The Definitive Faghate Rant Contest Thread!!!

[libertylover]

I was just informed that the mascot of Gentoo Linux is a transsexual cow (as opposed to an innocent cartoonish male cow).  HAS THE WHOLE WORLD TURNED GAY?!?!?!?!

Is this what you mean?  How can you tell the cow is transsexual?

[Stoker]

I think he is referring to the "cow" having both horns and udders. This would probably be more accurately described as an hermaphrodite, although no male genitalia can be seen.

[libertylover]

I think he is referring to the "cow" having both horns and udders. This would probably be more accurately described as an hermaphrodite, although no male genitalia can be seen.

You city people crack me up sometimes. 

Female Bovine have horns it is just typical the female calf's horn buds to be removed shortly after birth for better handling.  The typical black and white milk cow is a Holstein.  Holstein both sexes have horns the females if allowed to grow would just be smaller than the bulls horns.  The best quality milk comes from grass fed non-hormone injected Jersey cows and if you can get it raw consider yourself very lucky.

There are some hornless breeds that domestically had horns bred out of them. 
Angus/Red Angus
Galloway
Red Poll
Red Brangus
Brangus
British White
Speckle Park

[Stoker]

WTF is with people always reading something into a statement that simply isn't there? I know plenty of people that live in rural areas that would try to milk a bull, so the idea that your "not a city person" somehow instantly gives you knowledge of cattle is ridiculous. I didn't say that I agreed with Alex' assertion that the image was "transexual". You asked "how he could tell it was transexual" and I gave my 2 cents worth about where that idea may have come from and nothing more. BTW, I am hardly a "city person".

[Alex Libman]

[...]  Alex' assertion that the image was "transexual"  [...]

I did not originate the idea, I merely expressed my astonishment in reaction to what was said on another forum, as part of my ongoing "HAS THE WHOLE WORLD TURNED GAY?!?!?!?!" routine (originally by Homer Simpson, but...  he turned gay also [2]).  Of course, I should have known it - all copyLEFT software mascots are gay!  If you look closely, you can see some jizz stuck to the GNU logo's beard!  Who the hell would wear a red fedora?!  And Tux has been taking it up the ass for years!





Anyway, this thread isn't about Loonix nor the subsidy-and-regulation-magnets you call cows, this thread is about homophobia, err, I mean faghate heroics.  Let's pick up the pace, people!  Chant with me now:

MAN + WOMAN == BABIES!

MAN + MAN == TURDS!

By which I mean Taxes, Underpopulation, Recession, Depression, and Socialism - all things caused in part by gays!

[Alex Libman]

Communist faggotry news roundup:

• No Heteronormativity, No Capitalism!

• NZ Denies ’Ex Gay’ Group Charity Status

• Will Fake ‘Marriage’ Law Become the New Sedition Act?

• Gov-funded researchers bash heteronormativity of Disney

[dalebert]

There's a fair amount of evidence that there's a genetic component to homosexual attraction.  [...]

And that's why tribes that torture and kill homosexuals have a lot more homosexuals than tribes where homosexuality is normal but bisexuality is taboo...  Oh, wait, no, that's ain't the case at all!

Not familiar with such data, but if that's the case, then my immediate thought is if gays are tortured and killed via a very public tribal policy, then gays will be likely to suppress any genetically based behavior for gayness and pass it on to their offspring until someone is SO gay that they act on it even at great risk in the presence of such oppression.  So it certainly does not seem like evidence that tremendous pressure for gay people to behave str8 and reproduce doesn't breed more gayness.

[Alex Libman]

A lot of societies have been torturing and killing turd-pushers since the dawn of time.  Some (i.e. the societies that didn't have to struggle very hard in maintaining optimal population) didn't.  Most societies have now been liberalized to the point where anyone can be openly gay.  According to your theory, an island where any sexual deviance was taboo would now have significantly different faggotry rates vs one where bisexuality was norm vs one where exclusive homosexuals were tolerated but traditionally didn't reproduce, and that simply isn't true.

People will screw anything that gives them pleasure, and, in absence of faghate, faggotry does seem to work for most people, because it liberates them from the responsibilities of family.  History is filled with stories of whole towns "going gay" - which isn't fatal in of itself, but it can be through disease, or if they also largely abandon heterosexual reproduction.

