Consider this a check drawn on the bank of reality.
We spend a lot of time here on Hatrack arguing the way things SHOULD be. There should be gay marriage, there should not be abortion, drugs should be legal, taxes should be lower, blah blah blah….
And that’s all well and good, but one thing we often forget, is how things actually are. In the interests of educating everyone in reality, I offer this periodic update on the way things actually are. Some of the information contained herein could be considered opinion, but if you disagree with me, you are wrong.
You’ve always hated Bush
This is the battle cry of the Bush apologist when faced with any sort of real criticism of the president. As if Bush materialized out of thin air during the Republican primary, and a big group of people said, “we haven’t got a clue who this guy is, but we hate him anyway.” It totally discounts the fact that GWB had a long career in business and politics prior to becoming President. It discounts the fact that certain people may have studied this career, and disliked what they saw.
Do you have to agree with the conclusions they reach? No. And go ahead and disagree vehemently with what they say. But keep your cheap hackneyed “You’ve always hated Bush” out of it. It’s a crap argument, and doesn’t mean a thing, and arrogantly discounts all of your opponents points. If you can’t defend your candidate without this kind of crap, then he can’t be defended.
Gay Marriage
The Djinni does not go back into the bottle guys. Just like abortion before it, and civil rights before that, and no taxation without representation before that, once enough people latch onto an idea, it is going to happen. What we wind up calling it is still open to debate. But gay couples are going to start being joined in some sort of civil contract that entitles them to married rights. It has too much momentum now.
Homosexuality is Genetic
If you know this for sure, you should hurry up and publish your findings and be a gazillionaire. Since, in reality, no on knows jack squat about where homosexuality comes from. People who claim it is genetic have an agenda, and people who claim it is a choice have an agenda, and those of us who don’t have an agenda are waiting for the real science. Eventually, they’ll figure it out. Until then, shut up. Making pronouncements on this topic just makes you sound dumb. And, in reality, homosexuality’s origins will not change the social momentum behind gay rights.
A final note
Thanks for reading Issue one of our new Hatrack Feature. Issue two will come out when I damn well feel like it. If you have a topic that you would like covered in our next issue, feel free to write to the editor.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Slash is st00p1d!!!!!1
Ph34r teh intarweb no-it-awls!
-Bok
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
On a serious note, I must say I can't disagree with much in issue 1... How much is a yearly subscription? Sacrifice of a child to the lord of the lizardmen?
-Bok
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I just had the most bizarre feeling of deja vu. Partly from reading this thread and partly from my husband calling while I was reading it to say he's coming home.
Here's another one: Clinton was our greatest President Ever.
We should blow up Mt. Rushmore (after all, it's got that hideous syllable Rush in it) and just have a carving of Clinton. And the fact that Rodham Clinton isn't running/kicking butt means this country is mostly populated with jingoist Joe lunchbox heads.
Edit for spelling and to tweak the rhetoric.
[ March 16, 2004, 03:14 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think pooka misses the point.
Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
You would pay something for common sense? Thomas Paine put out his Common Sense for free...
Posted by eslaine (Member # 5433) on :
Thank you for saying that stuff, Slash. I look forward to your next issue.
As an aside, how much do you charge to advertise in your fine publication?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
<Insert ad for "It's sacrelicious!" here>
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The amount of evidence for homosexuality having a genetic component is considerable -- for instance, if it were solely due to hormones in the womb and other environmental causes, one would expect the rate of homosexuality in the second of a pair of identical twins where one is homosexual to be about the same as the rate of homosexuality in the second pair of fraternal twins.
These are not statistical bumps within, or even close to the margin of error; the twin studies show a high correlation between genetics and homosexuality.
At the same time, some statistics do suggest a strong environmental component -- for instance, if it were wholly genetic one would expect the rate of homosexuality in the second pair of fraternal twins to be about the same as the rate of homosexuality in the second pair of non-twin siblings.
edit to add: rejecting the actual science in the matter because of the vehement and often ignorant disagreement by both sides is also a bad thing to do.
[ March 16, 2004, 03:23 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
Fugu, that was a wonderful way of saying, "there is evidence in both directions."
Which was my point. We don't know jack. Falling on either side of the issue at this point is merely displaying your bias one way or the other. And, as I said, it won't change gay rights a whit.
Posted by jack (Member # 2083) on :
quote: We don't know jack.
That is the second time today!
