Debate the causes
henness...@hotmail.com
quested; "if there was a homosexual off switchm would you choose to use
it?", why dont we instead do something much more constructive, and
debate the possible causes of homosexuality?
SteLancashire79, u150766
Games that I like to play (and have recently become obsessed with )
<a href=http://www.gamestotal.com/>Multiplayer Online Games</a> <a
href=http://www.gamestotal.com/>Strategy Games</a><br><a
href=http://uc.gamestotal.com/>Unification Wars</a> - <a
href=http://uc.gamestotal.com/>Massive Multiplayer Online
Games</a><br><a href=http://gc.gamestotal.com/>Galactic Conquest</a> -
<a href=http://gc.gamestotal.com/>Strategy Games</a><br><a
href=http://www.stephenyong.com/runescape.htm>Runescape</a><br><a
href=http://www.stephenyong.com/kingsofchaos.htm>Kings of chaos</a><br>
Strife767
> Following on to the post where we arwe posed with the hypothetical
> quested; "if there was a homosexual off switchm would you choose to use
> it?", why dont we instead do something much more constructive, and
> debate the possible causes of homosexuality?
That probably wouldn't be too constructive, considering that there is no
way anyone here could make more headway than all of the scientists doing
the hard work to try and answer the same question.
--
____________ _____________ __________________
__ ___/_ /__________(_)__ __/____/__ /_ ___/__ /
_____ \_ __/_ ___/_ /__ /_ _ _ \_ /_ __ \__ /
____/ // /_ _ / _ / _ __/ / __/ / / /_/ /_ /
/____/ \__/ /_/ /_/ /_/ \___//_/ \____/ /_/
Skeptic, atheist...and somehow an optimist. Go figure.
I want to change the world.
Qazfez
henness...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Following on to the post where we arwe posed with the hypothetical
> quested; "if there was a homosexual off switchm would you choose to use
> it?", why dont we instead do something much more constructive, and
> debate the possible causes of homosexuality?
>
>
>
>
> SteLancashire79, u150766
>
> Games that I like to play (and have recently become obsessed with ?)
>
> <a href=http://www.gamestotal.com/>Multiplayer Online Games</a> <a
> href=http://www.gamestotal.com/>Strategy Games</a><br><a
> href=http://uc.gamestotal.com/>Unification Wars</a> - <a
> href=http://uc.gamestotal.com/>Massive Multiplayer Online
> Games</a><br><a href=http://gc.gamestotal.com/>Galactic Conquest</a> -
> <a href=http://gc.gamestotal.com/>Strategy Games</a><br><a
> href=http://www.stephenyong.com/runescape.htm>Runescape</a><br><a
> href=http://www.stephenyong.com/kingsofchaos.htm>Kings of chaos</a><br>
There probably are no causes of homosexuality. In order to prove that
something was a cause of homosexuality (and it doesn't matter if the
thing in question was a gene, a combination of genes, a certain level of
prenatal exposure to hormones, a certain way of being raised by your
parents) you'd have to prove that it was present only in homosexuals.
(If it were present in even one heterosexual, you couldn't say that it
caused homosexuality, as the heterosexual in question obviously wouldn't
be heterosexual in that case). This has never been done. The longer
scientists go on not succedding in finding anything that does cause
homosexuality, the more likely it will seem that no such thing exists.
Qazfez
wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 19:39:43 -0400, <henness...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Following on to the post where we arwe posed with the hypothetical
> > quested; "if there was a homosexual off switchm would you choose to use
> > it?", why dont we instead do something much more constructive, and
> > debate the possible causes of homosexuality?
>
> That probably wouldn't be too constructive, considering that there is no
> way anyone here could make more headway than all of the scientists doing
> the hard work to try and answer the same question.
They're making no real headway whatsoever, because the questions they
are asking are largely misconceived. The scientific search for the
origins of sexual orientation is bound to end in failure.
Jeff North
Qazfez <qaz...@o.com>
<qazfez-0E06B5....@lust.ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>| In article <1161041983.3...@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
>| henness...@hotmail.com wrote:
>|
>| > Following on to the post where we arwe posed with the hypothetical
>| > quested; "if there was a homosexual off switchm would you choose to use
>| > it?", why dont we instead do something much more constructive, and
>| > debate the possible causes of homosexuality?
[snip sig]
>| There probably are no causes of homosexuality. In order to prove that
>| something was a cause of homosexuality (and it doesn't matter if the
>| thing in question was a gene, a combination of genes, a certain level of
>| prenatal exposure to hormones, a certain way of being raised by your
>| parents) you'd have to prove that it was present only in homosexuals.
>|
>| (If it were present in even one heterosexual, you couldn't say that it
>| caused homosexuality, as the heterosexual in question obviously wouldn't
>| be heterosexual in that case). This has never been done. The longer
>| scientists go on not succedding in finding anything that does cause
>| homosexuality, the more likely it will seem that no such thing exists.
To add further to this 'confusion' the scientists would need to then
discover the 'bisexual gene'.
---------------------------------------------------------------
jnor...@yourpantsyahoo.com.au : Remove your pants to reply
---------------------------------------------------------------
Strife767
> In article <op.thjppcy45i5s70@chris>, Strife767 <stri...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 19:39:43 -0400, <henness...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Following on to the post where we arwe posed with the hypothetical
>> > quested; "if there was a homosexual off switchm would you choose to
>> use
>> > it?", why dont we instead do something much more constructive, and
>> > debate the possible causes of homosexuality?
>>
>> That probably wouldn't be too constructive, considering that there is no
>> way anyone here could make more headway than all of the scientists doing
>> the hard work to try and answer the same question.
>
> They're making no real headway whatsoever,
...you haven't really been paying attention, have you?
> because the questions they
> are asking are largely misconceived. The scientific search for the
> origins of sexual orientation is bound to end in failure.
lol, oh, you're one of those people, huh?
Strife767
> In article <1161041983.3...@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
> henness...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> Following on to the post where we arwe posed with the hypothetical
>> quested; "if there was a homosexual off switchm would you choose to use
>> it?", why dont we instead do something much more constructive, and
>> debate the possible causes of homosexuality?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> SteLancashire79, u150766
>>
>> Games that I like to play (and have recently become obsessed with ?)
>>
>> <a href=http://www.gamestotal.com/>Multiplayer Online Games</a> <a
>> href=http://www.gamestotal.com/>Strategy Games</a><br><a
>> href=http://uc.gamestotal.com/>Unification Wars</a> - <a
>> href=http://uc.gamestotal.com/>Massive Multiplayer Online
>> Games</a><br><a href=http://gc.gamestotal.com/>Galactic Conquest</a> -
>> <a href=http://gc.gamestotal.com/>Strategy Games</a><br><a
>> href=http://www.stephenyong.com/runescape.htm>Runescape</a><br><a
>> href=http://www.stephenyong.com/kingsofchaos.htm>Kings of chaos</a><br>
>
> There probably are no causes of homosexuality. In order to prove that
> something was a cause of homosexuality (and it doesn't matter if the
> thing in question was a gene, a combination of genes, a certain level of
> prenatal exposure to hormones, a certain way of being raised by your
> parents) you'd have to prove that it was present only in homosexuals.
Not true. Different things can have different effects on different people.
> (If it were present in even one heterosexual, you couldn't say that it
> caused homosexuality, as the heterosexual in question obviously wouldn't
> be heterosexual in that case). This has never been done. The longer
> scientists go on not succedding in finding anything that does cause
> homosexuality, the more likely it will seem that no such thing exists.
You are obviously unaware of the steps closer that have been taken in
recent years.
Qazfez
wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 02:08:45 -0400, Qazfez <qaz...@o.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <1161041983.3...@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
> > henness...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> >> Following on to the post where we arwe posed with the hypothetical
> >> quested; "if there was a homosexual off switchm would you choose to use
> >> it?", why dont we instead do something much more constructive, and
> >> debate the possible causes of homosexuality?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> SteLancashire79, u150766
> >>
> >> Games that I like to play (and have recently become obsessed with ?)
> >>
> >> <a href=http://www.gamestotal.com/>Multiplayer Online Games</a> <a
> >> href=http://www.gamestotal.com/>Strategy Games</a><br><a
> >> href=http://uc.gamestotal.com/>Unification Wars</a> - <a
> >> href=http://uc.gamestotal.com/>Massive Multiplayer Online
> >> Games</a><br><a href=http://gc.gamestotal.com/>Galactic Conquest</a> -
> >> <a href=http://gc.gamestotal.com/>Strategy Games</a><br><a
> >> href=http://www.stephenyong.com/runescape.htm>Runescape</a><br><a
> >> href=http://www.stephenyong.com/kingsofchaos.htm>Kings of chaos</a><br>
> >
> > There probably are no causes of homosexuality. In order to prove that
> > something was a cause of homosexuality (and it doesn't matter if the
> > thing in question was a gene, a combination of genes, a certain level of
> > prenatal exposure to hormones, a certain way of being raised by your
> > parents) you'd have to prove that it was present only in homosexuals.
>
> Not true. Different things can have different effects on different people.
So what? That has nothing to do with what I said. The issue is that the
same things can have different effects on different people, which makes
it impossible to determine any cause of homosexuality or heterosexuality.
> > (If it were present in even one heterosexual, you couldn't say that it
> > caused homosexuality, as the heterosexual in question obviously wouldn't
> > be heterosexual in that case). This has never been done. The longer
> > scientists go on not succedding in finding anything that does cause
> > homosexuality, the more likely it will seem that no such thing exists.
>
> You are obviously unaware of the steps closer that have been taken in
> recent years.
More assertion. You are obviously unaware of the basic problems involved
in determining any "cause" of sexual orientation. These problems are
obvious and can be explained quite simply. The researchers are never
going to solve them properly.
Qazfez
wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 02:33:17 -0400, Qazfez <qaz...@o.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <op.thjppcy45i5s70@chris>, Strife767 <stri...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 19:39:43 -0400, <henness...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Following on to the post where we arwe posed with the hypothetical
> >> > quested; "if there was a homosexual off switchm would you choose to
> >> use
> >> > it?", why dont we instead do something much more constructive, and
> >> > debate the possible causes of homosexuality?
> >>
> >> That probably wouldn't be too constructive, considering that there is no
> >> way anyone here could make more headway than all of the scientists doing
> >> the hard work to try and answer the same question.
