Page 4 of 12 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 231
  1. #61  
    Quote Originally Posted by KRamsauer
    My point exactly Da! I was showing you how crazy your comment was. Changing the subject of a statement (and this shouldn't surprise everyone with a third grade education) changes its meaning. And when you change the meaning of your argument, you are no longer arguing the same thing. My point is that if you want to "help people" see how "ridiculous" this is, you have to accept it when people do the same thing in the opposite direction. Believe it or not, just because you say something doesn't mean it's right (and it especially doesn't mean people will agree).

    Again, I don't believe it changes the meaning at all. I believe that to be spot on.
  2. #63  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Again, I don't believe it changes the meaning at all. I believe that to be spot on.
    Right, and because you believe it...
  3. #64  

    A survey is less "interesting" to me than mapping brain topography to stimuli, for obvious reasons.
  4. #65  
    Are Republicans the “Party of Hate”?

    Lincoln hated the injustices of slavery, so he freed the slaves… How Dare He!

    Republicans hated the injustices of racism, so they pushed the Civil Rights Act… How Dare They!

    Nixon hated isolating China, so he went there to open up relations with them… How Dare He!

    Reagan hated the evil-empire of Communism’s lack of freedom,
    so he built a strong USA, thus helping to free people in Russia, Berlin, and more… How Dare He!

    Rebublicans hate that those who work hard have to give so much of what they have earned to the gov’t,
    so they push for less taxes for everybody… How Dare They!

    Republicans hate that there are disincentives for people to work hard,
    so they pushed for welfare reform… How Dare They!

    The GOP hates that those who obey our laws and wait in line to join our society legally are being pushed out by lawbreakers who want to make money, but not join our culture… How Dare They!

    Conservative Republicans hate that dear babies are being needlessly aborted,
    when there are many unfertile couples who want to adopt them… How Dare They!

    These people also hate that children are being brainwashed with the liberal agenda,
    and not taught the basics of our history and culture along with the “Three R’s”… How Dare They!

    Republicans hate the fact that after 3,000 of our fellow Americans died on September 11th, the other
    side has done little to make our society more secure, while they have acted… How Dare They!

    The Grand Old Party hates the fact that when there are opportunities for real bi-partisan progress,
    the other side often fails to take the high road and just whines… How Dare They!

    Reams could be written about the atrocities, injustices, and evil that these Republicans hate…
    … and work so hard to eliminate.

    How Dare They! Who do they think they are? A Party of Hate… indeed!
    "Everybody Palm!"

    Palm III/IIIC, Palm Vx, Verizon: Treo 650, Centro, Pre+.
    Leo killed my future Pre 3 & Opal, dagnabitt!
    Should I buy a Handspring Visor instead?
    Got a Pre2! "It eats iPhones for Breakfast"!
  5. #66  
    Quote Originally Posted by KRamsauer
    Right, and because you believe it...
    No. I think any person of average intelligence not attempting to muddy the waters would say the same thing.
  6. #67  
    If I am to digest da's scientificly nebulous thesis...
    (help me here if I don't understand the scientific gobbledygook)...

    It shows only that people responded to a stimulus differently, depending on if they were homosexual or heterosexual... Well, duh...

    I would assume a straight male would get a different biological reaction to seeing a cute female than a homosexual male would. The former "wood", and the latter not.

    People disposed to one orientation would respond (biologically) differently, but there is nothing there that says that that orientation or disposition was by biology, training, choice, desire, decision, or whatever.

    What precisely am I missing?
    "Everybody Palm!"

    Palm III/IIIC, Palm Vx, Verizon: Treo 650, Centro, Pre+.
    Leo killed my future Pre 3 & Opal, dagnabitt!
    Should I buy a Handspring Visor instead?
    Got a Pre2! "It eats iPhones for Breakfast"!
  7. #68  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    No. I think any person of average intelligence not attempting to muddy the waters would say the same thing.
    Relevant parts highlighted.
    Tommy, you keep trying to assert stuff and backing it up merely by saying a person of "average intelligence" would say the "same thing." Unless you have some divine background that I'm not aware of, your words are just that you cannot proclaim them universal truths.
  8. #69  
    Quote Originally Posted by duanedude1
    It shows only that people responded to a stimulus differently, depending on if they were homosexual or heterosexual... Well, duh...
    And wine lovers would have different responses (biological responses, no less tom) than would non-wine lovers upon smelling wine. No one is claiming there isn't biology involved somewhere. Biology is everywhere. Your argument must go deeper to attain relevance.
    FWIW, I think it is profoundly stupid to measure someone's worth by their sexual preference, but that doesn't excuse your illogical arguments.
  9. #70  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Thank you.
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    I'm betting every research ethicist on the planet got a cold chill up there spine when you posted that.
    Why?
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    This is just the latest in a mountain of evidence showing a biological cause of homosexualiy. And given the level of discrimination homosexuals experience in this country, why would anyone choose this?
    Why? that's supposed to be my question. But, I think the answer is that many have biological inclinations towards such. Some others may just interested in pleasure. And, there is something about bucking against the norm that seems to heighten pleasure--for a season (of course the law of diminishing returns kicks in so that greater levels of deviation are required to experience the same pleasure--often until people are so far gone they don't know how to come back if they wanted to--but I digress).

    Now, some of my fellow buh-LEE-vers may have dropped their jaw to see my view that there is likely biological cause for such tendencies (but as clulup likes to remind us, God said He would visit the sins of the fathers on the children. As we understand human reproduction, it seems reasonable to conclude that such "visits" occur genetically).

    Don't be alarmed. While I believe there is genetic inducement in the behavior, I don't make the logical leap that biology is justification for the law.

