Forums | MacLife

resedit wrote:

D'Eyncourt wrote:

resedit wrote:

For example - I don't recall ever "choosing" to speak English.
Some people may have, but I didn't. I speak it due to cultural reasons, it is the language that was and is primarily spoken by my immediate family. Even though I didn't choose to speak English, there's no gene involved that makes me an English speaker.

Thus - my experiences have nothing to do with whether or not I have a genetic disposition to speak English.

<mode="bullhorn">resedit: put down the analogy gun and no one (else) will get hurt.</mode>

The failure here is that there is no argument that your "choice" in language is a cultural one, not one of genetics.

There is no failure.
It is an example where one's experiences have nothing to do with a gene, and thus when speaking about a gene, it is not a "dishonest" edit to cut part of an article that has nothing to do with genetics.

What is clear that you have no idea what "analogy" mean.

Or do you mean to say that there are some people who seriously argue that your language choice is genetically determined?

Oh, I'm sure he remembers the caesar salad bit as fondly as I do.

bratboy wrote:

Oh, I'm sure he remembers the caesar salad bit as fondly as I do.

One does not forget the classics.
The salad
The NPR pie chart
The jumbo jet*

*Looking through that one, I pulled out a good can for the gay marriage thread:

Im sorry you feel oppressed around here. If its really that bad you can always leave.

Last edited by Tallgeese (2009-05-14 4:03 pm)

I could probably enjoy nailing a guy if he looked like a Hanson

resedit wrote:

No.
What's clear is the part they snipped has nothing to do with the topic the article discussed, which is whether or not there is gay gene.

The article clearly discusses more than that.  Did you read it?

You aren't very bright, are you?

Is this upsetting you?  Are we insulting your favorite news source or something?

Anything referencing Peter LaBarbera is full of horsecrap -- this is a guy that seeks to prove that gay are promiscuous by referencing gay pornography.  Of course, he conveniently ignores heterosexual porn.  He's basically like a an anti-gay version of a virulent anti-Semite.  I could go and research a lengthy list of wacko stuff on the guy.

Basically he makes James Dobson look like a moderate.

Otherwise I feel no particular reason to respond to rededit's desperate thread.

Well how do you know you don't like it if you don't try it? 

bratboy wrote:

resedit wrote:

No.
What's clear is the part they snipped has nothing to do with the topic the article discussed, which is whether or not there is gay gene.

The article clearly discusses more than that.

Yes the article discussed more than that.
However, the only thing from the APA they intended to address was the APA's change in position with respect to gay gene. Thus the only part of the APA pamphlet they need quote is the new opinion of the APA - which is in contradiction with the former APA position.

They were not sourcing the APA as supporting their position, they were demonstrating the APA is backing down from a previous claim, and that's all they were doing with the APA.

Anyone with high school level reading comprehension skills should be able to determine that from the article - just like anyone with high school level reading skills understands the article I sourced requires accepting a religion as a premise to make sense, hence why I labeled the article biased in my very first post.

The point is to discuss the the change in the APA and what caused them to take their former position.

The article itself, which is what you are hung up on, isn't the point for making this post - which is why I chose not to quote anything from it (kind of like how the article chose not to quote what wasn't relevant to their point).

resedit wrote:

The point is to discuss the the change in the APA and what caused them to take their former position.

But there is no discussion of what caused them to change their position, just wild speculation about how they are backing down from some previous political agenda.

This section in particular is clearly intentionally misleading:

For decades, the APA has not considered homosexuality a psychological disorder, while other professionals in the field consider it to be a "gender-identity" problem. But the new statement, which appears in a brochure called "Answers to Your Questions for a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality," states the following...

The APA still does not consider homosexuality a psychological disorder, and are in fact very specific about this fact in the pamphlet, but the wording is intended to make it sound as though they have changed their position on this matter as well.

Biased is one thing.  Intentionally misleading is another.

resedit wrote:

D'Eyncourt wrote:

resedit wrote:

There is no failure.
It is an example where one's experiences have nothing to do with a gene, and thus when speaking about a gene, it is not a "dishonest" edit to cut part of an article that has nothing to do with genetics.

What is clear that you have no idea what "analogy" mean.

Or do you mean to say that there are some people who seriously argue that your language choice is genetically determined?

No.
What's clear is the part they snipped has nothing to do with the topic the article discussed, which is whether or not there is gay gene.
You aren't very bright, are you?

Then the only thing I can conclude is that you are an idiot who is completely incapable of understanding anything beyond his own point of view. The edited portion of the sentence largely negates what was said in the remainder of the paragraph. Your source cut off the passage in the middle of a sentence, and somehow you believe that it had nothing to do with the ideas expressed? Such lying by omission is all too common by social conservatives.

DevoDoc wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Who cares if it's genetic? That's a totally irrelevant side issue. People want what they want.

Well, it's unfortunate that not everyone thinks that way.  The one thing that article did get right is that people's attitudes towards homosexuals differ depending on whether they think people choose to be gay or are born gay.

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how one "choses" to be straight.  I don't think I've ever gotten an answer.  Any takers here?  Did I get in the wrong line or something?  Skipped by with the memo?  Maybe my mother dropped me on my head or I was extracted with forceps?

resedit wrote:

You have to specifically choose it, no one is born Christian.

Actually, yes, people are born christian, or muslim, or buddhist depending on what religion is practiced by their parents. Most people succumb to the indoctrination (less uncharitably: brainwashing) of the church of their parents and thus become part of the religion that they are born into.

Unlike our homosexual friends....

mo' ron wrote:

resedit wrote:

For example - I don't recall ever "choosing" to speak English.
Some people may have, but I didn't. I speak it due to cultural reasons, it is the language that was and is primarily spoken by my immediate family. Even though I didn't choose to speak English, there's no gene involved that makes me an English speaker.

Thus - my experiences have nothing to do with whether or not I have a genetic disposition to speak English.

What would be amazing if you learned to speak Spanish in the absence of any spanish environment or teachers, which is much more like how gay people often describe their experience. If you could spontaneously start speaking spanish, I doubt many people would claim speaking spanish is purely a choice.

Oh, but g-d could grant him the gift to suddenly speak Spanish spontaneously. It happened at Pentecost after all.

As for the APA, they changed some wording and might even change an opinion. They do that because they believe in science and what current evidence shows. Zeus forbid that anyone change or clarify an opinion based on information rather than stubbornly clinging to dogma...