PDA

View Full Version : The Ultimate Warrior gives the best argument against homosexuality that I've heard.


EGarrett
21st April 2006, 11:33 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuVEc7ULzy4&search=warrior

I actually have the full speech, which a friend gave to me, but fortunately the most relevant part is online.

The Ultimate Warrior is a former WWF Champion, who now goes around giving speeches at college campuses. As you might guess, he's an extreme conservative.

Here's a brief section of his speech where he's attacking liberalism, and actually gives a real logical reason why homosexuality shouldn't be enforced.

Which isn't to say that logic isn't defeatable, but it's surprising to actually hear a homophobe use logic and reason to support his position instead of religion and evasive tactics. Of course, who would expect anything less from a man who calls himself "WARRIOR."

Anyway, I'd be more than happy to type up some transcript of the bits of the speech leading up to this bit, as well as what happens afterward. I never want to take anyone's words out of context.

Upchurch
21st April 2006, 12:02 PM
I don't get. What's his logical argument?

The Central Scrutinizer
21st April 2006, 12:06 PM
Didn't the (insert college name here) Republican's have to issue an apology last year to the people who came to his "lecture"? He even embaressed them.

I'll watch the video later, but from what I have seen of him in the past, he's something of a cement head.

Medb
21st April 2006, 12:11 PM
I haven't seen the video yet, but I for one would just like to state that I believe I'm in complete agreement with Mr. Warrior. I also do not believe that homosexuality should be enforced.

Why, you ask? Well, imagine this: you are a gay man at a bar. Another gay man approaches you and asks if you'd like to go back to his place for a little canoodling. You consider, and then apologetically decline after realizing that the man in question is wearing coolats and a "Frankie says relax" t-shirt completely unironically.

If Mr. Warrior's opponents have their way, you would be forced by law to have sex with this man. Would anyone here want that for themselves, or their children? I should hope not.

zakur
21st April 2006, 12:17 PM
http://www.hartfordadvocate.com/gbase/News/content?oid=oid:107862

Yeah, sounds like the paradigm of "logic and reason." :rolleyes:

EGarrett
21st April 2006, 12:18 PM
I don't get. What's his logical argument?His logical argument was that homosexuality isn't legitimate because it "doesn't make the world work," meaning that it doesn't create children.

I can at least understand his thought process, even if it is a little dingy.

If Mr. Warrior's opponents have their way, you would be forced by law to have sex with this man. Would anyone here want that for themselves, or their children? I should hope not.I meant that he was giving what seemed like a logical reason that gay marriage shouldn't be protected by law. No need to be snotty.

Upchurch
21st April 2006, 12:18 PM
I watched the video and all I got out of it was him responding to a heckler and "queering doesn't make the world work".

I dont' see the argument, only the premise.

TragicMonkey
21st April 2006, 12:23 PM
I dont' see the argument, only the premise.

That constitutes argument in politics.

jj
21st April 2006, 12:23 PM
His logical argument was that homosexuality isn't legitimate because it "doesn't make the world work," meaning that it doesn't create children.


Are we short of children in this world?

Now, if you conclude that many characteristics are inherited, I would propose that there are a lot of homosexual people who have very positive characteristics, and, accepting the conclusion above for argument, it is a shame to see them potentially lost.

But I can't see that as an argument banning homosexuality.

It seems to be that arguing this on "making the world work" basis is the same as telling the gifted that they have to reproduce, telling the not-gifted that they can't, etc, i.e. this seems to be terribly close to eugenics.

Medb
21st April 2006, 12:26 PM
Are we short of children in this world?

Now, if you conclude that many characteristics are inherited, I would propose that there are a lot of homosexual people who have very positive characteristics, and, accepting the conclusion above for argument, it is a shame to see them potentially lost.

But I can't see that as an argument banning homosexuality.

It seems to be that arguing this on "making the world work" basis is the same as telling the gifted that they have to reproduce, telling the not-gifted that they can't, etc, i.e. this seems to be terribly close to eugenics.

Not to mention that we may as well just kill the elderly. If they ain't pumping out babies, they ain't no good to me!

zakur
21st April 2006, 12:29 PM
Not to mention that we may as well just kill the elderly. If they ain't pumping out babies, they ain't no good to me!And the infertile! Don't forget those not-making-the-world-work slackers.

OK - maybe not kill them. But at least make it illegal for them to marry.

Medb
21st April 2006, 12:29 PM
I meant that he was giving what seemed like a logical reason that gay marriage shouldn't be protected by law. No need to be snotty.

One man's snottiness is another man's slight overproduction of mucus to compensate for the first man's stuffiness.

Medb
21st April 2006, 12:30 PM
And the infertile! Don't forget those not-making-the-world-work slackers.

OK - maybe not kill them. But at least make it illegal for them to marry.

