Dayseed Dayseed:
That's certainly more effort than I'm willing to put in to respond on this particular thread. My reasons for posting that article were to see if you were following a pattern similar to other folks on here who push shady agendas by being a wolf in sheep's clothing. In other words, people who proclaim to believe the current dominant theory but then needle away at it from the inside to cast doubt on it.
I've seen it on here with both evolution and the Holocaust. It was done in spades with same-sex marriage too. (The posting of which I'm speak follows as: Sure, the Holocaust was real, but can we really be certain of the number of dead? Maybe instead of 6,000,000 it was really only 200,000...)
Just checking.
I certainly don't mind responding to it in any case. This is something I have discussed a lot both on the internet and in real life, so I certainly have no problems discussing it again and putting my full thoughts into the discussion. It's also a fairly important topic to me personally, and I've been taught to always think the most critically of your own viewpoints. It's why I don't post a lot on CKA -- more than half of what I write I either delete shortly after posting or never submit at all because I don't feel I developed the idea enough for myself yet, I don't feel like I know enough, or I straight out dislike how it reads. Most of the time I'd rather site here and read what you guys have to say, since you guys know way more than me.
As I said before, I really do appreciate you taking the time to put up the article either which way. I really wish I could say otherwise, as I'm sure the various Doctors and associations I mentioned did (since we're all really progressive on this topic), but we simply can't for the reasons I've been stated.
My own belief is that it's genetic. I just can't actually say it's genetic (as in, not just my belief, but fact), just highly likely that biological factors are what "expresses" homosexuality, because I have no evidence to straight out say that. Since I've picked on other people in threads here and on other sites for using terms like "positive belief" or "onus on you for evidence" as pseudo-scientific/pseudo-skeptical it would be two faced of me not to maintain that method of thinking through and through, even if it denounces my own point of view or beliefs.
The difference is not all that significant. Shades of barely different gray. I know what you mean with wolf in sheep's clothing, but typically the differences suggested are very different. In this case, I write a lot about comparatively a very small difference (in my opinion), and it's also refuting the whole "no genetic proof" crap which gets expelled by a lot of hard-line religious groups these days as if that's the end all to the topic, so I have no problems bringing it up in these threads.
Eyebrock Eyebrock:
A hairy arse just doesn't do it for me.
In a day and age where men of any orientation like shaving/waxing off body hair for looks or for how it feels, I don't think that's as much of a barrier as you think.
ASLplease ASLplease:
Khar, holy fruck man, has anyone ever accused you of writing too much?
Yes, yourself included. A few times. Bruce once told me he was just scanning what I wrote after a while.
There was a nomination for Typewriter, but I seem to have gotten away with too few nominations so I'm pretty sure I'm still good to go generally.
SheperdsDog SheperdsDog:
Khar, this isn't meant as a slight, but do you speak like you write?
Nope. In fact, people ask me to expand a lot on what I say.
For a few reasons, though. People can ask for clarification off the net at any time. On here I just assume I should clarify. I also don't get stopped and can keep connecting thoughts. I have to admit it's for my benefit too -- the more I write, the more I can connect these thoughts mentally and the better I feel I have developed my thoughts on a topic personally. Kind of like free writing.
Even in emails, instant messengers, internet chats, papers, or the like, I write much more succinctly. It's just something about forums which makes me write a ton.
On the other hand, I also don't expect folks to read my posts most of the time either, and can understand that the more I write, the less likely people are to read it all. It'd be crude and rude of me to type this out and expect people to take a ton of time out of their lives to read and respond to something of this length, so I don't expect people to. I just appreciate people who take the effort and appreciate the people on this site who end up teaching me stuff.
$1:
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.
