Time to End "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"
- Thread starter upnorth2505
- Start date
Leothwyn
Well-Known Member
I will agree with you that this discussion is not working out. Debating with you often seems about as useful as debating with a dirt clod.
I already said that I don't think that homosexuality can only exist if there is the ability to contemplate ones existence and to have total self-awareness. I won't speak for others, but I suspect that some of the others who don't agree with you also don't buy into your definition of homosexuality - the definition needed to support the whole choice/sinner stance.
I already said that I don't think that homosexuality can only exist if there is the ability to contemplate ones existence and to have total self-awareness. I won't speak for others, but I suspect that some of the others who don't agree with you also don't buy into your definition of homosexuality - the definition needed to support the whole choice/sinner stance.
dukeofbaja
New Member
You need to stop discussing things like this.
Why, am I causing you cognitive dissonance because you are unable to support such an absurd assertion? Isn't is tough when you are forced to re-evaluate your beliefs?
The whole of science and the whole of human knowledge and understanding is abundantly clear that few animals posses any reasoning skills beyond the most basic.
Although I cannot recall any off the top of my head, I will try to dredge up a few examples of animals that possess reasoning skills far beyond 'the most basic'. Like elephants that do arithmetic, or chimps that outperform college students... http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12993-chimps-outperform-humans-at-memory-task.html
Animals are not self aware and can not contemplate their own existence much less their own sexuality or gender.
I'm not sure what your definition of homosexuality is, but I define it pretty straightforwardly. If an animal forms a same-sex pair bond with another animal despite available opposite-sex partners, that animal is homosexual. It may not think to itself, 'Hey, I'm gay! Let's have a halloween bash/orgy in the big open field down by the river' but nonetheless the animal is gay. Homosexual behavior, not shin humping or dominance displays or confusion, but rather homosexual behavior has been observed in every animal species that has genders. And many other animals are self aware, debatably. The same test they use for animals would show humans become self aware at 18-24 months or so, not sure what to make of all that but there is debate to be had there, better methodology to be found, and more research to be done.
Great dialogue (not dialog)
Why, am I causing you cognitive dissonance because you are unable to support such an absurd assertion? Isn't is tough when you are forced to re-evaluate your beliefs?
The whole of science and the whole of human knowledge and understanding is abundantly clear that few animals posses any reasoning skills beyond the most basic.
Although I cannot recall any off the top of my head, I will try to dredge up a few examples of animals that possess reasoning skills far beyond 'the most basic'. Like elephants that do arithmetic, or chimps that outperform college students... http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12993-chimps-outperform-humans-at-memory-task.html
Animals are not self aware and can not contemplate their own existence much less their own sexuality or gender.
I'm not sure what your definition of homosexuality is, but I define it pretty straightforwardly. If an animal forms a same-sex pair bond with another animal despite available opposite-sex partners, that animal is homosexual. It may not think to itself, 'Hey, I'm gay! Let's have a halloween bash/orgy in the big open field down by the river' but nonetheless the animal is gay. Homosexual behavior, not shin humping or dominance displays or confusion, but rather homosexual behavior has been observed in every animal species that has genders. And many other animals are self aware, debatably. The same test they use for animals would show humans become self aware at 18-24 months or so, not sure what to make of all that but there is debate to be had there, better methodology to be found, and more research to be done.
Great dialogue (not dialog)
RickWhite
Well-Known Member
Animals can not do arithmetic - it is a trick. Although I believe some chimps could out perform you in many tasks.
I don't care what your opinion is. Only a being that is aware of its conduct can rightly be referred to as having "sexuality" of any type.
I had a parakeet that would try to mate with your thumb if you held it the right way and wiggled it. And as stated dogs normally hump people's legs. I know you want to dismiss this out of hand but this blows your theory out of the water.
Animals mate on simple instinct, not on a "decision." Animals can not even grasp the concept of gender - they determine gender mainly by scent.
Really this stuff is extraordinarily basic. In order to be a homosexual one has to understand what it is. There are no two ways about it and if you can't understand this I don't know what to tell you.
And I proved this is so with the questions you failed to answer.
If two small boys, say 3 years old are seen fondling each other's junk, are the children homosexual based on this act or not?
Leothwyn
Well-Known Member
If there's one thing that we can learn from debates here it's that Rick does not re-evaluate any beliefs - he has it all figured out. There are his beliefs, and there are wrong ones - no gray areas, ever.
dukeofbaja
New Member
And I proved this is so with the questions you failed to answer.
If two small boys, say 3 years old are seen fondling each other's junk, are the children homosexual based on this act or not?
