Dear Cannibal,

[Professor]

[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]@Cann!bal[/font] <-- Y'all should tag him for me seeing as I can't figure it out on my own.

[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]Your misconceived accusations are intolerable. Stop saying sexual fluidity is how sexuality is accepted by the scientific and psychological professional communities. It isn't. [/font]
[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]You clearly haven't done your homework, but that's no surprise. You probably dropped out of high school for similar reasons. S[/font]exual[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif] fluidity is a mere theory, which means your entire structure for this argument is hypothetical. That's like jumping out of an airplane with intent to land on a cloud. The cloud is there, but you can't stand firm on it. In likeness, the theory is there, but you can't stand firm on it because it's theory without sufficient evidence. [/font][font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]This is probably the part where you're getting all worked up and thinking of something stupid to say. I urge thee to refrain. In fact, you need not worry! [/font][font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif][font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]I am aware that the notion of reading something which lacks [/font][/font][font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif][font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]mazes, coloring areas, and pop-up pictures can be intimidating for an incompetent bigot, so[/font][/font][font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif][font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif] I'll do the research for you.[/font][/font]

[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif][font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]We're going to be looking at pieces from Lisa M. Diamond, a respected psychologist at the University of Utah who has written many scientific pieces on sexuality and is an authority on the subject matter. From this we may depict what the accepted consensus of sexuality is within the professional communities. Brace yourself. This is some groundbreaking stuff.[/font][/font]

"Most scientists consider[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif] desire[/font], not behavior,[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif] the marker of sexual orientation[/font]."​

([font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]Diamond, Lisa M. [/font]Sexual Fluidity: Understanding Women's Love and Desire[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 2008. Print.)[/font]​

[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif][font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]Oh sSsSsSsSshiiiiiit. What does this mean? Well, [/font][font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]if[/font][font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif] [/font][font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]you[/font][font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif] [/font][font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]are a male and[/font][font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif] [/font][font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]you[/font][font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif] have the desire[/font][font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif] to put the penis of another man in your mouth, you are homosexual. [/font][font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]Similarly, if [/font][font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]you[/font][font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif] are a male and [/font][font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]you[/font][font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif] want to see a pair of DD's in your face, you are heterosexual. [/font][/font]​

[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif][font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]She goes on to say,[/font][/font]​

[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif] [/font]“Sexual identity”[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif][font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif] [/font]refers to a culturally organized[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif] conception of the self[/font], usually “lesbian/gay,” “bisexual,” or “heterosexual.” As with sexual orientation, we cannot presume that these identities correspond to particular patterns of behavior. Nor can we presume that they correspond to particular patterns of desire. Because [font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]sexual identities represent self-concepts[/font], they[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif] depend on individuals’ own notions [/font]about the most important aspects of their sexual selves. These notions, as we will see, can[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif] vary quite a bit from individual to individual[/font].
([/font][font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]Diamond, Lisa M. [/font]Sexual Fluidity: Understanding Women's Love and Desire[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 2008. Print.)[/font]

[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif][font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]Well, there goes your entire argument on everybody is inherently subjected to this standard because you like boys. Even so, I'll continue...[/font][/font]

In general, the degree of fluidity in women appears substantially greater than in men, though we do not yet have enough data to fully evaluate this possibility. ​

(Diamond, Lisa M. Sexual Fluidity: Understanding Women's Love and Desire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 2008. Print.)​

[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]I wanted to put this section in for a very specific reason. She makes a suggestion, better known in the scientific community as a hypothesis (you learn something new every day!), declaring yet another theory pertinent to female proneness vs. that of men. BUT... she concludes with acknowledging the lack of factual evidence and, therefore, doesn't have the jurisdiction to be an authority, citing a lack of substantial empirical evidence.[/font]

[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]Anotha one,[/font]

[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]At this point in time, sex researchers have not yet directly studied the mechanisms that potentially underlie sexual fluidity.[/font]​

(Diamond, Lisa M. Sexual Fluidity: Understanding Women's Love and Desire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 2008. Print.)​

