Wait, why does homosexuality need to be validated...

[Joan Darr]

Avgvsto

Joan Darr

Avgvsto

Joan Darr

Avgvsto

Whats the point in marriage?

No, but I might consider you a sexual narcissist for the lack of a more isolated term at least.

Why reference someone else when asked of your opinion? Furthermore, that wasn't much of an explanation at all.

I could have just said "No."
I referenced that for "desire to merge sexually with a mirror image of oneself," and I left an indicator of uncertainty since you didn't divulge factors such of intensity or frequency in order for me to determine in this hypothetical where you would fall between "not all that unusual" or "unhealthily obsessed."
In either case, it still would have been "No."

That even still is not an explanation of why not. I didn't ask for just no.

Perhaps it would make more sense as to why I supplied a more fitting term if I showed you the definition of homosexual?

Quote:

Definition of HOMOSEXUAL
1
: of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex
2
: of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex

Even if you would argue it as romantic instead of sexual and invoke the more obscure term of homoromantic which does not discount the self as being a potential recipient,

Quote:

homoromantic: romantic attraction towards person(s) of the same gender

- Narcissism is still a better fit, as the myth where the word comes from has Narcissus falling in love with his own reflection.

[Avgvsto]

Joan Darr

Avgvsto

Joan Darr

Avgvsto

Joan Darr

No, but I might consider you a sexual narcissist for the lack of a more isolated term at least.

Why reference someone else when asked of your opinion? Furthermore, that wasn't much of an explanation at all.

I could have just said "No."
I referenced that for "desire to merge sexually with a mirror image of oneself," and I left an indicator of uncertainty since you didn't divulge factors such of intensity or frequency in order for me to determine in this hypothetical where you would fall between "not all that unusual" or "unhealthily obsessed."
In either case, it still would have been "No."

That even still is not an explanation of why not. I didn't ask for just no.

Perhaps it would make more sense as to why I supplied a more fitting term if I showed you the definition of homosexual?

Quote:

Definition of HOMOSEXUAL
1
: of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex
2
: of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex

Even if you would argue it as romantic instead of sexual and invoke the more obscure term of homoromantic which does not discount the self as being a potential recipient,

Quote:

homoromantic: romantic attraction towards person(s) of the same gender

- Narcissism is still a better fit, as the myth where the word comes from has Narcissus falling in love with his own reflection.

Hmm you kind of just spit other people's words. I'm done as it's no fun conversing with a tool.

[Joan Darr]

Avgvsto

Joan Darr

Avgvsto

Joan Darr

Avgvsto

Why reference someone else when asked of your opinion? Furthermore, that wasn't much of an explanation at all.

I could have just said "No."
I referenced that for "desire to merge sexually with a mirror image of oneself," and I left an indicator of uncertainty since you didn't divulge factors such of intensity or frequency in order for me to determine in this hypothetical where you would fall between "not all that unusual" or "unhealthily obsessed."
In either case, it still would have been "No."

That even still is not an explanation of why not. I didn't ask for just no.

Perhaps it would make more sense as to why I supplied a more fitting term if I showed you the definition of homosexual?

Quote:

Definition of HOMOSEXUAL
1
: of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex
2
: of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex

Even if you would argue it as romantic instead of sexual and invoke the more obscure term of homoromantic which does not discount the self as being a potential recipient,

Quote:

homoromantic: romantic attraction towards person(s) of the same gender

- Narcissism is still a better fit, as the myth where the word comes from has Narcissus falling in love with his own reflection.

Hmm you kind of just spit other people's words. I'm done as it's no fun conversing with a tool.

Oh, I see you are at least 800 years old, being the clear originator of the word "spit."

[Avgvsto]

Joan Darr

Avgvsto

Joan Darr

Avgvsto

Joan Darr

I could have just said "No."
I referenced that for "desire to merge sexually with a mirror image of oneself," and I left an indicator of uncertainty since you didn't divulge factors such of intensity or frequency in order for me to determine in this hypothetical where you would fall between "not all that unusual" or "unhealthily obsessed."
In either case, it still would have been "No."

That even still is not an explanation of why not. I didn't ask for just no.

Perhaps it would make more sense as to why I supplied a more fitting term if I showed you the definition of homosexual?

Quote:

Definition of HOMOSEXUAL
1
: of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex
2
: of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex

Even if you would argue it as romantic instead of sexual and invoke the more obscure term of homoromantic which does not discount the self as being a potential recipient,

Quote:

homoromantic: romantic attraction towards person(s) of the same gender

- Narcissism is still a better fit, as the myth where the word comes from has Narcissus falling in love with his own reflection.

Hmm you kind of just spit other people's words. I'm done as it's no fun conversing with a tool.

Oh, I see you are at least 800 years old, being the clear originator of the word "spit."

I was the originator of it context.

[Joan Darr]

Avgvsto

Joan Darr

Avgvsto

Joan Darr

Avgvsto

That even still is not an explanation of why not. I didn't ask for just no.

Perhaps it would make more sense as to why I supplied a more fitting term if I showed you the definition of homosexual?

Quote:

Definition of HOMOSEXUAL
1
: of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex
2
: of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex

Even if you would argue it as romantic instead of sexual and invoke the more obscure term of homoromantic which does not discount the self as being a potential recipient,

Quote:

homoromantic: romantic attraction towards person(s) of the same gender

- Narcissism is still a better fit, as the myth where the word comes from has Narcissus falling in love with his own reflection.

Hmm you kind of just spit other people's words. I'm done as it's no fun conversing with a tool.

Oh, I see you are at least 800 years old, being the clear originator of the word "spit."

I was the originator of it context.

Nice double standard. Very intellectually honest debate going on with you here. Very grateful that you're a regular.

[Avgvsto]

Joan Darr

Avgvsto

Joan Darr

Avgvsto

Joan Darr

Perhaps it would make more sense as to why I supplied a more fitting term if I showed you the definition of homosexual?




Even if you would argue it as romantic instead of sexual and invoke the more obscure term of homoromantic which does not discount the self as being a potential recipient,


- Narcissism is still a better fit, as the myth where the word comes from has Narcissus falling in love with his own reflection.

Hmm you kind of just spit other people's words. I'm done as it's no fun conversing with a tool.

Oh, I see you are at least 800 years old, being the clear originator of the word "spit."

I was the originator of it context.

Nice double standard. Very intellectually honest debate going on with you here. Very grateful that you're a regular.

I don't consider myself a regular, though I do take pride in my honesty. Much rather that I be stupid than a liar. Perhaps I have wrongfully spoken but I honestly propose that I believe in this s**t.

[Joan Darr]

Avgvsto

Joan Darr

Avgvsto

Joan Darr

Avgvsto

Joan Darr

Perhaps it would make more sense as to why I supplied a more fitting term if I showed you the definition of homosexual?




Even if you would argue it as romantic instead of sexual and invoke the more obscure term of homoromantic which does not discount the self as being a potential recipient,


- Narcissism is still a better fit, as the myth where the word comes from has Narcissus falling in love with his own reflection.

Hmm you kind of just spit other people's words. I'm done as it's no fun conversing with a tool.

Oh, I see you are at least 800 years old, being the clear originator of the word "spit."

I was the originator of it context.

Nice double standard. Very intellectually honest debate going on with you here. Very grateful that you're a regular.

I don't consider myself a regular, though I do take pride in my honesty. Much rather that I be stupid than a liar. Perhaps I have wrongfully spoken but I honestly propose that I believe in this s**t.

Believe what? That professional linguists and etymologists have it all wrong in tracking the usage of words and providing clear definitions, and the reason they're wrong is that you came up with a ridiculous idea that someone should be considered homosexual if they're attracted to themself?

[Avgvsto]

Joan Darr

Avgvsto

Joan Darr

Avgvsto

Joan Darr

Oh, I see you are at least 800 years old, being the clear originator of the word "spit."

I was the originator of it context.

Nice double standard. Very intellectually honest debate going on with you here. Very grateful that you're a regular.

I don't consider myself a regular, though I do take pride in my honesty. Much rather that I be stupid than a liar. Perhaps I have wrongfully spoken but I honestly propose that I believe in this s**t.

Believe what? That professional linguists and etymologists have it all wrong in tracking the usage of words and providing clear definitions, and the reason they're wrong is that you came up with a ridiculous idea that someone should be considered homosexual if they're attracted to themself?

What of their professional legitimizes such merit? This is a language of slang any way. Besides, I asked you what specifically makes you believe that it is different.

[Joan Darr]

Avgvsto

Joan Darr

Avgvsto

Joan Darr

Avgvsto

Joan Darr

Oh, I see you are at least 800 years old, being the clear originator of the word "spit."

I was the originator of it context.

Nice double standard. Very intellectually honest debate going on with you here. Very grateful that you're a regular.

I don't consider myself a regular, though I do take pride in my honesty. Much rather that I be stupid than a liar. Perhaps I have wrongfully spoken but I honestly propose that I believe in this s**t.

Believe what? That professional linguists and etymologists have it all wrong in tracking the usage of words and providing clear definitions, and the reason they're wrong is that you came up with a ridiculous idea that someone should be considered homosexual if they're attracted to themself?

What of their professional legitimizes such merit? This is a language of slang any way. Besides, I asked you what specifically makes you believe that it is different.

Why don't you accrue the level of education that they did to get where they are to be specialists and see if you can figure it out from there? A good start would be to go research and comprehend what the word "slang" should mean.

Yes, you asked that and I answered - plurality. This is the point where you threw a fit.