I would say they have some tendencies that would put them on the homosexual side of the spectrum, sure. But that example is not fair. We are not talking about baby animals that fondle each other's junk out of curiousity here. We are talking about sexually mature animals who form pair bonds that last years, even though there are opposite sex partners available. Plus, your question is unanswerable altogether, as someone cannot be homosexual or not based on one act, you have to look at all their acts over time and then you can place them somewhere on the spectrum of hetero/homo. So your question disproves nothing.
Really this stuff is extraordinarily basic. In order to be a homosexual one has to understand what it is. There are no two ways about it and if you can't understand this I don't know what to tell you.
Right back at ya. You don't even seem to grasp the concept of the spectrum, you think it is black and white.
I don't care what your opinion is. Only a being that is aware of its conduct can rightly be referred to as having "sexuality" of any type.
And whether or not animals are self aware is a whole other debate. But there are many animals that are demonstrably self aware, like the greater primates, elephants, pigs, some dolphins, etc. Just curious to know...what would you call it when two animals in the wild form a same-sex pair bond despite the availability of opposite sex partners?
I had a parakeet that would try to mate with your thumb if you held it the right way and wiggled it. And as stated dogs normally hump people's legs. I know you want to dismiss this out of hand but this blows your theory out of the water.
Again, we discussed this. Dominance displays and your parakeet do not explain or disprove animals that form same-sex pair bonds despite availability of opposite-sex partners. You are just chanting the same stuff we already hashed out now....
Animals mate on simple instinct, not on a "decision." Animals can not even grasp the concept of gender - they determine gender mainly by scent.
Again, false! Animals do mate on decisions! Instinct guides their decisions! Just like us! Why do you think the females let the males fight it out, and then mate with the winner? Their instinct tells them the right choice is the winner. And animals often determine gender in other ways than scent, like sound and sight. That is why males and females of the same species are sometimes vastly different looking.
If two small boys, say 3 years old are seen fondling each other's junk, are the children homosexual based on this act or not?
I would say they have some tendencies that would put them on the homosexual side of the spectrum, sure. But that example is not fair. We are not talking about baby animals that fondle each other's junk out of curiousity here. We are talking about sexually mature animals who form pair bonds that last years, even though there are opposite sex partners available. Plus, your question is unanswerable altogether, as someone cannot be homosexual or not based on one act, you have to look at all their acts over time and then you can place them somewhere on the spectrum of hetero/homo. So your question disproves nothing.
Really this stuff is extraordinarily basic. In order to be a homosexual one has to understand what it is. There are no two ways about it and if you can't understand this I don't know what to tell you.
Right back at ya. You don't even seem to grasp the concept of the spectrum, you think it is black and white.
I don't care what your opinion is. Only a being that is aware of its conduct can rightly be referred to as having "sexuality" of any type.
And whether or not animals are self aware is a whole other debate. But there are many animals that are demonstrably self aware, like the greater primates, elephants, pigs, some dolphins, etc. Just curious to know...what would you call it when two animals in the wild form a same-sex pair bond despite the availability of opposite sex partners?
I had a parakeet that would try to mate with your thumb if you held it the right way and wiggled it. And as stated dogs normally hump people's legs. I know you want to dismiss this out of hand but this blows your theory out of the water.
Again, we discussed this. Dominance displays and your parakeet do not explain or disprove animals that form same-sex pair bonds despite availability of opposite-sex partners. You are just chanting the same stuff we already hashed out now....
Animals mate on simple instinct, not on a "decision." Animals can not even grasp the concept of gender - they determine gender mainly by scent.
Again, false! Animals do mate on decisions! Instinct guides their decisions! Just like us! Why do you think the females let the males fight it out, and then mate with the winner? Their instinct tells them the right choice is the winner. And animals often determine gender in other ways than scent, like sound and sight. That is why males and females of the same species are sometimes vastly different looking.
dukeofbaja
New Member
Oh, and animals can do arithmetic...
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/258993
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/258993
beardo
Well-Known Member
i know theirs the right hole and the wrong hole.....pretty basic..not much of an argument to be had right men wernt ment to be with men or their wouldnt be any more people.
Leothwyn
Well-Known Member
So, you're against people being gay. So what? Do you have anything to contribute to the actual debate going on here?
Are you seriously worried about population decline?
Leothwyn
Well-Known Member
I'm pretty sure this debate wasn't about proving whether or not homosexuality exists. I don't think we need animals to prove anyone's sexuality.
I think it's more about whether or not homosexuality is at all genetic. I know that my sex drive is very much biologically driven, just like a penguin's... doesn't make me pissed one bit.
