Your best friend.

[sayonara]

Originally Posted by queball

Rubbish. All Spartans were gay for example.

Well then let's call that a consistent trend in global history

And more complex than what?

More complex than a situation where a simple set of environmental factors is responsible for affecting macroscopic and lifelong biology and psychology.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by queball

Rubbish. All Spartans were gay for example. And randomness doesn't make things "complex".

No they were bisexual, and the numbers get horribly exaggerated due to the fact it was mostly the upper classes in certain greek societies that were gay not the whole thing. And that was because most social events were predominately same-sex orientated. And the numbers who were "gay" and "bisexual" were probably exactly the same. As dante noted there's a difference between having gay sex and having gay tendencies. Much as there have been periods which repressed homosexual tendencies one imagines it was considered so normal back then that to not have had gay sex made you slightly different.

[CrashTester]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Is was he said. The imprtant point is the "and can be reversed"

My choice of words is not great and i write from a heterosexual point of view.

[sayonara]

Originally Posted by queball

And randomness doesn't make things "complex".

I see you edited this part, so I shall respond again.

I'm not sure what you're talking about, but if a hypothesis states that "Effect Y" is directly attributable to "Cause X" , and then Effect Y is observed without Cause X, this is usually considered to be falsification of the hypothesis.

Although on other planets they may well have different ideas about scientific method, of course.

[CrashTester]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

No.





PS Is crashtester attention whoring again in this thread?

f*k off! People call me fit to burn when I am not being serious and people like you do the same when I am.

I accept I cant win, but you can stop being a pr*ck.

[queball]

Originally Posted by sayonara

I see you edited this part, so I shall respond again.

I'm not sure what you're talking about, but if a hypothesis states that "Effect Y" is directly attributable to "Cause X" , and then Effect Y is observed without Cause X, this is usually considered to be falsification of the hypothesis.

Although on other planets they may well have different ideas about scientific method, of course.

No-one said there was any sort of binary causality. This is a total strawman.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by CrashTester

I accept I cant win, but you can stop being a pr*ck.

I think the emphasis here is on the word "can".

[sayonara]

Originally Posted by queball

No-one said there was any sort of binary causality. This is a total strawman.

What?

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by queball

No-one said there was any sort of binary causality. This is a total strawman.

Crashtester did duder.

[queball]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Crashtester did duder.

So why don't you quote him?

[sayonara]

I'm not sure I see what Queball is saying. I mean, he hasn't refuted what I said successfully, and he hasn't made a point of his own, so "wtf"?

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by queball

So why don't you quote him?

I don't think you're following. He made a general statement, which you replied to, which he replied to.

You're now claiming strawman.

You're worse than someone I know, who had the rather unique debating tactic of insulting the audience.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by CrashTester

You are gay. I said that I do not recognise any alternative sexuality other than homosexuality. If you shag men you are gay, regardless of whether or not you also shag women.

This is a fantastic quote.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

This is a fantastic quote.

It's either totalitarian gayness or some sort of denial of bestiality, paedophilia, etc, etc....

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

It's either totalitarian gayness or some sort of denial of bestiality, paedophilia, etc, etc....

It's the everything in one moment of sheer internet hilarity :)

[CrashTester]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

OK. But then all you can say see is :

Having gay sex is a free choice.
Having gay tendencies is not.

Which as T&F has noted, is quite a step back from your original point. If you had said the above originally then I think everyone would have accepted it as a fairly banal truism. But then, that wouldn't have prompted lots of replies would it?

Could you tell me the posts of mine you used in order to take my point as meaning. Its just that my involvement in this thread started out on one thing and has seemingly lead to another so I dont know what point you thought I was making.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by CrashTester

Could you tell me the posts of mine you used in order to take my point as meaning. Its just that my involvement in this thread started out on one thing and has seemingly lead to another so I dont know what point you thought I was making.

'Could you tell me the posts of mine you used in order to take my point as meaning'?

Dude, the point of posting in this kind of thing is try to make your point understood (point at an abstract level that is).

[CrashTester]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Dude, the point of posting in this kind of thing is try to make your point understood (point at an abstract level that is).

Yes but I started out trying to explain why I personally do not accept bisexuality as a vaild sexuality and has progressed onto what it is now. I didnt set out to make a statement that everyone would challenge, if I had I might have been more inclined to make a case.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by CrashTester

Yes but I started out trying to explain why I personally do not accept bisexuality as a vaild sexuality and has progressed onto what it is now. I didnt set out to make a statement that everyone would challenge, if I had I might have been more inclined to make a case.