And I wonder if the Warrior has ever used a condom? For his argument's sake, I hope not!

For the rest of humanity's sake, I hope so.

Scot C. Trypal
21st April 2006, 12:36 PM
Medb
If Mr. Warrior's opponents have their way, you would be forced by law to have sex with this man. Would anyone here want that for themselves, or their children? I should hope not.

Well then, you must be a Nazi. Everyone knows Hitler didn’t enforce homosexuality.



Odd clip that one. Queers aren’t as legitimate as heterosexuals? As legitimate a what?

What is his full argument?

Gay’s don’t make babies? That will be news to all the kids I know made by gay couples.

Is the rest of it something like, “Nature requires that each individual reproduces and those that don’t aren’t “legitimate””? Maybe he should ask the celibate priest, or the bees of “the birds and the bees”, or the gay penguins that adopt an orphan.

I have to wonder if he’d think infertile heterosexual couples are as “legitimate”? Are blind people as “legitimate” as sighted people? Sheesh.

Ultimate Warrior, you bring shame to professional wrestling.

Grammatron
21st April 2006, 12:37 PM
His logical argument was that homosexuality isn't legitimate because it "doesn't make the world work," meaning that it doesn't create children.

So if a marriage doesn't create children it should be annulled?

Upchurch
21st April 2006, 12:37 PM
His logical argument was that homosexuality isn't legitimate because it "doesn't make the world work," meaning that it doesn't create children.

I can at least understand his thought process, even if it is a little dingy.I've heard this argument before. It falls through pretty quickly, as has been pointed out.

Molinaro
21st April 2006, 12:39 PM
His logical argument was that homosexuality isn't legitimate because it "doesn't make the world work," meaning that it doesn't create children.

I can at least understand his thought process, even if it is a little dingy.

I meant that he was giving what seemed like a logical reason that gay marriage shouldn't be protected by law. No need to be snotty.


So what you are saying is that people who get married should be forced to have children? Are you also saying that anyone with a vasectomy or tubes tied should not be allowed to marry?

Are you also saying that people should not be allowed to remain single and childless?

Seems that the logical reasoning lacks a great deal of logic.

ImaginalDisc
21st April 2006, 12:40 PM
I haven't seen the video yet, but I for one would just like to state that I believe I'm in complete agreement with Mr. Warrior. I also do not believe that homosexuality should be enforced.

Why, you ask? Well, imagine this: you are a gay man at a bar. Another gay man approaches you and asks if you'd like to go back to his place for a little canoodling. You consider, and then apologetically decline after realizing that the man in question is wearing coolats and a "Frankie says relax" t-shirt completely unironically.

If Mr. Warrior's opponents have their way, you would be forced by law to have sex with this man. Would anyone here want that for themselves, or their children? I should hope not.

Say what? Mr.Stawman's the only one who wants to force people to have a roll in the hay.

Upchurch
21st April 2006, 12:40 PM
http://www.hartfordadvocate.com/gbase/News/content?oid=oid:107862
Warrior goes on to provide specific examples that, he thinks, illustrate his point. He laments that that "the bum is as legitimate as the businessman ... , that queers are as legitimate as heterosexuals..., that Kwanzaa is just as legitimate as Santa Claus and Christmas."

Some may find it easiest to summarize Warrior's opinion with an analogy: the bum is to the businessman as Kwanzaa is to Santa Claus.
heh. "the retired professional wrestler is as legitimate as the actual thinker." Absurd, I tell you!

Upchurch
21st April 2006, 12:42 PM
Say what? Mr.Stawman's the only one who wants to force people to have a roll in the hay.
Oh, I doubt that. It's just that for most people, its illegal.

jj
21st April 2006, 12:47 PM
...
I have to wonder if he’d think infertile heterosexual couples are as “legitimate”? Are blind people as “legitimate” as sighted people? Sheesh.

Ultimate Warrior, you bring shame to professional wrestling.

Like I said, this devolves into eugenics in a flash.

But I doubt that it's POSSIBLE to bring "shame" to professional "wrestling".

ImaginalDisc
21st April 2006, 12:47 PM
Oh, I doubt that. It's just that for most people, its illegal.

Touche, but it was this particular scarecrow I was pointing out.

If Mr. Warrior's opponents have their way, you would be forced by law to have sex with this man. Would anyone here want that for themselves, or their children? I should hope not.

Medb
21st April 2006, 12:49 PM
Say what? Mr.Stawman's the only one who wants to force people to have a roll in the hay.

Reread it a few times. It's okay, don't be embarrassed, we all do it.:Banane35:

Crossbow
21st April 2006, 12:53 PM
His logical argument was that homosexuality isn't legitimate because it "doesn't make the world work," meaning that it doesn't create children.

...


So what if Homosexual Marriage does not produce children?

