DAILY MAIL: Smoking or being stressed during pregnancy can increase chances of baby being gay
108 replies, posted
[QUOTE=FrancisGalton;43603568]My point is that the ideas of masculinity and dominance didn't necessarily cause the behavior, the behavior may have caused the ideas.[/QUOTE]
a sodomite's version of the chicken or the egg dilemma
[QUOTE=thisispain;43603584]ultimately the point is that homosexuality as an identity is a fairly new thing and to say it has genetic factors undermines the fact that historically human civilisation hasnt had this differentiation of sexual orientation as for example in Asia, specifically China, for a very long time bisexuality was the norm.[/QUOTE]Identification of it, yes. But that's not really what the debate is about, it's about the orientation itself, any inclination one way or another.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;43603560]This part, however, I have a feeling we made the same assumption.[/QUOTE]
what user is synonymous with eugenics as named by francis galton
[QUOTE=thisispain;43603605]what user is synonymous with eugenics as named by francis galton[/QUOTE]Nigel Farage?
(We both know who.)
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;43603572]Ohh, this is almost definitely true. Near as I'm aware, there is a wealth of evidence showing bisexuality is more common than strict adherence to hetero- or homosexuality. (In fact, it may be more common than the two combined, but I'm not certain on that part.)[/QUOTE]
Nah the distribution is bimodal as far as I can see. I mean, you can make "bisexuals" outnumber homo- and hetero-sexuals just by defining bisexuality widely enough.
[quote]to say it has genetic factors undermines the fact that historically human civilisation hasnt had this differentiation of sexual orientation as for example in Asia, specifically China, for a very long time bisexuality was the norm. [/quote]
A genetic explanation doesn't undermine that at all. If there are genetic factors X Y and Z that combine to make 2% of the population exclusively or mostly attracted to members of the same sex, then that fact is set in stone regardless of what cultural constructions you put on top of it.
The rainbow remains a gradient of different light wavelengths regardless of how exactly you want to divvy it up into colors. The fact that Bantu languages don't distinguish between blue and green doesn't mean that water and leaves emit light of the same wavelengths.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;43603600]Identification of it, yes. But that's not really what the debate is about, it's about the orientation itself, any inclination one way or another.[/QUOTE]
well its an onion you have to unfold and you have to ask what homosexuality specifically means in this context.
to me someone isn't gay until they say "yeah i'm part of the gay orientation. I choose to identify as such." you can interpret that easily as some kind of neo-liberal erasure of sexual orientation but i think that it's undeniable that people have very bisexual tendencies that get shaped by societal demands on desire.
i'm kind of rambling here, but i'm basically wondering if there could be a difference between someone who identifies as gay but might not have genetic expression of it and someone who does
[editline]20th January 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=FrancisGalton;43603630]
A genetic explanation doesn't undermine that at all. If there are genetic factors X Y and Z that combine to make 2% of the population exclusively or mostly attracted to members of the same sex, then that fact is set in stone regardless of what cultural constructions you put on top of it.
The rainbow remains a gradient of different light wavelengths regardless of how exactly you want to divvy it up into colors. The fact that Bantu languages don't distinguish between blue and green doesn't mean that water and leaves emit light of the same wavelengths.[/QUOTE]
i concede that. i'm trying to make a point but im utterly failing to articulate it; my usual folly
[QUOTE=FrancisGalton;43603630]Nah the distribution is bimodal as far as I can see. I mean, you can make "bisexuals" outnumber homo- and hetero-sexuals just by defining bisexuality widely enough.[/QUOTE]Not really. Attraction to both sexes is pretty well and observable. We just had an article on here about this very issue within the last two weeks.
[QUOTE=thisispain;43603637]well its an onion you have to unfold and you have to ask what homosexuality specifically means in this context.
to me someone isn't gay until they say "yeah i'm part of the gay orientation. I choose to identify as such." you can interpret that easily as some kind of neo-liberal erasure of sexual orientation but i think that it's undeniable that people have very bisexual tendencies that get shaped by societal demands on desire.[/quote]
Here's where I disagree - I don't think personal identification factors into it. Choice is irrelevant, you experience sexual and romantic attraction without your prefrontal cortex getting a say. My criterion is empirically falsifiable too.