> >
> > They're making no real headway whatsoever,
>
> ...you haven't really been paying attention, have you?
I have been paying a fair bit of attention. Sexual orientation research
is a dying area of science, a failing area of science, an area of
science rational scientists should stay away from for self-protection.
> > because the questions they
> > are asking are largely misconceived. The scientific search for the
> > origins of sexual orientation is bound to end in failure.
>
> lol, oh, you're one of those people, huh?
What are you talking about?
Strife767
> In article <op.thkoz2u45i5s70@chris>, Strife767 <stri...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 02:33:17 -0400, Qazfez <qaz...@o.com> wrote:
>>
>> > In article <op.thjppcy45i5s70@chris>, Strife767 <stri...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 19:39:43 -0400, <henness...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Following on to the post where we arwe posed with the hypothetical
>> >> > quested; "if there was a homosexual off switchm would you choose to
>> >> use
>> >> > it?", why dont we instead do something much more constructive, and
>> >> > debate the possible causes of homosexuality?
>> >>
>> >> That probably wouldn't be too constructive, considering that there
>> is no
>> >> way anyone here could make more headway than all of the scientists
>> doing
>> >> the hard work to try and answer the same question.
>> >
>> > They're making no real headway whatsoever,
>>
>> ...you haven't really been paying attention, have you?
>
> I have been paying a fair bit of attention. Sexual orientation research
> is a dying area of science, a failing area of science,
!!!
No, you have _not_ been paying attention to the significant breakthroughs
that have happened in just the last few years, or you would not say
something so ludicrous!
> an area of
> science rational scientists should stay away from for self-protection.
Unlike you and your ilk, scientists have no fear of looking for the
answers to the 'hard questions.' And it's paid off continuously.
>> > because the questions they
>> > are asking are largely misconceived. The scientific search for the
>> > origins of sexual orientation is bound to end in failure.
>>
>> lol, oh, you're one of those people, huh?
>
> What are you talking about?
Don't worry about it--you wouldn't understand if I tried to explain it to
you.
Strife767
> In article <op.thkqfbsk5i5s70@chris>, Strife767 <stri...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 02:08:45 -0400, Qazfez <qaz...@o.com> wrote:
>>
>> > In article <1161041983.3...@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
>> > henness...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> > There probably are no causes of homosexuality. In order to prove that
>> > something was a cause of homosexuality (and it doesn't matter if the
>> > thing in question was a gene, a combination of genes, a certain level
>> of
>> > prenatal exposure to hormones, a certain way of being raised by your
>> > parents) you'd have to prove that it was present only in homosexuals.
>>
>> Not true. Different things can have different effects on different
>> people.
>
> So what?
So, if one such cause happens to not have a significant effect on a given
person, that is not enough to throw it out, as you suggested.
> That has nothing to do with what I said.
Oh, but it does.
[snip]
>> You are obviously unaware of the steps closer that have been taken in
>> recent years.
>
> More assertion.
What was it, like less than a year ago that scientists gained the ability
to change the sexual orientation of fruit flies by manipulating their
genes? Try to keep up.
> You are obviously unaware of the basic problems involved
> in determining any "cause" of sexual orientation. These problems are
> obvious and can be explained quite simply. The researchers are never
> going to solve them properly.
So says someone woefully unaware of the progress that has been made even
recently, not to mention the vast difference between today and a few
decades ago.
Qazfez
wrote:
Fire away, man. Say whatever the hell you like. I could say the same
damn thing back to you. You're proving nothing this way, except that you
can't understand the somewhat obvious point I made about why causes for
homosexuality will prove impossible to isolate and likely don't exist.
> > an area of
> > science rational scientists should stay away from for self-protection.
>
> Unlike you and your ilk, scientists have no fear of looking for the
> answers to the 'hard questions.' And it's paid off continuously.
Oh? You mean that scientists found the cause or causes of homosexuality?
How lovely. Well, I guess now that they've done that, all research on
sexual orientation can stop, right? So presumably no more books are ever
going to be written on this subject, and the researchers who have been
researching it can stop doing that and study something else, perhaps?
> >> > because the questions they
> >> > are asking are largely misconceived. The scientific search for the
> >> > origins of sexual orientation is bound to end in failure.
> >>
> >> lol, oh, you're one of those people, huh?
> >
> > What are you talking about?
>
> Don't worry about it--you wouldn't understand if I tried to explain it to
> you.
Smartass.
Strife767
*shakes head* I wish people weren't so willfully ignorant. Here's just one
example of a brand-new, and pretty big, step in that direction that is
barely a year old:
"...experts said they were both awed and shocked by the findings. "The
results are so clean and compelling, the whole field of the genetic roots
of behavior is moved forward tremendously by this work," said Dr. Michael
Weiss, chairman of the department of biochemistry at Case Western Reserve
University. "Hopefully this will take the discussion about sexual
preferences out of the realm of morality and put it in the realm of
science."
He added: "I never chose to be heterosexual; it just happened. But humans
are complicated. With the flies we can see in a simple and elegant way how
a gene can influence and determine behavior."
The finding supports scientific evidence accumulating over the past decade
that sexual orientation may be innately programmed into the brains of men
and women. Equally intriguing, the researchers say, is the possibility
that a number of behaviors - hitting back when feeling threatened, fleeing
when scared or laughing when amused - may also be programmed into human
brains, a product of genetic heritage.
"This is a first - a superb demonstration that a single gene can serve as
a switch for complex behaviors," said Dr. Gero Miesenboeck, a professor of
cell biology at Yale."
--http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/03/science/03cell.html?ex=1275451200&en=ab3fa239e94d393c&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
>> > an area of
>> > science rational scientists should stay away from for self-protection.
>>
>> Unlike you and your ilk, scientists have no fear of looking for the
>> answers to the 'hard questions.' And it's paid off continuously.
>
> Oh? You mean that scientists found the cause or causes of homosexuality?
They're getting ever closer. It won't be long now.
> How lovely. Well, I guess now that they've done that, all research on
> sexual orientation can stop, right? So presumably no more books are ever
> going to be written on this subject, and the researchers who have been
> researching it can stop doing that and study something else, perhaps?
>
>> >> > because the questions they
>> >> > are asking are largely misconceived. The scientific search for the
>> >> > origins of sexual orientation is bound to end in failure.
>> >>
>> >> lol, oh, you're one of those people, huh?
>> >
>> > What are you talking about?
>>
>> Don't worry about it--you wouldn't understand if I tried to explain it
>> to
>> you.
>
> Smartass.
Careful--wouldn't want to prove my point inadvertently.
Qazfez
wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 18:05:22 -0400, Qazfez <qaz...@o.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <op.thkqfbsk5i5s70@chris>, Strife767 <stri...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 02:08:45 -0400, Qazfez <qaz...@o.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > In article <1161041983.3...@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
> >> > henness...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >> > There probably are no causes of homosexuality. In order to prove that
> >> > something was a cause of homosexuality (and it doesn't matter if the
> >> > thing in question was a gene, a combination of genes, a certain level
> >> of
> >> > prenatal exposure to hormones, a certain way of being raised by your
> >> > parents) you'd have to prove that it was present only in homosexuals.
> >>
> >> Not true. Different things can have different effects on different
> >> people.
> >
> > So what?
>
> So, if one such cause happens to not have a significant effect on a given
> person, that is not enough to throw it out, as you suggested.
What do you mean 'happens to not have a significant effect'? If
something is a cause of something else, then it causes it, or should
cause it, in all cases. Just like that. To say that a cause might
'happen not to have a significant effect' in a particular case implies
that whatever the supposed cause is, it cannot cause something
automatically and by itself but that something else must also occur for
it to have its effect - ie, that it is not a real cause at all.
> > That has nothing to do with what I said.
>
> Oh, but it does.
>
> [snip]
>
> >> You are obviously unaware of the steps closer that have been taken in
> >> recent years.
> >
> > More assertion.
>
> What was it, like less than a year ago that scientists gained the ability
> to change the sexual orientation of fruit flies by manipulating their
> genes? Try to keep up.
Since when are humans fruit flies?
> > You are obviously unaware of the basic problems involved
> > in determining any "cause" of sexual orientation. These problems are
> > obvious and can be explained quite simply. The researchers are never
> > going to solve them properly.
>
> So says someone woefully unaware of the progress that has been made even
> recently, not to mention the vast difference between today and a few
> decades ago.
More assertion.
Qazfez
wrote:
[snip]
> > Fire away, man. Say whatever the hell you like. I could say the same
> > damn thing back to you. You're proving nothing this way, except that you
> > can't understand the somewhat obvious point I made about why causes for
> > homosexuality will prove impossible to isolate and likely don't exist.
>
> *shakes head* I wish people weren't so willfully ignorant. Here's just one
> example of a brand-new, and pretty big, step in that direction that is
> barely a year old:
>
> "...experts said they were both awed and shocked by the findings. "The
> results are so clean and compelling, the whole field of the genetic roots
> of behavior is moved forward tremendously by this work," said Dr. Michael
> Weiss, chairman of the department of biochemistry at Case Western Reserve
> University. "Hopefully this will take the discussion about sexual
> preferences out of the realm of morality and put it in the realm of
> science."
>
> He added: "I never chose to be heterosexual; it just happened. But humans
> are complicated. With the flies we can see in a simple and elegant way how
> a gene can influence and determine behavior."
>
> The finding supports scientific evidence accumulating over the past decade
> that sexual orientation may be innately programmed into the brains of men
> and women. Equally intriguing, the researchers say, is the possibility
> that a number of behaviors - hitting back when feeling threatened, fleeing
> when scared or laughing when amused - may also be programmed into human
> brains, a product of genetic heritage.
It doesn't do anything of the kind, because it is a study on flies, not
a study on humans. Telling that it should be in insects that they find
something like this, and not in mammals, or primates, let alone humans.
The fact that human sexual orientation can shift independently of any
genetic manipulation could be taken to show that there is no gene or
cluster of genes that determines it. This is a much better argument than
the one you are using, because uses the experience of our own species.
