asexual".

    I'm not sure what you are trying to say with the term "common use". Is not the use of the word "asexual" to indicate a type of reproduction common use? Common use as compared to what? Archaic use? Most dictionaries have those definitions as well and note them as such. That is what the purpose of a dictionary is, to show the definitions of words as they are commonly used. And quite the number of words have multiple definitions.

    The dictionaries literally have a definition for the word "literally" as being used as an intensifier for figurative language.


    Merriam-Webster has an entire article about the use, including how it has been used as such for close to 350 years if not longer.

    And by that statement in the article there, also highlights the fact that definitions are definitions because of their common usage. That is language evolution, or if you prefer, lingual shift. Whether that change is positive or negative is a matter of subjective opinion.

    That you think that the editors of all the dictionaries are retards is rather telling. If the dictionaries do not factually show what the definitions of a word are, then what is the factual proof of the reproduction definition of the word "asexual"?
     
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2018
  21. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    30,219
    Likes Received:
    6,665
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I reject the concept that asexual is a sexual orientation.
     
  22. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    2,951
    Likes Received:
    658
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yeah, I know. I already stated that you are rejecting facts. I've proven it with evidence referenced and linked. You have done nothing to back up the many statements that you have made. Reject all you like, it doesn't change facts.
     
  23. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    30,219
    Likes Received:
    6,665
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Seems you don't. You cried about some argument I didn't make.

    Not really, I'm just rejecting a common usage.

    All you have really done is prove that common usage exists. Good job with that.

    I have done nothing to back up how I reject something???

    That makes no kind of sense.

    I wouldn't expect it to change common usage, not right away.
     
  24. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    2,951
    Likes Received:
    658
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I cited multiple times you have made your argument, including the time you said that you had made an argument. You seem to have a problem with denying facts.

    And once again I ask you, what makes the definitions you claim an actual definition and what I claim "common usage"?

    What makes no kind of sense is you making an argument, and even claiming to have made one, and yet trying to say that you haven't.

    Back up your claim here that common usage is not definitions then. Again, show how your definition is the only one. You have made that claim throughout this thread and I cited multiple incidences of it above. This is the same dodge you have been using all thread.
     
  25. gamewell45

    gamewell45 Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2011
    Messages:
    22,689
    Likes Received:
    2,575
    Trophy Points:
    113

Share This Page