[quote]i'm kind of rambling here, but i'm basically wondering if there could be a difference between someone who identifies as gay but might not have genetic expression of it and someone who does[/QUOTE]
I don't think that's a meaningful question. The existence of people that do not have a gene X but who are nonetheless homosexual would have to be factored into any model that attempts to explain homosexuality by appealing to gene X.
Also I picked this username because Francis Galton was a genius whom I look up to. He pushed the frontiers of human understanding in so many ways, from statistics to psychology to meteorology. He invented the weather map. He put fingerprint analysis on a firm scientific footing, and was one of Darwin's few contemporaries who understood his theories on a deep theoretical level. If people took his ideas on eugenics in a bad way, that is in no way his fault.
[quote=Excerpt from "Hereditary Genius"]The best form of civilization in respect to the improvement of the race, would be one in which society was not costly; where incomes were chiefly derived from professional sources, and not much through inheritance; where every lad had a chance of showing his abilities, and, if highly gifted, was enabled to achieve a first-class education and entrance into professional life, by the liberal help of the exhibitions and scholarships which he had gained in his early youth; where marriage was held in as high honour as in ancient Jewish times; where the pride of race was encouraged (of course I do not refer to the nonsensical sentiment of the present day, that goes under that name); where the weak could find a welcome and a refuge in celibate monasteries or sisterhoods, and lastly, where the better sort of emigrants and refugees from other lands were invited and welcomed, and their descendants naturalized.[/quote]
His ideas for responsibly using science to better the human race are something we should celebrate.
[QUOTE=thisispain;43603637]to me someone isn't gay until they say "yeah i'm part of the gay orientation. I choose to identify as such." you can interpret that easily as some kind of neo-liberal erasure of sexual orientation[/QUOTE]I feel that places far too much importance on the title and simplistic views of orientation. I also don't really like that assumption because it could lead to the argument that it is something that can be cured or changed, which it definitely isn't.
[quote]but i think that it's undeniable that people have very bisexual tendencies that get shaped by societal demands on desire.[/quote]Well, that's an issue of expression, which is definitely going to be influenced primarily by social setting and how it views the subject.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;43603723]I feel that places far too much importance on the title and simplistic views of orientation. I also don't really like that assumption because it could lead to the argument that it is something that can be cured or changed, which it definitely isn't.[/quote]
Well this is a screwy line of thinking. Either you can change it or you can't. Whichever is true is the one we ought to believe in.
There is zero evidence that homosexuality is curable or changeable at all, certainly in the clinical sense. All attempts inevitably fall apart. Even purported "successes" have proven to be failures.
it can't be changed it can only be suppressed
huh, my mom was a stressed smoker and i'm not gay in the least.
thanks mom
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;43603807]There is zero evidence that homosexuality is curable or changeable at all, certainly in the clinical sense. All attempts inevitably fall apart. Even purported "successes" have proven to be failures.[/QUOTE]
I'm talking more on the meta level. You shouldn't dismiss a line of thinking because it might lend credence to an outcome you don't like. If future technology makes it so that we can change our sexual orientations, then that's something we'll have to accept.
[QUOTE=FrancisGalton;43604038]I'm talking more on the meta level. You shouldn't dismiss a line of thinking because it might lend credence to an outcome you don't like. If future technology makes it so that we can change our sexual orientations, then that's something we'll have to accept.[/QUOTE]That means nothing though. Speculative garbage like that is useless.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;43604078]That means nothing though. Speculative garbage like that is useless.[/QUOTE]
No you're missing my point. I'm saying you shouldn't let your ideology influence your empirical beliefs.
[QUOTE=FrancisGalton;43604132]No you're missing my point. I'm saying you shouldn't let your ideology influence your empirical beliefs.[/QUOTE]I'm not though. There is no curing or changing it. And no evidence there ever will be. So to entertain the idea for a moment is ridiculous.
You better not be stressed and be a good, obedient housewife!
Discrediting this research just because it comes from the daily mail is laughable, and discrediting it because of your preconceived and and incorrect scientific and political notions are being broken is even funnier.
It's a shame that we live in a time were SJWs stifle scientific research into very specific parts of the human mind - it's almost like we're back in the 11th century, where people were being prosecuted for simply not being catholic.
[QUOTE=Popbob II;43604824]Discrediting this research just because it comes from the daily mail is laughable, and discrediting it because of your preconceived and and incorrect scientific and political notions are being broken is even funnier.