You didn't outline any real reasons though other than "I don't think it is and i'm rite so ha".

[sayonara]

Originally Posted by CrashTester

Yes but I started out trying to explain why I personally do not accept bisexuality as a vaild sexuality and has progressed onto what it is now. I didnt set out to make a statement that everyone would challenge, if I had I might have been more inclined to make a case.

Iirc you said "if you have sex with a man you are homosexual, no matter how many women you have sex with", right?

Well, you might just as easily have said "if you have sex with a woman you are heterosexual, no matter how many men you have sex with."

So obviously there's some mechanism somewhere that you employed in order to choose which way to look at it. What is that mechanism?

[Grimble v2.0]

This post has no merit other than to be part of the feelgood thread of 2004

[queball]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

I don't think you're following. He made a general statement, which you replied to, which he replied to.

You're now claiming strawman.

You're worse than someone I know, who had the rather unique debating tactic of insulting the audience.

"You're Yahwe!" "No, you're Yahwe!". I'm not the one throwing around insults. Maybe you don't understand technical language.

It's like this: sayonara hasn't given any kind of real evidence, and hasn't replied to anything particular (what you call a "general statement" I call a "strawman"), and his reasoning is flawed anyway (absence of evidence and all that). And he's summoned Science when it doesn't seem relevant.

[Dante Hicks]

Where did the hate come from?

[queball]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Where did the hate come from?

Isn't that the point of CrashTester threads?

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by queball

"You're Yahwe!" "No, you're Yahwe!". I'm not the one throwing around insults. Maybe you don't understand technical language.

It's like this: sayonara hasn't given any kind of real evidence, and hasn't replied to anything particular (what you call a "general statement" I call a "strawman"), and his reasoning is flawed anyway (absence of evidence and all that). And he's summoned Science when it doesn't seem relevant.

If science isn't relevent, then why the hell is there a science called 'biology'?

And what's this 'you're yahwe' business?

[Deepflow]

i love watching mrl argue, makes me happy.... which is strange, because it really shouldnt

[MrL_JaKiri]

I'm like a god to all the little people.

[Deepflow]

i was thinking more some kind of little gnome that jumps up all the time saying "notice me" and very much WANTS to be a god.

but thats just my flawed perception, obviously.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Duder, I'm no gnome :coolio:

What's scary is that, at my current rate of posting, I'd be in the top 50 from scratch in under 3 weeks.

[edit]

Although I'm not going to catch up to that cheater KaneEd any time soon.

[Deepflow]

i meant your internet persona rather than your actual mammoth frame.

and it takes a lot more than you posting a lot to scare me

:drdre:

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Deepflow

i meant your internet persona rather than your actual mammoth frame.

and it takes a lot more than you posting a lot to scare me

:drdre:

How about me posting a lot whilst drinking german white wine, eating chocolate footballs and watching Trigun?

Oh, and playing CM0304.

[Deepflow]

well... still not really scary

german white wine is fairly terrifying in itself thoguh

oh... and play go instead.

:Jay-Z:

[MrL_JaKiri]

I play Go.

[Deepflow]

kewl

what K? or are you a mighty shodan mighty man?

[Bloomers III]

keep it to PM plz doods. thnx.

[Deepflow]

fag.

[CrashTester]

Originally Posted by sayonara

So obviously there's some mechanism somewhere that you employed in order to choose which way to look at it. What is that mechanism?

The threat being homosexual related perhaps?

[CrashTester]

Originally Posted by queball

Isn't that the point of CrashTester threads?

Not really, generally Im quite mellow.

[sayonara]

Originally Posted by queball

It's like this: sayonara hasn't given any kind of real evidence, and hasn't replied to anything particular (what you call a "general statement" I call a "strawman"), and his reasoning is flawed anyway (absence of evidence and all that). And he's summoned Science when it doesn't seem relevant.

Actually I was replying to part of the general discussion earlier in the thread in which people were arguing for and against homosexuality being a purely environment induced condition rather than a subtle blend of genetic, environmental, psychological and endocrine effects (as is the general consensus in the Biological community, which for all intents and purposes in this thread I very much represent.) If you really need me to quote all the posts to which mine was relevant you don't have much of a short-term memory.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "he hasn't given any real evidence", seeing as I was debunking an attitude based on its inherent lack of evidence. Nor do I understand why you would go as far as to say that I'm using "flawed reasoning" after I very clearly explained how I was applying the reasoning with which all experimental methods are devised.

[sayonara]

Originally Posted by CrashTester

The threat being homosexual related perhaps?

