Listen, I read your research. Without sounding like an ass, you probably need to gain a greater understanding of how research works. The sheep study gets tossed because you cannot generalize results to humans. The inner ear study is obviously biased. Here's the key statment from the study's author
"Their auditory centers have been masculinized and the presumption is that so have the sites in the brain that direct sexual preference"
In one sentence the study's AUTHOR made 2 claims that are not supported by any evidence. The ears are different, not "masculinized" and any decent researcher knows not to presume anything, much less that differences in ears have the slightest thin to do with differences in brains. You don't presume, you do the research. So I have to question that one too.
The third link leads to 2 studies, one of which correlates "brain structure and sexual orientation." The problem with this study is that the BEHAVIOR could lead to brain changes, or vice versa. By drawing a conclusion where none exists, this study also shows bias. Which leaves the last study. Twin studies, generally, are considered to be very useful when it comes to determining. So I looked at it. And found flaws. Primarily that
"the sexual orientation of some men was assessed only by their twins, the assessment of monozygotic versus dizygotic twins was based on responses to a questionnaire"
These are important facts. Also, they don't discuss their sample size. That alone makes me suspicious.
Finally, and most importantly, the best you could possibly call any of this is "evidence" and weak correlative evidence at that. There's nothing that could in any way be appraised as proof.
You won't see me argue for gender discrimination. But that is not now nor has it ever been the issue. As soon as gays start discussing this issue based on gender and not who they are fucking, I'll support. My money says that will never seriously happen.
As it stands now, gays CAN get married. A gay man can marry a woman, and a gay woman can marry a man. What gays would like in MORE preferential treatment and new "rights" based on an activity that they CHOOSE to engage in. Sorry, but why should gay people get MORE rights than me?
"pure gender-based discrimination."
Which has nothing to do with sexuality. Make the argument that people shouldn't be discriminated against based on gender, I'm with you. The problem is that people are claiming discrimination based on the fact that they are GAY, which is not about gender, but about who you fuck.
"Whether gay is what you are or what you do is a matter that is still being debated"
Only amongst those trying to gain acceptance in the public eye. We define homosexuality as having sex with someone of the same sex. If you never have sex, you cannot be gay. Argue all you want, but that's it in black and white.
"Personally, I think that the evedence points towards gay being what you are"
First, what evidence? Show me some. I'll be waiting a long time.
Second, how can it be what you are when it's defined by WHAT YOU DO. One's actions make one gay. Again argue all you want, but I'm right.
"As for your "don't ask, don't tell" additude, that is completely unrealistic"
No it's not. No one except for my VERY closest friends know ANYTHING about my sex life. There's a reason, I don't talk about what I do in the bedroom with anyone. It's not hard to do, and certainly not "completely unrealistic" as you claim. In fact there are many gay men and women who do exactly what I suggest every day. Try telling them it's "completely unrealistic."
You have bought into the idea that being gay is something more than who you happen to be fucking. Sorry, but that's all it is. Gay men are just men who fuck other men. Gay women are just women who fuck other women. There is nothing more to it, despit what all the gay rights groups attempt to assert.
As far as your challenge, I'd win easily. But let's say I didn't, who is to blame when I do talk about my "significant other?" I AM. So I should bear the consequences that go with that. If gay people don't want to be discriminated against, show some good taste and keep your sex life private.
"if you didn't have the natural fear that someone could threaten your way of life, you wouldn't need one"
Nope. There is a difference between being prepared and being afraid. I have my gun because I may need it. Just like I have candles because I may need them. I'm not afraid of the dark, I would just prefer to mitigate it.
"They are one and the same"
No, they're not. Being black is something you are, being gay is something you do. One cannot avoid the consequences of being black, no matter how hard they try. The idea that protection against discrimination is something gays need is preposterous. Gays are under no obligation to tell anyone what they do. Exercise a little good taste and modesty, and don't discuss who you're boffing.
"You either like the opposite sex or you do not. Sure, there are some in the middle (just like anything else), but that is obviously normal."
So how can it be one or the other (which you state in your post) yet be normal to be "in the middle as well.
Contrary to what you say (and where are the references to your "proof"?) human behavior is extraordinarily complex. I've seen numerous studies that show a definitive link between premature sexualization and homosexual behavior. How does this jive with your theory? Especially when 1 in 4 females has been sexually abused.
"Are you just scared to think that homosexuality may in fact not be EVIL, or a SIN that is going to destroy the world?"
And are you scared to think that fucking someone of the same sex is just something you DO and not something you ARE? You state that there are "several psychological studies" that support your point. Show me ONE that definitively says anything of the kind. You can't because it doesn't exist.
"Incidentally, I thought I heard back in high school American government class that it was massively illegal to interfere with a member of Congress on their way to or from the House/Senate floor?"
This is Edward Kennedy. The only thing he was on his way to way a 5 martini lunch.
So what if it was? If I had a chance to mess around like that, I'd do it in a heart beat. And (this is the important part) I'd call the guy and tell him about it. Because it would be funny.