[Avgvsto]

Joan Darr

Avgvsto

Joan Darr

Avgvsto

Joan Darr

Nice double standard. Very intellectually honest debate going on with you here. Very grateful that you're a regular.

I don't consider myself a regular, though I do take pride in my honesty. Much rather that I be stupid than a liar. Perhaps I have wrongfully spoken but I honestly propose that I believe in this s**t.

Believe what? That professional linguists and etymologists have it all wrong in tracking the usage of words and providing clear definitions, and the reason they're wrong is that you came up with a ridiculous idea that someone should be considered homosexual if they're attracted to themself?

What of their professional legitimizes such merit? This is a language of slang any way. Besides, I asked you what specifically makes you believe that it is different.

Why don't you accrue the level of education that they did to get where they are to be specialists and see if you can figure it out from there? A good start would be to go research and comprehend what the word "slang" should mean.

Yes, you asked that and I answered - plurality.

First of I resent the idea of paying someone (waay to much) to tell me how to think. Secondly I don't consider this language anything more than a cultural phenomenon and thus nothing in me respects it any further than such.

[Joan Darr]

Avgvsto

Joan Darr

Avgvsto

Joan Darr

Avgvsto

Joan Darr

Nice double standard. Very intellectually honest debate going on with you here. Very grateful that you're a regular.

I don't consider myself a regular, though I do take pride in my honesty. Much rather that I be stupid than a liar. Perhaps I have wrongfully spoken but I honestly propose that I believe in this s**t.

Believe what? That professional linguists and etymologists have it all wrong in tracking the usage of words and providing clear definitions, and the reason they're wrong is that you came up with a ridiculous idea that someone should be considered homosexual if they're attracted to themself?

What of their professional legitimizes such merit? This is a language of slang any way. Besides, I asked you what specifically makes you believe that it is different.

Why don't you accrue the level of education that they did to get where they are to be specialists and see if you can figure it out from there? A good start would be to go research and comprehend what the word "slang" should mean.

Yes, you asked that and I answered - plurality.

First of I resent the idea of paying someone (waay to much) to tell me how to think. Secondly I don't consider this language anything more than a cultural phenomenon and thus nothing in me respects it any further than such.

Indeed animation, por que tractor flute hamburger?

[Avgvsto]

Joan Darr

Avgvsto

Joan Darr

Avgvsto

Joan Darr

Believe what? That professional linguists and etymologists have it all wrong in tracking the usage of words and providing clear definitions, and the reason they're wrong is that you came up with a ridiculous idea that someone should be considered homosexual if they're attracted to themself?

What of their professional legitimizes such merit? This is a language of slang any way. Besides, I asked you what specifically makes you believe that it is different.

Why don't you accrue the level of education that they did to get where they are to be specialists and see if you can figure it out from there? A good start would be to go research and comprehend what the word "slang" should mean.

Yes, you asked that and I answered - plurality.

First of I resent the idea of paying someone (waay to much) to tell me how to think. Secondly I don't consider this language anything more than a cultural phenomenon and thus nothing in me respects it any further than such.

Indeed animation, por que tractor flute hamburger?

Your specific sort of slang did not coincide with my accustomed understanding of the language. I realize now that I could just argue that all language is just a sort of noise system developed between creatures and so i find my argument rather fruitless.

[Joan Darr]

Avgvsto

Oh, sorry, was that too cultured for you to understand?
It's almost like linguistic communication, the process of uttering phonetics and brandishing symbols in organized patterns towards a recipient, would be better off for the purpose of accurately conveying ideas.

[Avgvsto]

Joan Darr

Avgvsto

Oh, sorry, was that too cultured for you to understand?
It's almost like language, the process of uttering phonetics and brandishing symbols in organized patterns towards a recipient, would be better off for the purpose of accurately conveying ideas.

hmm i suppose my response came shortly too late : (
either way, i have as a child developed a language of "gibberish" between myself and some very few close friends of whom can still communicate using nonsensical expression much like the previously aforementioned. I suppose i couldn't say if it is now a slang we use or if it is a genuine language used badly since we somewhat forgot its proper grammar.

[Joan Darr]

Avgvsto

Joan Darr

Avgvsto

Oh, sorry, was that too cultured for you to understand?
It's almost like language, the process of uttering phonetics and brandishing symbols in organized patterns towards a recipient, would be better off for the purpose of accurately conveying ideas.

hmm i suppose my response came shortly too late : (
either way, i have as a child developed a language of "gibberish" between myself and some very few close friends of whom can still communicate using nonsensical expression much like the previously aforementioned. I suppose i couldn't say if it is now a slang we use or if it is a genuine language used badly since we somewhat forgot its proper grammar.

I'll take this change of subject as concession of the point you were defending earlier.

Not that your creation of a exclusive language for a minority clique isn't fascinating; It might even have been novel if ancient societies like the original settlers of Japan didn't beat you to it.