Does this mean you come to a different conclusion outside the thread?

I'm going to assume the answer to that is "no" and that your reasoning on this will always be location-independent. Try again.

[CrashTester]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

You didn't outline any real reasons though other than "I don't think it is and i'm rite so ha".

Any real reasons as to why I dont recognise any alternative sexuality other than homosexual? The reason was given that if you shag someone of the same sex you are gay, whether you physically alter yourself you look like a woman and then shag men, you are still gay.

That is my reason, it was there at the beginning.

Anyway, until tomorrow, cya.

[CrashTester]

Originally Posted by sayonara

Does this mean you come to a different conclusion outside the thread?

I'm going to assume the answer to that is "no" and that your reasoning on this will always be location-independent. Try again.

Sayonara stop being daft, I know you are not daft.

The reason I didnt look at it that way is because this is a discussion about gays, not women sleeping with men.

[sayonara]

Originally Posted by CrashTester

Sayonara stop being daft, I know you are not daft.

The reason I didnt look at it that way is because this is a discussion about gays, not women sleeping with men.

So outside this thread your opinion is different?

[KaneED]

Originally Posted by Chef!

i read somewhere a theory that homosexuality can be caused by not having a male role model or not respecting your only male role model and needing to fill that gap. Personally i dont agree with it but there is another theory for you to think about.

i didn't have a male role model for my developmental years and i'm not gay however my friend who had a father around is gay.

:S

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by CrashTester

Any real reasons as to why I dont recognise any alternative sexuality other than homosexual? The reason was given that if you shag someone of the same sex you are gay, whether you physically alter yourself you look like a woman and then shag men, you are still gay.

That is my reason, it was there at the beginning.

Anyway, until tomorrow, cya.

You don't get to redefine words according to personal whimsy. Otherwise nobody would ever understand anyone. I HOPE THIS THREAD HAS ADEQUATELY ILLUSTRATED THIS PARTICULAR POINT TO YOU.

[Sarina_Joy]

This whole topic always produces interesting discussion. Personally I don't see the point in the discussion. Some people are gay, some people are straight, some people are bi. To me it really doesn't matter WHY. Whatever makes you happy is my attitude.

I understand that some people feel they need a reason as to why some people are gay and some aren't. I just feel it's like trying to get me to find a reason why I tend to find dark haired men more attractive than blondes. I don't know why ... I just do!

Re Crashtesters genius statement that if you sleep with someone of the same sex you are automatically gay regardless of whether you sleep with people of the opposite sex as well.... I have had sexual relations with other women. Does that make me gay? Or does the rule only apply to men? (I consider myself to be straight with vague bicurious tendencies)

[acropolis]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Well the evolutionary argument is that it may well aid society's to have spare males around who aren't procreating, but can assis the clan/tribe whatever. This would give them an advantage since there are many negative effects of having every male trying to reproduce and only looking after their own kids.

the better evolutionary argument is that everyone has "The Gay Gene", but that it remains dormant except in people that realize they are physically and intellectually unfit to reproduce.

which is never going to be formally argued by anyone, for obvious reasons.

i also don't think the cause is significant.

[Deepflow]

now that being gay is more acceptable... i suppose that means it will "die out" as it were.

evolution and all that. businesses will be ruined

[CrashTester]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

You don't get to redefine words according to personal whimsy. Otherwise nobody would ever understand anyone. I HOPE THIS THREAD HAS ADEQUATELY ILLUSTRATED THIS PARTICULAR POINT TO YOU.

As an adult I am able to choose what I accept as satisfactory and what I dont, I choose not to accept that anyone falls into the category you monkeys call 'bisexual', such a person to me is homosexual. Nice and simple, if you are a man and you shag men you are gay, whether or not you also shag woman doesnt matter to me, the sexuality is covered quite nicely by the term 'homosexual'.

YOU SEEM TO HAVE A PROBLEM UNDERSTANDING THAT PEOPLE ARE FREE TO THINK DIFFERENTLY.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by CrashTester

As an adult I am able to choose what I accept as satisfactory and what I dont, I choose not to accept that anyone falls into the category you monkeys call 'bisexual', such a person to me is homosexual. Nice and simple, if you are a man and you shag men you are gay, whether or not you also shag woman doesnt matter to me, the sexuality is covered quite nicely by the term 'homosexual'.

YOU SEEM TO HAVE A PROBLEM UNDERSTANDING THAT PEOPLE ARE FREE TO THINK DIFFERENTLY.

This reply has the bizzare quality of being answered perfectly by the post it was written in response to.