RE: Talk about science denial

RE: Talk about science denial (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Kirata -> RE: Talk about science denial (6/9/2014 2:51:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tkman117 he was discussing homosexuality possibly being a choice... Well no, he wasn't, and there is nothing in his post (except your projections) to support that claim. K.

DomKen -> RE: Talk about science denial (6/9/2014 3:02:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: Tkman117 he was discussing homosexuality possibly being a choice... Well no, he wasn't, and there is nothing in his post (except your projections) to support that claim. Really? quote: ORIGINAL: SadistDave What makes you think that being gay isn't a choice for many people, and what science are you referring to? What about that line? What about the entire rest of the post following on from there? Everyone else who read the post got his intent loud and clear.

dcnovice -> RE: Talk about science denial (6/9/2014 4:19:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: Tkman117 he was discussing homosexuality possibly being a choice... Well no, he wasn't, and there is nothing in his post (except your projections) to support that claim. K. The two things that struck me were the portion of the OP that Dave quoted and his question about how do we know that homosexuality isn't a choice. How did you read SD's post, Kirata?

PeonForHer -> RE: Talk about science denial (6/9/2014 4:35:37 PM)
quote: What makes you think that being gay isn't a choice for many people, and what science are you referring to? For me, that question doesn't go to 'science', as such, but human understanding. It is very, very difficult to be gay, even in the most advanced societies, and even now. So I would ask: what's the motivation? Why would anyone choose to be gay? Hell, I'm a sub male. Males aren't 'meant to be sub'. Even that is difficult enough. The idea of 'choosing to be gay' makes so little sense to me. I wonder why people even propose it.

thompsonx -> RE: Talk about science denial (6/9/2014 4:59:41 PM)
ORIGINAL: PeonForHer Hell, I'm a sub male. Males aren't 'meant to be sub'. Why do you feel that way? Of all the men you know, how many are alpha? If all men were alpha, who would work for a living? If we want to say that some men are more alpha than others then at some point that low ranking alpha has to be clasified a beta. I am 69 years old and I have not seen anything other than what I just explaned. Even in the military there are those who refuse positions of responsibility and seek out positions in which their task are highly regimented. They are no less steadfast in their duty than their alpha bretheren who seek to lead but they are certianly more numerous. Consider this site...Do alpha females outnumber the non alpha males?

Kirata -> RE: Talk about science denial (6/9/2014 5:03:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice The two things that struck me were the portion of the OP that Dave quoted and his question about how do we know that homosexuality isn't a choice. How did you read SD's post, Kirata? You got me, I missed that line. I jumped right into the body of his argument below it. My apologies. Mea culpa. I don't in fact see the "choice" argument as having any validity. What I object to is the "born that way" argument, as per my first post. It is not a simplistic case of either/or. K.

deathtothepixies -> RE: Talk about science denial (6/9/2014 5:09:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx If all men were alpha, who would work for a living? Do alpha males not work for a living then? Everybody should go and work, but maybe the alphas, of both sexes are better/earn more?

dcnovice -> RE: Talk about science denial (6/9/2014 5:24:26 PM)
quote: I missed that line. Happens to us all. [:)] quote: It is not a simplistic case of either/or. Agreed.

thompsonx -> RE: Talk about science denial (6/9/2014 5:26:56 PM)
ORIGINAL: deathtothepixies quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx If all men were alpha, who would work for a living? Do alpha males not work for a living then? If alphas are the ones giving orders then there has to be someone to obey the orders...no??? Everybody should go and work, Why? but maybe the alphas, of both sexes are better/earn more? Take the case of an auto mechanic who works in a 60/40 shop that charges $100 per hour flat rate. The mechanic will make on the order of three times the money that the alpha service writer who orders him to each job. So it is not always a factor of who makes more money.

RockaRolla -> RE: Talk about science denial (6/9/2014 5:35:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer So I would ask: what's the motivation? Why would anyone choose to be gay? Hell, I'm a sub male. Males aren't 'meant to be sub'. Even that is difficult enough. The idea of 'choosing to be gay' makes so little sense to me. I wonder why people even propose it. There's a big difference between caveman society and modern society. Specifically the differences in what men are "meant" to do and be. Unless you plan to make your living by hunting mammoths, the primitive idea of what you're "meant" to do based on your sex has no merit.