The only alternative to this interpretation - I've only ever found one
person foolish enough to suggest it - would be that if a person's sexual
orientation shifts, it was biologically preprogrammed to do that. This
is possible only in the sense that anything is possible. One can't prove
absolutely that it's not the case, but there is no reason to believe
that it is the case. The most plausible interpretation of shifting
sexual orientation in humans is that sexual orientation is not inborn.
> "This is a first - a superb demonstration that a single gene can serve as
> a switch for complex behaviors," said Dr. Gero Miesenboeck, a professor of
> cell biology at Yale."
> --http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/03/science/03cell.html?ex=1275451200&en=ab3fa
> 239e94d393c&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
>
> >> > an area of
> >> > science rational scientists should stay away from for self-protection.
> >>
> >> Unlike you and your ilk, scientists have no fear of looking for the
> >> answers to the 'hard questions.' And it's paid off continuously.
> >
> > Oh? You mean that scientists found the cause or causes of homosexuality?
>
> They're getting ever closer. It won't be long now.
You're deluding yourself, at the very least because homosexuality would
have to have multiple causes, if it had any causes at all, which I don't
accept. Science hasn't found even one cause of homosexuality in humans.
[snip]
ScottyFLL
Qazfez wrote:
>
> There probably are no causes of homosexuality.
So, homosexuality just exists. There is no cause.
I don't have a problem with that. Let's assume it is true.
WHAT IS THE ISSUE, THEN?
Qazfez
"ScottyFLL" <1sc...@lycos.com> wrote:
The issue is that certain scientists and journalists have proclaimed
that it is indisputably true or overwhelmingly likely to be true that
homosexuality is biologically determined. This is a corruption of
science and poses a political problem.
ScottyFLL
Qazfez wrote:
>
> The issue is that certain scientists and journalists have proclaimed
> that it is indisputably true or overwhelmingly likely to be true that
> homosexuality is biologically determined. This is a corruption of
> science and poses a political problem.
Aren't they doing that in order to dispel the notion that it is
"chosen" (in other words, to prove that choice is not the cause)?
Andrealphus
qaz...@o.com, typed this:
Which counters the agressive arguments from the religious nut cases that it
is indisputably true (not even as wishy washy as overwhelmingly likely to be
true) that homosexuality must be chosen. This isn't a corruption of
religion though, that's how they've operated for thousands of years, only to
be proven wrong in such matters time and again, but it still doesn't slow
them down.
--
Question with boldness even the existence of god; because if there be
one, he must more approve the homage of reason than that of blindfolded
fear. – Thomas Jefferson
Qazfez
"ScottyFLL" <1sc...@lycos.com> wrote:
That's not exactly it. They take the idea that homosexuality is not a
choice for granted, which they can do only because they think that it's
obvious what a 'choice' is. Actually it's far from obvious.
Qazfez
"Andrealphus" <NOREAL...@THISADDRESS.FOAD> wrote:
> In News qazfez-92B9CE....@lust.ihug.co.nz,, Qazfez at
> qaz...@o.com, typed this:
>
> > In article <1161137424.0...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> > "ScottyFLL" <1sc...@lycos.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Qazfez wrote:
> >>>
> >>> There probably are no causes of homosexuality.
> >>
> >> So, homosexuality just exists. There is no cause.
> >>
> >> I don't have a problem with that. Let's assume it is true.
> >>
> >> WHAT IS THE ISSUE, THEN?
> >
> > The issue is that certain scientists and journalists have proclaimed
> > that it is indisputably true or overwhelmingly likely to be true that
> > homosexuality is biologically determined. This is a corruption of
> > science and poses a political problem.
>
> Which counters the agressive arguments from the religious nut cases that it
> is indisputably true (not even as wishy washy as overwhelmingly likely to be
> true) that homosexuality must be chosen. This isn't a corruption of
> religion though, that's how they've operated for thousands of years, only to
> be proven wrong in such matters time and again, but it still doesn't slow
> them down.
Actually they haven't been proven wrong. It's not obvious that
homosexuality is not a choice because it's not obvious what a choice is.
Dionisio
>The issue is that certain scientists and journalists have proclaimed
>that it is indisputably true or overwhelmingly likely to be true that
>homosexuality is biologically determined. This is a corruption of
>science and poses a political problem.
>
>
So take it out of the hands of the scientists and journalists and give
it to the politicians already!
(Just be sure to have the checkbook handy.)
Oh, wait. The politicians seem to be rather distracted with numerous and
various scandals at the moment. Perhaps we shouldn't overload their
plates... You do know that porking has it's proper place and time, yes?
--
"If Christians want us to believe in a Redeemer, let them act redeemed."
--Voltaire
Qazfez
Dionisio <moc-rr-t...@5ellimd.com> wrote:
> Qazfez wrote:
>
> >The issue is that certain scientists and journalists have proclaimed
> >that it is indisputably true or overwhelmingly likely to be true that
> >homosexuality is biologically determined. This is a corruption of
> >science and poses a political problem.
> >
> >
>
> So take it out of the hands of the scientists and journalists and give
> it to the politicians already!
>
> (Just be sure to have the checkbook handy.)
>
> Oh, wait. The politicians seem to be rather distracted with numerous and
> various scandals at the moment. Perhaps we shouldn't overload their
> plates... You do know that porking has it's proper place and time, yes?
All that I am suggesting is that scientists be a little more honest, and
much more modest, in what they are willing to claim.
Andrealphus
qaz...@o.com, typed this:
> In article <%cgZg.15405$UG4....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> "Andrealphus" <NOREAL...@THISADDRESS.FOAD> wrote:
>
>> In News qazfez-92B9CE....@lust.ihug.co.nz,, Qazfez at
>> qaz...@o.com, typed this:
>>
>>> In article <1161137424.0...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
>>> "ScottyFLL" <1sc...@lycos.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Qazfez wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> There probably are no causes of homosexuality.
>>>>
>>>> So, homosexuality just exists. There is no cause.
>>>>
>>>> I don't have a problem with that. Let's assume it is true.
>>>>
>>>> WHAT IS THE ISSUE, THEN?
>>>
>>> The issue is that certain scientists and journalists have proclaimed
>>> that it is indisputably true or overwhelmingly likely to be true
>>> that homosexuality is biologically determined. This is a corruption
>>> of science and poses a political problem.
>>
>> Which counters the agressive arguments from the religious nut cases
>> that it is indisputably true (not even as wishy washy as
>> overwhelmingly likely to be true) that homosexuality must be chosen.
>> This isn't a corruption of religion though, that's how they've
>> operated for thousands of years, only to be proven wrong in such
>> matters time and again, but it still doesn't slow them down.
>
> Actually they haven't been proven wrong.
Obviously, they have.
Qazfez
"Andrealphus" <NOREAL...@THISADDRESS.FOAD> wrote:
Obviously you can't do anything to support that claim.
Andrealphus
qaz...@o.com, typed this:
Obviously, history has supported it quite well. You're just another in a
long line of religionists that claims that science can't solve something.
From before Galileo to the present day, each and every time a religionist
has made the claim that science can't solve a problem, science eventually
solves it. This is no different.
"To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to
claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin."
Cardinal Bellarmine,
[1615, during the trial of Galileo]
Qazfez
"Andrealphus" <NOREAL...@THISADDRESS.FOAD> wrote:
Why don't you try addressing my argument as to why homosexuality is
unlikely to be biologically determined?
Andrealphus
qaz...@o.com, typed this:
I have. Just because you don't like the answer is no consequence.
Science will eventually solve the sexual orientation question, one way or
the other. In either event, environment or genetic, or a combination of
the two, it is irrelevant to the political issues regardless.
Dionisio
>Dionisio <moc-rr-t...@5ellimd.com> wrote:
>
>
>>So take it out of the hands of the scientists and journalists and give
>>it to the politicians already!
>>
>>(Just be sure to have the checkbook handy.)
>>
>>
>All that I am suggesting is that scientists be a little more honest, and
>much more modest, in what they are willing to claim.
>
>
Now how does one get more honest than: "This is what I was curious
about, so I did such and such, recorded the results, speculated on what
they mean, and then published everything for others to critique." About
the only thing they leave out is the name of the manufacturer of the
number 2 pencils they used. (And sometimes they even include that.)
The only way they could be more open is on an autopsy table.
(Unless you're talking about pseudo-scientific shysters.)
Qazfez
"Andrealphus" <NOREAL...@THISADDRESS.FOAD> wrote:
When? Where? I think I missed your response to my argument, or were you
not sure what it was?
Qazfez
Dionisio <moc-rr-t...@5ellimd.com> wrote:
> Qazfez wrote:
>
> >Dionisio <moc-rr-t...@5ellimd.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>So take it out of the hands of the scientists and journalists and give
> >>it to the politicians already!
> >>
> >>(Just be sure to have the checkbook handy.)
> >>
> >>
> >All that I am suggesting is that scientists be a little more honest, and
> >much more modest, in what they are willing to claim.
> >
> >
>
> Now how does one get more honest than: "This is what I was curious
> about, so I did such and such, recorded the results, speculated on what
> they mean, and then published everything for others to critique."
So who has used those exact words?
Andrealphus
qaz...@o.com, typed this:
Read for comprehension and you will find it.
Strife767
lol, so do you think that all of the study _not_ done on humans (mostly
because of ethical concerns), but other animals instead, have contributed
_nothing_ (you said "doesn't do anything," remember) to medicine or other
branches of science having to do with humans specifically?
Get a grip.
> Telling that it should be in insects that they find
> something like this, and not in mammals, or primates, let alone humans.
>
> The fact that human sexual orientation can shift independently of any
> genetic manipulation could be taken to show that there is no gene or
> cluster of genes that determines it.
No one is claiming that there is a 'gene switch' for humans, but there is
reason to think that there is at least a genetic component which would
cause at least a tendency.
> This is a much better argument than
> the one you are using, because uses the experience of our own species.
You are arguing against a straw man.
> The only alternative to this interpretation - I've only ever found one
> person foolish enough to suggest it - would be that if a person's sexual
> orientation shifts, it was biologically preprogrammed to do that. This
> is possible only in the sense that anything is possible. One can't prove
> absolutely that it's not the case, but there is no reason to believe
> that it is the case. The most plausible interpretation of shifting
> sexual orientation in humans is that sexual orientation is not inborn.
The only alternative? Is it too complex for your mind that it might just
be a _combination_ of factors? You're just in the process of building
another straw man here.