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
Tom, I know pooka misses the point. The point is that I'm mostly conserative, voted for Bush, and agreed with a lot of his policies—at least, his policies as he claimed they would be kept. In truth, he hasn't kept many of those policies the way they were originally drawn out our planned, and I dislike his "Big Stick" approach to foreign policy (it's about a century out-dated). I don't dislike the man, nor do I think he's some horrible person trying to take away our rights for the gain of some rich buddies. However, I do disagree with many of his decisions while in office, and don't think he's a suitable leader for the country. Conversely, while Clinton did a good job while running the country, he was personally reprehensible, and I didn't agree with much of his proposed policy (while much of his actualized policy wasn't bad). He was a good president, but his character kept him from the potential for being a great one (and he'd have to go very far to be in the same ballpark as the greatest).
In other words, Slash was saying the world isn't made up of a bunch of lines in the sand. It's more a bunch of squiggles and dashes along history.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No, it is not a way of saying we don't know jack, Its a way of saying we know with a high degree of certainty that there are both environmental and genetic components to homosexuality.
Saying the evidence means we don't know jack is false.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
And let's go to the scoreboard!
Slash: 3 World: 0
Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
Oh really?
When they can tell you which gene is responsible, then that will be facts. Until then, it is speculation and unprovable.
And we actually don't know anything. We do studies and then try to pin our ideas on statistics whose causes we are totally in the dark about.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
<3 Slash
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I'll take a subscription
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
?!
So until a few decades ago, skin color wasn't mostly genetic in component because we couldn't name a gene? So until a few decades ago, Hemophilia didn't have a genetic cause because even though we could prove the existence of a gene we couldn't locate it? So Mendel never knew anything for certain about there being genes involved because he couldn't point to the locations of the genes he discovered?
Utter poppycock. We can be have a low degree of doubt (under 1%, definitely) that something has a genetic component while having no idea what genes are involved.
Also, even if we can find a gene that is likely responsible, here's a bit of a revelation -- its still unprovable! Science doesn't prove anything in the absolute sense!
We can know a huge number of things about genetics without being able to name genes. Heck, even today skin pigmentation is still almost entirely a mystery, yet I don't see you doubting its high genetic component (the one or two genes we've found bearing on it don't account for the effects). And we certainly do not know "jack squat" about anythign we haven't found a gene for! We know we haven't found a gene for it, just as we haven't found a gene for a lot of things, because finding genes is hard (and things are often not linked to one gene).
There are many degrees of certainty, in science, and none of them equals 100% (in terms of non personal observations -- one can say with absolute certainty 'I saw the color red', but that's an assertion with very limited scientific value). Saying that because we haven't obtained some arbitrary degree of certainty you happen to like as a number we don't know anything about the subject is ignorant.
Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
Fugu, this is just demonstrating your own personal bias on this issue.
There are a lot of scientists who do NOT believe that the data regarding genetic component for homosexual behavior is at all conclusive. If they have reached a level of certainty that meets your personal standard for acceptance, great. I'm glad it's all settle for you.
But that doesn't mean you can wander around bashing anyone who doesn't feel the same way. It is far from a decided issue, and there is no concensus.
And that is my point. The 'genetic' backers trash talk anyone who doesn't buy into their party line. The 'choice' people bash anyone who doesn't buy into theirs. The point is that neither side has been proven to a sufficient degree that they can claim victory on this issue.
Sorry, but it's the truth.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Slash, you started out strong but you're veering off in the wrong direction.
"there is evidence in both directions."
That was very well put. Leave it at that.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
*sigh*
I don't think you even quite realize what you just said.
My point is that your post completely ignores the degree of certainty we do have because it does not meet your level of acceptance -- the problem is, there is a degree of certainty, and whether or not it meets your worldview is a separate matter. You don't get to dismiss stuff as being meaningless (jack squat) just because it isn't meaningful enough for you.
Even scientists out there who don't think there is a high enough degree of certainty that homosexuality has a genetic component understand there is still some degree of certainty that homosexuality has a genetic component. Your rejection of any evidence that doesn't meet your degree of certainty is ignorant and unscientific.
Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
Yeah, arguing which one is right or wrong violates the whole point of this exercise.
The point is still that people want to lay claim to absolutes that don't exist. And we need to get off the 'my side has been proven right' bandwagon when dealing with issues where no one has been proven right at all.
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
Slash, I'm mostly on your side here, but it'd help if you released a little of that steam.
I think all Fugu is saying is that we can have evidence that something is the case without having all the details. As he says, there's good evidence that skin color is genetic, as indicated by the patterns we see in inheritance, even though we haven't yet found all the genes that cause it. Or, for that matter, the enzymes and structural proteins those genes produce to make skin color "happen".
I don't believe homosexuality is primarily genetic myself, but the heightened occurrence in increasingly closely related people strongly suggests that there is some genetic component. (And that there is only a 50% correlation even between identical twins, suggests that there is more to the issue than genetics or uterine environment.)
Just because we don't know every detail doesn't mean we know nothing at all. We still don't know the exact nature of gravity, either, but we know it's there .
Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
Fugu, that's twice you've called me ignorant.
Are you just passionate about this issue? Or are you actually trying to start a fight?
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Well... considering that scientists have ruled out homosexuality as a mental disorder there aren't that many possibilities left. You have it being genetic or being something triggered in the womb. Both are biological in the end. And that's all that matters. It's not an agenda... just a statement of knowing yourself. The more you know about yourself the better you can live and find happiness.
That said I agree with the rest of your reality check, Slash. Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
Mabus, please reference my above post about the point of this. Which is, that people stop taking what little evidence we do have one way or the other and using it as a club to bash those on the other side of the issue.
We are nowhere near having the level of certainty that some people include in their arguments against others.
Posted by jack (Member # 2083) on :
Yeah, yeah. Let's get back to the important parts. Why doesn't anyone know jack?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*pulls up a chair*
Posted by Boon (Member # 4646) on :
::flings popcorn at katharina from the other side of the ring::
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Well, jack, maybe it's because you've been around here for almost three years, but you have only a little over a hundred posts.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*makes faces at Boon and waves the "Hatrack #1!" big foam finger*
[ March 16, 2004, 04:52 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
Slash, you're absolutely right about that. I keep hearing people saying "It's genetic, and science has proved it, so there!" And that's simply not right or fair. But so far as I can tell that is not what Fugu is saying at all, and I don't think you have anything to argue with him about on this particular matter.
I'm just saying, maybe the both of you should step back, take a deep breath, and reread the posts in question.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: considering that scientists have ruled out homosexuality as a mental disorder
Wow! Those sure are some loaded terms!
But is that really true? To use the nomenclature of Dog, where has it been ruled out that homosexuality is a psychological phenomenon? AFAIK, it has not.
Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
Actually, rereading the whole thing, I have come to the conclusion that Fugu just dislikes the phrase 'don't know jack'.
Ah well, you can't please everyone. Fugu, you are hereby appointed as the official detractor of the Slash Tells It Like It Is feature. No good publication is without its detractors. I look forward to you chiming in to correct my phrasing on many future topics.
That being said, if you call me ignorant again, I am going to drive to wherever you live and beat you senseless. Just so you know.
[ March 16, 2004, 04:51 PM: Message edited by: Slash the Berzerker ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
So your point is that we don't know jack? What the heck kind of news flash is that? By the way, has anyone else taken the "Which Disney Princess are you?" test? I was Briar Rose.
Port, homosexuality used to be a listed condition in the DSM-whatever edition Psychological diagnosis manual. It no longer is.
[ March 16, 2004, 04:54 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
*rolls eyes*
Edit -- the post I was rolling my eyes at has been deleted.
[ March 16, 2004, 05:11 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Posted by luthe (Member # 1601) on :
quote:You’ve always hated Bush
Many of the people (mostly college students) who I speak to who claim to hate bush are unable to back that claim up with anything. Other than pointing out how pathetic that is what other response is there?
Posted by jack (Member # 2083) on :
See, now if we had just stuck to getting to know jack better, none of this would have happened.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Slash, I really liked your article. I eagerly await the next one.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
*grabs some of kat's popcorn while she is gazing at the carnage
Mmmm extra buttery just the way I like it!
*Pulls up chair to steal more of Kat's popcorn
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
Pooka, I tend not to ask what Disney princess I am. It's bad for the self-image.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
Slashy, fugu might have called you ignorant, but you called every single person who believes homosexuality is genetic "dumb"
Not a big diff, honeycakes.
It should have been obvious from the get-go that fugu acknowledged that there was no conclusive proof but was calling you on saying that there wasn't *any* proof. We used aspirin for 50 years and called it effective medicine before anyone could prove how it worked...we knew it had scientific proof somewhere, but we just hadn't found it yet. All fugu's saying is that we have a definite idea that some aspect of homosexuality is based on genetics. Can't you give him that?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I am very passionate about science being used correctly.
Let me try to point it out in way that may make more sense: You just told me that just because the degree of certainty I'm willing to accept has been passed, it doesn't mean its true. Earlier in this thread you said that because the degree of certainty you needed (finding a gene) isn't passed, its so much jack squat.
My statements have been completely true: there is a degree of certainty we know it with, and that degree of certainty is both high and high enough for me.
Your statements, that the degree of certainty isn't high enough for you, and that because it isn't high enough for you any statements on the subject mean jack squat, are not both true. The first certainly is, but the second most definitely is not, and is ignorant and unscientific. I avoided using such language initially because 1) everyone, myself included, says things we don't necessarily believe at some point or another, particularly in heated discussions, and 2) even moreso, people including myself say things without thinking them through occasionally.
However, it is very harmful to science when someone, in a thread that is otherwise pretty reasonable, spouts things about science that are completely false, for instance there being jack squat evidence homosexuality has a genetic component, and keeps saying it. It is ignorant, and one of the few ways to get someone to pay attention to their words is to use strong language about those words -- and what you have been saying is ignorant. Using a reasonable voice often leads to an agree to disagree situation, which can be acceptable, but I did not want to accept in this case.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*after Time Out, relaxes and looks down. Thinks* Did I eat all my popcorn? Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
I already gave him that. I have no problem with it. And I don't think people who believe one way or another are dumb at all. I think people who declare one way or the other to be the absolute truth, based on our current murky understanding, SOUND dumb. Please don't make it worse than it is.
And Xavier? I think Fugu has been around long enough to know that I am kidding about beating him up. Do I actually HAVE to put a stinking smiley next to it?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Actually, I just keep reiterating the jack squat phrase because using synonyms will often lead to someone rejecting the synonym. Here are several accepted meanings, none of which apply to the evidence for homosexuality having a genetic component.
Well, then, where exactly did your disagreement lie??
You gave him that, and that's all he's been saying.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Sorry
So it really was me that was lame and not you.
Should have figured as much.
Sorry again bud. Just reminded me of Otaku or Ced or something.
It was just twice you mentioned fighting him and...
Bah, nevermind. Return to your regularly scheduled thread. Perhaps I haven't been here long enough to know you are joking. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: Port, homosexuality used to be a listed condition in the DSM-whatever edition Psychological diagnosis manual. It no longer is.
That is no proof that homosexuality is not a psychological phenomenon.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
*thwaps slash with a goose down pillow*
Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
Xavier? Stop trying to escalate. That's lame too. Keep your vomit to yourself.
Fugu. I think we just have a semantic problem. The actual findings one way or the other is not the issue. The issue is when people use those findings, which as we both agree point at least some degree in both directions, as a club for their side. The findings we have seem to indicate a possible genetic factor, and a possible environmental factor.
Unfortunately, both sides of the issue are latching onto the piece that seems to fit their worldview, and declaring victory. When I say we don't know jack about it, that is hyperbole to be sure, but the intention is valid. Stop using only those pieces of what seems to be evidence one way or the other as a way to call the other side of the issue wrong.
You take science seriously? Fine. You want to point out that you dislike my terminology? Fine. But my point is still valid. And, if you reread all the posts, I think you will have to agree that if you hadn't gotten yourself hot and bothered to point out my ignorance, we could have reached this conclusion a lot faster.
Posted by LadyDove (Member # 3000) on :
Phil- Far as I know, Slash has never actually "eaten" a noobie; though he has threatened many times.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Not true! I was eaten* by Slash!
*not like that, you sicko! And no OoC is necessary either. Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
heh, rub it in guys. I know when I have been stupid and can freely admit it.
That was before realizing you were joking Slash. All those are deleted now, and see my post at the bottom of the last page.
I am fully aware that I will have to wait a while to live this one down.
*sigh*
Oh well. I have an excuse though! I am sick!
Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
Oh, and Fugu? Please feel free to comment on future issues of this feature. I plan to use hyperbole and extremism in all future articles. Having you to get huffy just lets me feel like I am doing a good job as a demagogue.
No more ignorant bashes though. It hurts my feelings.
(Wonders if he needs smiley so xavier doesn't start hammering fugu about hurting peoples feelings)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*pat pat*
Feel better, Xav.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
to Slash.
Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
So xavier will know I am kidding him now too.
I've been posting too little lately. My style has lost touch with the people.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Sorry, style?
Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
Should I replace that with format?
Is everyone determined to get into a semantic argument?
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
What exactly do you mean by "semantics," anyway?
Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
See, Jon Boy, when I threaten to come give you a wedgie, I will not be kidding.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Slash's point was that people who claim that there is absolute scientific proof of something when there isn't sound dumb. I tend to agree with that.
Fugu has pointed out that there is statistically significant scientific evidence, though not complete certainty.
The issue isn't "homosexuality: is it this or is it that?" It's that people who claim irrefutable proof one way or the other are blowing smoke out of their nether regions.
It isn't about what you believe-- it's about claiming something is a 'fact' when it really isn't. Like if somebody said they know for a fact that breast implants explode during decompression of an airplane because it happened to their brother's co-worker's friend's aunt.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Wow, try to be subtly insulting and get accused of being a semantic nitpicker (I am, but I wasn't this time, honest).
*rephrases*
Slash has style?
Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
Sheesh. Like I said, call it a format.
Rivka is subtle?
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
quote:Sorry, style?
quote:Wow, try to be subtly insulting and get accused of being a semantic nitpicker (I am, but I wasn't this time, honest).
Don't worry, rivka, at least one person got it right right from the start !
Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
Olivet, they killed that myth on Mythbusters.
It was really cool. They actually could not get the implant to pop, even at outrageous depressurization. It just expanded.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: Rivka is subtle?
Well, I can try, can't I? Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
So if it expands then, does it rip the skin of a woman? Or is there not enough expansion?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Yikes! Instant stretch marks!!?
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
Okay, so we've had our reality check, now what are we going to do?
We didn't have a choice in the last election, and with Joe Lieberman out, we don't have a choice in this election. Who the heck are we supposed to vote for?
We know all kinds of fun facts about gay people, but what are we supposed to do about it? Can't we just leave them alone and do nothing?
Can't we focus on the doing, rather than on the lip-flapping?
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
I can't say I've ever depressurized a breast implant. If only I'd known at the time.
But I have played football with one in honour of the superbowl.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I saw that, Slash, which was why I used it. I love that show. I loved watching the guy get all giggly because he couldn't get a room full of gasoline to blow up. *snort*
Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
Xavier:
The pressures it took to get the implant to expand were sufficient to kill a person quite handily. So, in other words, if your breast implants are at sufficient depressurization to expand uncomfortably, you are very very dead, and not worried about them any more.
Skiller:
Hatrack is about words. I encourage you to go do things in support of your beliefs. But here, all we have is words. If you don't like lip flapping, you are in the wrong place, buddy.
Posted by luthe (Member # 1601) on :
What do you mean we did not have a choice in the last election? I distinctly remember 3 major choices. Same thing with the upcoming election.
Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
I think his point is that all the choices sucked.
Which, actually, is the problem with this election as well in many people's minds.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
"Don't blame ME! I voted for Kodos!"
Posted by luthe (Member # 1601) on :
Well, all the choices sucking, doesn't change the fact that there is a choice.
Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
Olivet, that episode was one of the best satires of party politics I have ever seen.
Guy in crowd "We could vote for a third party candidate!"
Kodos "Sure! Throw your vote away!"
Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
Luthe, to some people that's sort of like saying, "We can hang you, shoot you, or burn you up. But you have a choice!"
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
quote:Slash: If you don't like lip flapping, you are in the wrong place
How about lip flapping about what can be done?
As for the presidential election, in the last election the media started promoting Bush 18 months before the primary. Most of us outside of Texas didn't even know he existed, and then suddenly he starts showing up on the front page of USA today and on the cover of Time and Newsweek. Who tells the media whom to promote? Is there a way to get someone elected if (s)he doesn't have the media behind him/her.
Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
Skillery:
'What can be done' is outside the scope of my project here. But feel free to make it your mission. Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
Slash, in all seriousness, it would be great to say "lets all wait for the final word of science to weigh in on this issue," but people are too impatient, and if you don't pre-empt them they take dangerous steps one way or another with limited and incomplete information. So, one must them try to find a stance that is the safest to assume is true in the short run, while science works itself out. Obviously there can be no major harm from assuming homosexuality is a choice, as no experiments, experimental medication, segregationalist and persecuting biological theories would arise. The culture of biological victimization must be curtailed whenever possible for these basic reasons. You can call it an agenda I call it necessary caution in able to have actual progress later.