[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]Yep. You were wrong again, Cannibitch. Turns out your claim of cultural influences and triggers of bisexual curiosity have NOT been studied adequately. Hmmm.[/font]

[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif][font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]She concludes,[/font][/font]

[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif][font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]Although I hope to have demonstrated that there is considerable evidence for a number of psychological and biological processes through which female sexual fluidity might operate, we cannot make firm conclusions about such processes without additional research.
(Diamond, Lisa M. Sexual Fluidity: Understanding Women's Love and Desire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 2008. Print.)[/font][/font]

[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]WOW. Would you look at that? Your insufferable blabbering... it's... it's wrong?! If only there would've been people posting replies to try to tell you this! Oh wait... we did. You blabbered [font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]impetuously, accusing us of being dick-lovers when so many of us told you how we've never once desired a man. Even so, you stood resolute in your ineptitude, [/font][font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]monotonously [/font][font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]diluting facts with your[/font][font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif] insecurity and [/font]idiocy[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif].[/font][/font]​

I am 100% sure I am not interested in dating other men.

I'm not interested in dating other men either. My point was that it's impossible to say you are 100% attracted to the opposite sex, so you're therefore bisexual.

"Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."
- Mark Twain

It appears your essence and my essence differ. Perhaps that essentially indicates contrarily to your desperate attempt to subject the world population to being homosexual.
You've stated that you are 3% gay. Three. Fucking. Percent. You have no authority to speak on behalf of fully heterosexual men nor on behalf of homosexual men. You can only speak with authority to bisexuality. 

Don't step so far outside of your jurisdiction.

"I'm too insecure with my sexuality to accept that in sexual fluidity I like men. You make some good points but I'm going to ignore them and dismiss you by calling a bigot and stupid and tell you that you have no authority to say that, even though, you use our current understanding of sexuality to back up your position and I'm in no authority either."

Lol, no. You came here on your own will and continue to come on your own will. I'm sharing my ideas and thoughts on a forum and you clicked my thread. In no capacity am I forcing them down people's throats. That's just a slanderous lie to dismiss me.

You're in denial and are too insecure with your sexuality if you sincerely believe that. Even if you like the opposite sex by 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999%, there's still that 0.000000000000000000000000000000001% which belongs to the your same sex, which makes you bisexual by definition. So now that you know you're gay what's it like being a faggot?

I already said multiple times that finding someone good looking doesn't necessarily equate to sexual attraction. My argument is that in sexual fluidity we are all essentially bisexuals because 100% straight or homosexual simply isn't possible because of unavoidable factors.

[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]Yes, you are a...[/font]

[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]

[/font]

---

Who deleted the responses and for what reason?
@philly @raptor @plague @color @fear

 

[Revo]

how much addy r u guys on these days smh

 

[Liquids]

But that's none of my business.

*sips tea*

 

[blast]

how much addy r u guys on these days smh

I seriously think this will be my favorite reply on the thread.

 

[Name]

HOLY. SHIT.
I don't even know how to respond to this, Jesus Christ, this is good. VERY well written. You should consider writing papers for some guap on here.

 

[Bomb]

So is anybody going to address the elephant in the room?

This nigga claims to be a vegan but his name is "Cannibal" lol what a hypocritical twat

 

[Agony]

Well it wasn't me, but if this turns into a shitstorm of drama, actions will be taken to eradicate the shit.

 

[Coder]

Well it wasn't me, but if this turns into a shitstorm of drama, actions will be taken to eradicate the shit.

I don't see the point of this section anymore then. Nobody is going to act mature enough to not insult one another's beliefs.

 

[Exclusive]

@Professor for president LOL @"Cann!bal" get shit on boy.

 

[Color]

I don't see the point of this section anymore then. Nobody is going to act mature enough to not insult one another's beliefs.

Insult each other's beliefs as you wish, however, this is the debate section, not the slander each other and take personal shots section.  Keep it to the topics as much as possible.

 

[Bomb]

Who the fuck deleted my post and why the fuck did you delete my post?