>> "This is a first - a superb demonstration that a single gene can serve
>> as
>> a switch for complex behaviors," said Dr. Gero Miesenboeck, a professor
>> of
>> cell biology at Yale."
>> --http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/03/science/03cell.html?ex=1275451200&en=ab3fa
>> 239e94d393c&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
>>
>> >> > an area of
>> >> > science rational scientists should stay away from for
>> self-protection.
>> >>
>> >> Unlike you and your ilk, scientists have no fear of looking for the
>> >> answers to the 'hard questions.' And it's paid off continuously.
>> >
>> > Oh? You mean that scientists found the cause or causes of
>> homosexuality?
>>
>> They're getting ever closer. It won't be long now.
>
> You're deluding yourself, at the very least because homosexuality would
> have to have multiple causes, if it had any causes at all, which I don't
> accept.
The existence of multiple factors does not depend on your acceptance.
> Science hasn't found even one cause of homosexuality in humans.
We've sure narrowed it down a hell of a lot more than it's been merely a
few decades ago. This is just argument from incredulity again--just
because it's not something we know _exactly_ now doesn't at _all_ mean
that it is something we will never know.
Fallacy after fallacy--you should really be a bit more humble, instead of
speaking so confidently with such skewed logic.
Strife767
I mean if a given "cause" has no effect on a given person, that is not
reason to discount it entirely. I'd think that'd be exceedingly obvious.
> If
> something is a cause of something else, then it causes it, or should
> cause it, in all cases. Just like that.
You think far too black/white to understand the topic at hand. You sorely
need to inform yourself better about the intricacies of human biology and
psychology, as you're making it clear just how little a grasp you have of
how things work when it comes to humans
>> >> You are obviously unaware of the steps closer that have been taken in
>> >> recent years.
>> >
>> > More assertion.
>>
>> What was it, like less than a year ago that scientists gained the
>> ability
>> to change the sexual orientation of fruit flies by manipulating their
>> genes? Try to keep up.
>
> Since when are humans fruit flies?
>
>> > You are obviously unaware of the basic problems involved
>> > in determining any "cause" of sexual orientation. These problems are
>> > obvious and can be explained quite simply. The researchers are never
>> > going to solve them properly.
>>
>> So says someone woefully unaware of the progress that has been made even
>> recently, not to mention the vast difference between today and a few
>> decades ago.
>
> More assertion.
I already cited the results of a minute of Googling--if you won't budge at
all to inform yourself anymore, then there is no hope for you to
understand. Read some scientific literature once in a while before you
make such baffling statements again, for your own sake.
Strife767
> In article <1161137424.0...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> "ScottyFLL" <1sc...@lycos.com> wrote:
>
>> Qazfez wrote:
>> >
>> > There probably are no causes of homosexuality.
>>
>> So, homosexuality just exists. There is no cause.
>>
>> I don't have a problem with that. Let's assume it is true.
>>
>> WHAT IS THE ISSUE, THEN?
>
> The issue is that certain scientists and journalists have proclaimed
> that it is indisputably true or overwhelmingly likely to be true that
> homosexuality is biologically determined.
Proof? All I see are weasel words.
> This is a corruption of
> science and poses a political problem.
If indeed it's even true.
Qazfez
wrote:
What should be obvious is that if something cannot cause something else
by itself, but requires something else to happen in order to cause that
thing, it cannot by itself be considered a cause: only that thing +
whatever else it takes to cause something else would be a cause.
> > If
> > something is a cause of something else, then it causes it, or should
> > cause it, in all cases. Just like that.
>
> You think far too black/white to understand the topic at hand. You sorely
> need to inform yourself better about the intricacies of human biology and
> psychology, as you're making it clear just how little a grasp you have of
> how things work when it comes to humans
That is not a real argument and does not answer the point I made.
> >> >> You are obviously unaware of the steps closer that have been taken in
> >> >> recent years.
> >> >
> >> > More assertion.
> >>
> >> What was it, like less than a year ago that scientists gained the
> >> ability
> >> to change the sexual orientation of fruit flies by manipulating their
> >> genes? Try to keep up.
> >
> > Since when are humans fruit flies?
> >
> >> > You are obviously unaware of the basic problems involved
> >> > in determining any "cause" of sexual orientation. These problems are
> >> > obvious and can be explained quite simply. The researchers are never
> >> > going to solve them properly.
> >>
> >> So says someone woefully unaware of the progress that has been made even
> >> recently, not to mention the vast difference between today and a few
> >> decades ago.
> >
> > More assertion.
>
> I already cited the results of a minute of Googling--if you won't budge at
> all to inform yourself anymore, then there is no hope for you to
> understand. Read some scientific literature once in a while before you
> make such baffling statements again, for your own sake.
Once again: humans are not fruit flies. Behaviour of fruit flies shows
nothing about human behaviour.
Qazfez
"Andrealphus" <NOREAL...@THISADDRESS.FOAD> wrote:
You didn't respond to my argument and asserting otherwise won't help.
Qazfez
wrote:
[snip]
> lol, so do you think that all of the study not done on humans (mostly
> because of ethical concerns), but other animals instead, have contributed
> nothing (you said "doesn't do anything," remember) to medicine or other
> branches of science having to do with humans specifically?
>
> Get a grip.
You're not answering my point. Humans are not fruit flies and the fact
that something is true of fruit flies does not show that it is true of
humans.
> > Telling that it should be in insects that they find
> > something like this, and not in mammals, or primates, let alone humans.
> >
> > The fact that human sexual orientation can shift independently of any
> > genetic manipulation could be taken to show that there is no gene or
> > cluster of genes that determines it.
>
> No one is claiming that there is a 'gene switch' for humans, but there is
> reason to think that there is at least a genetic component which would
> cause at least a tendency.
'A genetic component which could cause at least a tendency' is vague,
and doesn't necessarily mean the same thing as saying that homosexuality
is biologically determined.
> > This is a much better argument than
> > the one you are using, because uses the experience of our own species.
>
> You are arguing against a straw man.
What straw man?
> > The only alternative to this interpretation - I've only ever found one
> > person foolish enough to suggest it - would be that if a person's sexual
> > orientation shifts, it was biologically preprogrammed to do that. This
> > is possible only in the sense that anything is possible. One can't prove
> > absolutely that it's not the case, but there is no reason to believe
> > that it is the case. The most plausible interpretation of shifting
> > sexual orientation in humans is that sexual orientation is not inborn.
>
> The only alternative? Is it too complex for your mind that it might just
> be a combination of factors? You're just in the process of building
> another straw man here.
What might be a combination of factors? What are you talking about? How
is that meant to answer the argument I just offered?
> >> "This is a first - a superb demonstration that a single gene can serve
> >> as
> >> a switch for complex behaviors," said Dr. Gero Miesenboeck, a professor
> >> of
> >> cell biology at Yale."
> >> --http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/03/science/03cell.html?ex=1275451200&en=ab
> >> 3fa
> >> 239e94d393c&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
> >>
> >> >> > an area of
> >> >> > science rational scientists should stay away from for
> >> self-protection.
> >> >>
> >> >> Unlike you and your ilk, scientists have no fear of looking for the
> >> >> answers to the 'hard questions.' And it's paid off continuously.
> >> >
> >> > Oh? You mean that scientists found the cause or causes of
> >> homosexuality?
> >>
> >> They're getting ever closer. It won't be long now.
> >
> > You're deluding yourself, at the very least because homosexuality would
> > have to have multiple causes, if it had any causes at all, which I don't
> > accept.
>
> The existence of multiple factors does not depend on your acceptance.
So?
> > Science hasn't found even one cause of homosexuality in humans.
>
> We've sure narrowed it down a hell of a lot more than it's been merely a
> few decades ago. This is just argument from incredulity again--just
> because it's not something we know exactly now doesn't at all mean
> that it is something we will never know.
>
> Fallacy after fallacy--you should really be a bit more humble, instead of
> speaking so confidently with such skewed logic.
I have used a number of perfectly logical arguments and you have ignored
or failed to respond to them.
Qazfez
wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 22:16:21 -0400, Qazfez <qaz...@o.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <1161137424.0...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> > "ScottyFLL" <1sc...@lycos.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Qazfez wrote:
> >> >
> >> > There probably are no causes of homosexuality.
> >>
> >> So, homosexuality just exists. There is no cause.
> >>
> >> I don't have a problem with that. Let's assume it is true.
> >>
> >> WHAT IS THE ISSUE, THEN?
> >
> > The issue is that certain scientists and journalists have proclaimed
> > that it is indisputably true or overwhelmingly likely to be true that
> > homosexuality is biologically determined.
>
> Proof? All I see are weasel words.
Just read Chandler Burr's website, or his book. Guy's a hardened
ideologue, and one much less smart than he likes to think.
Andrealphus
qaz...@o.com, typed this:
Yes, I did, and asserting otherwise won't help.
Qazfez
"Andrealphus" <NOREAL...@THISADDRESS.FOAD> wrote:
Do you have any good reason for thinking that the view of people you
refer to as 'religious nutcases', eg that homosexuality is a choice, has
been disproven?
Andrealphus
qaz...@o.com, typed this:
Think about it for a while, it may come to you.
Strife767
> In article <op.thm5ktj45i5s70@chris>, Strife767 <stri...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> lol, so do you think that all of the study not done on humans (mostly
>> because of ethical concerns), but other animals instead, have
>> contributed
>> nothing (you said "doesn't do anything," remember) to medicine or
>> other
>> branches of science having to do with humans specifically?
>>
>> Get a grip.
>
> You're not answering my point. Humans are not fruit flies and the fact
> that something is true of fruit flies does not show that it is true of
> humans.
No one said there was direct correlation, but the fact that we are talking
genetics of two animal species, shows that it _is_ significant.
After all, rats are the test subjects for most of the stuff that ends up
being used on/for humans, and they're not exactly equal either.
>> > Telling that it should be in insects that they find
>> > something like this, and not in mammals, or primates, let alone
>> humans.
>> >
>> > The fact that human sexual orientation can shift independently of any
>> > genetic manipulation could be taken to show that there is no gene or
>> > cluster of genes that determines it.
>>
>> No one is claiming that there is a 'gene switch' for humans, but there
>> is
>> reason to think that there is at least a genetic component which would
>> cause at least a tendency.
