Khar Khar:
I've been trying to be nice. Your posts have provided a tone which is not at ALL friendly or conductive for discussion.
Hold the phone, Irene, didn't you just post, "This is one of the reasons I hate people breaking up a response to pick at one or two points at a time because it always ends with with people separating each point alone without heed to what was said elsewhere to put it in context."?!? But now it's ok? This smells of hypocracy and you reek of it.
And you're being "nice"? Really? Didn't you suggest I was "making a mountain out of molehill"? Sounds kinda' condescending and patronizing. Didn't you comment on me overspimplying things? That sort of appears patronizing. And wasn't it you who followed this up by playing the victim claiming that you were trying to be nice while i was the only with an alleged inability to be conduct a discussion? I guess we wip out the passive-aggressive hyocracy card the minute someone refuses to take your word as the proverbial gospel. Tough.
$1:
However, you have not provided anything to the contrary of my thoughts or opinions either. Speaking of moral and intellectual relativism indeed, the assumption that all of this must go one way is not only rude, given the time I have put into the responses to posts I have felt were ill mannered but chose to believe that was not intentional, disrespectful because of the effort I have taken to try and fill in your demands for evidence, but also entirely incorrect if you want to make claims like you have been making, that your idea is "scientifically valid."
Huh? What evidence did you provide? Where? What peer-reviewed studies did you specifically quote? What criticism did you offer to refute neuro-biological studies or genetic work? You made general, ambiguous, vague references to academics and scholarly work, but where are the specific studies and what are your qualifications for interpreting them? Oh...and quote-mining Grant doesn't count as i'd like the specific reference that refutes my point that this doesn't transcend history (not a contemporary ethno-study). Sorry, but you're full of it.
$1:
And I now pose this request for you. Get me evidence. Any evidence. Of anything we have talked about. Anywhere. My own is admittedly not thorough, but that's because I have a life, and I know you have one too. Even just linking me to a research field, a paper, an author, someone, would be better than what you have provided thus far as validity for your own point of view while you have slapped away at me.
I'm to provide evidence that homosexuality isn't simply a lifesytle choice?!? Are you kidding me? Want proof of the Holocaust too? Evolution? Heliocentrism? Sorry, but it's not my job to educate you - if you think that there's actually a "debate" here, then you're sorrily mistaken - i'm starting to think that your professed position is patently false. Why would anyone want evidence for this, UNLESS they think it's problematic, that there's proof its false. I'm starting to think there's a hidden agenda here.
Oh...and since you've provided NOTHING of substance, i don't dance for hypocrites.
$1:
...babble...babble
Learn to articulate yourself succinctly and lose the position that verbiage equals persuasiveness.
CKA Uber 
CKA Uber 