Having children is not a marriage requirement. And besides, even if children were really the issue, then they could be brought into the marriage via adoption, surrogates, previous relationships, and so on.

Also, there are quite a few Hetrosexual Marriages that do not result in children due to financial reasons, health reasons, or simply that the couple does not want children. The lack of children does not invalidate the one type of marriage, so I fail to see why a lack of children should invalidate the other type of marriage.

ImaginalDisc
21st April 2006, 12:54 PM
Reread it a few times. It's okay, don't be embarrassed, we all do it.:Banane35:

Oh? Did I misunderstand the following?

Why, you ask? Well, imagine this: you are a gay man at a bar. Another gay man approaches you and asks if you'd like to go back to his place for a little canoodling. You consider, and then apologetically decline after realizing that the man in question is wearing coolats and a "Frankie says relax" t-shirt completely unironically.

If Mr. Warrior's opponents have their way, you would be forced by law to have sex with this man. Would anyone here want that for themselves, or their children? I should hope not.

How is this not suggesting that "If Mr. Warrior's opponents" are attempting to legalize *forced* homosexual sex?

Upchurch
21st April 2006, 12:54 PM
Touche, but it was this particular scarecrow I was pointing out.
I think that was meant to be sarcasm. Smilies would have helped, perhaps.

ImaginalDisc
21st April 2006, 01:00 PM
I think that was meant to be sarcasm. Smilies would have helped, perhaps.


Oh. Mea culpa. This wrestler guy's so ridiculous, I can't tell the sarcasm from the legitimate opinions.

Isn't there a word for "satire which is indistinguishable from the real thing"? My vocabulary is failing me. If there isn't, there should be.

Ladewig
21st April 2006, 01:06 PM
Which isn't to say that logic isn't defeatable, but it's surprising to actually hear a homophobe use logic and reason to support his position instead of religion and evasive tactics. Of course, who would expect anything less from a man who calls himself "WARRIOR."



From your other replies, I assume you are not being ironic in your initial post. You ask who would expect anything less from a man who calls himself "WARRIOR"? I would. I see no reason why legally changing one's name to Warrior would be evidence of one's committment to logic and reason. Therefore I would expect less from Warrior. Furthermore it does seem to be a good thing that I didn't really expect logic and reason from someone with that name because he does not supply a surfeit of either.

If this thread was meant as a goof, then I apologize for taking it seriously.

Medb
21st April 2006, 01:15 PM
Oh. Mea culpa. This wrestler guy's so ridiculous, I can't tell the sarcasm from the legitimate opinions.


No problem. The Warrior has made lesser men's brains explode through his "logic."


Isn't there a word for "satire which is indistinguishable from the real thing"? My vocabulary is failing me. If there isn't, there should be.

Yes: Medb. Apparently. :w2:

Hagrok
21st April 2006, 01:20 PM
I think that was meant to be sarcasm. Smilies would have helped, perhaps.
I find it helpful to assume most people here are being sarcastic when they reply with something outragous.

Obviously this doesn't work for certain posters...

The Central Scrutinizer
21st April 2006, 02:06 PM
Ultimate Warrior, you bring shame to professional wrestling.

And that is pretty hard to do! :p

HarryKeogh
21st April 2006, 02:13 PM
I'm waiting to see what Bam Bam Bigelow and Chief Strongbow have to say on the subject.

corplinx
21st April 2006, 02:19 PM
I'm waiting for the counter-speech by Hulk Hogan.

Nancarrow
21st April 2006, 02:20 PM
Isn't there a word for "satire which is indistinguishable from the real thing"? My vocabulary is failing me. If there isn't, there should be.

One of the many signs of our impending armageddon is that satire is no longer distinguishable from reality.



(The upcoming young-Kirk-and-Spock-Trek-Movie is one of the other signs in case you were wondering... it's all there in Revelations, I tell you!)

Cleon
21st April 2006, 02:35 PM
An argument against homosexuality is like an argument against Tuesday. You can fight like hell, you can rain fire and brimstone, you can consult every classic philosophical scholar on logic, but still, there it is...Tuesday.

The argument that homosexuality is wrong because it doesn't generate children is, to be blunt, stupid. We don't form human relationships based on how well we can crank out yet another screaming bag of flesh. We never have, and never will.

Snide
21st April 2006, 02:41 PM
The smarks in the business used to always say UW was a former male prostitute.


I'm just sayin'....

Renfield
21st April 2006, 02:54 PM
Its a very old, and very stupid argument. Still commonly held onto by raging homophobes (and likely closet homos) everywhere.

I guess you could give hm a little credit for attempting logic, even if he did fail miserably.

Actually no. You can't.

Ladewig
21st April 2006, 03:42 PM
We don't form human relationships based on how well we can crank out yet another screaming bag of flesh. We never have, and never will.

I think there are a few people who do Tom and Katie.

ImaginalDisc
21st April 2006, 04:13 PM
I think there are a few people who do Tom and Katie.

I think that has to do more with how well it preserves the thing illusion that he's not currently locked in a closet.

The Central Scrutinizer
21st April 2006, 04:15 PM
I'm waiting to see what Bam Bam Bigelow and Chief Strongbow have to say on the subject.

I think Chief Jay will slap him with a tomahawk chop. Assuming he disagrees that is.

The Central Scrutinizer
21st April 2006, 04:17 PM
The smarks in the business used to always say UW was a former male prostitute.


I'm just sayin'....

I have a gay friend who is somehow "in the know" who claimed that it was common knowledge in the gay "community" that Sting (the wrestler) preferred the company of men. If you know what I mean.

Mark
21st April 2006, 04:31 PM
How does one "argue against homosexuality?" It's like arguing against large feet.

EGarrett
21st April 2006, 04:36 PM
I have a gay friend who is somehow "in the know" who claimed that it was common knowledge in the gay "community" that Sting (the wrestler) preferred the company of men. If you know what I mean.
I have a friend who's a former WWF Intercontinental Champion (was on RAW in the last year, too), who swears up and down that Warrior used to have a boyfriend back in the day, and that they found their love letters.

Grammatron
21st April 2006, 04:37 PM
How does one "argue against homosexuality?" It's like arguing against large feet.

If you pray enough your feet will shrink to normal.

EGarrett
21st April 2006, 04:38 PM
From your other replies, I assume you are not being ironic in your initial post. You ask who would expect anything less from a man who calls himself "WARRIOR"? I would. I see no reason why legally changing one's name to Warrior would be evidence of one's committment to logic and reason. Therefore I would expect less from Warrior. Furthermore it does seem to be a good thing that I didn't really expect logic and reason from someone with that name because he does not supply a surfeit of either.

If this thread was meant as a goof, then I apologize for taking it seriously.
The guy is insane enough to change his name to WARRIOR, so I wouldn't expect him to try and hide his bizarre viewpoints the way a lot of people do. He's an out-and-out psycho.

So what I meant was that I wasn't surprised that he wasn't using evasive tactics.

Mark
21st April 2006, 04:39 PM
If you pray enough your feet will shrink to normal.

Well, there is that! I understand one can move mountains with it, too. Actually, come to think of it, that constant shuffling about of major landmasses must drive the cartographers crazy.

delphi_ote
21st April 2006, 06:55 PM
When a man who dresses in tights and rolls around groping another man in front of hundreds of people rabdily attacks homosexuality, forgive me if I suspect his motive might have something to do with denial.

thaiboxerken
21st April 2006, 06:59 PM
How does heterosexuality make the world work?!

Bjorn
21st April 2006, 07:11 PM
How does heterosexuality make the world work?!Or knitting, or kickboxing, or fine wines, or baseball?

None of those activities are producing babies (well, wine might create opportunities ...), so I guess we should be against them?

delphi_ote
21st April 2006, 07:15 PM
Or knitting, or kickboxing, or fine wines, or baseball?

None of those activities are producing babies (well, wine might create opportunities ...), so I guess we should be against them?
So we pass laws that everyone must have sex all the time.

If we forget about the "no gay" part, this could be the greatest law ever written.

Bjorn
21st April 2006, 07:53 PM
So we pass laws that everyone must have sex all the time.Yup, although never alone, but with someone of the other sex, of child-bearing age, not using contraceptives.

If we forget about the "no gay" part, this could be the greatest law ever written.No, for reasons you will understand when you get older. :o

delphi_ote
21st April 2006, 07:59 PM
No, for reasons you will understand when you get older. :o
Aww... c'mon. We could put all the old studs (male and female) out to pasture once they've had their fun.

thaiboxerken
21st April 2006, 08:14 PM
So, this "most compelling" argument is actually just a stupid assertion. Why am I not suprised?

strathmeyer
21st April 2006, 09:12 PM
His argument is so laughable. If homosexuality 'didn't work' as he described it, it would just be selected out of the gene pool.

Dr Adequate
21st April 2006, 11:27 PM
I've always thought the Categorical Imperative was bloody stupid.

"You're a coalminer? How selfish of you. What would happen if everyone was a coalminer? WE'D ALL STARVE TO DEATH. Is that really what you want?"

Skeptic
21st April 2006, 11:54 PM
His logical argument was that homosexuality isn't legitimate because it "doesn't make the world work," meaning that it doesn't create children.

I can at least understand his thought process, even if it is a little dingy.

Well, that's the same as the argument of that other moron, St. Thomas Aquinas (and the scholastics in general) who argued--although in significantly better Latin than "The Warrior"--that homosexuality is a grave sin because it is a refusal to share in god's bounty, and in his desire that humans populate the world.