Then I'd expect something in return, because that too would be funny.
Listen, I feel the same about using my WLAN. Go ahead, I don't really care.
That being said, it doesn't matter how much you use, because the simple act of using any is theft. An inch or a mile.
Last point, you did "take" my bandwidth, because I could have used it if so inclined, but you removed that possibility by using it first. You took it and I'll never get it back. That's theft too.
Except it has been done successfully. As far as I know, the judge and attorneys are still around. Sorry, I don't usually let the facts get in the way of a good anti-government rant.
"what's the chance that he would be willing to hack"
Nil. So low as to be practically nonexistent. Virtually zero. In fact I would guarantee the chances are MUCH higher that you'll get shot by a random idiot than have your network used for kiddie porn.
Now here's my question, what does this have to do with the discussion? So a pedophile shot a cop, how do you make the leap to "hack through your network to get his fill of child porn?" One has nothing to do with the other, despite any assertions you make to the contrary.
"Then tell me it's not an issue"
It's not an issue. IT'S NOT AN ISSUE. The only issue in this was the ammunition used to kill the cop, and why this guy had it.
Sorry, but dumbing down the discussion is no answer. To claim that joe sixpack wouldn't understand theft (which is one way to look at people who use others WLAN without their permission) is BS. Make your point without being an alarmist, and you'll be FAR more respected for it.
Listen, don't take this personally it's not meant for you, but I'm so fucking tired of hearing people justify their paranoia by citing the potential for abuse. ESPECIALLY child porn. It seems like that's the first place someone runs to in discussions like this. There are better arguments for maintaining security, so do us all a favor and retire that one.
Slashdot Mirror
Listen, I read your research. Without sounding like an ass, you probably need to gain a greater understanding of how research works. The sheep study gets tossed because you cannot generalize results to humans. The inner ear study is obviously biased. Here's the key statment from the study's author
"Their auditory centers have been masculinized and the presumption is that so have the sites in the brain that direct sexual preference"
In one sentence the study's AUTHOR made 2 claims that are not supported by any evidence. The ears are different, not "masculinized" and any decent researcher knows not to presume anything, much less that differences in ears have the slightest thin to do with differences in brains. You don't presume, you do the research. So I have to question that one too.
The third link leads to 2 studies, one of which correlates "brain structure and sexual orientation." The problem with this study is that the BEHAVIOR could lead to brain changes, or vice versa. By drawing a conclusion where none exists, this study also shows bias. Which leaves the last study. Twin studies, generally, are considered to be very useful when it comes to determining. So I looked at it. And found flaws. Primarily that
"the sexual orientation of some men was assessed only by their twins, the assessment of monozygotic versus dizygotic twins was based on responses to a questionnaire"
These are important facts. Also, they don't discuss their sample size. That alone makes me suspicious.
Finally, and most importantly, the best you could possibly call any of this is "evidence" and weak correlative evidence at that. There's nothing that could in any way be appraised as proof.
You won't see me argue for gender discrimination. But that is not now nor has it ever been the issue. As soon as gays start discussing this issue based on gender and not who they are fucking, I'll support. My money says that will never seriously happen.
As it stands now, gays CAN get married. A gay man can marry a woman, and a gay woman can marry a man. What gays would like in MORE preferential treatment and new "rights" based on an activity that they CHOOSE to engage in. Sorry, but why should gay people get MORE rights than me?
Yup. I know you were trying to turn it around smartass, but that doesn't mean I won't be consistent. HETEROsexuality is also something you do.
What, did you expect me to backpedal?
Let's see to address your points...
Why bother now that I think of it. You're clearly a troll. Who's making things up. And can't spell.
It's "smug" not snug.
"pure gender-based discrimination." Which has nothing to do with sexuality. Make the argument that people shouldn't be discriminated against based on gender, I'm with you. The problem is that people are claiming discrimination based on the fact that they are GAY, which is not about gender, but about who you fuck.
"Whether gay is what you are or what you do is a matter that is still being debated"
Only amongst those trying to gain acceptance in the public eye. We define homosexuality as having sex with someone of the same sex. If you never have sex, you cannot be gay. Argue all you want, but that's it in black and white.
"Personally, I think that the evedence points towards gay being what you are"
First, what evidence? Show me some. I'll be waiting a long time.
Second, how can it be what you are when it's defined by WHAT YOU DO. One's actions make one gay. Again argue all you want, but I'm right.
"As for your "don't ask, don't tell" additude, that is completely unrealistic"
No it's not. No one except for my VERY closest friends know ANYTHING about my sex life. There's a reason, I don't talk about what I do in the bedroom with anyone. It's not hard to do, and certainly not "completely unrealistic" as you claim. In fact there are many gay men and women who do exactly what I suggest every day. Try telling them it's "completely unrealistic."
You have bought into the idea that being gay is something more than who you happen to be fucking. Sorry, but that's all it is. Gay men are just men who fuck other men. Gay women are just women who fuck other women. There is nothing more to it, despit what all the gay rights groups attempt to assert.