It's a shame that we live in a time were SJWs stifle scientific research into very specific parts of the human mind - it's almost like we're back in the 11th century, where people were being prosecuted for simply not being catholic.[/QUOTE]
I here ya brother! It's about time somebody takes the fight to these goddamn SJWs, the Inquisition of the modern era
truly some nerds on a garrys mod forum have stifled the greatest scientific minds of this generation. the blood still boils in my veins when i recall how Einstein's theory of general relativity was repressed for many decades by something awful and the tumblr thoughtpolice
I don't get why popbob bothered with an alt account, it's not like his main one is banned
[QUOTE=Popbob II;43604824]Discrediting this research just because it comes from the daily mail is laughable, and discrediting it because of your preconceived and and incorrect scientific and political notions are being broken is even funnier.
It's a shame that we live in a time were SJWs stifle scientific research into very specific parts of the human mind - it's almost like we're back in the 11th century, where people were being prosecuted for simply not being catholic.[/QUOTE]
Don't confuse SJWs with academics.
Besides, the truth will come about soon enough. Genome sequencing continues to collapse in price, and we've got the computational resources to tease out genetic causes from large datasets. To the extent that politics influences scientific discovery, it will be mitigated by rising countries with different cultures (China).
[QUOTE=FrancisGalton;43604954]Don't confuse SJWs with academics.
[/QUOTE]
There is nothing academic about social justice - it only services to force an opinion on people that they otherwise would not hold in an attempt to ostracize the alternate opinion simply for being outside of the first opinions worldview.
[quote]Besides, the truth will come about soon enough. Genome sequencing continues to collapse in price, and we've got the computational resources to tease out genetic causes from large datasets. To the extent that politics influences scientific discovery, it will be mitigated by rising countries with different cultures (China).[/quote]
The human genome was sequenced over a decade ago, but that doesn't stop [url=http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/03/the-fallacious-arguments-of-the-homosexual-agenda/]propagandists[/url] from pushing the 'fact' that people are probabilistically born gay or something - even when all we know about reproducation and genetics is deterministic.
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Trolling" - Megafan))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=FrancisGalton;43604954]Don't confuse SJWs with academics.[/QUOTE]
So are you DainBramage or not this is driving me crazy
[QUOTE=Popbob II;43605011]There is nothing academic about social justice - it only services to force an opinion on people that they otherwise would not hold in an attempt to ostracize the alternate opinion simply for being outside of the first opinions worldview.[/quote]
Oh my
[QUOTE=Popbob II;43605011][url=http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/03/the-fallacious-arguments-of-the-homosexual-agenda/]propagandists[/url][/QUOTE]
That website is so great
[QUOTE=Popbob II;43605011]There is nothing academic about social justice - it only services to force an opinion on people that they otherwise would not hold in an attempt to ostracize the alternate opinion simply for being outside of the first opinions worldview.[/quote]
Okay?
[quote]The human genome was sequenced over a decade ago, but that doesn't stop [url=http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/03/the-fallacious-arguments-of-the-homosexual-agenda/]propagandists[/url] from pushing the 'fact' that people are probabilistically born gay or something - even when all we know about reproducation and genetics is deterministic.[/QUOTE]
I don't think you know what genome sequencing actually entails.
[quote=LoonyLibertarianMagazine]These people don’t even want to get married, they just want the benefits of marriage. Marriage is about the complimentary union of a man and a woman – the way Almighty God ( or Nature depending on your cosmological view ) intended it;[/quote]
Hahaha that's about all you really need from that article
[QUOTE=Popbob II;43604824]Discrediting this research just because it comes from the daily mail is laughable, and discrediting it because of your preconceived and and incorrect scientific and political notions are being broken is even funnier.
It's a shame that we live in a time were SJWs stifle scientific research into very specific parts of the human mind - it's almost like we're back in the 11th century, where people were being prosecuted for simply not being catholic.[/QUOTE]
This post is the most hilarious thing I've seen all day.
[quote=LoonyLibertarianMagazine]Additionally, if my lifestyle, caused me to be persecuted and bullied to the point that I wanted to kill myself, well call me silly but I would waste no time in changing my lifestyle, instead of trying to change everyone else’s reaction to it.
Also, and perhaps most importantly, if a homosexual, or anyone, would consider killing themselves over a WORD or teasing, I would suggest that such a person has more wrong with them than their sexual orientation.[/quote]
"Hello I am Shea Bernard and I have literally no understanding of what is to be a homosexual youth that faces bullying"
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.