>
> 'A genetic component which could cause at least a tendency' is vague,
> and doesn't necessarily mean the same thing as saying that homosexuality
> is biologically determined.
It doesn't matter that it doesn't mean the same thing, because no
reputable source has claimed that homosexuality is wholly biological.
>> > This is a much better argument than
>> > the one you are using, because uses the experience of our own species.
>>
>> You are arguing against a straw man.
>
> What straw man?
The claim of "homosexuality is biologically determined." You seem to have
trouble arguing in anything but extremes.
>> > The only alternative to this interpretation - I've only ever found one
>> > person foolish enough to suggest it - would be that if a person's
>> sexual
>> > orientation shifts, it was biologically preprogrammed to do that. This
>> > is possible only in the sense that anything is possible. One can't
>> prove
>> > absolutely that it's not the case, but there is no reason to believe
>> > that it is the case. The most plausible interpretation of shifting
>> > sexual orientation in humans is that sexual orientation is not inborn.
>>
>> The only alternative? Is it too complex for your mind that it might just
>> be a combination of factors? You're just in the process of building
>> another straw man here.
>
> What might be a combination of factors? What are you talking about? How
> is that meant to answer the argument I just offered?
*sighs* This is obviously over your head, as you have just demonstrated.
I'm done wasting time with you on this.
[snip]
Strife767
> Do you have any good reason for thinking that the view of people you
> refer to as 'religious nutcases', eg that homosexuality is a choice, has
> been disproven?
Hall, J. A. Y. and D. Kimura, "Dermatoglyphic Asymmetry and Sexual
Orientation in Men," Behavioral Neuroscience 108 (1994): 1203-1206.
Hamer, Dean and Peter Copeland. The Science of Desire. New York: Simon and
Schuster, 1994.
LeVay, Simon. The Sexual Brain. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1993.
Matthews, John. "Supporting the Biological Link." ASU Research (1994): n.
pag. Online. Internet. 4 November 1997.
Wertz, Dorothy C. "Genetics and Homosexuality," The Gene Letter 1 (1996):
n. pag. Online. Internet. 4 November 1997.
http://www.apa.org/topics/orientation.html#choice
http://www.psych.org/public_info/HOMOSE~1.HTM
http://www.theatlantic.com/atlantic/issues/97jun/burr2.htm
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_mental_health.html
Strife767
> In article <op.thm5umpf5i5s70@chris>, Strife767 <stri...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 22:16:21 -0400, Qazfez <qaz...@o.com> wrote:
>>
>> > In article <1161137424.0...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
>> > "ScottyFLL" <1sc...@lycos.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Qazfez wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > There probably are no causes of homosexuality.
>> >>
>> >> So, homosexuality just exists. There is no cause.
>> >>
>> >> I don't have a problem with that. Let's assume it is true.
>> >>
>> >> WHAT IS THE ISSUE, THEN?
>> >
>> > The issue is that certain scientists and journalists have proclaimed
>> > that it is indisputably true or overwhelmingly likely to be true that
>> > homosexuality is biologically determined.
>>
>> Proof? All I see are weasel words.
>
> Just read Chandler Burr's website, or his book.
He's a journalist, and _not_ a scientist.
I think it's a pretty safe assumption you have no _real_ evidence.
Qazfez
wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 21:15:42 -0400, Qazfez <qaz...@o.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <op.thm5umpf5i5s70@chris>, Strife767 <stri...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 22:16:21 -0400, Qazfez <qaz...@o.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > In article <1161137424.0...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> >> > "ScottyFLL" <1sc...@lycos.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Qazfez wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > There probably are no causes of homosexuality.
> >> >>
> >> >> So, homosexuality just exists. There is no cause.
> >> >>
> >> >> I don't have a problem with that. Let's assume it is true.
> >> >>
> >> >> WHAT IS THE ISSUE, THEN?
> >> >
> >> > The issue is that certain scientists and journalists have proclaimed
> >> > that it is indisputably true or overwhelmingly likely to be true that
> >> > homosexuality is biologically determined.
> >>
> >> Proof? All I see are weasel words.
> >
> > Just read Chandler Burr's website, or his book.
>
> He's a journalist, and _not_ a scientist.
>
> I think it's a pretty safe assumption you have no _real_ evidence.
Just see above. I said "scientists and journalists", and yes, I'm well
aware that Burr is a journalist.
Qazfez
"Andrealphus" <NOREAL...@THISADDRESS.FOAD> wrote:
Yeah, the reason is that you have an ideological motivation to believe
what you believe. It suits your self-interest.
Qazfez
wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 21:46:22 -0400, Qazfez <qaz...@o.com> wrote:
>
> > Do you have any good reason for thinking that the view of people you
> > refer to as 'religious nutcases', eg that homosexuality is a choice, has
> > been disproven?
>
> Hall, J. A. Y. and D. Kimura, "Dermatoglyphic Asymmetry and Sexual
> Orientation in Men," Behavioral Neuroscience 108 (1994): 1203-1206.
>
> Hamer, Dean and Peter Copeland. The Science of Desire. New York: Simon and
> Schuster, 1994.
>
> LeVay, Simon. The Sexual Brain. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1993.
>
> Matthews, John. "Supporting the Biological Link." ASU Research (1994): n.
> pag. Online. Internet. 4 November 1997.
>
> Wertz, Dorothy C. "Genetics and Homosexuality," The Gene Letter 1 (1996):
> n. pag. Online. Internet. 4 November 1997.
>
> http://www.apa.org/topics/orientation.html#choice
>
> http://www.psych.org/public_info/HOMOSE~1.HTM
>
> http://www.theatlantic.com/atlantic/issues/97jun/burr2.htm
>
> http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_mental_health.html
Oh please, not all that again. I've already seen that list.
Qazfez
wrote:
> http://www.theatlantic.com/atlantic/issues/97jun/burr2.htm
That URL doesn't work, incidentally.
Supreme Ayatollah of the Discordian Meme
<qazfez-18A050....@lust.ihug.co.nz>...
> In article <op.thnf4dy05i5s70@chris>, Strife767 <stri...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> The claim of "homosexuality is biologically determined." You seem to
>> have trouble arguing in anything but extremes.
>
> The point I'm making is that homosexuality is not biologically
> determined or determined any other way.
Current scientific thinking has a relationship between homosexual male
children and homosexuality-increased fertility in females, which is passed
down via the female line on the X chromosome. The only real problem with the
idea is that it ignores cultural and environmental influences on the
homosexual. In short, homosexuality may be caused by nature, or it may be
caused by nurture, or both.
> The problem is that you aren't making any sense.
That's because you're an idiot.
--
Supreme Ayatollah of the Discordian Meme (Furiae Plasmator) and
Ordained Priest of the Paratheo-anametamystikhood of Eris Esoteric.
Unus vox vocis in chorus universum.
HAIL ERIS! -><- KALLISTI -><- ALL HAIL DISCORDIA!
We are a tribe of philosophers, theologians, magicians, scientists,
artists, clowns, and similar maniacs who are intrigued with ERIS,
GODDESS OF CONFUSION, and with Her Doings.
Talis est drama humanus species: Primordia universum es fio victus
quod conscius, ergo cogitationis poenam sulum humanus; sapientia emo
procul valde carus.
The earth-centered model of the universe, developed by astronomer
Claudius Ptolemy in AD 200, is a fine example of intellectual
brilliance not being any kind of guarantee against being dead wrong.
Qazfez
"Supreme Ayatollah of the Discordian Meme"
> Qazfez <qaz...@o.com> wrote in message
> <qazfez-18A050....@lust.ihug.co.nz>...
>
> > In article <op.thnf4dy05i5s70@chris>, Strife767 <stri...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >> The claim of "homosexuality is biologically determined." You seem to
> >> have trouble arguing in anything but extremes.
> >
> > The point I'm making is that homosexuality is not biologically
> > determined or determined any other way.
>
> Current scientific thinking has a relationship between homosexual male
> children and homosexuality-increased fertility in females, which is passed
> down via the female line on the X chromosome.
That's speculative and implausible. Anyway, what do you mean "current
scientific thinking"? Are you implying that all scientists think that?
If not, just say that proponents of one particular theory think this.
>The only real problem with the
> idea is that it ignores cultural and environmental influences on the
> homosexual. In short, homosexuality may be caused by nature, or it may be
> caused by nurture, or both.
There's no good reason to think that homosexuality has any specific
cause or causes.
> > The problem is that you aren't making any sense.
>
> That's because you're an idiot.
No, i'm actually really smart.
Supreme Ayatollah of the Discordian Meme
> In article <45371fe3$0$47401$892e...@auth.newsreader.octanews.com>,
> "Supreme Ayatollah of the Discordian Meme"
> <exsisto.sa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Qazfez <qaz...@o.com> wrote in message
>> <qazfez-18A050....@lust.ihug.co.nz>...
>>
>>> In article <op.thnf4dy05i5s70@chris>, Strife767
>>> <stri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> The claim of "homosexuality is biologically determined." You seem
>>>> to have trouble arguing in anything but extremes.
>>>
>>> The point I'm making is that homosexuality is not biologically
>>> determined or determined any other way.
>>
>> Current scientific thinking has a relationship between homosexual
>> male children and homosexuality-increased fertility in females,
>> which is passed down via the female line on the X chromosome.
>
> That's speculative and implausible. Anyway, what do you mean "current
> scientific thinking"? Are you implying that all scientists think that?
> If not, just say that proponents of one particular theory think this.
I will say whatever I feel like saying in whatever way I choose to say it.
>> The only real problem with the
>> idea is that it ignores cultural and environmental influences on the
>> homosexual. In short, homosexuality may be caused by nature, or it
>> may be caused by nurture, or both.
>
> There's no good reason to think that homosexuality has any specific
> cause or causes.
Your illogic also excludes determination by simple act of personal choice.
>>> The problem is that you aren't making any sense.
>>
>> That's because you're an idiot.
>
> No, i'm actually really smart.
Are you really? Smart people do not dismiss forthright assertions with
"That's speculative and implausible"; they ask for citations and references.
You didn't ask for either so you're far from smart. You are an idiot.
Qazfez
> Qazfez <qaz...@o.com> wrote in message
> <qazfez-21D308....@lust.ihug.co.nz>...