I know, I know. As I said to Mr_Canada elsewhere, and as I said in that post, I do hate it. But I always end up replying in that format if someone goes there first, simply because it HAS been broken down into seperate points and I feel I must respond to each one. I take effort to try and tackle each point and to put it into context, and it does read as hypocritical. I fully deserve this rebuke, but in efforts to reduce my post size I did not want to take extra paragraphs, like I did with the 80,000 character monstrosity Mr_Canada had to deal with, to connect each point into larger contexts and talk about my personal preferences when it comes down to dissecting each point.
I instead tried as hard as I could to expand each point of interest as much as I could, and tried to provide you with a cohesive response in a similar fashion to the one given me, which really did focus at specific points rather than placing the entire post in context. I hope that this attempt to provide you with a post keeping in context even with this broken down format resonates with you, but if it did not than I'd appreciate knowing that, and apologize for this unintended hypocrisy.
On the second portion, I have to disagree rather vehemently. Making a mountain out of a molehill is something I commonly here and it's not at all derogatory. I get told it all the time whenever I feel a detail is important when another person feels it's not, and it's always been said in a friendly tone.
Likewise, yes, I did feel you were simplifying it down to the point where effective details are lost. How would you have suggested I write this? In my point of view, it is true because the details of such discussions and how they differentiate between each system is important, and I had a set of rhetorical questions which exemplified that point. You did not respond to any of those points or rhetorical questions which basically followed the line of what I said -- you were oversimplifying an inherently complex issue, which labour economics is. This was the most diplomatic way I could have said this. It would be like saying homosexuality and lesbians are the same thing. In one case, if we keep it simple, it's true. Since one excludes a portion of the other, if we take it more critically, we do not.
$1:
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.
Moving the goalposts is not acceptable, especially since I clearly stated in my last post that I understood my defenses were quite broad. All I asked for was just something as simple as a theory, or an author, to back up the claims you were making. You are essentially criticizing me for stuff I have already accepted, discussed, and made allowances for in what I was hoping you would provide in turn.
Essentially, all you have done with this section is provided criticism and a singular repeated viewpoint, that because homosexuality pops up in history repeatedly it is clearly biological. I proposed that it MAY not be, and then went on to discuss the different theories which I felt could have played a part. I provided a reference to an author, and admitted it was a nebulous one, but hoped that since you were familiar with the man's work and had quoted him yourself you might have some basic knowledge of his viewpoint (even though I viewed him as an example). The added problem is that many references on the topic of history go to books rather than papers.
When you make a positive statement, there's two parts to it. As a positive statement, either of positive belief or positive disbelief, you have to state your belief, and then back it up with your reasoning. This reasoning is more often defined as evidence. I have provided an extensive look at my critical thinking, but you have not.
For example, when you say "throughout the ages," not once did you link me to an example, mention an author who did work in that field, or even type in "homosexuality" into Wikipedia and link me to that. And that's the point I am getting across here and which continues to be a prime issue here -- you are simply restating, and not saying why you believe it is such. I have, on the other hand, brought about numerous fields which you have decided not to discuss, but have waved off as if unimportant and something you not need to reply to.
If it does make you feel any better, the above response to Dayseed takes a critical look at more reviewed literature. This is not just because Dayseed took the time and energy to bring about his viewpoint but also introduced an actual example which was a worthwhile read. I was able to respond as such. I have difficulty responding to you because, quite honestly, even though you have written a lot more than Dayseed in this thread, you have not yet provided anything close to the caliber provided by Dayseed in any shape or form.
When I asked for a single name, or field, or anything, that was all I was asking for. I was not demanding you come up with reviewed literature. I was asking you to reinforce your viewpoint with anything. Any theory. Any discussion. Any example. Any point. I had at least tried with the limited time and resources I had yesterday, and I posted numerous examples in my last post of how I tried. I asked for very little in turn, and made it extremely clear of how little I wanted.
Instead, we are continuing this side debate and derailing this thread pointlessly. I do not understand what was difficult, or wrong about my response. I asked for something very broad, and very simple. I was not making an excessive demand. In response, you decided to continue criticizing and, as I said, moving goalposts which I set very loose for both of our sakes.