GotSteel -> RE: Talk about science denial (6/9/2014 5:54:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SadistDave That means that 60% of gay men are not "born that way". Actually the "environmental" that you're link's talking about is the environment in utero which would mean they were born that way.

thishereboi -> RE: Talk about science denial (6/9/2014 7:33:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tkman117 To answer that question, do you remember when you chose to like girls? Do you remember when you decided that you'd want to be with a woman over a man? Ask a gay or lesbian that same question, and you'll get the same answer that you would probably say: "I never decided, I've been this way as long as I remember." And if you say you did decide, then either you're lying, you're bisexual or you're a closet gay. I have never met a straight man or woman who has ever said they decided to be straight when he/she was younger. If a straight person doesn't choose to be straight, then why would it be logical to assume that gay people do? You answered your own question in the bolded part which would explain why some are born that way and some choose it.

Kirata -> RE: Talk about science denial (6/9/2014 9:04:20 PM)
~ FR ~ The only certain answer to the question of what gives rise to homosexuals is.... Heterosexuals. [:)] K.

DomKen -> RE: Talk about science denial (6/9/2014 9:15:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata ~ FR ~ The only certain answer to the question of what gives rise to homosexuals is.... Heterosexuals. [:)] Not even that.

Kirata -> RE: Talk about science denial (6/9/2014 9:27:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata The only certain answer to the question of what gives rise to homosexuals is.... Heterosexuals. [:)] Not even that. Good point. And expanding on the theme of a lack of certainty, there's this. K.

dcnovice -> RE: Talk about science denial (6/9/2014 10:06:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata ~ FR ~ The only certain answer to the question of what gives rise to homosexuals is.... Heterosexuals. [:)] K. LOL! This brought to mind a favorite Donelan cartoon: [image]http://andrejkoymasky.com/lou/don/don06/don20.jpg[/image]

DomKen -> RE: Talk about science denial (6/9/2014 10:28:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata The only certain answer to the question of what gives rise to homosexuals is.... Heterosexuals. [:)] Not even that. Good point. And expanding on the theme of a lack of certainty, there's this. That is an example of a style of academic writing that seems to exist solely to obfuscate the point and pad the word count of the article.

subrosaDom -> RE: Talk about science denial (6/9/2014 10:31:42 PM)
http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~hsmbb/BRAIN/vol2/left.html Fascinating article about left-handedness, the Geschwind-Galaburda hypothesis and more.

tweakabelle -> RE: Talk about science denial (6/10/2014 3:47:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata The only certain answer to the question of what gives rise to homosexuals is.... Heterosexuals. [:)] Not even that. Good point. And expanding on the theme of a lack of certainty, there's this. That is an example of a style of academic writing that seems to exist solely to obfuscate the point and pad the word count of the article. Should I be surprised that such a self proclaimed intellectual star appears to fail to understand some pretty routine questions about the '(un-)naturalness' of any of the orthodox categories of sex/gender/sexuality? No I don't believe I ought to be surprised. Uncertainty of any kind is anathema to the 'priestly caste' who proclaim their own (usually wildly inaccurate) notions as fact and/or reality and take it upon themselves to proclaim 'facts' and/or interpret 'reality' for those they (hilariously) perceive as their intellectual inferiors (ie the rest of us), often for no better reason than to blow their own trumpets. Its almost banal to point out the impossibility of any 'science' of human behaviour yet we still have idiots who insist on its 'reality' and even more outlandishly, 'accuracy'. Human behaviour is characterised by diversity nuance and a total and implacable refusal to adjust itself fully to any categorical organisation or classification that anyone (pro-)claims to allegedly describe it. Get used to it. Human behaviour will not be accurately described or fully understood through the jaded, hopelessly inadequate, pseudo-scientific categories that the so-called 'science' of human behaviour invents to impose upon it. Not now, not in the future - never. There is no arena of human endeavour where this is more blindingly obvious than the matrix of sex/gender/sexuality - that's something that one would have thought is self evident to contributors to a kink site.

PeonForHer -> RE: Talk about science denial (6/10/2014 4:59:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx ORIGINAL: PeonForHer Hell, I'm a sub male. Males aren't 'meant to be sub'. Why do you feel that way? Hey, the words 'meant to be sub', in those inverted commas, were supposed to refer to societal norms and prevailing culture, not an objective fact about society nor my opinion about how things should be. Myself, I'm dandy being a sub male. I have fun with it. [;)]

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875