>
> > In article <45371fe3$0$47401$892e...@auth.newsreader.octanews.com>,
> > "Supreme Ayatollah of the Discordian Meme"
> > <exsisto.sa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Qazfez <qaz...@o.com> wrote in message
> >> <qazfez-18A050....@lust.ihug.co.nz>...
> >>
> >>> In article <op.thnf4dy05i5s70@chris>, Strife767
> >>> <stri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>> The claim of "homosexuality is biologically determined." You seem
> >>>> to have trouble arguing in anything but extremes.
> >>>
> >>> The point I'm making is that homosexuality is not biologically
> >>> determined or determined any other way.
> >>
> >> Current scientific thinking has a relationship between homosexual
> >> male children and homosexuality-increased fertility in females,
> >> which is passed down via the female line on the X chromosome.
> >
> > That's speculative and implausible. Anyway, what do you mean "current
> > scientific thinking"? Are you implying that all scientists think that?
> > If not, just say that proponents of one particular theory think this.
>
> I will say whatever I feel like saying in whatever way I choose to say it.
OK. Go ahead. But what you said makes you look pretty foolish.
> >> The only real problem with the
> >> idea is that it ignores cultural and environmental influences on the
> >> homosexual. In short, homosexuality may be caused by nature, or it
> >> may be caused by nurture, or both.
> >
> > There's no good reason to think that homosexuality has any specific
> > cause or causes.
>
> Your illogic also excludes determination by simple act of personal choice.
That looks like a linguistic point. If it's a linguistic point, and you
think that's important, you might try expressing yourself a little more
clearly.
> >>> The problem is that you aren't making any sense.
> >>
> >> That's because you're an idiot.
> >
> > No, i'm actually really smart.
>
> Are you really? Smart people do not dismiss forthright assertions with
> "That's speculative and implausible"; they ask for citations and references.
> You didn't ask for either so you're far from smart. You are an idiot.
Say, shouldn't you have provided some citations and references in the
first place, if you think so much of them, so then you wouldn't be in
the position of making statements without support? You are an idiot.
Supreme Ayatollah of the Discordian Meme
Yet it was you who dismissed a forthright assertion with "That's
speculative and implausible" and failed to ask for citations and
references.
>>>> The only real problem with the
>>>> idea is that it ignores cultural and environmental influences on
>>>> the homosexual. In short, homosexuality may be caused by nature,
>>>> or it may be caused by nurture, or both.
>>>
>>> There's no good reason to think that homosexuality has any specific
>>> cause or causes.
>>
>> Your illogic also excludes determination by simple act of personal
>> choice.
>
> That looks like a linguistic point. If it's a linguistic point, and
> you think that's important, you might try expressing yourself a
> little more clearly.
It looks like a linguistic point? For someone who claims to be really smart,
you don't seem to be very sure about it.
Let me lay it out for you:
>>> There's no good reason to think that homosexuality has any specific
>>> cause or causes.
"no good reason"
Exercising personal choice is a good enough reason.
Do you need that dumbed down for you even further?
>>>>> The problem is that you aren't making any sense.
>>>>
>>>> That's because you're an idiot.
>>>
>>> No, i'm actually really smart.
>>
>> Are you really? Smart people do not dismiss forthright assertions
>> with "That's speculative and implausible"; they ask for citations
>> and references. You didn't ask for either so you're far from smart.
>
> Say, shouldn't you have provided some citations and references in the
> first place, if you think so much of them, so then you wouldn't be in
> the position of making statements without support?
So far you have been told at least twice by way of implication that the
statements are supported, and still you are too dense to ask for the
support. How smart did you claim you were?
>> You are an idiot.
> You are an idiot.
Oh! You're a parrot.
Real Friendly Neibourhood Vote Ranger
news:4537272e$0$47412$892e...@auth.newsreader.octanews.com...
From a third person point of view, you are the idiot.
Andrealphus
qaz...@o.com, typed this:
Yawn... And we're supposed to believe that you don't have an ideological
motivation to believe what you believe and it doesn't suit your
self-interest? btw, since I'm not gay, not do I believe that the issue of
nature vs. nurture is relevant to the political issues, you'd be hard
pressed to point out what my "ideological motivation" is on this matter.
Like I said, think about it for a while, you may understand what I've been
telling you.
Andrealphus
Ayatollah of the Discordian Meme at exsisto.sa...@gmail.com, typed
this:
> Qazfez <qaz...@o.com> wrote in message
> <qazfez-18A050....@lust.ihug.co.nz>...
>
>> In article <op.thnf4dy05i5s70@chris>, Strife767 <stri...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>
>>> The claim of "homosexuality is biologically determined." You seem to
>>> have trouble arguing in anything but extremes.
>>
>> The point I'm making is that homosexuality is not biologically
>> determined or determined any other way.
>
> Current scientific thinking has a relationship between homosexual male
> children and homosexuality-increased fertility in females, which is
> passed down via the female line on the X chromosome. The only real
> problem with the idea is that it ignores cultural and environmental
> influences on the homosexual. In short, homosexuality may be caused
> by nature, or it may be caused by nurture, or both.
>
>> The problem is that you aren't making any sense.
>
> That's because you're an idiot.
He does seem to be rather slow on the uptake.
Supreme Ayatollah of the Discordian Meme
<uuIZg.9218$Lv3....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> In News 45371fe3$0$47401$892e...@auth.newsreader.octanews.com,,
> Supreme Ayatollah of the Discordian Meme at
> exsisto.sa...@gmail.com, typed this:
>
>> Qazfez <qaz...@o.com> wrote in message
>> <qazfez-18A050....@lust.ihug.co.nz>...
>>
>>> In article <op.thnf4dy05i5s70@chris>, Strife767
>>> <stri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> The claim of "homosexuality is biologically determined." You seem
>>>> to have trouble arguing in anything but extremes.
>>>
>>> The point I'm making is that homosexuality is not biologically
>>> determined or determined any other way.
>>
>> Current scientific thinking has a relationship between homosexual
>> male children and homosexuality-increased fertility in females,
>> which is passed down via the female line on the X chromosome. The
>> only real problem with the idea is that it ignores cultural and
>> environmental influences on the homosexual. In short, homosexuality
>> may be caused by nature, or it may be caused by nurture, or both.
>>
>>> The problem is that you aren't making any sense.
>>
>> That's because you're an idiot.
>
> He does seem to be rather slow on the uptake.
Most virgins are.
Dionisio
>Dionisio <moc-rr-t...@5ellimd.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Qazfez wrote:
>>
>>
>>>All that I am suggesting is that scientists be a little more honest, and
>>>much more modest, in what they are willing to claim.
>>>
>>>
>>Now how does one get more honest than: "This is what I was curious
>>about, so I did such and such, recorded the results, speculated on what
>>they mean, and then published everything for others to critique."
>>
>>
>So who has used those exact words?
>
>
Oh, puh-leaze!
That is the process that scientists use. If you didn't know that, you
shouldn't be having this conversation.
--
"If Christians want us to believe in a Redeemer, let them act redeemed."
--Voltaire
Strife767
Obvious you didn't pay any attention to it.
Strife767
Which clearly implies that there are at least two of each. I don't care
about what journalists have to say--they're laypeople on this matter. I'm
still waiting for a cite of two different scientists saying or
paraphrasing "that it is indesputably true or overwhelmingly likely to be
true that homosexuality is biologically determined."
Considering that the APA itself says on its website that "There are
numerous theories about the origins of a person's sexual orientation; most
scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result
of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological
factors," it's pretty clear you're full of shit here. But I'm still giving
you one last chance--cite or be mocked for the dishonest person you are. :)
> and yes, I'm well
> aware that Burr is a journalist.
So, who cares what some random journalist has to say in the matter?
They're no more of an expert than any other non-scientist.
Strife767
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/10/13/wgay13.xml
Dumbass. It's just that we have been paying attention, so that we know
what he's talking about and don't have to demand a source that we just
read not long ago.
bobandcarole
Such language!
We don't see your ass doing any tricks...outside of the adult bookstore
anyway :-)
<snip>
The God of Odd Statements
> Strife767 wrote:
>> > Strife767 wrote:
>> >
>> > [snip]
>> >
>> >> lol, so do you think that all of the study not done on humans
>> >> (mostly because of ethical concerns), but other animals instead, have
>> >> contributed
>> >> nothing (you said "doesn't do anything," remember) to medicine or
>> >> other
>> >> branches of science having to do with humans specifically?
>> >>
>> >> Get a grip.
>> >
>> > You're not answering my point. Humans are not fruit flies and the fact
>> > that something is true of fruit flies does not show that it is true of
>> > humans.
>>
>> No one said there was direct correlation, but the fact that we are
>> talking genetics of two animal species, shows that it _is_ significant.
>>
>> After all, rats are the test subjects for most of the stuff that ends up
>> being used on/for humans, and they're not exactly equal either.
>
> humans. Good.
Your fallacy is binary in nature, i.e., "Homosexuality is biologically
pre-determined" or "Homosexuality is not biologically pre-determined."
Kloo: It isn't binary.
--
________________________________________________________________________
Hail Eris! mhm 29x21; TM#5
Demon Lord of Confusion
COOSN-029-06-71069
Supreme High Overlord of rec.radio.*
Chuck Lysaght: Tarred & Feathered!
"Q: What do you call someone in the White House who is honest, caring,
and well-read?
A: A tourist." -- Anonymous
"It would be offly hard for any of you to abuse me on usenet. Really. I
have the advantage. I could easily turn alt.usenet.kooks into a cesspool
of encoded posts. Bringing the noise ratio up so high as to make the
group worthless. Anybody who can code could do this, why nobody has
bothered before now is beyond me. The ultimate spamming engine..
'BAWAHAHA'" -- Dustbin "Outer Filth" K00k's delusions of grandeur
reached new heights, in Message-ID:
<Xns98355D29419...@69.28.186.121>
"Immorality: The morality of those who are having a better time." -- H.
L. Mencken
"Consider that language a moment. 'Purposefully and materially
supported hostilities against the United States' is in the eye of the
beholder, and this administration has proven itself to be astonishingly
impatient with criticism of any kind. The broad powers given to Bush by
this legislation allow him to capture, indefinitely detain, and refuse a
hearing to any American citizen who speaks out against Iraq or any other
part of the so-called 'War on Terror.'
