Sorry sorry sorry for posting my own manifactured scenarios and especially from SRD, but I couldn't resist to try this one out. Giggled to myself trying out different techniques of argumentation for a while.
Went out drinking and when I returned... suddenly I was the idiot getting baited and actually upset over this. Anyway it's worth a read.
I was literally pretending I was wrong at first so they would get the sweet cred for saying "Yes, we should take better care of those chemicals. That meme is creepy and gross from that POV. Keep in mind that Alex is always wrong though."
Why would you not bite that? They're gonna pretend to be concerned with the semantics instead? I already gave them that double whammy win. You get to be woke about the environment AND look more important than me on the internet. It's an outsider coming with woke gold and just laying it on the floor.
To "win" an "internet argument" inside their own heads is sweeter? To me it is obviously, but I thought they were actually slightly better people than me. That's depressing.
I feel stupid over going so overboard when you're making me doubt myself like this. I kinda get it I guess and I'd get being pissed off over it if I ever supported Alex Jones and his version of the theory. I'm not in the "It'll make you gay"-camp, I'm in the "It'll poison you somehow"-camp. Does that nullify their point or am I being retarded?
It makes all frogs wacky right? Let's say I did a drug with my friends (m+f's) that fucked up the hormones of the girls, gave us males big tits and a stronger sense of pleasure from anal stimulation. Then it makes us all horny and we crawl around in a weird gangbang. Dicks are hard. Assholes are getting penetrated. We're all looking similarly swollen and attractive.** Are us former fellas acting more like fags or trannies? Is that an important distinction to make? That is a genuine question**. Because if it does I don't understand it. I just want to talk everyone out of doing the drug. You feel me? That's my only goal.
We can still do the gangbang without fucking up our hormones for life if we buy some MDMA, but tell me ahead of time so I know which drug to buy.
So yeah, that's why I felt the semantics discussion was ridiculous in the first place anyway.
There are definitely conspiracy aspects to it. I don't know how big they are or exactly what they implicate, but look at the history of how it's been banned/re-allowed. Either my tax dollars have been spent poisoning people to an unreasonable degree because of negligence or it's like that by design. Both alternatives are unacceptable in my world tbh.
Scientists slacking in their cushy experiment rooms or lobbyists bribing people to get their product pushed. Put someone on the case at least so we can maybe execute the people responsible.
Yeah funny people of Iran accept homos but only if they change sex, it’s the same shit but aimed at frogs. They basically saying there’s no such thing as gay.
If you have to ask yourself that question you've gotta let your doctor know that you've got a porn addiction, because that ain't right. Or visit your therapist to build up the confidence to finally come out of the closet. You can't continue to live like this!
I mean, you were wrong. One of the responses there said it - there's a difference between "turning gay" and "changing sex."
And as he said, the reason Alex Jones is mocked is because he tried to claim this was some kind of international plot to feminize men.
So Alex Jones was wrong twice: first of all, turning frogs gay has nothing to do with feminizing men, because gays are not necessarily feminine, second, the chemicals were turning male frogs into females. Check and mate, nazis!
It does turn the frogs gay even if that's not a very scientific way to put it. There was one study that showed female sexual behavior in male frogs that had been exposed to atrazine (males trying to mount other frogs). That's where the gay frog bit came from.
Not only that but he didn't misinterpret or misunderstand anything. The guy correcting him clearly just read some pop sci article and wasn't familiar with the research at all. I don't know how people like /u/NewsMans223 feel confident enough to shit out their opinions when they know so little about a subject. Personally I'd be embarrassed to write something like that knowing that I had no real information on the subject.
I am. It’s a case study in how SRD is the sub where good faith goes to die in a maddening, logic defying, dogmatic, willfully yet somehow unwittingly obtuse zealotry.
(I'm no longer sure if I'm right or wrong since my attempts to explain my stance are strange even to me, but) it does feel like being against some weird chemical affecting frogs negatively shouldn't be this controversial.
At the very least these gay frog researchers should be given their own agency to see whether there's any more poison and a large budget. They seem capable. Let's give them a budget roughly the size of that given to an agency like the CIA. We could take that money from a place like, idk the CIA? What do they do btw? I don't even know. This water thing research seems to take priority.
How many frog genders are there and how do frog identities intersect? We don't know yet. The loser agency of CIA is hogging all the funding.