Torturing and killing gays is a basic instinct of civilization.  I've heard that Alaskan sled dogs will ostracize and aggress against any dog that's slacking off (which means all the other dogs have to pull harder).  Primitive / socialist societies behave the same way toward people who don't work hard enough, but capitalism has largely solved this dilemma by finding more civilized means of encouraging people to pull their economic weight.  The matter of demographic weight, however, still remains unsolved.

[dalebert]

According to your theory, an island where any sexual deviance was taboo would now have significantly different faggotry rates vs one where bisexuality was norm vs one where exclusive homosexuals were tolerated but traditionally didn't reproduce, and that simply isn't true.

My point is we can't judge by the data because you're altering behavior but not necessarily sexual orientation, particularly to the extent that it's genetic.  Also, I suspect there's a lot more data to support some sort of biological basis for homosexuality than there is accurate data showing the rates of gay or bi sexual orientation (not behavior) in primitive tribes.  Also, I think if you keep wanting to refer to these studies to support your position, you need to start linking them so their merits can be judged.  There's a lot of crappy studies that were performed by organizations with incredible bias and poor scientific method.

[davann]

There's a fair amount of evidence that there's a genetic component to homosexual attraction.  

It is not. It is chemical. The fact is scientists noticed a commonality with a percentage of homosexual males being a younger brother. It turns out a certain chemical is depleted during the pregnancy of the first male. The second male does not receive enough of this chemical and can change the sexual orientation of the offspring. Sorry to disappoint you. It is chemical and can be "treated" later in life. Although, treated might be the wrong word and offensive the fact remains there is way to change sexual orientation by chemical adjustments.

[Alex Libman]

According to your theory, an island where any sexual deviance was taboo would now have significantly different faggotry rates vs one where bisexuality was norm vs one where exclusive homosexuals were tolerated but traditionally didn't reproduce, and that simply isn't true.

My point is we can't judge by the data because you're altering behavior but not necessarily sexual orientation, particularly to the extent that it's genetic.  Also, I suspect there's a lot more data to support some sort of biological basis for homosexuality than there is accurate data showing the rates of gay or bi sexual orientation (not behavior) in primitive tribes.  Also, I think if you keep wanting to refer to these studies to support your position, you need to start linking them so their merits can be judged.  There's a lot of crappy studies that were performed by organizations with incredible bias and poor scientific method.

You've said that my faghate (which is just a trollterm for non-violent cultural heteronormativity) "would likely breed more gays".  I've dismissed this claim, because:

(1)  There is no conclusive anthropological evidence to back it up, and one would expect that there would be if it were true, given the abundance of isolated tribes with very different sexual mores.  The burden of proof for inherited genetic causality of homosexuality remains in your court.

(2)  I don't care what sexual predispositions people have, I care about solving the one fatal flaw of libertarian economics, which is fertility rates (as well as related problems, like dysgenic effects, etc).  No matter how gay you are, biological reproduction and commitment to your offspring should still be your foremost priority.  Although it's not written in stone, sexual exclusivity does play an important psychological role in encouraging family stability.  People who value playing with their shit-hole more than they value human life and civilization deserve no respect.

[MacFall]

Was Alex recently shot down by a homo?

Actually, on second thought it did not necessarily have to be recently.  Alex hangs on to grains of sand life hands him until they develop into warped pearls of ranting hatred.  He strings them together in a masturbatory necklace of homophobia.

Are you saying he got a pearl necklace of hate from gay people?

[Alex Libman]

You know, this reference to Larry The Cow got me thinking about something...  If you abandon all psychological associations and just look at it analytically...  We don't see drinking milk as some perverted form of bestiality, but what makes milk that much different from sperm, really?  Sperm is actually a lot more nutritious than milk, and I guess just as safe if pasteurized.  We might have been milking bovines of the wrong gender since the dawn of civilization! 

[dalebert]

Identical vs. fraternal twin studies show nearly overwhelming evidence that there is some component of genetics that influences sexual orientation while also proving that it's definitely not the only factor.  Even the skeptics and biased don't try to deny that.  All they can reasonably do is try to downplay it in comparison to other factors.

Evidence also supports the notion presented that younger brothers are more likely to be gay than older, but there's no evidence at all that orientation can be altered later in life.  It seems to be determined at the latest by about age six.

[davann]

Could not the depletion of the chemical during pregnancy alter the genetic makeup of the offspring? Seems plausible to me.