If you wish to continue this discussion, when I now have posted official, progressive viewpoints from numerous respected and peer reviewed sources including the official position of an entire organization of experts, which, I have to add, reflects my own point of view precisely, I'd appreciate you carrying on with my very simple request of either pointing out flaws of my own supporting evidence (anything which shows reasoning behind my thoughts) with your own thoughts (and I will use this word from now on if you would prefer it, although I feel that you are taking this down the road of semantics you said you wanted to avoid in your first post here by getting caught up in word use) or respond with a different point supported by your thoughts.
I'd also appreciate if you'd tone down the rhetoric, considering that I quite clearly made an effort to moderate mine even more than I had before in my previous post.
The short of the short is, even if I had only "quote-mined" Grant alone and did not bring up biological fields, or pseudo-scientific theory before now, it is still more supporting thoughts displayed than you have brought to this thread in all of your responses combined. I spent a lot of time to make that as clear as possible, and you have chosen to instead continue striking at me rather than talking about the points here. I even PM'd you to try and rectify any problems which may be between us because I was worried it would derail this thread, and if you wish to post the PM I sent you, that is not a problem (I will not even post your response, if you do not wish me to).
$1:
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.
This is a cop out. I could have easily told you the same thing, or the same thing to Dayseed. Instead, I took the time to "educate" Dayseed to my point of view. Even if he disagrees with me, he now sees my underlying thought processes. I would also like to point out that, through your use of heavy rhetoric in this section of your post as an undeniable fact, rubs very wrong with the previous section above where I talked about what I expected from you. I have also now shown that your "this isn't a debate" is actually incorrect, considering people who are actually psychiatrists, sociologists, and psychologists, agree with the point of view I have posted here.
I am sorry. I asked for a single link, and you provided me with nothing. Nothing.
And this is exactly what I was talking about. If you make a claim and you don't back it up when someone opposes you, then you are making exactly the same sort of argument which some religious hard-liners do, where they demand you become enlightened to their point of view without providing hard evidence as to why.
In fact, this is exactly the point I made in my first post in this thread, that responses such as these are the same sort of responses athiests use on church groups which church groups reflect back onto homosexuals. Perpetuating these sort of aggressive, polarizing comments as if they are acceptable only worsens this problem, in my opinion.
For the record? My positions is an agnostic approach as is prescribed by scientific theory, whereas the response you have uttered here falls into tenants of pseudo-scientific or pseudo-skeptic theory.
Here's a link for you to read the basics on that, should you be interested. The above is sufficient "evidence" of that. Ironically, it also discusses Occam's Razor, or simplification, which I mentioned in the first section of this post, and declaring one's self correct, which you did above. So no, not only is my position not patently false, it's actually patently correct. This sort of logic is reflected in modern statistics in the form of null hypotheses, meaning there's real, definable mathematical proofs used across the academic spectrum behind this point of view. When you make a statement in a debate, it is down to you to back it up by some degree. I have attempted to do this where possible. I feel that you have not, and the above is basically a summary of the response I have received from you even after extensive efforts and limited resources to come up with a speedy reply for you.
$1:
Learn to articulate yourself succinctly and lose the position that verbiage equals persuasiveness.
I have already discussed this. There is no reason to bring this up again except to take a jab at me when I have made every effort not to take jabs at you, and apologize for my "jabs" if I felt it was appropriate, as seen in the first section above and my last post.
For the record, I never said the last bit. If you want to say I did, quote me now. Show me, and stop putting words into my mouth as such. I quite clearly said the opposite, several times now. If you would like, I would happily go through my previous posts and demonstrate this by posting line after line where I indicate it does not mean my post is better, or more comprehensive, or more persuasive, but is a personal problem with babbling I have. I think with exception to my first two posts, I have said it more than once in every follow up post since.
Forum Addict 
CKA Super Elite 
![[B-o]](./images/smilies/drinkup.gif "Drink up")
CKA Uber 