"If you write a letter to the editor attacking Bush, you could be
deemed as purposefully and materially supporting hostilities against the
United States. If you organize or join a public demonstration against
Iraq, or against the administration, the same designation could befall
you. One dark-comedy aspect of the legislation is that senators or House
members who publicly disagree with Bush, criticize him, or organize
investigations into his dealings could be placed under the same
designation. In effect, Congress just gave Bush the power to lock them
up." -- William Rivers Pitt
Qazfez
Dionisio <moc-rr-t...@5ellimd.com> wrote:
> Qazfez wrote:
>
> >Dionisio <moc-rr-t...@5ellimd.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Qazfez wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>All that I am suggesting is that scientists be a little more honest, and
> >>>much more modest, in what they are willing to claim.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Now how does one get more honest than: "This is what I was curious
> >>about, so I did such and such, recorded the results, speculated on what
> >>they mean, and then published everything for others to critique."
> >>
> >>
> >So who has used those exact words?
> >
> >
>
> Oh, puh-leaze!
>
> That is the process that scientists use. If you didn't know that, you
> shouldn't be having this conversation.
The words were in quote marks, and apparently presented as an actual
quote that real scientists have used.
Qazfez
wrote:
This has become a widespread attitude. You can see what Glenn Wilson and
Qazi Rahman have to say in their book if you like. I myself have not
bothered to read that book as yet, and I will have to overcome a
considerable amount of reluctance before I finally force myself to do
so. Since the case that homosexuality is biologically determined was
supposedly made long before 2005, it is just an insult to everyone's
intelligence to expect people to read yet another book arguing this.
> Considering that the APA itself says on its website that "There are
> numerous theories about the origins of a person's sexual orientation; most
> scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result
> of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological
> factors," it's pretty clear you're full of shit here. But I'm still giving
> you one last chance--cite or be mocked for the dishonest person you are. :)
All I said was "certain scientists." That doesn't imply most scientists,
as you seem to think, so perhaps it's you who is full of shit, not me?
> > and yes, I'm well
> > aware that Burr is a journalist.
>
> So, who cares what some random journalist has to say in the matter?
> They're no more of an expert than any other non-scientist.
Certain scientists, and certain journalists. Burr is an example. Oddly
enough, plenty of people appear to care what he says. That's the problem.
Qazfez
wrote:
I'm aware of the reasoning which leads scientists to say that
homosexuality is not a choice. It's the same reasoning no matter what
book or paper you're talking about, which means that one can usually
spare oneself the task of having to read more than a few of them.
Actually, if even one of those books or papers proved your point, you
would have had to mention only that one. There'd be no point to having
more than one item on that list, unless you think long lists are
impressive in themselves.
Qazfez
"Andrealphus" <NOREAL...@THISADDRESS.FOAD> wrote:
Same to you.
Qazfez
wrote:
What is the point of that URL? How is the article it links to supposed
to prove that homosexuality has biological causes in some or any cases?
It's just the same damn dumb reasoning. You haven't understood my
argument at all or you wouldn't be bothering me with this.
Qazfez
There might be a "relationship" of some kind or other between
homosexuality and many things. This of course doesn't mean that
homosexuality has a cause, strictly speaking, so it's beside the point.
> >>>> The only real problem with the
> >>>> idea is that it ignores cultural and environmental influences on
> >>>> the homosexual. In short, homosexuality may be caused by nature,
> >>>> or it may be caused by nurture, or both.
> >>>
> >>> There's no good reason to think that homosexuality has any specific
> >>> cause or causes.
> >>
> >> Your illogic also excludes determination by simple act of personal
> >> choice.
> >
> > That looks like a linguistic point. If it's a linguistic point, and
> > you think that's important, you might try expressing yourself a
> > little more clearly.
>
> It looks like a linguistic point? For someone who claims to be really smart,
> you don't seem to be very sure about it.
I don't claim to understand your thought processes. To me, there is a
distinction between saying that homosexuality is caused by a choice
(what you appear to be suggesting) and saying that it is a choice. In
the latter case, one can still avoid unfortunate talk about a "cause."
> Let me lay it out for you:
>
> >>> There's no good reason to think that homosexuality has any specific
> >>> cause or causes.
>
> "no good reason"
>
> Exercising personal choice is a good enough reason.
For what? Sorry, but you're not coming across quite clearly here.
> Do you need that dumbed down for you even further?
Well, either that or you need to start making some sense.
> >>>>> The problem is that you aren't making any sense.
> >>>>
> >>>> That's because you're an idiot.
> >>>
> >>> No, i'm actually really smart.
> >>
> >> Are you really? Smart people do not dismiss forthright assertions
> >> with "That's speculative and implausible"; they ask for citations
> >> and references. You didn't ask for either so you're far from smart.
> >
> > Say, shouldn't you have provided some citations and references in the
> > first place, if you think so much of them, so then you wouldn't be in
> > the position of making statements without support?
>
> So far you have been told at least twice by way of implication that the
> statements are supported, and still you are too dense to ask for the
> support. How smart did you claim you were?
I asked why you provided no support for your claim to start with, not
whether there was any support to provide or not.
> >> You are an idiot.
> > You are an idiot.
>
> Oh! You're a parrot.
I'm simply pointing out that anyone can make statements like that. You
appear not to have understood what I was saying. I may not have
explained myself well enough, but I think you could sure try harder.
Andrealphus
qaz...@o.com, typed this:
LOL! The difference is that I understand what you've been trying to say, I
just consider it ill informed and childish.
Strife767
Yes, I would, because I'm used to idiots looking at one source and calling
it biased/irrepresentative/isolated/etc.
Showing that lots of sources, including mainstream medicine, point to the
same place makes it clear that it is a consensus that the evidence
supports.
Strife767
*yawn* So you have no citations, as expected. Thanks for proving my point.
>> Considering that the APA itself says on its website that "There are
>> numerous theories about the origins of a person's sexual orientation;
>> most
>> scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result
>> of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological
>> factors," it's pretty clear you're full of shit here. But I'm still
>> giving
>> you one last chance--cite or be mocked for the dishonest person you
>> are. :)
>
> All I said was "certain scientists."
And you can't even cite the minimum two that the plural "scientists" would
describe.
> That doesn't imply most scientists,
> as you seem to think,
Okay, so by asking for the MINIMUM amount of citations that correlated
with your use of the plural "scientists," I was CLEARLY thinking that you
meant 'most scientists.'
I can't roll my eyes enough at how idiotic that statement was.
> so perhaps it's you who is full of shit, not me?
Oh, no, it's you all right, no question.
Strife767
To show just how "speculative and implausible" the genetic/biological
component of homosexuality _isn't_.
Qazfez
wrote:
What I said proved that at least two scientists think that homosexuality
is biologically determined (you can look Wilson and Rahman's book up on
Amazon if you like), which I should have thought wouldn't need proving.
> >> Considering that the APA itself says on its website that "There are
> >> numerous theories about the origins of a person's sexual orientation;
> >> most
> >> scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result
> >> of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological
> >> factors," it's pretty clear you're full of shit here. But I'm still
> >> giving
> >> you one last chance--cite or be mocked for the dishonest person you
> >> are. :)
> >
> > All I said was "certain scientists."
>
> And you can't even cite the minimum two that the plural "scientists" would
> describe.
Actually I did mention two of them. You can easily find out for yourself
that they exist, and what their views are.
[snip]
Qazfez
wrote:
No it doesn't. It makes it clear that there is a mainstream opinion,
which might possibly be correct, but which might also be dead wrong.
Qazfez
"Andrealphus" <NOREAL...@THISADDRESS.FOAD> wrote:
Why?
Qazfez
wrote:
> component of homosexuality isn't .
None of this has any real relevance to the argument I was making.
Andrealphus
qaz...@o.com, typed this:
The same reason such opinions have always been ill informed and childish.
Saying that science will never do something is a sure bet that they
eventually will do it. Simple concept really. It's happened everytime a
religionist has opened their mouths on scientific issues.
Strife767
When I have the option of believing:
1) Evidence-backed mainstream opinion, which might be wrong
2) Some random person's ranting, which directly contradicts the mainstream
opinion yet has no evidence backing it and is very likely wrong
I, like anyone with a working brain capable of critical thinking, will
side with #1. You may "act the fool" if you like--I'll just have no part
of it. :)
Strife767
>> >> paraphrasing "that it is indisputably true or overwhelmingly likely
>> to
>> >> be
>> >> true that homosexuality is biologically determined."
>> >
>> > This has become a widespread attitude. You can see what Glenn Wilson
>> and
>> > Qazi Rahman have to say in their book if you like. I myself have not
>> > bothered to read that book as yet, and I will have to overcome a
>> > considerable amount of reluctance before I finally force myself to do
>> > so. Since the case that homosexuality is biologically determined was
>> > supposedly made long before 2005, it is just an insult to everyone's
>> > intelligence to expect people to read yet another book arguing this.
>>
>> *yawn* So you have no citations, as expected. Thanks for proving my
>> point.
>
> What I said proved
nothing. Do you know what a citation is?
Also, anyone can write a book. Example: saying that dinosaurs and humans
co-existed because Dennis Swift wrote a book about it doesn't prove jack
shit. I'm looking for scientific, peer-reviewed literature--anything less
falls short of proving _anything_ you've been spewing.
[snip]
Qazfez
wrote:
Don't quote only part of my sentences, please. It's rude and really
rather juvenile. I know very well that anyone can write a book. Rahman
and Wilson are scientists, however, if not very bright ones in my view.
Look it up for yourself and you'll see that their book exists, and its
existence proves my claim that such books exist. OK?
Qazfez
wrote:
Looking at your posts in the earlier part of this thread, I've concluded
that you're a fool - which won't surprise you. I have an argument
supporting my views which you have no interest in - and while there is
no reason why you must try to answer my argument if you have no wish to
do so, there is no point really in discussing this with me if you don't.
Qazfez
"Andrealphus" <NOREAL...@THISADDRESS.FOAD> wrote:
There are plenty of things people have said science will never do that
it hasn't managed to do as yet - explain why the laws of physics are
what they are, for instance. BTW, I'm not a "religionist."