    See, the frailty in the "it's biological therefore grant me privileges" argument is that as we continue to research, we will discover that all behaviors have chemical roots. Like I said, I do believe that some, even many, people who practice homosexuality likely have a genetic trait that enhances that tendancy...as I believe that people who have a strong tendency to steal have a genetic trait that so inclines them to do so....as I believe that people who are overly generous have a genetic trait that so inclines them....as I believe that people who __________ have a genetic trait that so inclines them.

    But, if you notice, as of now, there is no call to invalidate laws against theft. Those diagnosed as "kleptomaniacs" may get special treatment in legal matters, but the laws against larceny remain. Such people are considered exceptions. And are treated accordingly.

    So, already, we see that biology is not necessarily a basis for abandoning centuries-old practices. In fact, if we extend the logic that the practice of homosexuality is biologically induced and on that basis is worthy of legal status, then we really lose all basis to restrict any behavior which can be linked to chemical reactions (i.e. all behavior).

    So, I agree with daT. The question is exactly as he stated:
    which group will you deny rights to based on their biological condition?
    The answer is none.
    {sidenote, Couldn't being "unborn" be classified as a biological condition?}

    See, a moral society does not establish its standards on such basis. A moral society looks to encourage behavior that enhances the well-being of the society and discourage behavior that detracts from its well-being. It may not always make the best judgment as to what enhances or detracts, but that is its aim none the less.

    So, what type of society does make judgments based on biological condition? A Darwinistic one.

    Oh boy. Here he goes again

    Before the emotional response kicks in, consider:

    Darwinistic thought leads us to believe that variations within a species will eventually prove to be advantageous or disadvantageous to the respective carriers of those varied traits. Well, if that be the case, it is totally logical for a given individual to want to act in concert with other individuals who share a significant number of traits. If that be the case, it is reasonable to encourage people with similary levels of melanin, for example, to reproduce only with each other, so as to increase its population, and therefore prove to be the advantaged class.

    Of course, the problem is, you don't know what is advantageous in advance. So it is possible that such self-imposed restrictions may prove to be the cause of that group's disadvantage.

    And that is why a moral society does not act based on biological variation.

    So, what do we do? We look for a standard that transcends biological variation. We look for things that are self-evident. We look for principles upon which we can stand despite the minor variations that may exist from person to person.
  10. #71  
    Quote Originally Posted by KRamsauer
    Relevant parts highlighted.
    Tommy, you keep trying to assert stuff and backing it up merely by saying a person of "average intelligence" would say the "same thing." Unless you have some divine background that I'm not aware of, your words are just that you cannot proclaim them universal truths.
    Please don't refer to me as "tommy".

    Actually, please don't refer to me.
  11. #72  
    Quote Originally Posted by duanedude1
    If I am to digest da's scientificly nebulous thesis...
    (help me here if I don't understand the scientific gobbledygook)...

    It shows only that people responded to a stimulus differently, depending on if they were homosexual or heterosexual... Well, duh...

    I would assume a straight male would get a different biological reaction to seeing a cute female than a homosexual male would. The former "wood", and the latter not.

    People disposed to one orientation would respond (biologically) differently, but there is nothing there that says that that orientation or disposition was by biology, training, choice, desire, decision, or whatever.

    What precisely am I missing?
    Since the link was provided to the particular study perhaps reading it could expose you to what, if anything, you might be missing??
  12. #73  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Please don't refer to me as "tommy".

    Actually, please don't refer to me.
    I understand if you don't like a name (which I won't use any more), but what's your problem with conversation?
  13. #74  
    Quote Originally Posted by KRamsauer
    I understand if you don't like a name (which I won't use any more), but what's your problem with conversation?
    I found that tommy thing intentionally condescending.
  14. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #75  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Since the link was provided to the particular study perhaps reading it could expose you to what, if anything, you might be missing??
    Here is an article that refutes your link. The studies and individuals quoted in the link are from both sides of the genetic/non-genetic argument. Not trying to change anyones mind, just the other side of the coin.

    http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.a...egoryid=papers

    The only way to gain greater knowledge is to look at the issue with an open mind and accept research and study that you may not agree with.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  15. #76  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    I found that tommy thing intentionally condescending.
    Sorry. I was kinda immitating the "Da" I saw earlier. I was trying to be friendly.
  16. #77  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    Here is an article that refutes your link. The studies and individuals quoted in the link are from both sides of the genetic/non-genetic argument. Not trying to change anyones mind, just the other side of the coin.
    I haven't RTFL, but it's important to remember that genetics is not the same as biology. I think DaThomas was talking specifically about biology (which can be changed by environment, choice, etc) and not genetics (which is 100% fixed at conception).
  17. #78  
    Quote Originally Posted by KRamsauer
    Sorry. I was kinda immitating the "Da" I saw earlier. I was trying to be friendly.
    Fine. I'll take my Midol then.

  18. #79  
    Quote Originally Posted by KRamsauer
    I haven't RTFL, but it's important to remember that genetics is not the same as biology. I think DaThomas was talking specifically about biology (which can be changed by environment, choice, etc) and not genetics (which is 100% fixed at conception).
    No I'm speaking of genetics not environment.

    And you're seriously going to offer up that link as scientific research of some kind? It's from the Culture and Family Institute. It is an op/ed piece.
  19. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #80  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    No I'm speaking of genetics not environment.

    And you're seriously going to offer up that link as scientific research of some kind? It's from the Culture and Family Institute. It is an op/ed piece.
    I did not say it was a scientific research paper. I said it was an article, the article refers to multiple studies and the findings of those studies, the studies were conducted by organizations and individuals who were seeking the biological/genetic link to homosexuality, as well as those who disagree with the genetic role.
    You are a little too fast to attempt to discredit any who disagree with you.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
Page 4 of 12 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions