• Homosexuality - Is it a gene or a choice?
    516 replies, posted
[QUOTE=SuperElektrik;35723926]Articles are never a credible way to get information. What you see as knowledge is really a person of many beliefs, ideologies, and goals behind it. Anyone justifying their beliefs with an article have no idea how to think independently and their words should be discarded.[/QUOTE] Incorrect. For something like this we can use articles, studies and papers to show knowledge of the subject. These articles are not just random thoughts on the subject spouted off by random people who are thinking "independently", as long as they cite a peer-reviewed scientific study that is. They are a overview of, or a view of a study performed. For something like this topic, where there is an objective answer that the scientific method can help us understand, people who do not cite sources can have their arguments discarded, as they have no evidence their argument is correct. It's all well and good being able to think for yourself, but knowledge is more than just thinking for yourself, it's looking at what others have thought, and seeing how you feel about their results, what they found, and if you accept that. For a topic like this sources are a must for arguments. The studies are the results of someone thinking for themselves, noticing something that they think is the cause, and doing research into it. These studies are checked with others to see if the results are valid, and the science is sound. basing your views on a subject off of a study does not make your opinion invalid, basing your views off of nothing does. Thinking for yourself is all well and good, but you need to be able to prove your ideas are actually credible.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;35724198]Incorrect. For something like this we can use articles, studies and papers to show knowledge of the subject. These articles are not just random thoughts on the subject spouted off by random people who are thinking "independently", as long as they cite a peer-reviewed scientific study that is. They are a overview of, or a view of a study performed. For something like this topic, where there is an objective answer that the scientific method can help us understand, people who do not cite sources can have their arguments discarded, as they have no evidence their argument is correct. It's all well and good being able to think for yourself, but knowledge is more than just thinking for yourself, it's looking at what others have thought, and seeing how you feel about their results, what they found, and if you accept that. For a topic like this sources are a must for arguments. The studies are the results of someone thinking for themselves, noticing something that they think is the cause, and doing research into it. These studies are checked with others to see if the results are valid, and the science is sound. basing your views on a subject off of a study does not make your opinion invalid, basing your views off of nothing does. Thinking for yourself is all well and good, but you need to be able to prove your ideas are actually credible.[/QUOTE] Okay, I see what you're saying. My point is articles aren't always the best. There are more credible sources out there.
[QUOTE=SuperElektrik;35723926]Articles are never a credible way to get information. What you see as knowledge is really a person of many beliefs, ideologies, and goals behind it. Anyone justifying their beliefs with an article have no idea how to think independently and their words should be discarded.[/QUOTE] So it is better to argue without any support for any claims? We are not citing opinion pieces.
[QUOTE=Bletotum;35724819]So it is better to argue without any support for any claims? We are not citing opinion pieces.[/QUOTE] Articles aren't the golden standard for every issue/problem/debate. Like I said there are more credible sources.
[QUOTE=SuperElektrik;35724800]Okay, I see what you're saying. My point is articles aren't always the best. There are more credible sources out there.[/QUOTE] Most definitely. A article in most circumstances is not a great source. Unless the article is a factual report on a study, with citations and references to the study to back it up I would dismiss it myself for a topic like this.
[QUOTE=Megafan;35722907]As the expression goes, put up or shut up. You've wasted even text in this thread as it is, and continuing to claim that you're educated enough or have spoken to enough educated people to not require evidence is ridiculous.[/QUOTE] -snip- Read that wrong. [editline]26th April 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=hexpunK;35722585]You really, really, [B]really[/B] don't understand debating do you? Even the most battle hardened debaters, with the highest degrees in their subject will not fall back on "lol i r educate!", they will cite sources, studies and papers for every claim they make. Studies will cite other studies to back up claims they make, it's just basic debating and research to actually show people where you are pulling shit from. "Knowing" it is not valid if you can't prove you have a valid piece of information that someone else could use to look at it in detail. You are the one bringing counter-arguments to the topic at hand, you are the one citing "human behaviour", therefore you are the one with the burden of evidence. If you cannot provide evidence to back up your point, then your point becomes invalid to the debate. If you provide evidence for your points, then people can use their sources to attempt to discredit your points and sources, ad infinitum until one side is proven objectively wrong or concedes to the other. Right now you are just discrediting yourself with every argument you make. The people actually using sources are beating your arguments every step of the way and you are making a massive tit of yourself.[/QUOTE] I know how debating works. I just think it's ridiculous how many of you are relying so fucking much on an article. The person who posted that source isn't "beating" me at anything. Like I said, take a class or two about human behavior. Just because you can debate well, that doesn't mean your argument instantly is the most logical. [editline]26th April 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=SuperElektrik;35723926]Articles are never a credible way to get information. What you see as knowledge is really a person of many beliefs, ideologies, and goals behind it. Anyone justifying their beliefs with an article have no idea how to think independently and their words should be discarded.[/QUOTE] Fucking this.
[QUOTE=deaded38;35725424]I know how debating works. I just think it's ridiculous how many of you are relying so fucking much on an article. The person who posted that source isn't "beating" me at anything. Like I said, take a class or two about human behavior. Just because you can debate well, that doesn't mean your argument instantly is the most logical[/QUOTE] Sorry, relying on an article is the only way to show that you actually have evidence that what you said has some truth to it. I could easily say "Gravity is 50 times stronger around your mother", and going by your logic, as long as I took a few classes in physics, I would be correct even without providing any source of any form. They aren't "relying" on an article, they are using the information in these articles to back up their points, provide evidence that their argument is sound. Something you haven't actually done. Just because you went to classes about something does not exempt you from providing evidence through sources. You seem stuck on the fact that people are using articles as sources. Would a paper from a study be more preferable? Would a scroll inscribed by the pope himself be more acceptable? Sources are necessary for a debate like this because we can objectively prove something. But that requires study. Which leads to reports about the studies that [B]everyone[/B] (including your precious classes) base their knowledge off of. [editline]27th April 2012[/editline] Oh and human behaviour is quite a complex thing. taking a class in it isn't going to help you understand it to the degree you would need to win an argument with no sources. That would require years of study, not just the average 2 or 3 years that most courses last.
[QUOTE=deaded38;35725424]human behavior[/QUOTE] You insist upon finding phrases to use that have no actual and defined significance. These do not make you correct in any way.
[QUOTE=SuperElektrik;35724845]Articles aren't the golden standard for every issue/problem/debate. Like I said there are more credible sources.[/QUOTE] Can you provide some more credible sources than peer reviewed scientific articles? More than prepared to use them if you tell me what they are
I'm not going to say it's a Gene but it's definitely not a choice. I have always been gay and never chose to be gay.
[QUOTE=deaded38;35725424]I know how debating works. I just think it's ridiculous how many of you are relying so fucking much on an article. The person who posted that source isn't "beating" me at anything. Like I said, take a class or two about human behavior. Just because you can debate well, that doesn't mean your argument instantly is the most logical.[/QUOTE] If you aren't going to debate properly, with facts and information, leave. This is the real world, your whole logic thing is a strawman. If I write 'if you can push X and it goes faster than it was previously moving, then I can push it infinitely and go infinitely fast', it's logically sound, but I have no evidence for it, and it's [b]wrong[/b].
I Think Homosexuality Is More About Influence
[QUOTE=MasterAenox;35737760]I Think Homosexuality Is More About Influence[/QUOTE] Why Do You Think This?
I am very sorry i will never ever do again [highlight](User was banned for this post ("This is not debating." - Megafan))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=Bletotum;35739399]Why Do You Think This?[/QUOTE] People Who Make Such Short Answers Like That Are Prone To Be (A Little) Ignorant, And Might Be Somewhat Close Minded
[QUOTE=Scrappa;35736162]I'm not going to say it's a Gene but it's definitely not a choice. I have always been gay and never chose to be gay.[/QUOTE] That's a very self-centered world view. Just because you didn't choose, doesn't exclude the possibility of others choosing. We can choose practically all of our preferences [B]to some extent[/B]. Musical taste, favourite movies, foods, etc. It's all mental properties. So it's a matter of having a will and desire to learn and understand the positive aspects of aquired tastes. I don't see why sexuality should be the exception.
I personally think it's just based on the way you were raised. Same with porn fetishes and such. Some people might like BDSM, and some of us just look at it like, what the hell? Some people might like watching some helpless Asian woman get her boobs milked, and most people don't like that probably. The point is, it's not really an option or a gene, if you grew up in a family of guys and had only guy friends as you grew up you may be more attracted to guys than anything. Just depends.
Your unsupported opinion is not debating.
Why do you even give a shit, its like asking if your job preference is a gene.
I think it's both. I mean, there could be people with a "homosexual gene" and there could be people who just chose to be so. There's room for all in the wonderful world of Earthland, where the beavers live and the sun occasionally shines!
[QUOTE=Splurgy_A;35735223]Can you provide some more credible sources than peer reviewed scientific articles? More than prepared to use them if you tell me what they are[/QUOTE] No, because I have nothing to prove to you. I was just saying articles aren't always a good source (or the only one) for information/education and should not be used as such. [editline]29th April 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Rad McCool;35741881]That's a very self-centered world view. Just because you didn't choose, doesn't exclude the possibility of others choosing. We can choose practically all of our preferences [B]to some extent[/B]. Musical taste, favourite movies, foods, etc. It's all mental properties. So it's a matter of having a will and desire to learn and understand the positive aspects of aquired tastes. I don't see why sexuality should be the exception.[/QUOTE] Hmmm, good point. But what about the so-called "Homosexual animals" they have no tastes, just instinct... Which is kind of funny..
[QUOTE=SuperElektrik;35760241]No, because I have nothing to prove to you. I was just saying articles aren't always a good source (or the only one) for information/education and should not be used as such. [/QUOTE] So you are saying that you do not have to prove that you are right? You can not simply post in debate to make a claim and then tell us that you don't have to prove it.
i still dont understand how this can be a topic of debate when there is a definitive answer that nobody knows
[QUOTE=Bletotum;35761768]So you are saying that you do not have to prove that you are right? You can not simply post in debate to make a claim and then tell us that you don't have to prove it.[/QUOTE] Like I'm going to find an article about how articles aren't always a credible source. Nice job thinking about that one genius. But if it's going to make your life so much better then here: [url]http://mason.gmu.edu/~montecin/web-eval-sites.htm[/url]. It has some relevance.
I see it more as a personality. it all depends on your environment. it is not a gene.
[QUOTE=Big Blue;35761974]i still dont understand how this can be a topic of debate when there is a definitive answer that nobody knows[/QUOTE] The purpose of a debate is to compare knowledge and rationally determine the likelihood of proposed solutions to a question.
[QUOTE=Big Blue;35761974]i still dont understand how this can be a topic of debate when there is a definitive answer that nobody knows[/QUOTE] People like to feel smart. Dont take anything seriously.
It doesn't matter. When people make homosexuality into an issue, it is very easy to forget about people. I say this from a Christian perspective. Regardless of my views on the issue, I have decided to view it from a people perspective and see that behind the issue are people, that feel love, joy, pain, want friends, want comfort, compassion etc. Jesus got angry at a few people. The religious right (Pharisees) and his own disciples. The pharisees he got mad at for being so self righteous on the outside, while having no love or compassion for people, as they kept the letter of the law. He got mad at his disciples for stopping people from coming to him. The adulterers, the prostitutes, the lepers, the unwanted, the undesirables. He ate with them. In Jewish customs, eating with someone was saying "I accept you". He loved them and was a friend of sinners. By arguing the point of whether it is a choice or not completely sidelines the people who are homosexual, making them faceless. It's very easy to hate a faceless crowd. Not so easy when those people are your friends, family, workmates etc.
Lukasaurus has it all right.
[QUOTE=SuperElektrik;35763120]Like I'm going to find an article about how articles aren't always a credible source. Nice job thinking about that one genius. But if it's going to make your life so much better then here: [url]http://mason.gmu.edu/~montecin/web-eval-sites.htm[/url]. It has some relevance.[/QUOTE] It makes me feel better that there's someone here with at least half a brain.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.