I think I'm more reasonable than SRD on this topic. Not immediately defending the guys responsible for making your frogs gay is the unreasonable stance. Why'd y'all defend that? My gut reaction leans towards me being right on this one.
They seem capable and I like to feel safe. Let's give them roughly the size of what is given to an agency like the CIA. What do they do btw? I don't even know. This water thing research seems to take priority.
The answer is because it is a government conspiracy and they're downplaying the study to suppress people finding out about the program.
I'm not saying it is a conspiracy, but it's certainly being downplayed. Is it useful idiots because it's only "right-wing nutjobs" who care about the environment, maybe. Is it pesticide lobbyists and shills? I hope so. I hope it's not the government. Don't see why they'd to that either.
Could be TPTB, but I don't want to become actually crazy so I'll say no.
29 comments
1 SnapshillBot 2017-09-30
Don't even try to kinkshame me. My kinks are my business.
Snapshots:
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
1 MakeAmericaSageAgain 2017-09-30
Sorry sorry sorry for posting my own manifactured scenarios and especially from SRD, but I couldn't resist to try this one out. Giggled to myself trying out different techniques of argumentation for a while.
Went out drinking and when I returned... suddenly I was the idiot getting baited and actually upset over this. Anyway it's worth a read.
1 icyhat 2017-09-30
I heard that autoerotic asphyxiation is pretty fun and safe as can be.
1 MakeAmericaSageAgain 2017-09-30
I can't get hard.
1 icyhat 2017-09-30
I can.
1 XenosisReaper 2017-09-30
You might be retarded
1 MakeAmericaSageAgain 2017-09-30
I think I am. Does this make sense to you?
1 XenosisReaper 2017-09-30
You must be retarded
1 MakeAmericaSageAgain 2017-09-30
Fuck, I thought I was being smart. Joke's on me then I guess. The shame alone is punishment enough.
1 HodorTheDoorHolder 2017-09-30
You were super polite and it was like they couldn't just go "oh he misinterpreted or misunderstood something."
1 MakeAmericaSageAgain 2017-09-30
I was literally pretending I was wrong at first so they would get the sweet cred for saying "Yes, we should take better care of those chemicals. That meme is creepy and gross from that POV. Keep in mind that Alex is always wrong though."
Why would you not bite that? They're gonna pretend to be concerned with the semantics instead? I already gave them that double whammy win. You get to be woke about the environment AND look more important than me on the internet. It's an outsider coming with woke gold and just laying it on the floor.
To "win" an "internet argument" inside their own heads is sweeter? To me it is obviously, but I thought they were actually slightly better people than me. That's depressing.
1 pizzashill 2017-09-30
I mean, you were wrong. One of the responses there said it - there's a difference between "turning gay" and "changing sex."
And as he said, the reason Alex Jones is mocked is because he tried to claim this was some kind of international plot to feminize men.
And there's even more to it:
https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/vbgvw4/a-quick-refresher-the-truth-about-water-making-you-gay
The reason it's a meme is the conspiracy aspect, not the "turning frogs gay."
1 MakeAmericaSageAgain 2017-09-30
I feel stupid over going so overboard when you're making me doubt myself like this. I kinda get it I guess and I'd get being pissed off over it if I ever supported Alex Jones and his version of the theory. I'm not in the "It'll make you gay"-camp, I'm in the "It'll poison you somehow"-camp. Does that nullify their point or am I being retarded?
It makes all frogs wacky right? Let's say I did a drug with my friends (m+f's) that fucked up the hormones of the girls, gave us males big tits and a stronger sense of pleasure from anal stimulation. Then it makes us all horny and we crawl around in a weird gangbang. Dicks are hard. Assholes are getting penetrated. We're all looking similarly swollen and attractive.** Are us former fellas acting more like fags or trannies? Is that an important distinction to make? That is a genuine question**. Because if it does I don't understand it. I just want to talk everyone out of doing the drug. You feel me? That's my only goal.
We can still do the gangbang without fucking up our hormones for life if we buy some MDMA, but tell me ahead of time so I know which drug to buy.
So yeah, that's why I felt the semantics discussion was ridiculous in the first place anyway.