[ March 16, 2004, 06:39 PM: Message edited by: BrianM ]
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
That episode of mythbusters was a good one. And no, it didn't expand enough to harm anyone, the myth was well and truly trounced.
I also liked it when they dropped Buster the crash dummy from a crane and forgot to wire his legs back on, so they had to go diving to retrieve his legs. Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
Poor Buster.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
So in the interest of Jatraquerian cross-thread pollination...
Tell it like it is about goths, Slash.
Do they all really listen to Marilyn Manson and worship Satan? How come all the goths on Maury Povich seem to come from Oklahoma and Nebraska? And, of course, the ur-question: are all goths gay?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
There is no final word in science.
Posted by Trogdor the Burninator (Member # 4894) on :
A very nice article, Slash.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Brian, I don't think he's saying "wait for the final word." I think he's saying, "If you state something unproven (on either side of an issue) as fact, then you look like an idiot.
Truth is, even if it was proven, irrefutably, that it is genetic or environmental, society still needs to decide whether or not this group should be given equal rights in regards to legal recognition of their life-bonds.
FREX, I am self-absorbed. I have always been this way. My father was also self-absorbed. I have my father's crooked pinkies, so I believe that my self-absorption is genetic. The thing that makes my marriage work is that both my husband and I are completely devoted to me. Some churches say that makes my bond to him unholy, and they may or my not be right. But the body politic decides what is legal.
Then I move to France, where self-absorption is socially acceptable.
Wait... what was the topic? It had something to do with ME didn't it?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:The thing that makes my marriage work is that both my husband and I are completely devoted to me. Some churches say that makes my bond to him unholy, and they may or my not be right. But the body politic decides what is legal.
Olivia, are you potentially available in the morning? I want to return a call (I'm working nights), but I hate to break in on your time with the boys.
But I miss you, girl. And I gots me a plane ticket.
Oh, and Slash? (*plants a big, sloppy wet one on your cheeks) Good call.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
After 10 am my time (9 yours?) should work
The sad thing is, it's sorta true
[ March 16, 2004, 10:47 PM: Message edited by: Olivet ]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Olivet, I too worship at your feet.
(And that's true too, but not sadly. )
I have to attend conference until 9am my time, but I will call once I get home. Great!
Posted by LadyDove (Member # 3000) on :
quote:Obviously there can be no major harm from assuming homosexuality is a choice, as no experiments, experimental medication, segregationalist and persecuting biological theories would arise. The culture of biological victimization must be curtailed whenever possible for these basic reasons. You can call it an agenda I call it necessary caution in able to have actual progress later.
BrianM- I don't think that there is anything obvious about this. If homosexuality is a choice, then so is heterosexuality. If those who practice homosexuality are making a choice, it is easy for those who believe that it is harmful to society or who have a certain religious bent, to say that the homosexual is choosing to comit a crime against their belief or the fabric of society.
The parents of the homosexuals I know, have all made the assumption that their son has made a "choice" and could just as easily have "chosen" a woman.
To me, it's like having a woman fail to understand why I'm not attracted to her. I'm just not attracted to women. I don't recall ever making that choice, but there it is.
I do agree that one of the worst things that could happen would be for us to find out that there is a gene that creates a homosexual. With that knowledge, wouldn't it be viewed as a virus or condition to be rooted out? Parents could do prenatal tests to determine if their child would be homosexual and then decide what? To terminate the pregnancy to avoid bearing a sinner or someone who would have a more difficult life than a hetero?
I think the mysteries of sexual attraction are part of what makes the human such a unique and successful being. I don't see the advantages in removing those mysteries.
[ March 17, 2004, 01:42 AM: Message edited by: LadyDove ]
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
In the spirit of the article, why do we keep using the word "choice"? There may be some homosexuals who actually choose to be that way, but I believe that it just happens to the vast majority.
Whether it comes about because of genetics, environment, in-the-womb stuff (I know there's a cool medical term for that, but it escapes me at the moment) or a combination of them all, it is not a choice. Saying it is a choice implies that someone has actively thought about it and made a conscious decision about the path they'll take.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: Well, all the choices sucking, doesn't change the fact that there is a choice.
I've used this reasoning in alot of arguments as well, but never when it comes down to democracy. The purpose of democracy is to keep all our choices from sucking. If the majority of Americans think the choices suck, then our government isn't working and needs reform of some sort.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
When is issue #2 coming out??? Me want more Slash!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
to Slash.
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)