Strife767
I'll try to contain my shock.
> I have an argument
> supporting my views which you have no interest in
I tend not to be very much interested in baseless claims.
[snip]
Strife767
That's not the claim you made.
Well, I'm pretty much bored of you now. If you don't get more interesting
with your next post, into the killfile you go.
Qazfez
wrote:
The claim I made was that "certain scientists and journalists have
proclaimed that it is indisputably true or overwhelmingly likely to be
true that homosexuality is biologically determined." Note that word
"certain." It means "some". As in "not all." So all I have to do is to
point to some scientists and journalists who think that, which I did.
So where's the problem?
Qazfez
wrote:
Without a good argument as to how evidence should be interpreted, or
what counts as evidence, I'd have thought all claims were baseless?
Andrealphus
qaz...@o.com, typed this:
Yep, the operative word there is "yet". You sound exactly like a
religionist, and if it quacks like a duck, then chances are pretty good that
it's a duck.
Strife767
But you cited no one. Naming names isn't enough. I want to see who the
person is, what their credentials are, and a verifiable _quote_ that shows
they made a statement to that end. Didn't you say that you didn't even
read the books you're pointing to?
> Note that word
> "certain." It means "some". As in "not all." So all I have to do is to
> point to some scientists and journalists who think that, which I did.
>
> So where's the problem?
Learn what a citation is.
Text Medium No. 5
> "Supreme Ayatollah of the Discordian Meme" wrote:
>> Qazfez wrote...
>> > "Supreme Ayatollah of the Discordian Meme" wrote:
>> >> Qazfez wrote...
>> >>> "Supreme Ayatollah of the Discordian Meme" wrote:
>> >>>> Qazfez wrote...
>> >>>>> Strife767 wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>> The claim of "homosexuality is biologically determined." You seem
>> >>>>>> to have trouble arguing in anything but extremes.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> The point I'm making is that homosexuality is not biologically
>> >>>>> determined or determined any other way.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Current scientific thinking has a relationship between homosexual
>> >>>> male children and homosexuality-increased fertility in females,
>> >>>> which is passed down via the female line on the X chromosome.
>> >>>
>> >>> That's speculative and implausible. Anyway, what do you mean
>> >>> "current scientific thinking"? Are you implying that all scientists
>> >>> think that? If not, just say that proponents of one particular
>> >>> theory think this.
>> >>
>> >> I will say whatever I feel like saying in whatever way I choose to
>> >> say it.
>> >
>> > OK. Go ahead. But what you said makes you look pretty foolish.
>>
>> Yet it was you who dismissed a forthright assertion with "That's
>> speculative and implausible" and failed to ask for citations and
>> references.
>
> There might be a "relationship" of some kind or other between
> homosexuality and many things. This of course doesn't mean that
> homosexuality has a cause, strictly speaking, so it's beside the point.
So tell us(tinu): Why does it matter if there's a cause? Homosexuality
_is_, and religious nutjobs of all stripes will foam about it,
regardless of whether it has a cause or not, or if it's a choice or not,
simply because they foam about everything they don't like and/or can't
control. That's why the 72 Raisins "Crackpot Religion" Award is open to
anyone of _any_ religion, because any religion that isn't taking the
piss out of religion is a crackpot religion -- but some are more cracked
than others.
--
Shon'ai COOSN-029-06-71069
"I was told there would be cookies."
Cross-Poasters For Goddess!
Remember: Straight people can't help it!
A petition to make the Five-Fingered Hand of Eris
the official symbol for the planet Eris:
http://www.petitiononline.com/ffhoeris/
Qazfez
wrote:
There was only one book, and yes, I certainly said that I didn't read
it. I explained why not: it's only the latest of many books which have
argued that people are born gay - and as such there would be little
point to reading it. If even one of the earlier books had made a
satisfactory argument that people are born gay, there would have been no
reason for that book to be written.
> > Note that word
> > "certain." It means "some". As in "not all." So all I have to do is to
> > point to some scientists and journalists who think that, which I did.
> >
> > So where's the problem?
>
> Learn what a citation is.
Suggesting that people give a cite is appropriate in some circumstances
and not in others. It is inappropriate in this particular case because
no cite should be needed - you can find out that I'm right without one.
Qazfez
"Andrealphus" <NOREAL...@THISADDRESS.FOAD> wrote:
Well, by the same logic, I can argue that you're gay and you're just
denying it, maybe because you're not comfortable being gay?
Andrealphus
qaz...@o.com, typed this:
LOL! Hardly the same logic, since I've said nothing that sounds gay, or
could be interpreted by an intelligent person to be gay. You on the other
hand speak like a true religionist.
ScottyFLL
Qazfez wrote:
>
> There was only one book, and yes, I certainly said that I didn't read
> it. I explained why not: it's only the latest of many books which have
> argued that people are born gay - and as such there would be little
> point to reading it.
Of course, if yet another book claiming to "prove" god's existence were
to be published, you'd be first in line to buy it.
Why don't you admit that you -- like others of your ilk -- really are
not on a quest for the truth. You're much more comfortable with your
opinions, and trying to pass of your opinions as fact.
No One
I might add that URLs pointing to published scientific research or
citations to papers in referreed journals have been posted any
number of times on this newsgroup and they are always ignored.
Basically, the homophobes/religious nuts don't like what we've
found out in the last 50 years and would rather ignore reality
than accept it.
Strife767
Then why bring it up? Why would you possibly bring up a _book_ (not even a
piece of scientific literature) that you can't even quote?! Unless you're
TRYING to make yourself look like an idiot.
> I explained why not: it's only the latest of many books which have
> argued that people are born gay - and as such there would be little
> point to reading it.
Just admit it: you can't cite one single real piece of current evidence
where it is clearly concluded that "people are born gay." But it's no
surprise, since such evidence doesn't exist.
> If even one of the earlier books had made a
> satisfactory argument that people are born gay, there would have been no
> reason for that book to be written.
Because two books are never, EVER written on the same subject, right? lol
>> > Note that word
>> > "certain." It means "some". As in "not all." So all I have to do is to
>> > point to some scientists and journalists who think that, which I did.
>> >
>> > So where's the problem?
>>
>> Learn what a citation is.
>
> Suggesting that people give a cite is appropriate in some circumstances
> and not in others. It is inappropriate in this particular case because
> no cite should be needed - you can find out that I'm right without one.
In other words, "I'm right because I say I'm right and I don't have to
prove it." Yeah, whatever, moron. Admission of having baseless claims
noted.
Dennis Kemmerer
news:87ods4m...@nospam.pacbell.net...
Two words: flat earth.
Religious kooks always have a difficult time when their moronic dogma is
disproven.
Qazfez
wrote:
I had a specific, limited purpose in mentioning that book. It was simply
to show that some scientists think that people are born gay, beyond any
reasonable doubt. Unless for some reason the authors of that book chose
a title which totally contradicted their theory, it's safe to conclude
from the title alone ("Born Gay") that they think people are born gay.
I did read a couple of reviews
(http://www.narth.com/docs/psychobiology.html and
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/peter_tatchell/2006/06/born_gay_or_ma
de_gay.html). I may well read the book itself at some stage, but it
doesn't seem that important and I'm not eager to do so any time soon.
> > I explained why not: it's only the latest of many books which have
> > argued that people are born gay - and as such there would be little
> > point to reading it.
>
> Just admit it: you can't cite one single real piece of current evidence
> where it is clearly concluded that "people are born gay." But it's no
> surprise, since such evidence doesn't exist.
I'm not sure what you're talking about. What specifically do you mean by
"evidence"? Do you mean scientific papers? I didn't say that scientists
have said that people are born gay in scientific papers (though no doubt
some of them have). I just said that some of them think people are born
gay. So why is it a scientific paper, rather than a book, that you want?
It shouldn't make any difference.
> > If even one of the earlier books had made a
> > satisfactory argument that people are born gay, there would have been no
> > reason for that book to be written.
>
> Because two books are never, EVER written on the same subject, right? lol
Plenty of books are written about a single subject, and in itself there
is nothing wrong with this, but there is little point to writing a book
which takes basically the same stance on its subject that many earlier
books have already taken. Unfortunately this does not stop people from
doing just that. Where controversial subjects are concerned, there is
typically a gross over-production of literature: book after book after
book makes the same claims and, even more deadly, uses the same sources.
I did glance at Rahman and Wilson's book in a bookshop. I skimmed
through bits of it and had a look at their bibliography. 'Born Gay'
refers to many of the same sources that other books on the biology of
homosexuality use and it repeats many of the same (bad) arguments, too.
Thus there is a major overlap between this book and earlier books and
anyone reading it would have a serious sense of dejva vu, you know?
There was no reason for Wilson and Rahman to write that book except for
self-promotion and to reinforce the born gay propaganda campaign.
> >> > Note that word
> >> > "certain." It means "some". As in "not all." So all I have to do is to
> >> > point to some scientists and journalists who think that, which I did.
> >> >
> >> > So where's the problem?
> >>
> >> Learn what a citation is.
> >
> > Suggesting that people give a cite is appropriate in some circumstances
> > and not in others. It is inappropriate in this particular case because
> > no cite should be needed - you can find out that I'm right without one.
>
> In other words, "I'm right because I say I'm right and I don't have to
> prove it." Yeah, whatever, moron. Admission of having baseless claims
> noted.
You can just find the book on Amazon. That's not so hard. Go to Amazon
and do a search for "Born Gay" and read the reviews. Or read the two
reviews I linked to. This, and not the fact that I say I'm right, should
show you that I'm right.
Qazfez
"ScottyFLL" <Scot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Qazfez wrote:
> >
> > There was only one book, and yes, I certainly said that I didn't read
> > it. I explained why not: it's only the latest of many books which have
> > argued that people are born gay - and as such there would be little
> > point to reading it.
>
> Of course, if yet another book claiming to "prove" god's existence were
> to be published, you'd be first in line to buy it.
Actually I wouldn't. That's not only because I don't believe in God.
It's because, even if I did believe in God, I wouldn't need such a book.
> Why don't you admit that you -- like others of your ilk -- really are
> not on a quest for the truth. You're much more comfortable with your
> opinions, and trying to pass of your opinions as fact.
I don't "admit" that. I have my own opinions, as most people (including
you, I suppose) do.