Y'all are some _____

 

[Revo]

Who the fuck deleted my post and why the fuck did you delete my post?

Y'all are some _____

mine got deleted too where is our FREEDOM OF SPEECH lmao

 

[Professor]

Insult each other's beliefs as you wish, however, this is the debate section, not the slander each other and take personal shots section. Keep it to the topics as much as possible.

To be fair, the topic is retaliatory to the personal shots he's been allowed to take at us for a long time now. To debate is to argue to argue is to stand for your individualism and beliefs. There's an implicit understanding that things will be heated when it's personal.

This thread isn't some one-sided, counterintuitive lecture with the intent to piss people, such as nearly all of his "debate" threads are. Rather, this thread is a warranted response to his imbecilic attacks on we the people of FK.

[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]With that said, I only ask discipline [/font][font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]be[/font][font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif] awarded if threats arise. If he's not in trouble for berating the entire community for their sexuality, eating habits, religious beliefs, or his punitive institutional outlook, nor should we the people. See [/font][font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]https://www.forumkorner.com/thread-264449.html, https://www.forumkorner.com/thread-261733.html, https://www.forumkorner.com/thread-261184.html, https://www.forumkorner.com/thread-258259.html, https://www.forumkorner.com/thread-255136.html, https://www.forumkorner.com/thread-260442.html.[/font]

Well it wasn't me, but if this turns into a shitstorm of drama, actions will be taken to eradicate the shit.

@agony This is also a reply to you.

[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]^ Btw, when I say "see" and then stuff to follow; that's how you cite in legalese.[/font]

 

[Color]

To be fair, the topic is retaliatory to the personal shots he's been allowed to take at us for a long time now. To debate is to argue to argue is to stand for your individualism and beliefs. There's an implicit understanding that things will be heated when it's personal.

This thread isn't some one-sided, counterintuitive lecture with the intent to piss people, such as nearly all of his "debate" threads are. Rather, this thread is a warranted response to his imbecilic attacks on we the people of FK.

[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]With that said, I only ask discipline [/font][font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]be[/font][font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif] awarded if threats arise. If he's not in trouble for berating the entire community for their sexuality, eating habits, religious beliefs, or his punitive institutional outlook, nor should we the people. See [/font][font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]https://www.forumkorner.com/thread-264449.html, https://www.forumkorner.com/thread-261733.html, https://www.forumkorner.com/thread-261184.html, https://www.forumkorner.com/thread-258259.html, https://www.forumkorner.com/thread-255136.html, https://www.forumkorner.com/thread-260442.html.[/font]

@agony This is also a reply to you.

[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]^ Btw, when I say "see" and then stuff to follow; that's how you cite in legalese[/font]

You're defending yourself for no reason.  Your thread is here, that should tell you something.  I was answering to him, not you.  Just don't let it get out of hand, keep it respectful.

 

[Professor]

You're defending yourself for no reason.  Your thread is here, that should tell you something.  I was answering to him, not you.  Just don't let it get out of hand, keep it respectful.

You're right. I'm not challenging your authority & the discretion is yours. It[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif] more so a preemptive explanation/defensiveness than anything. My bad.[/font]
I'm still curious who deleted the earlier replies.

 

[Color]

You're right. I'm not challenging your authority & the discretion is yours. It[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif] more so a preemptive explanation/defensiveness than anything. My bad.[/font]
I'm still curious who deleted the earlier replies.

Not sure.  However, they were all Low Quality spam posts, so it's with reason.

 

[Professor]

Not sure.  However, they were all Low Quality spam posts, so it's with reason.

Ah. I didn't see. I was in class all morning, I just saw I had notifications.

 

[Space Time]

Haha this debate is getting crazy and better every post!
I would love to see Cannibals response to this. It is going to be gold.

 

[Rare]

@Space Time @SpaceTime however you tag it I'm sure he's been planning a response on day.

 

[Revo]

Not sure.  However, they were all Low Quality spam posts, so it's with reason.

but this " @ Professor for president LOL @ Cann!bal get shit on boy."
is still here LMAO 2HQ4U