I think it's more about whether or not homosexuality is at all genetic. I know that my sex drive is very much biologically driven, just like a penguin's... doesn't make me pissed one bit.
i'd be pissed if my sexuality was proven by a fucking penguin.
Stoney McFried
Well-Known Member
Yes, don't respond if you can't make any sort of intelligent rebuttal other than an insult.Make ad hominem attacks against the other person instead,that way you can feel superior.When asked for proof to back up your assertions, throw a big bitch fit because noone takes your word for it.This is the sum total of your ability to debate. You attempt to incite people with your inflammatory posts,then you imply they're stupid because they don't agree with you.You're not even smart enough to come up with your own opinions;you just regurgitate all the popular arguments of the right. You remind me a lot of ccodiane. Whole lotta talking, not a lot of content.
How much time do you spend in the suburbs of Detroit? Why single out Detroit,instead of say,the Bronx?
And why the fuck were you wiggling your thumb to get the parakeet excited?How did you figure out the correct angle to hold your thumb and wiggle it unless you were actively trying to do so?I own parakeets; that's a pretty specific way you had of turning yours on. Especially since parakeets are usually excited by stroking their backs, that's why they tell you not to pet them there.Sounds like the parakeet learned the behavior to me.Wow, that trick sounds like a real fun one to break out for company.
How much time do you spend in the suburbs of Detroit? Why single out Detroit,instead of say,the Bronx?
And why the fuck were you wiggling your thumb to get the parakeet excited?How did you figure out the correct angle to hold your thumb and wiggle it unless you were actively trying to do so?I own parakeets; that's a pretty specific way you had of turning yours on. Especially since parakeets are usually excited by stroking their backs, that's why they tell you not to pet them there.Sounds like the parakeet learned the behavior to me.Wow, that trick sounds like a real fun one to break out for company.
beardo
Well-Known Member
i think its wrong and shouldnt be promoted or advocated but if your gay its not my buisness. and yes its at least partly genetic. some men 'look' gay maybe theyve never even done anything gay but have a gay gene an effeminate quality associated with gayness for others its choice or life experience. it is a mental illness
beardo
Well-Known Member
WTF did someone jerk off a parrot? whats that got to do with gays in military? why not just ban sexual discussions and acts while in service gays are allready their but you dont want then flamboyent and disruptive. men cant sexually harras women and those rules can be very strict apply rules to men .pretty much dont ask dont tell...no sexuality in militaryYes, don't respond if you can't make any sort of intelligent rebuttal other than an insult.Make ad hominem attacks against the other person instead,that way you can feel superior.When asked for proof to back up your assertions, throw a big bitch fit because noone takes your word for it.This is the sum total of your ability to debate. You attempt to incite people with your inflammatory posts,then you imply they're stupid because they don't agree with you.You're not even smart enough to come up with your own opinions;you just regurgitate all the popular arguments of the right. You remind me a lot of ccodiane. Whole lotta talking, not a lot of content.
How much time do you spend in the suburbs of Detroit? Why single out Detroit,instead of say,the Bronx?
And why the fuck were you wiggling your thumb to get the parakeet excited?How did you figure out the correct angle to hold your thumb and wiggle it unless you were actively trying to do so?I own parakeets; that's a pretty specific way you had of turning yours on. Especially since parakeets are usually excited by stroking their backs, that's why they tell you not to pet them there.Sounds like the parakeet learned the behavior to me.Wow, that trick sounds like a real fun one to break out for company.
drumbum3218
Well-Known Member
fuck, one day they're saving the world from hitler, the next they're STARTING the wars. What the hell does it matter who they send in to battle? Especially when its an unjust cause. Hell, they'd send in martha stewart if it would bring them the money theyre after. Its like trying a guy for murder, but he says he's gay... so...? Whats the fugging difference, if he commited murder? All i'm saying is there are bigger issues at stake here. Not, should the DADT policy be abolished, but firstly, should the ability to over ride ur constitution and ignore the rest of the world on a bigger issue like going to war and killing the masses, be ignored? I suspose u believe all the wars USA's been in since WWII were for protecting US freedom, from being threatened? haha not even the cold war, that was about nuclear power (big money maker like when US sold a bunch of nuclear plants across India recently). When were any of ur wars after WWII ,NOT about Money? DADT is only in place to keep the harmony, whether its more effective or not, thats why its there. Hell corporate america owns/motivates the fucking US government, and ur worried about vigilante's ability to express their gay pride? Yes vigilante. If you support a vigilante cause, u are not a saint. And if your dumb/blind enough to absorb the propaganda of "war on 'freedom"', you are still not a saint.
Stoney McFried
Well-Known Member
Like you? Did your bird let you in on how to jiggle your thumb to achieve maximum stimulation?