As far as your challenge, I'd win easily. But let's say I didn't, who is to blame when I do talk about my "significant other?" I AM. So I should bear the consequences that go with that. If gay people don't want to be discriminated against, show some good taste and keep your sex life private.
Explain how you got that out of my post. Where does MY post say anything about any of that.
I'm willing to have a political debate, but stop pulling shit out of thin air.
"if you didn't have the natural fear that someone could threaten your way of life, you wouldn't need one"
Nope. There is a difference between being prepared and being afraid. I have my gun because I may need it. Just like I have candles because I may need them. I'm not afraid of the dark, I would just prefer to mitigate it.
"Guns on the other hand have never been used for anything other than killing people"
See that's funny. I distinctly remember guns being used for hunting. As in killing animals to feed humans. As in KEEPING HUMANS ALIVE.
Don't let your moronic, poorly thought out political agenda be clouded by reality.
Anyone in power, just like it's always been. Oh, wait, you were attempting to make an anti-conservative post. Sorry I torpedoed it for you.
"They are one and the same" No, they're not. Being black is something you are, being gay is something you do. One cannot avoid the consequences of being black, no matter how hard they try. The idea that protection against discrimination is something gays need is preposterous. Gays are under no obligation to tell anyone what they do. Exercise a little good taste and modesty, and don't discuss who you're boffing.
"You either like the opposite sex or you do not. Sure, there are some in the middle (just like anything else), but that is obviously normal."
So how can it be one or the other (which you state in your post) yet be normal to be "in the middle as well.
Contrary to what you say (and where are the references to your "proof"?) human behavior is extraordinarily complex. I've seen numerous studies that show a definitive link between premature sexualization and homosexual behavior. How does this jive with your theory? Especially when 1 in 4 females has been sexually abused.
"Are you just scared to think that homosexuality may in fact not be EVIL, or a SIN that is going to destroy the world?"
And are you scared to think that fucking someone of the same sex is just something you DO and not something you ARE? You state that there are "several psychological studies" that support your point. Show me ONE that definitively says anything of the kind. You can't because it doesn't exist.
No, it's not. It MAY be partly genetic, but behavior as complex a sexual preference will NEVER be boiled down to either genes or environment.
"Incidentally, I thought I heard back in high school American government class that it was massively illegal to interfere with a member of Congress on their way to or from the House/Senate floor?"
This is Edward Kennedy. The only thing he was on his way to way a 5 martini lunch.
"He did not accept responsibility of Kopechne's demise"
You're right. Which is why I've always considered him a scumbag of the first order.
"How many can you wake up and get to realize that the US is now of the level of former communists countries with respect to freedom?"
You sir, are a moron.
So what if it was? If I had a chance to mess around like that, I'd do it in a heart beat. And (this is the important part) I'd call the guy and tell him about it. Because it would be funny.
Then I'd expect something in return, because that too would be funny.
No they were out of booze and didn't want him to make a scene.
Listen, I feel the same about using my WLAN. Go ahead, I don't really care.
That being said, it doesn't matter how much you use, because the simple act of using any is theft. An inch or a mile.
Last point, you did "take" my bandwidth, because I could have used it if so inclined, but you removed that possibility by using it first. You took it and I'll never get it back. That's theft too.
"Don't challenege PATRIOT"
Except it has been done successfully. As far as I know, the judge and attorneys are still around. Sorry, I don't usually let the facts get in the way of a good anti-government rant.
"what's the chance that he would be willing to hack"
Nil. So low as to be practically nonexistent. Virtually zero. In fact I would guarantee the chances are MUCH higher that you'll get shot by a random idiot than have your network used for kiddie porn.
Now here's my question, what does this have to do with the discussion? So a pedophile shot a cop, how do you make the leap to "hack through your network to get his fill of child porn?" One has nothing to do with the other, despite any assertions you make to the contrary.
"Then tell me it's not an issue"
It's not an issue. IT'S NOT AN ISSUE. The only issue in this was the ammunition used to kill the cop, and why this guy had it.
Sure it does. We'll agree to disagree, but if you take something that I paid for without my permission, you stole it.
As far as whether I mind losing it or not, that's completely irrelevant. I know people try to rationalize it (like you did) but it's still stealing.
"Theft consists of depriving someone of something of value that they mind losing."
Man, I love it when people completely make up new definitions because they want to steal. Nice try though.
Sorry, but dumbing down the discussion is no answer. To claim that joe sixpack wouldn't understand theft (which is one way to look at people who use others WLAN without their permission) is BS. Make your point without being an alarmist, and you'll be FAR more respected for it.
None of which addresses MY point that if I'm at work, and YOU send an email from my home network, I can prove (easily) that I wasn't there.
So, address the point or shut the fuck up AC.
Listen, don't take this personally it's not meant for you, but I'm so fucking tired of hearing people justify their paranoia by citing the potential for abuse. ESPECIALLY child porn. It seems like that's the first place someone runs to in discussions like this. There are better arguments for maintaining security, so do us all a favor and retire that one.