Skeptic
21st April 2006, 11:55 PM
I've always thought the Categorical Imperative was bloody stupid.

"You're a coalminer? How selfish of you. What would happen if everyone was a coalminer? WE'D ALL STARVE TO DEATH. Is that really what you want?"

That's not a legitimate use of the categorical imperative.

thaiboxerken
21st April 2006, 11:59 PM
His argument is so laughable. If homosexuality 'didn't work' as he described it, it would just be selected out of the gene pool.

You forget, alot of these people don't believe in "evilution".

Skeptic
22nd April 2006, 12:00 AM
His argument is so laughable. If homosexuality 'didn't work' as he described it, it would just be selected out of the gene pool.

Not necessarily. Many negative, or neutral, properties do remain in the gene pool for various reasons--for example, if they are expressed only rarely (e.g., rare recessive genes), or "tied" genetically to positive traits (the sickle-cell anemia gene provides resistance to malaria when only one recessive copy of it exists).

It is quite possible that homosexuality--if it is in fact genetic--would survive despite being rather obviously negative from natural selection's point of view. Then again, it might be that homosexuality is simply not genetic.

Not every human attribute, even if it seems innate, necessarily has its cause in the genes. It's not as if homosexuality must be either a conscious choice or a genetic predisposition. It might be due to a variety of other factors--say, conditions during early childhood.

shecky
22nd April 2006, 12:05 AM
Well, that's the same as the argument of that other moron, St. Thomas Aquinas (and the scholastics in general) who argued--although in significantly better Latin than "The Warrior"--that homosexuality is a grave sin because it is a refusal to share in god's bounty, and in his desire that humans populate the world.

Does Aquinas still hold that view?

Kopji
22nd April 2006, 12:45 AM
Headline:

WWF WRESTER ATTEMPTS THOUGHT!

Gruesome outcome - Film at 11

a_unique_person
22nd April 2006, 01:27 AM
Given that nature abhors waste, why are there homosexuals? My own guess is that it's because they contribute to society in other ways than children. We are creatures of the cave man days, where it's one thing to pop them out, it's another to have a society that can function well and raise them when early death was the norm and there was no welfare or entertainment industry. If you had people in a society who could concentrate on tasks than their own children, and help out when parents die early, then some homosexuality makes good sense. Just my guess.

Skeptic
22nd April 2006, 02:19 AM
That might be so, AUP, the problem is that such explanations are circular: Property X remained in the population; therefore, X must have been beneficial at some point. But how do we know X must have been beneficial at some point? Well, it remained in the population.

This is not true for two reasons. First, contrary to popular belief, neutral and even harmful properties often remain in the population for a variety of reasons.

Second, inventing a seemingly-plausible story where property X is beneficial is not any explanation of why X remained in the population--as opposed to actual evidence that X benefited the population in some way, as seen in (say) fossil records or whatever.

At most the story can be used as guide as to where to look for evidence; the problem is that many other similar stories could be invented all pointing for looking for evidence in totally different places.

It's better to admit, "we don't know why homosexuality survived in the population", which is the case, than to say "it must have been beneficial, here is a story as to why".

sphenisc
22nd April 2006, 05:06 AM
It's better to admit, "we don't know why homosexuality survived in the population", which is the case, than to say "it must have been beneficial, here is a story as to why".

Dawkins argues it must have been beneficial, here is a story as to why... :)

http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/FAQs.shtml

[starts: "If homosexuality is genetically influenced "]

Mephisto
22nd April 2006, 06:34 AM
That constitutes argument in politics.

I think there have been several similar arguments regarding why Blacks, Asians, or women shouldn't be allowed to vote.

I didn't watch the video because I'm too impatient for my slow connection to stream it (and because I've got better things to do than watch the rant of a homo-phobe).

I've been a martial artist for well over 30 years, and I've been a martial arts instructor for nearly 15 and I can attest to the fact that many of these "warrior" types really have their pre-conceptions solidified in their mind. Martial arts training can be a particularly adversarial way to view the world, and idiotic ideas and prejudices can easily slip in when the mind and spirit aren't tempered along with the body.

In other words, why would you expect MORE out of someone with all their brains down in their neck?

senorpogo
22nd April 2006, 06:46 AM
Check out his website. If you've ever wanted to discover the spirit essence of what the concept Warrior has come to mean, then this is the place for you!

http://www.ultimatewarrior.com/choice.htm

Warrior is a lunatic. WWE recently released a DVD chronicling his career. They pretty much made fun of him throughout the whole thing. When pro wrestlers are calling you silly, things probably aren't going so well.

ImaginalDisc
22nd April 2006, 06:52 AM
Not necessarily. Many negative, or neutral, properties do remain in the gene pool for various reasons--for example, if they are expressed only rarely (e.g., rare recessive genes), or "tied" genetically to positive traits (the sickle-cell anemia gene provides resistance to malaria when only one recessive copy of it exists).

It is quite possible that homosexuality--if it is in fact genetic--would survive despite being rather obviously negative from natural selection's point of view. Then again, it might be that homosexuality is simply not genetic.

Not every human attribute, even if it seems innate, necessarily has its cause in the genes. It's not as if homosexuality must be either a conscious choice or a genetic predisposition. It might be due to a variety of other factors--say, conditions during early childhood.

There's no reason why homosexuality can't be adaptive. The research of the past few decades into alturism has taught us that an organism only has to add to the fitness of its siblings and relatives to successfully pass on its genes. Gay Uncle Al, rather than spending his energies attending to his own children, would have more time to spend attending to his the children of his siblings. Human children require a lot of care, and if a closely related caregiver attends to their needs, it increases, indirectly, the fitness of the caretaker. Many cultures expect older males in the mother's family to be the "Father figure", rather than the real father, whose identity is often in doubt. Since we're such highly social animals, there's no reason why any genetic components for homosexuality shouldn't be passed down.

Mephisto
22nd April 2006, 07:00 AM
Gay Uncle Al, rather than spending his energies attending to his own children, would have more time to spend attending to his the children of his siblings.

. . . and the next obvious concern from the homo-phobes is - Gay Uncle Al wants to teach his nephews to be gay! That's how they recruit em, you know. That's why they want to teach in schools, and why they want to be in the military - so they can recruit more gays! Pretty soon everyone will be gay and the world will stop having babies! ;)

gnome
22nd April 2006, 07:01 AM
That's not a legitimate use of the categorical imperative.

But it IS a legitimate use of the argument WARRIOR was using.

ImaginalDisc
22nd April 2006, 07:02 AM
. . . and the next obvious concern from the homo-phobes is - Gay Uncle Al wants to teach his nephews to be gay! That's how they recruit em, you know. That's why they want to teach in schools, and why they want to be in the military - so they can recruit more gays! Pretty soon everyone will be gay and the world will stop having babies! ;)

Eh, who cares? The few kids who would be born would be well taken care of. :p

gnome
22nd April 2006, 07:03 AM
It is quite possible that homosexuality--if it is in fact genetic--would survive despite being rather obviously negative from natural selection's point of view. Then again, it might be that homosexuality is simply not genetic.

I'm trying to see how homosexuality would be genetic--a trait that leads one to be far less likely to reproduce, if it were primarily genetic, would hardly survive long.

delphi_ote
22nd April 2006, 07:08 AM
I'm trying to see how homosexuality would be genetic--a trait that leads one to be far less likely to reproduce, if it were primarily genetic, would hardly survive long.
Pay attention.
Dawkins argues it must have been beneficial, here is a story as to why... :)

http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/FAQs.shtml

[starts: "If homosexuality is genetically influenced "]

Mephisto
22nd April 2006, 07:25 AM
Check out his website. If you've ever wanted to discover the spirit essence of what the concept Warrior has come to mean, then this is the place for you!

http://www.ultimatewarrior.com/choice.htm

Warrior is a lunatic. WWE recently released a DVD chronicling his career. They pretty much made fun of him throughout the whole thing. When pro wrestlers are calling you silly, things probably aren't going so well.

I checked out his website, but I'll have to admit I didn't make it much further than:

"First, the dispelling of a couple rumors. There was only one Ultimate Warrior. That is, in Sports Entertainment there was only one person who 'did' Ultimate Warrior -- that was me."

It's my personal belief that there are martial artists, and then there are martial artists. Some practice to compete in sporting events (like Kickboxing, Tae Kwon Do, Judo or UFC) and some practice to unify mind, body and spirit. I have known 80 year old men who could probably kill this Warrior bozo in in less than 30 seconds in a "real" fight, but who couldn't last five minutes with him in a ring.

A sport fighter like "Warrior" can never respect gays, or anyone else that he doesn't agree with because his type of "fighting" doesn't require anything beyond pig-headed aggression. A true warrior realizes that life is precious AND precarious and will try to alleviate suffering. "Winning" to someone like "Warrior" is a new trophy, a shiny belt, or the crowd shouting his name; winning to a true warrior is walking away from a fight unhurt and with a new friend.

ImaginalDisc
22nd April 2006, 07:29 AM
Pay attention.
Dang! Why did I even open my mouth? Dawkins has this on lockdown.

senorpogo
22nd April 2006, 07:31 AM
I checked out his website, but I'll have to admit I didn't make it much further than:

"First, the dispelling of a couple rumors. There was only one Ultimate Warrior. That is, in Sports Entertainment there was only one person who 'did' Ultimate Warrior -- that was me."

It's my personal belief that there are martial artists, and then there are martial artists. Some practice to compete in sporting events (like Kickboxing, Tae Kwon Do, Judo or UFC) and some practice to unify mind, body and spirit. I have known 80 year old men who could probably kill this Warrior bozo in in less than 30 seconds in a "real" fight, but who couldn't last five minutes with him in a ring.

A sport fighter like "Warrior" can never respect gays, or anyone else that he doesn't agree with because his type of "fighting" doesn't require anything beyond pig-headed aggression. A true warrior realizes that life is precious AND precarious and will try to alleviate suffering. "Winning" to someone like "Warrior" is a new trophy, a shiny belt, or the crowd shouting his name; winning to a true warrior is walking away from a fight unhurt and with a new friend.

Warrior was never much more than a glorified bodybuilder. As far as I know, he has no real training in any type of martial arts or legitimate wrestling. He fills the stereotype of the pro-wrestler in every way, shape, and form. And then some.

And the whole "real Ultimate Warrior" thing comes from his pro-wrestling days. For some reason, a constant rumour in the business has been that multiple wrestlers have performed under the gimmick of the "Ultimate Warrior".

Mephisto
22nd April 2006, 07:45 AM
Warrior was never much more than a glorified bodybuilder. As far as I know, he has no real training in any type of martial arts or legitimate wrestling. He fills the stereotype of the pro-wrestler in every way, shape, and form. And then some.

And the whole "real Ultimate Warrior" thing comes from his pro-wrestling days. For some reason, a constant rumour in the business has been that multiple wrestlers have performed under the gimmick of the "Ultimate Warrior".

Heheh, It's funny to think that MY version of the Ultimate Warrior is a lady about 4'8" who was completely unassuming, always smiling and whose hand could snake out faster than a cobra's to put such an effective wrist-lock on you that your brain couldn't process the pain quickly enough.

The one thing all these "wrestlers" have in common is that they spend so much time learning how to win, that they never learn how to live.

delphi_ote
22nd April 2006, 07:46 AM
Warrior was never much more than a glorified bodybuilder. As far as I know, he has no real training in any type of martial arts or legitimate wrestling. He fills the stereotype of the pro-wrestler in every way, shape, and form. And then some.

And the whole "real Ultimate Warrior" thing comes from his pro-wrestling days. For some reason, a constant rumour in the business has been that multiple wrestlers have performed under the gimmick of the "Ultimate Warrior".
You guys know way too much about pro-wrestling. You're scaring me.

Beady
22nd April 2006, 07:54 AM
His logical argument was that homosexuality isn't legitimate because it "doesn't make the world work," meaning that it doesn't create children.

Coming into this late, but...

Actually, according to Carl Sagan, this is precisely how homosexuality does "make the world work." Sagan doesn't actually come right out and say it, but it is very strongly infered from passages in his "Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors," where he cites studies in zoos indicating that homosexual acts in monkey populations tends to increase with increases in population density. There also seems to be a certain "maintanence level" of homosexual activity during times of low density. The conclusion appears to be that homosexuality acts as a sort of natural population control, and therefore has survival value for the species.

EGarrett
22nd April 2006, 09:09 AM
Pro wrestling. An insane man. Gay rights. Conservativism and liberalism. I knew this would be a good thread. :)

senorpogo
22nd April 2006, 09:48 AM
Coming into this late, but...

Actually, according to Carl Sagan, this is precisely how homosexuality does "make the world work." Sagan doesn't actually come right out and say it, but it is very strongly infered from passages in his "Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors," where he cites studies in zoos indicating that homosexual acts in monkey populations tends to increase with increases in population density. There also seems to be a certain "maintanence level" of homosexual activity during times of low density. The conclusion appears to be that homosexuality acts as a sort of natural population control, and therefore has survival value for the species.

Carl Sagan and the Ultimate Warrior finally meet on the intellectual battlefield.
Sagan is probably smiling down from heaven.
If there were one.
Which there isn't.
So he's not.

delphi_ote
22nd April 2006, 09:58 AM
Carl Sagan and the Ultimate Warrior finally meet on the intellectual battlefield.
Sagan is probably smiling down from heaven.
If there were one.
Which there isn't.
So he's not.
As this bit of Warrior Wisdom says,
There’s nothing so intimidating and embarrassing as another human being who can kick your ass with their mind.
(The Ultimate Warrior must have been intimidated and embarassed a lot...)

I thought I'd share this one with you, because it hurt my brain:
"Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at it's most tested point."

senorpogo
22nd April 2006, 10:03 AM
And check out his definition of skepticism...

"Skepticism

This belief claims that "true" knowledge is impossible to man. Either because man has limited senses, or because his life is finite, or other mumbo-jumbo. Essentially, the skeptic is an enemy of certainty, and here is his fatal contradiction: he is not skeptical of his skepticism. So it would seem that skepticism is exempt from skepticism? Contradictions don't exist, once again."