There are definitely conspiracy aspects to it. I don't know how big they are or exactly what they implicate, but look at the history of how it's been banned/re-allowed. Either my tax dollars have been spent poisoning people to an unreasonable degree because of negligence or it's like that by design. Both alternatives are unacceptable in my world tbh.
Scientists slacking in their cushy experiment rooms or lobbyists bribing people to get their product pushed. Put someone on the case at least so we can maybe execute the people responsible.
1 Kekistanian9003 2017-09-30
Yeah funny people of Iran accept homos but only if they change sex, it’s the same shit but aimed at frogs. They basically saying there’s no such thing as gay.
1 ProgressiveFragility 2017-09-30
it all boils down to the age old question: are traps gay?
1 MakeAmericaSageAgain 2017-09-30
If you have to ask yourself that question you've gotta let your doctor know that you've got a porn addiction, because that ain't right. Or visit your therapist to build up the confidence to finally come out of the closet. You can't continue to live like this!
1 Works_of_memercy 2017-09-30
So Alex Jones was wrong twice: first of all, turning frogs gay has nothing to do with feminizing men, because gays are not necessarily feminine, second, the chemicals were turning male frogs into females. Check and mate, nazis!
1 geraldo42 2017-09-30
It does turn the frogs gay even if that's not a very scientific way to put it. There was one study that showed female sexual behavior in male frogs that had been exposed to atrazine (males trying to mount other frogs). That's where the gay frog bit came from.
1 MegaSeedsInYourBum 2017-09-30
🍆🐸💦🍆🐸
1 geraldo42 2017-09-30
Not only that but he didn't misinterpret or misunderstand anything. The guy correcting him clearly just read some pop sci article and wasn't familiar with the research at all. I don't know how people like /u/NewsMans223 feel confident enough to shit out their opinions when they know so little about a subject. Personally I'd be embarrassed to write something like that knowing that I had no real information on the subject.
1 v_is_one_person 2017-09-30
The was great and I love you now, sage.
1 MakeAmericaSageAgain 2017-09-30
Thanks if you're actually serious :)
1 v_is_one_person 2017-09-30
I am. It’s a case study in how SRD is the sub where good faith goes to die in a maddening, logic defying, dogmatic, willfully yet somehow unwittingly obtuse zealotry.
It’s a fucking disgusting place.
1 MakeAmericaSageAgain 2017-09-30
Thank you for confirming that this is weird as fuck, because it is. Even if you disagree with me you'd have to agree it's weird as fuck.
1 takesteady12 2017-09-30
That was a pretty enlightening thread. TIL I can't criticize Trump at all for any actions a government agency under his administration takes.
1 MakeAmericaSageAgain 2017-09-30
(I'm no longer sure if I'm right or wrong since my attempts to explain my stance are strange even to me, but) it does feel like being against some weird chemical affecting frogs negatively shouldn't be this controversial.
At the very least these gay frog researchers should be given their own agency to see whether there's any more poison and a large budget. They seem capable. Let's give them a budget roughly the size of that given to an agency like the CIA. We could take that money from a place like, idk the CIA? What do they do btw? I don't even know. This water thing research seems to take priority.
How many frog genders are there and how do frog identities intersect? We don't know yet. The loser agency of CIA is hogging all the funding.
I think I'm more reasonable than SRD on this topic. Not immediately defending the guys responsible for making your frogs gay is the unreasonable stance. Why'd y'all defend that? My gut reaction leans towards me being right on this one.
1 dermanus 2017-09-30
The answer is because it is a government conspiracy and they're downplaying the study to suppress people finding out about the program.
1 MakeAmericaSageAgain 2017-09-30
I'm not saying it is a conspiracy, but it's certainly being downplayed. Is it useful idiots because it's only "right-wing nutjobs" who care about the environment, maybe. Is it pesticide lobbyists and shills? I hope so. I hope it's not the government. Don't see why they'd to that either.
Could be TPTB, but I don't want to become actually crazy so I'll say no.
1 VIOLENT_MONKEY_ANUS 2017-09-30
"lewd conduct" makes it sound much hotter than it probably is
1 glmox 2017-09-30
what the fuck are my tax dollars going to then
1 faheytrash 2017-09-30
reeeeee the trolley problem isn't just a dilemma between two mutually exclusive choices reeeeeeeee
1 Yiin 2017-09-30
No one cares about why. Just go out and do shit.