Racist Nazi runs as a Republican on hate filled platform

[shagdrum]

The difference in rationale for opposition to gay marraige by nazis and conservatives is irellevant to the conclusion that both are opposed to it

the fact that both are opposed to it does not, by itself support your conclusion that, "The nazi racists share some of the benign views of conservatives."

To share the same views, they have to have the same (or similar) rationales. Otherwise it is simply coincidence that they have the same policy position. Ignoring the reasons for something is a very effective method of misleading and of self-deception.

The fact that the rationale is not the same blows your argument to hell. The fact that you are intentionally trying to ignore it shows you are not approaching this objectively.

Also, simply focusing only on holding a position in general is very misleading. Both conservatives and liberals want generally similar ends; reduce the deficit, help the poor, reduce evil in society, protect our national interests, etc. It you looked at it like that, you would have to reach the conclusion that the viewpoints are similar. However, differences in how those goals are prioritized and the different approaches dictated by the different understandings of social causation mean that the viewpoints are inextricably opposed.

If you are simply trying to be provocative, you are succeeding. If you are actually trying to encourage productive dialog, you are failing miserably.

 

[04SCTLS]

As a personal anecdote

When we were in grade school before puberty there was a guy in class who enjoyed playing with the girls at recess and did not get involved with sports.

There was no pressure on him of any kind that I'm aware of but surprise surprise by grade 8 it was obvious in his mannerisms and associations that he was gay.

I just don't buy your social forces argument.
I'll stick with my contention that no one would choose to be gay if given the choice.

 

[shagdrum]

Even if homosexuality is incidental in the animal kindom it is still of nature and therefore "natural"

Just because "homosexual incidents" occur in nature does not mean that homosexuality (being attracted to someone of the same sex) is a natural phenomenon. This has already been covered in that thread that you refuse to read. In many cases, it is an issue of showing dominance, or some other motivation and not a case of sexual attraction. The best you can say is that homosexuality in nature is uncertain.

 

[shagdrum]

As a personal anecdote

When we were in grade school before puberty there was a guy in class who enjoyed playing with the girls at recess and did not get involved with sports.

There was no pressure on him of any kind that I'm aware of but surprise surprise by grade 8 it was obvious in his mannerisms and associations that he was gay.

I had a similar kid in class with me in elementary school. However, as you alluded to in your example, there are plenty of things that we were unaware of. That example doesn't constitute proof of anything.

I'll stick with my contention that no one would choose to be gay if given the choice.

Maybe a reasonable person in your view would not consciously make that decision. But that leaves open a lot of other ways besides a genetic predisposition for someone being homosexual.

 

[shagdrum]

I really don't want to open up that can of worms again. Go read through that thread. Most all these arguments you are giving have been covered in great detail in that thread.

 

[04SCTLS]

Just because "homosexual incidents" occur in nature does not mean that homosexuality (being attracted to someone of the same sex) is a natural phenomenon. This has already been covered in that thread that you refuse to read. In many cases, it is an issue of showing dominance, or some other motivation and not a case of sexual attraction. The best you can say is that homosexuality in nature is uncertain.

No the best I can say is that homosexuality occurs in nature and that is a fact that is not in dispute.

You can use sophistry to rationalize it away as dominance and agression
but even you have said that theory is uncertain.

I did not refuse to read the thread you linked to but that doesn't mean that it is the final word on any of this.

 

[04SCTLS]

I really don't want to open up that can of worms again. Go read through that thread. Most all these arguments you are giving have been covered in great detail in that thread.

I don't want to get into a bog fest with you either so lets just agree that we disagree on this point.

 

[shagdrum]

You can use sophistry to rationalize it away as dominance and agression
but even you have said that theory is uncertain.

Using critical thought is not sophistry.

Educate yourself on this issue.

I did not refuse to read the thread you linked to but that doesn't mean that it is the final word on any of this.

I never said or implied that it was. However, you have an exceedingly ignorant and one-sided understanding on this issue and need to educate yourself on opposing views. That thread is the quickest way to do that.

 

[04SCTLS]

Using critical thought is not sophistry.

Educate yourself on this issue.



I never said or implied that it was. However, you have an exceedingly ignorant and one-sided understanding on this issue and need to educate yourself on opposing views. That thread is the quickest way to do that.

I'll believe my own eyes and life experience sooner than your explanations.

Things that happen in nature are not natural?

To you it depends on your own definition of natural, adding the caveat that it is not sexual therefore not natural.???

Look we're carrying on a conversation here and now.
It is you who are being rude and presumptuous.
I'm not writing in that thread but this one.

It occurs in nature, but it's societal and not natural is your whole argument.

Let's just agree that we disagree and it is neither ignorant nor dismissive for there to be a difference of opinion that goes to the heart of the matter of if one is born with a predisposition to be homosexual or that it is societal forces at work or both.

 

[fossten]

I don't want to get into a bog fest with you either so lets just agree that we disagree on this point.

Sorry I'm late to this, but I do have an additional question - do you include pedophilia in your generalization?

 

[shagdrum]

I'll believe my own eyes and life experience sooner than your explanations.

You cannot logically draw the truths you are drawing only from your own life experience. Your own personal experience is at best anecdotal.

Things that happen in nature are not natural?

After a point almost everything occurs in nature. That doesn't mean that the causes are natural in any but the most self-serving, broadest sense of the term.

It occurs in nature, but it's societal and not natural is your whole argument.

I am not saying what the causes are, only that there are plenty of possibilities that you have clearly not logically and empirically discounted.