Tricky
22nd April 2006, 10:33 AM
Come on, guys. This guy is behaving like he is a buffoon because he is a Professional Wrestler. Have you ever been trapped into seeing professional wrestling? They are all actors. True, they are some of the worst actors ever to stand by the footlights, but that is what they do for a living. Even given the level of his acting skill, I have a hard time accepting that he actually believes the feculent drivel issuing from his mouth. He's reading his lines. It's how he collects his paycheck.

That guy Stephen Colbert (http://www.colbertnation.com/colbertnation/)though, that's what a genuine right-wing loony looks like.

jnelso99
23rd April 2006, 09:11 AM
FYI, James Helwig (The Ultimate Warrior's secret identity) had his name legally changed to "Warrior". Later, he had his first name legally changed, also to "Warrior". This guy's legal name is now "Warrior Warrior".

Anti_Hypeman
23rd April 2006, 09:39 AM
Enjoy the full thing

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1288024085234222154&q=ultimate+warrior&pl=true

You have to hear his introduction "reading became his new workout" HAHAHA

I would pay good money to see him speak.

gnome
23rd April 2006, 09:57 AM
Pay attention.

Pay more attention:

intriguing as several of these theories may be, I have to conclude that it remains a problem.

But that's just a cheap shot. The link was full of some excellent food for thought, thanks for pointing it out (after I had already overlooked it)

Snide
24th April 2006, 10:09 AM
You guys know way too much about pro-wrestling. You're scaring me.Then I'd probably cause you a heart attack. (Hint: I've stepped in the ring more than a time or two...)

delphi_ote
24th April 2006, 04:18 PM
Then I'd probably cause you a heart attack. (Hint: I've stepped in the ring more than a time or two...)
Dude! What was your wrestling name? :D

Beerina
25th April 2006, 05:41 AM
His logical argument was that homosexuality isn't legitimate because it "doesn't make the world work," meaning that it doesn't create children.


True.

...so what?

A free people don't empower a government to regulate sexuality between consenting adults.

The Central Scrutinizer
25th April 2006, 06:25 AM
Dude! What was your wrestling name? :D

Doink The Clown! :D

Upchurch
25th April 2006, 06:59 AM
Come on, guys. This guy is behaving like he is a buffoon because he is a Professional Wrestler. Have you ever been trapped into seeing professional wrestling? They are all actors. True, they are some of the worst actors ever to stand by the footlights, but that is what they do for a living. Even given the level of his acting skill, I have a hard time accepting that he actually believes the feculent drivel issuing from his mouth. He's reading his lines. It's how he collects his paycheck. Not quite professional, but I happen to know two amateurs of the "professional wrestling" genre here in St. Louis. I occasionally play City of Villains with both of them. One of them is one of my conductors in BandTogether (http://www.bandtogetherstl.com). (That's Johnny Courageous (http://www.geocities.com/l2watt/mw6-01.html) in the stars and stripes.)

Its not only acting, but some of it is fairly good acting. Johnny "Not His Real Name" Courageous turns out to be quite the acrobat and does some fairly convincing comic book superhero moves/poses when posturing between wrestling moves. If you go in expecting a show, you won't be disappointed. (Although, to be honest, the white trash audience was almost more entertaining than the wrestlers were, but what are you going to do?)

Oh, and both Johnny and the other guy whose stage name I can't remember are about as gay as they come. I'm willing to believe that most of the people the wrestle are, too.

delphi_ote
25th April 2006, 07:17 AM
Oh, and both Johnny and the other guy whose stage name I can't remember are about as gay as they come. I'm willing to believe that most of the people the wrestle are, too.
As I said before:
When a man who dresses in tights and rolls around groping another man in front of hundreds of people rabdily attacks homosexuality, forgive me if I suspect his motive might have something to do with denial.

Snide
25th April 2006, 07:54 AM
Dude! What was your wrestling name? :DNo one you've ever heard of. I ran cameras while in broadcasting school in 91-92, then stepped in the ring for a while for fun. About my biggest claim to fame was being on the same cards as Baron Von Raschke and Buck Zum Hofe, both past their primes by then (although Buck still was in decent shape). Sadly, the indy I was with, which seemed to have potential, is now about a half-step above "backyard" status, but they are still around at least. The guy running it was a good teacher. PM me if you want to know more!

DaChew
25th April 2006, 10:55 AM
Oh, and both Johnny and the other guy whose stage name I can't remember are about as gay as they come. ...

You couldn't have worded that differently?



Do I understand correctly this guy is being paid to speak at colleges? As in, real, honest to Ed, tax payer money?

Upchurch
25th April 2006, 12:24 PM
You couldn't have worded that differently?
Oh, sure. I could have.

Ducky
25th April 2006, 03:08 PM
Best. Thread. Ever.