National Coming Out Day

• Eos wrote on 2014-10-13 22:21

  Quote from Compass;1250909:

  Speak for yourself buddy.

  
  
  You have no ability to prove me wrong with only the fact it hasn't happened yet as your evidence.
• SlurpTASTY wrote on 2014-10-13 23:07

  Quote from Eos;1250910:

  You have no ability to prove me wrong with only the fact it hasn't happened yet as your evidence.

  
  
  I would think the billions of straight people who have never partaken in any gay act would be proof enough.
• Kyishi wrote on 2014-10-13 23:12

  Quote from Eos;1250910:

  You have no ability to prove me wrong with only the fact it hasn't happened yet as your evidence.

  
  Perhaps it is difficult for someone who isn't strictly heterosexual/homosexual to understand, but for the most part, I don't think that's how it works. At all. People set their own standards when selecting a mate. It varies from person to person.
• Eos wrote on 2014-10-13 23:13

  Quote from SlurpTASTY;1250913:

  I would think the billions of straight people who have never partaken in any gay act would be proof enough.

  
  
  
  Two flaws in that;
  1) you have no way of knowing that they haven't.
  2) you have no way of proving they wouldn't had they met said hypothetical person.
  
  Since near anyone will do near anything, situationally, as has been proven in repeated studies, my premise stands. The best anyone can say is at the current time they have no interest in x, y or z. And even then you are taking their word for it that they are being honest with you and/or themselves.
• Kyishi wrote on 2014-10-13 23:38

  Quote from Eos;1250915:

  
  Since near anyone will do near anything, situationally, as has been proven in repeated studies, my premise stands.

  
  
  People will do anything, situationally, but that doesn't mean they'll like it. You can force someone who hates fish to eat salmon. Does that necessarily mean they LIKE salmon? I honestly don't understand where you're going with this lol, it's all about preference.
• SlurpTASTY wrote on 2014-10-13 23:57

  Quote from Eos;1250915:

  Two flaws in that;
  1) you have no way of knowing that they haven't.
  2) you have no way of proving they wouldn't had they met said hypothetical person.
  
  Since near anyone will do near anything, situationally, as has been proven in repeated studies, my premise stands. The best anyone can say is at the current time they have no interest in x, y or z. And even then you are taking their word for it that they are being honest with you and/or themselves.

  
  Goes both ways
  1) you have no way of knowing that they have.
  2) you have no way of proving they would had they met said hypothetical person.
• Compass wrote on 2014-10-14 00:41

  Quote from Eos;1250910:

  You have no ability to prove me wrong with only the fact it hasn't happened yet as your evidence.

  
  Are you telling me that you know me more than I do?
  It's me we're talking about, you're just some random poster on some site who barely knows anything next to me aside from my username and other unnecessary stuff such as me visiting this community that doesn't help your /r/RedditLogic-tier theory.
  
  It's not "going to happen yet", it never will.
• Eos wrote on 2014-10-14 00:58
  I've said my piece. I am not trying to convert anyone because my underyling point here is I don't care, it doesn't matter; Tell anyone what you want, believe what you want, do what you want, the facts will be the same regardless and it's a silly thing for people to fixate on and "defend".
  
  To wrap up;
  
  

  Quote from Kyishi;1250918:

  I honestly don't understand where you're going with this lol, it's all about preference.

  
  
  That'd be because you're trying to have an entirely different conversation that I am not interested in having but maybe someone else will take you up on.
  
  

  Quote from SlurpTASTY;1250922:

  Goes both ways
  1) you have no way of knowing that they have.
  2) you have no way of proving they would had they met said hypothetical person.

  
  
  I know how many people I personally know who other people believe never have/would who in fact do/have, but do not feel it's any one else's business. You literally can't say the opposite because by definition you don't know what you don't know, but it's cute how tightly you cling to narrowness.
  
  

  Quote from Compass;1250924:

  Are you telling me that you know me more than I do?

  
  
  No, you're personally irrelevant to the conversation. I'm trying to tell you that you, collectively, know you less than half as well as you think you do if you believe you understand every facet of yourself including how you'd handle and react to scenarios you've never experienced or even imagined experiencing. I don't have to know you, specifically, to know that. You could be the exception to hundreds of thousands of years of biological conditioning and imperatives, but odds really don't favor that.
• Kyishi wrote on 2014-10-14 01:12

  Quote from Eos;1250927:

  I know how many people I personally know who other people believe never have/would who in fact do/have, but do not feel it's any one else's business. You literally can't say the opposite because by definition you don't know what you don't know, but it's cute how tightly you cling to narrowness.
  

  
  has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to look more like?
• SlurpTASTY wrote on 2014-10-14 01:35

  Quote from Eos;1250927:

  I know how many people I personally know who other people believe never have/would who in fact do/have, but do not feel it's any one else's business.
  

  
  I'd have more to add if I could understand anything other than the passive aggressiveness in the second part of your post. But I don't, so all I have to say is the only thing I see here is you trying to justify everyone being bisexual by nature to 1) either feel better about your own sexuality or 2) because you think thats the way humans work (but I'm pretty sure that's not the way she blows).
• Taycat wrote on 2014-10-14 01:37

  Quote from Kyishi;1250929:

  has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to look more like?

  
  
  are you serious right now?
  this sentence baffles me.
• SlurpTASTY wrote on 2014-10-14 01:43

  Quote from Taycat;1250932:

  are you serious right now?
  this sentence baffles me.

  
  
  They dont think it be like it is, but it do
• Compass wrote on 2014-10-14 01:45

  Quote from Eos;1250927:

  
  No, you're personally irrelevant to the conversation.

  
  Says the guy that made an assumption on everyone.
  
  

  Quote from Eos;1250927:

  I'm trying to tell you that you, collectively, know you less than half as well as you think you do if you believe you understand every facet of yourself including how you'd handle and react to scenarios you've never experienced or even imagined experiencing.

  
  Sorry man, no matter how you put it I'm not gay, and no person will make me gay, and it's the situations I've been in what made me realize this.
  
  

  Quote from Eos;1250927:

  I don't have to know you, specifically, to know that.

  
  You do.
  What you're doing right now is assuming. There's a difference, bud.
  
  

  Quote from Eos;1250927:

  You could be the exception to hundreds of thousands of years of biological conditioning and imperatives, but odds really don't favor that.

  
  Not everyone is that same, stop your assumptions.
  If the "bald truth is most everyone is a little everything" then I can surely say I'm not a necropedozoophiliac. I don't have to think twice about it.
• Yoorah wrote on 2014-10-14 02:13
  ITT: Eos kicking forum-ass.
  
  It all comes down to many things in life not being black and white--this is particularly relevant when discussing areas related to psychology. What Eos refers to is innate bisexuality:
  

  Innate bisexuality (or predisposition to bisexuality) is a term introduced by Sigmund Freud (based on work by his associate Wilhelm Fliess), that expounds all humans are born bisexual but through psychological development (which includes both external and internal factors) most become monosexual while the bisexuality remains in a latent state.
  
  There is no modern scientific consensus as to how biology influences sexual orientation (see biology and sexual orientation).

  
  Seems pretty reasonable to me.
• Compass wrote on 2014-10-14 03:05

  Quote from Yoorah;1250936:

  It all comes down to many things in life not being black and white--this is particularly relevant when discussing areas related to psychology. What Eos refers to is innate bisexuality

  
  Yeah too bad Sigmund Freud is a huge laughting stock and him along with his fans are constantly mocked by others, and it's really not a surprising as to why.
  The guy thought all lesbians hated themselves and men because of penis envy.
  But hey what about other nonsense theories such as the oedipus complex?