Even if the cause is "societal" it can still be "natural" as well. However, the "natural" argument for homosexuality, is very specific; a genetic/biological predisposition toward attraction to same sex. That has not been proven empirically.

 

[Calabrio]

How are societies without Judeo Christian values vastly different?

They have a different moral and value system.
Those things things that we take for granted are not universal.

Homosexuality is a born with physical disposition that transcends any moralizing or philosophy.

It is.
And, despite you're charge that I was rambling, I was demonstrating that people who engage in homosexual activities outside of our culture aren't necessarily "predisposed" to a homosexual lifestyle, as we would define it. There are cultural forces that condone the action in a pursuit of pleasure, or status, such as in the middle east.

You seem to infer that homosexuality causes the breakup of society
even though it has been around forever.

I didn't infer any such thing, nor have I considered that.
I didn't even venture into that direction. That would appear to be a conclusion you've drawn independent of me.

It is just so much easier to get some quick relief from other like sex starved men.

Which now brings us back to the same page.
These men aren't acting on a physical predisposition to become drama majors or decorate apartments, so while some people are, ALL homosexual activity isn't necessarily biologically predisposed. It can be purely hedonistic.

I think we agree on that point.

 

[fossten]

then, i suppose you dismiss this.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7456588.stm

Absolutely - it's a flawed study. It uses the flawed logic of 'correlation = causation' - and thus fails to take into account other factors that might have contributed to the differences. Rahman clearly is fitting the results of the study into his predisposed worldview, which is something a scientist should never do, but so many of them (such as evolutionary or global warming 'scientists') do.

Link
Homosexuality is not hardwired
Gay gene study debunked

The animal homosexuality myth

There Is No "Homosexual Instinct" In Animals

Anyone engaged in the most elementary animal observation is forced to conclude that animal "homosexuality," "filicide" and "cannibalism" are exceptions to normal animal behavior. Consequently, they cannot be called animal instincts. These observable exceptions to normal animal behavior result from factors beyond their instincts.

"Linkage and association do not mean causation"

Dozens more links to studies and evidence

 

[cammerfe]

Poorly Done

then, i suppose you dismiss this.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7456588.stm

Yes, I would tend to, on several grounds.

First, the study was done on adults. Inferring that a physicality found in adults means that it was an anomaly existing in the infant is a fatal flaw to the argument.

Second, his use of 'orientate' in the quotation makes it clear that his grasp of English is either poor or that he is displaying an affectation in an attempt to make his maunderings seem more important.

Use of this citing---C-/D+.

KS

 

[cammerfe]

"Learn to read"

did you actually read it or skim it?
i think your grasp of english is poor.
nowhere is the word ORIENTATE used.
there are a few derivatives, but if you read it , you would have used them, instead of the wrong one.

"...amygdala, he said, was important because of its role in "orientating", or directing, the rest of the brain in response to..."

Let's make that a D-

To quote an earlier part of the thread, you've been---'pwned'.

KS

 

[cammerfe]

Another English lesson

this is not what you stated first.

so, how would the use of this word elude to a bad grasp of english?

That IS what I stated first. The word he should have used is 'orienting'. The addition of the extra 'at' is poor usage and really means something else. It is often misused in the fashion shown here to sound more learned. It absolutely shows the opposite.

And the word you were reaching for is actually 'allude'. 'Elude' really means 'to escape the grasp of'. But the proper spelling eluded you.

And all of this back-and-forth only leads away from the basic message of the thread.

As I said before, you're pwned.

If I wanted to be brutal, I'd probably say that you'd be better off if you don't F U C K with me! So I won't say it.

KS

 

[fossten]

couldn't find any less biased links?
NARTH?
and nothing you have posted disputes the brain size difference.
just the genetic factor.

The brain size difference is correlation = causation. Your link is nothing but a scientist using flawed logic. Look who's being dismissive now - can't argue the merits of the science, so you yell bias.

 

[cammerfe]

Today's English Lesson

correct.

there is nothing wrong in the use of orientating.


orienting adj.
Positioning with respect to a reference system or determining one’s bearings physically or intellectually: “an orienting program for new employees”; Synonyms: orientating.

i think your just being petty.

but i'll give ya a D for the first part.

Your quote probably comes from one of the excuses for dictionaries that is at least partly responsible for the bastardization of the language that we've come to have to live with. 'Orientating' is not a synonym for 'orienting'. It's a misspelling created to try to sound learned. There are even dictionaries that suggest 'imply' and 'infer' are interchangeable. And that's an example of illiteracy.

The word you reached for, above, and missed, was probably 'you're', a contraction for 'you are'. 'Your' implies ownership and there is no ownership in the sentence as you offered it. The use of 'your' instead is a sign of your own lack of erudition. It approaches illiteracy but doesn't get quite that far. You're close to an 'F' because of the continued errors in your writings. And that's a double 'F' for both construction and content. Please don't make it worse!

KS

 

[fossten]

ya, sometimes i miss that when i'm in a rush, but most times catch it.
although if you catch it, i sometimes spell their thier.

but i at least know the difference between weather and whether.:headbang:



don't know. concise oxford english dictionary and ultralingua7 are the 2 on my computer.

Dictionaries come in book form also. Check under that thick coat of dust on your bookcase.

 

[cammerfe]

You're welcome to come to my house, by appointment, and use one of the half-a-dozen I own!

KS

 

[Calabrio]

You're welcome to come to my house, by appointment, and use one of the half-a-dozen I own!

KS

That's nice.
He'll use them as a booster seat.

 

[fossten]

That's nice.
He'll use them as a booster seat.

:lol: