Why California’s Proposition 8 Would Make Jesus Weep (5 Viewers)

otello said:

Maurile Tremblay said:

Konotay said:

CletiusMaximus said:

I think the concept of a "strict constructionist" is a similarly vague and loaded term as is "activist". I think if you take a sincere look at decisions from judges you consider to be "strict constructionists" (does Scalia qualify? Thomas?), I think you'll find they are just as result-orientated as any other judge. Of course, I am assuming that "result-orientated" describes what most people consider to be "activist", but I'm not really sure of that. I guess my most accurate definition of the term "activist judge" would be: "a judge who makes rulings and issues opinions with which I personally disagree."

Click to expand...

Maybe, I am not a lawyer. Also, it is difficult to see past ones biases and I just missed it. Could you provide something you consider results oriented from someone like Scalia or Thomas?

Click to expand...

Scalia, in Gonzales v. Raich, was blatantly results-oriented. He came up with a cockamamie twisting of the constitution in order to keep pot illegal in California. Because he doesn't like pot. Thomas called him on it pretty good.Bush v. Gore is another example — and by coincidence it happens to feature the two lawyers from the Prop 8 case being discussed in this thread. (They were on opposite sides in Bush v. Gore, but were on the same side, opposing Prop 8, in this case.)

Click to expand...

Isn't the first case a Stevens decision with Scalia concurring?

Click to expand...

It was a Stevens-Kennedy-Souter-Ginsburg-Breyer-Scalia decision. It was a Stevens opinion, with Scalia concurring.

Maurile Tremblay said:

otello said:

Maurile Tremblay said:

Konotay said:

CletiusMaximus said:

I think the concept of a "strict constructionist" is a similarly vague and loaded term as is "activist". I think if you take a sincere look at decisions from judges you consider to be "strict constructionists" (does Scalia qualify? Thomas?), I think you'll find they are just as result-orientated as any other judge. Of course, I am assuming that "result-orientated" describes what most people consider to be "activist", but I'm not really sure of that. I guess my most accurate definition of the term "activist judge" would be: "a judge who makes rulings and issues opinions with which I personally disagree."

Click to expand...

Maybe, I am not a lawyer. Also, it is difficult to see past ones biases and I just missed it. Could you provide something you consider results oriented from someone like Scalia or Thomas?

Click to expand...

Scalia, in Gonzales v. Raich, was blatantly results-oriented. He came up with a cockamamie twisting of the constitution in order to keep pot illegal in California. Because he doesn't like pot. Thomas called him on it pretty good.Bush v. Gore is another example — and by coincidence it happens to feature the two lawyers from the Prop 8 case being discussed in this thread. (They were on opposite sides in Bush v. Gore, but were on the same side, opposing Prop 8, in this case.)

Click to expand...

Isn't the first case a Stevens decision [of the Court] with Scalia concurring [in the judgment]?

Click to expand...

It was a Stevens-Kennedy-Souter-Ginsburg-Breyer-Scalia decision. It was a Stevens opinion, with Scalia concurring.

Click to expand...

I think we are both right.

Maurile Tremblay said:

Konotay said:

CletiusMaximus said:

I think the concept of a "strict constructionist" is a similarly vague and loaded term as is "activist". I think if you take a sincere look at decisions from judges you consider to be "strict constructionists" (does Scalia qualify? Thomas?), I think you'll find they are just as result-orientated as any other judge. Of course, I am assuming that "result-orientated" describes what most people consider to be "activist", but I'm not really sure of that. I guess my most accurate definition of the term "activist judge" would be: "a judge who makes rulings and issues opinions with which I personally disagree."

Click to expand...

Maybe, I am not a lawyer. Also, it is difficult to see past ones biases and I just missed it. Could you provide something you consider results oriented from someone like Scalia or Thomas?

Click to expand...

Scalia, in Gonzales v. Raich, was blatantly results-oriented. He came up with a cockamamie twisting of the constitution in order to keep pot illegal in California. Because he doesn't like pot. Thomas called him on it pretty good.Bush v. Gore is another example — and by coincidence it happens to feature the two lawyers from the Prop 8 case being discussed in this thread. (They were on opposite sides in Bush v. Gore, but were on the same side, opposing Prop 8, in this case.)

Click to expand...

Scalia hides his results-oriented outcomes by electing when stare decisis is important. In Raich, he relied on stare decisis to not overturn Wickard, but the case is a straight parallel of prior precedent. It didn't require any sort of imaginative reasoning.As for Bush v Gore, that case was a blow out. 7-2 that the recount was unconstitutional. The remedy portion of the case is the 5-4 everyone reports and contained some interesting manuvering. I got the sense from the opinion that the majority was just flat out annoyed with the crap going on in FL from the courts on down and just wanted everything over.

Thomas on the other hand has been very consistent with his opinions. Of course, they often lack nuance and practicality, so that makes it a bit easier to be consistent.

Spending is out of control in this nation and we are concerned about gays marrying.

Nice too see everyone's priorities. Schmucks....

pinequick said:

Linky

Click to expand...

This is how it's done. Bravo.

Konotay said:

Mr. Pickles said:

Konotay said:

Mr. Pickles said:

Konotay said:

For your information you are on ignore. I will not respond to your posts because I will not see your posts.

Click to expand...

Sure thing, golddigger MasterofOrion Konotay.

Click to expand...

I wonder why you don't get banned. Your are abrasive, antagonistic, rely mostly on ad hominum attacks, you stalk people and pepper them with personal attacks that have nothing to do with the post for the sole purpose creating a strong personal response. You posts show that you don't just disagree but that there is a strong visceral hatred for those who disagree with you. I think you see your purpose is to hound those you disagree with off the board. You are everything a responsible board would eschew.

Click to expand...

I've relied only on debating the facts of the case. I haven't made a single "attack" on you in here. I only point out that you have a standard rotation of usernames, and have even denied to be the same person previously.You hate getting called out for being insincere in these discussions, linking to shoddy sources, and generally glossing over detail and not responding to genuine criticism. Your only recourse has been to change your online identity, or make scurrilous claims that people are attacking you. No one is attacking you personally. I would say the same things to anyone that made the kinds of shabby claims that you do. It's not personal in any way. You've even claimed that the uber-patient shining path was attacking you before. It's kind of a trend with you.

Maybe you should just avoid any controversial subject. You're obviously not used to being called out, and you definitely don't have thick enough skin to endure any kind of criticism. You're also not willing to respond directly to questions raised about your posts. It's an ineffective debate tactic.

If you think I'm personally attacking you or singling you out for reasons other than the content of your posts, report me. Show me evidence of "hounding" someone on this board. Take it up with Joe or anyone else that will listen to you. Meanwhile, I will rebut your illogical posts and expose them for what they are.

Click to expand...

You have behaved yourself in this thread except when I told you I was not going to respond to you. Then you flipped.I often get called out and am not insincere in these discussions. But being insincere and mockery is a talent you have in spades.

You say my sources are shoddy- WHAT? There you go again.

I changed my online name because I got banned for 2 weeks because of our last go around- not to change my identity. You often make false assumption and use them to create personal and unsubstantiated attacks.

Now your being coy. or make scurrilous claims that people are attacking you. Is this how you rationalize your childish behavior by denying the obvious.

It is true that I tried softening my reply back to you from your abrasive comments so that we would not fight. You call that insincerity or glossing over the details so that we wouldn't fight. It was my attempt to keep the peace and it didn't work -it only enrages you more. I have found out that reporting you makes no difference. So if you want I fight I am game because honestly I don't know how to handle your childish behavior. I would prefer that you just leave me alone and I will leave you alone.

Click to expand...

Serious business.

Konotay said:

Mr. Pickles said:

I'm not attacking you. I go after hypocritical posts and people not adequately supporting their argument. If you were to make up a new alias tomorrow, chances are you'd play the same game and I'd end up criticizing your post not knowing who the heck you are.You're the one inviting the scrutiny here, and you're the one running from your legacy. That link I posted back to the RNA thread was an instance where you outright denied you were the same person as Master of Orion and golddigger. That's pretty consistent with someone that's ashamed of their legacy as a poster.None of this is about "fighting" or making insulting attacks. In a dry thread like this, I'm considering what people write. I surely didn't come in here looking to pick a fight. As much as I disagree with you (or anyone else), I don't take it personally if we clash over it. You should realize, though, that you have a consistent pattern of illogical thought and a very impractical approach to a debate. It's frustrating when people attempt to have a reasonable discussion and someone decided to post a bunch of ridiculous links (e.g., Discovery Institute propaganda in a science thread) and not stick around to defend the position personally.I think most of your frustration and the need to backpedal into this "personal attacks" mode is due to your inability to articulately defend or argue your position. I've posted plenty of reasonable points of view in this forum over the years, and to have someone like you call me out for being nothing more than a troll is just kind of dumb. I've engaged in countless debates in this forum, and I've never heard anyone cry foul about my contributions more than you. Ironically, you're exactly the kind of poster you claim to loathe.Do I get abrasive at times? You bet. But it's never personal. And if you're not comfortable with how I do things, I suggest you either stop reading what I write, leave the site, or report me.

Click to expand...

I asked my wife and a good friend to review your posts.

Click to expand...

WTF?

Bottomfeeder Sports said:

Konotay said:

I don't really see the logic why polygamy should be banned and same sex marriage approved. The logic for both is very similar IMHO.

Click to expand...

To me the biggest difference is the administrative difference between laws and policies having one spouse as an option and having multiple spouses as an option. For example how would SS, the military, etc handle "survivor's benefits"? Absent a will who inherits the fortune? When laying unconscious in a hospital bed which spouse makes the medical decisions? Is every spouse a dependent on tax returns? Is every spouse eligible for spousal health insurance? etc., etc. There are also concerns that these relationships create the administrative burden of making certain young girls aren't placed in to marriages. The burden of policing increased violence which supposedly is statically likely. And other policing burdens.In the past I have posted that while these and items like seem like legitimate concerns, I don't think they rise to the level where the only solution to the problem is an outright ban. Curiously in the Prop 8 decision there is this-In addition, proponents appear to claim that Proposition 8 advances a state interest in easing administrative burdens associated with issuing and recognizing marriage licenses. Under precedents such as Craig v Boren, “administrative ease and convenience” are not important government objectives. 429 US 190, 198 (1976).

I'm guessing however that if there was a movement for polygamy the primary arguments against will have to do with the impact on children. I don't know of stats on this to determine if it holds any water.

Click to expand...

Correct.There can be legitimate, non-religious/non-moral reasons for banning polygamy. They may not be particularly compelling or convincing, but perhaps rational. No one has ever pointed out to me one, legitimate NON_RELIGIOUS reaon for banning gay marriage.

tommyboy said:

TobiasFunke said:

jon_mx said:

TobiasFunke said:

No, I equate the arguments you were making a couple pages ago in this thread, in which you made hilarious generalizations about how a gay judge would never be able to rule fairly on a matter related to marriage rights but did not thinik such concerns applied equally to other persons who could be seen as "interested" in the result, as bigoted. I made the case pretty clearly. You thought someone was capable of less than someone else solely by virtue of their sexuality. You didn't really bother to respond, except to contradict yourself.

Mookie has posted in other threads that he disapproves of homosexuality in pretty clear terms. I imagine he'll tell you as much. if he doesn't, I suppose I can try to root around and find the threads where he's done so if I find the time at some point. I consider that bigotry.

Click to expand...

So simply disapproving of something is bigotry?

Click to expand...

Yes, if it's a genetic trait.

Click to expand...

pretty sure we've beaten that horse to death. sexuality is not a genetic trait. search for "twin studies"regardless, people are entitled to their opinions and given that homosexuality, or the idea of homosexuality, among heterosexual males on a football message board might cause "disapproval" should hardly be shocking.

Click to expand...

You can beat an entire cavalry to death- if you're wrong, it doesn't matter. While the science isn't conclusive, it's pretty freaking clear that there is a strong tie between biology/genetics and homosexuality.Shocking? No. But it also shouldn't be shocking that in 2010, "disapproval" of homosexuality is viewed by many, including the vast majority of the under-50 population, as laughably backwards and ignorant.

ETA: Here's a good takedown of your theory that "twin studies" show sexuality not to be a genetic trait.

TobiasFunke said:

tommyboy said:

TobiasFunke said:

jon_mx said:

TobiasFunke said:

No, I equate the arguments you were making a couple pages ago in this thread, in which you made hilarious generalizations about how a gay judge would never be able to rule fairly on a matter related to marriage rights but did not thinik such concerns applied equally to other persons who could be seen as "interested" in the result, as bigoted. I made the case pretty clearly. You thought someone was capable of less than someone else solely by virtue of their sexuality. You didn't really bother to respond, except to contradict yourself.

Mookie has posted in other threads that he disapproves of homosexuality in pretty clear terms. I imagine he'll tell you as much. if he doesn't, I suppose I can try to root around and find the threads where he's done so if I find the time at some point. I consider that bigotry.

Click to expand...

So simply disapproving of something is bigotry?

Click to expand...

Yes, if it's a genetic trait.

Click to expand...

pretty sure we've beaten that horse to death. sexuality is not a genetic trait. search for "twin studies"regardless, people are entitled to their opinions and given that homosexuality, or the idea of homosexuality, among heterosexual males on a football message board might cause "disapproval" should hardly be shocking.

Click to expand...

You can beat an entire cavalry to death- if you're wrong, it doesn't matter. While the science isn't conclusive, it's pretty freaking clear that there is a strong tie between biology/genetics and homosexuality.Shocking? No. But it also shouldn't be shocking that in 2010, "disapproval" of homosexuality is viewed by many, including the vast majority of the under-50 population, as laughably backwards and ignorant.

Click to expand...

Let the facts speak for themselves and it leaves you with nothing but your intelectu-babble. You can't prove it and you know it.

Mookie Blaylock said:

Let the facts speak for themselves and it leaves you with nothing but your intelectu-babble. You can't prove it and you know it.

Click to expand...

I can absolutely prove that there's a strong genetic component to homosexuality. As can anyone with an open mind and the ability to find google and type things into the search bar. But I'm pretty sure you don't have the former, and based on how frequently you're 100% wrong about the most basic things, I'm not sure you have the latter.

For some religious Christians, the notion that homosexuality might be genetic threatens the very core of their beliefs, for their interpretation of the Bible is that homosexuality is a sin. The idea that a loving God would declare something as a sin and then create human beings who are genetically inclined to be sinful is contradictory, to say the least. Therefore, these people will continue to insist and find ways to "prove" that gay is a lifestyle and a personal choice.

timschochet said:

For some religious Christians, the notion that homosexuality might be genetic threatens the very core of their beliefs, for their interpretation of the Bible is that homosexuality is a sin. The idea that a loving God would declare something as a sin and then create human beings who are genetically inclined to be sinful is contradictory, to say the least. Therefore, these people will continue to insist and find ways to "prove" that gay is a lifestyle and a personal choice.

Click to expand...

Thats an extremely odd rationale. I seriously doubt there are any Christians that refute that psychopaths are genetically inclined to kill. Temptation leads to sin, but overcoming temptation leads to salvation.

TobiasFunke said:

Mookie Blaylock said:

Let the facts speak for themselves and it leaves you with nothing but your intelectu-babble. You can't prove it and you know it.

Click to expand...

I can absolutely prove that there's a strong genetic component to homosexuality. As can anyone with an open mind and the ability to find google and type things into the search bar. But I'm pretty sure you don't have the former, and based on how frequently you're 100% wrong about the most basic things, I'm not sure you have the latter.

Click to expand...

What part of "while the science isn't conclusive" do you not understand? It doesn't count. It's no longer part of your argument. You don't get to say, "hey, this is false, but I'm going to use it as evidence anyways". Oh, and at the most basic things. You're such a little #####.

dparker713 said:

timschochet said:

For some religious Christians, the notion that homosexuality might be genetic threatens the very core of their beliefs, for their interpretation of the Bible is that homosexuality is a sin. The idea that a loving God would declare something as a sin and then create human beings who are genetically inclined to be sinful is contradictory, to say the least. Therefore, these people will continue to insist and find ways to "prove" that gay is a lifestyle and a personal choice.

Click to expand...

Thats an extremely odd rationale. I seriously doubt there are any Christians that refute that psychopaths are genetically inclined to kill. Temptation leads to sin, but overcoming temptation leads to salvation.

Click to expand...

The analogy you have chosen is extremely telling, and I think helps prove my point.

Mookie Blaylock said:

TobiasFunke said:

Mookie Blaylock said:

Let the facts speak for themselves and it leaves you with nothing but your intelectu-babble. You can't prove it and you know it.

Click to expand...

I can absolutely prove that there's a strong genetic component to homosexuality. As can anyone with an open mind and the ability to find google and type things into the search bar. But I'm pretty sure you don't have the former, and based on how frequently you're 100% wrong about the most basic things, I'm not sure you have the latter.

Click to expand...

What part of "while the science isn't conclusive" do you not understand? It doesn't count. It's no longer part of your argument. You don't get to say, "hey, this is false, but I'm going to use it as evidence anyways". Oh, and at the most basic things. You're such a little #####.

Click to expand...

The science isn't conclusive as to exactly what causes homosexuality.

The science is 100% conclusive as to the fact that there's a strong biological/genetic component and is 100% conclusive as to the fact that it's not solely a product of environment/upbringing.

What falsehood did I use as evidence?

ETA: Mods, please don't suspend Mookie for his little outburst. I'd much rather him have to come back and defend his ignorance.

TobiasFunke said:

Mookie Blaylock said:

TobiasFunke said:

Mookie Blaylock said:

Let the facts speak for themselves and it leaves you with nothing but your intelectu-babble. You can't prove it and you know it.

Click to expand...

I can absolutely prove that there's a strong genetic component to homosexuality. As can anyone with an open mind and the ability to find google and type things into the search bar. But I'm pretty sure you don't have the former, and based on how frequently you're 100% wrong about the most basic things, I'm not sure you have the latter.

Click to expand...

What part of "while the science isn't conclusive" do you not understand? It doesn't count. It's no longer part of your argument. You don't get to say, "hey, this is false, but I'm going to use it as evidence anyways". Oh, and at the most basic things. You're such a little #####.

Click to expand...

The science isn't conclusive as to exactly what causes homosexuality.

The science is 100% conclusive as to the fact that there's a strong biological/genetic component and is 100% conclusive as to the fact that it's not solely a product of environment/upbringing.

What falsehood did I use as evidence?

ETA: Mods, please don't suspend Mookie for his little outburst. I'd much rather him have to come back and defend his ignorance.

Click to expand...

Ahhh, the old 'might be this/might be that' defense. Good one. Again, do you have anything that proves, conclusively, that homosexuality is genetic?

timschochet said:

dparker713 said:

timschochet said:

For some religious Christians, the notion that homosexuality might be genetic threatens the very core of their beliefs, for their interpretation of the Bible is that homosexuality is a sin. The idea that a loving God would declare something as a sin and then create human beings who are genetically inclined to be sinful is contradictory, to say the least. Therefore, these people will continue to insist and find ways to "prove" that gay is a lifestyle and a personal choice.

Click to expand...

Thats an extremely odd rationale. I seriously doubt there are any Christians that refute that psychopaths are genetically inclined to kill. Temptation leads to sin, but overcoming temptation leads to salvation.

Click to expand...

The analogy you have chosen is extremely telling, and I think helps prove my point.

Click to expand...

I chose the analogy to point out that your reasoning is faulty. If you believe that proves your point, thats your problem.

Konotay said:

I know many many polygamist. The woman do not feel subjugated and they entered the relationship based on their free will.

Click to expand...

Konotay said:

I will tell you something I have been holding back. I am not golddigger but I know him and we have an interesting relationship.

Click to expand...

op-mother####ing-corn:

Mookie Blaylock said:

TobiasFunke said:

Mookie Blaylock said:

TobiasFunke said:

Mookie Blaylock said:

Let the facts speak for themselves and it leaves you with nothing but your intelectu-babble. You can't prove it and you know it.

Click to expand...

I can absolutely prove that there's a strong genetic component to homosexuality. As can anyone with an open mind and the ability to find google and type things into the search bar. But I'm pretty sure you don't have the former, and based on how frequently you're 100% wrong about the most basic things, I'm not sure you have the latter.

Click to expand...

What part of "while the science isn't conclusive" do you not understand? It doesn't count. It's no longer part of your argument. You don't get to say, "hey, this is false, but I'm going to use it as evidence anyways". Oh, and at the most basic things. You're such a little #####.

Click to expand...

The science isn't conclusive as to exactly what causes homosexuality.

The science is 100% conclusive as to the fact that there's a strong biological/genetic component and is 100% conclusive as to the fact that it's not solely a product of environment/upbringing.

What falsehood did I use as evidence?

ETA: Mods, please don't suspend Mookie for his little outburst. I'd much rather him have to come back and defend his ignorance.

Click to expand...

Ahhh, the old 'might be this/might be that' defense. Good one. Again, do you have anything that proves, conclusively, that homosexuality is genetic?

Click to expand...

It's not 100% genetic, but it is 100% certain that genetics is a factor. The "twin studies" that tommyboy thinks show a lack of biological ties actually show the opposite. I'd start with this intro:

http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=155

This discusses the scientific community's clear consensus that the factors leading to homosexuality are both genetic and environmental. And by "environmental," in some cases we're talking about neonatal stuff.

Other aticles on studies:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/...80628205430.htm

http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/born-gay

http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/RootWeb/...ological_ba.htm

And on and on and on. Really, it's only limited by your imagination on Google.

Mr. Pickles said:

I'm not attacking you. I go after hypocritical posts and people not adequately supporting their argument. If you were to make up a new alias tomorrow, chances are you'd play the same game and I'd end up criticizing your post not knowing who the heck you are.

You're the one inviting the scrutiny here, and you're the one running from your legacy. That link I posted back to the RNA thread was an instance where you outright denied you were the same person as Master of Orion and golddigger. That's pretty consistent with someone that's ashamed of their legacy as a poster.

None of this is about "fighting" or making insulting attacks. In a dry thread like this, I'm considering what people write. I surely didn't come in here looking to pick a fight. As much as I disagree with you (or anyone else), I don't take it personally if we clash over it. You should realize, though, that you have a consistent pattern of illogical thought and a very impractical approach to a debate. It's frustrating when people attempt to have a reasonable discussion and someone decides to post a bunch of ridiculous links (e.g., Discovery Institute propaganda in a science thread) and not stick around to defend the position personally.

I think most of your frustration and the need to backpedal into this "personal attacks" martyr mode is due to your inability to articulately defend or argue your position. I've posted plenty of reasonable points of view in this forum over the years, and to have someone like you call me out for being nothing more than a troll is just kind of dumb. I've engaged in countless debates in this forum, and I've never heard anyone cry foul about my contributions more than you. It's not even remotely close, in fact. You're #1 with a bullet. Ironically, you're exactly the kind of poster you claim to loathe.

Do I get abrasive at times? You bet. But it's never personal. I've never sought you out to antagonize you for sport. And if you're not comfortable with how I do things, I suggest you either stop reading what I write, leave the site, or report me.

Click to expand...

There is something extraordinarily pathological about this post. Then it dawned on me, you are very comfortable in telling bold face lies. For example, you are not a Chemical Engineer much less a Chemical Engineer Professor. You have no compunction about making up crap.

I'm not attacking you. This is just delusional. You and you aliases have been horanging me for at least 2 years with deeply personal ad hominum attacks. It isn't my imagination and I can't just ignore it anymore. Most of your points were off point with the sole purpose of creating a strong personal response from me.

It's frustrating when people attempt to have a reasonable discussion and someone decides to post a bunch of ridiculous links (e.g., Discovery Institute propaganda in a science thread) and not stick around to defend the position personally.

Where the hell did I link anything from Discovery Institute? You make crap up and then make me defend it. I posted tier I publications like PNAS, Science, Nature, PubMed.... I absolutely stuck around to defend my position. Again you just make up crap and make me defend it. It was you who ran around claiming to be some hot shot scientist, not adding a whit to the discussion scientifically, all the time making trying to derail the thread with personal attacks.



I think most of your frustration and the need to backpedal into this "personal attacks" martyr mode is due to your inability to articulately defend or argue your position. I've posted plenty of reasonable points of view in this forum over the years, and to have someone like you call me out for being nothing more than a troll is just kind of dumb. I've engaged in countless debates in this forum, and I've never heard anyone cry foul about my contributions more than you.

It is deeply personal with you. You quit doing this but you use to stalk me. I couldn't just couldn't ignore you. You made an effort to make pot shot remarks about be on every thread on nearly every post. You wanted to hoarse me off the board. I can't simply ignore you, you make it impossible. This so called "martyr mode" was me asking you to stop but that just egged you on further.

I was very able to defend my position scientifically you just didn't like my position. Talk about thin skin. I only accused you of being a troll on one thread. You are a bully who can't take a punch.

But it's never personal.

This is extraordinarily pathological. Your posts are very visceral. You have been attacking me for at least two years. Almost every post you call me out as golddigger.

Does this add anything to the discussion at hand? no

Is it meant to dehumanize me? yes

Is is designed to create a strong personal response? yes

Golddigger has been gone for about 2 years. It is time to get over it. Because it beyond petty at this point. BTW it is not his legacy I am running from. The fact that you use it attack my legitimacy and use it as a personal attack is what I avoid. I don't want to fight but you leave no other choice. After 2 years you think you could move on. But the fact that haven't moved on states that it just isn't going away. I would rather have an honest debate, but you leave me no other option.

If you want peace I am more than willing.

Mookie Blaylock said:

TobiasFunke said:

Mookie Blaylock said:

TobiasFunke said:

Mookie Blaylock said:

Let the facts speak for themselves and it leaves you with nothing but your intelectu-babble. You can't prove it and you know it.

Click to expand...

I can absolutely prove that there's a strong genetic component to homosexuality. As can anyone with an open mind and the ability to find google and type things into the search bar. But I'm pretty sure you don't have the former, and based on how frequently you're 100% wrong about the most basic things, I'm not sure you have the latter.

Click to expand...

What part of "while the science isn't conclusive" do you not understand? It doesn't count. It's no longer part of your argument. You don't get to say, "hey, this is false, but I'm going to use it as evidence anyways". Oh, and at the most basic things. You're such a little #####.

Click to expand...

The science isn't conclusive as to exactly what causes homosexuality.

The science is 100% conclusive as to the fact that there's a strong biological/genetic component and is 100% conclusive as to the fact that it's not solely a product of environment/upbringing.

What falsehood did I use as evidence?

ETA: Mods, please don't suspend Mookie for his little outburst. I'd much rather him have to come back and defend his ignorance.

Click to expand...

Ahhh, the old 'might be this/might be that' defense. Good one. Again, do you have anything that proves, conclusively, that homosexuality is genetic?

Click to expand...

I'm guessing you don't have much of a science background. Not bashing you, but no person with an understanding of science and how it works would argue like you do.

dparker713 said:

ScottyFargo said:

Statorama said:

Does Judge Walker’s argument open the door for polygamy by consenting adults being sanctioned?

Click to expand...

Without reading the whole thing, I doubt it because the argument against polygamy is that it is harmful to women by subjugating them. In a union between two people you have a setup based upon equality, while polygamy has the chance of being exploitative of one sex or the other. Most likely the women. The finding here was that the proponents of prop 8 didn't show that homosexual marriage would harm heterosexual marriage.

Click to expand...

How is that even remotely true. It may be that way on some occassions, but nothing about a union between two people is inherently based upon equality.

Click to expand...

Well, for starters, in a union between two people neither sex outnumbers the other. So, even odds.

Konotay said:

There is something extraordinarily pathological about this post. Then it dawned on me, you are very comfortable in telling bold face lies. For example, you are not a Chemical Engineer much less a Chemical Engineer Professor. You have no compunction about making up crap.

I'm not attacking you. This is just delusional. You and you aliases have been horanging me for at least 2 years with deeply personal ad hominum attacks. It isn't my imagination and I can't just ignore it anymore. Most of your points were off point with the sole purpose of creating a strong personal response from me.

It's frustrating when people attempt to have a reasonable discussion and someone decides to post a bunch of ridiculous links (e.g., Discovery Institute propaganda in a science thread) and not stick around to defend the position personally.

Where the hell did I link anything from Discovery Institute? You make crap up and then make me defend it. I posted tier I publications like PNAS, Science, Nature, PubMed.... I absolutely stuck around to defend my position. Again you just make up crap and make me defend it. It was you who ran around claiming to be some hot shot scientist, not adding a whit to the discussion scientifically, all the time making trying to derail the thread with personal attacks.



I think most of your frustration and the need to backpedal into this "personal attacks" martyr mode is due to your inability to articulately defend or argue your position. I've posted plenty of reasonable points of view in this forum over the years, and to have someone like you call me out for being nothing more than a troll is just kind of dumb. I've engaged in countless debates in this forum, and I've never heard anyone cry foul about my contributions more than you.

It is deeply personal with you. You quit doing this but you use to stalk me. I couldn't just couldn't ignore you. You made an effort to make pot shot remarks about be on every thread on nearly every post. You wanted to hoarse me off the board. I can't simply ignore you, you make it impossible. This so called "martyr mode" was me asking you to stop but that just egged you on further.

I was very able to defend my position scientifically you just didn't like my position. Talk about thin skin. I only accused you of being a troll on one thread. You are a bully who can't take a punch.

But it's never personal.

This is extraordinarily pathological. Your posts are very visceral. You have been attacking me for at least two years. Almost every post you call me out as golddigger.

Does this add anything to the discussion at hand? no

Is it meant to dehumanize me? yes

Is is designed to create a strong personal response? yes

Golddigger has been gone for about 2 years. It is time to get over it. Because it beyond petty at this point. BTW it is not his legacy I am running from. The fact that you use it attack my legitimacy and use it as a personal attack is what I avoid. I don't want to fight but you leave no other choice. After 2 years you think you could move on. But the fact that haven't moved on states that it just isn't going away. I would rather have an honest debate, but you leave me no other option.

If you want peace I am more than willing.

Click to expand...

This is a really really really long way to go to avoid answering the original question: what part of the opinion backs up the bias you claim?Also, I don't think "pathological" or "dehumanize" mean what you think they do.

TobiasFunke said:

You can beat an entire cavalry to death- if you're wrong, it doesn't matter. While the science isn't conclusive, it's pretty freaking clear that there is a strong tie between biology/genetics and homosexuality.

Shocking? No. But it also shouldn't be shocking that in 2010, "disapproval" of homosexuality is viewed by many, including the vast majority of the under-50 population, as laughably backwards and ignorant.

ETA: Here's a good takedown of your theory that "twin studies" show sexuality not to be a genetic trait.

Click to expand...

from your link:

The data seems to show that a small minority of individuals -- perhaps 10% -- have a "gay gene" or sequence of "gay genes." However, the gene is only expressed in perhaps 55% of those individuals, as a result of some unknown factor in the environment. In the remainder, it remains dormant and the person matures as a heterosexual.

Click to expand...

not seeing how this is a takedown.

ScottyFargo said:

dparker713 said:

ScottyFargo said:

Statorama said:

Does Judge Walker’s argument open the door for polygamy by consenting adults being sanctioned?

Click to expand...

Without reading the whole thing, I doubt it because the argument against polygamy is that it is harmful to women by subjugating them. In a union between two people you have a setup based upon equality, while polygamy has the chance of being exploitative of one sex or the other. Most likely the women. The finding here was that the proponents of prop 8 didn't show that homosexual marriage would harm heterosexual marriage.

Click to expand...

How is that even remotely true. It may be that way on some occassions, but nothing about a union between two people is inherently based upon equality.

Click to expand...

Well, for starters, in a union between two people neither sex outnumbers the other. So, even odds.

Click to expand...

Same can be true of any union of 3 or more people.

tommyboy said:

TobiasFunke said:

You can beat an entire cavalry to death- if you're wrong, it doesn't matter. While the science isn't conclusive, it's pretty freaking clear that there is a strong tie between biology/genetics and homosexuality.

Shocking? No. But it also shouldn't be shocking that in 2010, "disapproval" of homosexuality is viewed by many, including the vast majority of the under-50 population, as laughably backwards and ignorant.

ETA: Here's a good takedown of your theory that "twin studies" show sexuality not to be a genetic trait.

Click to expand...

from your link:

The data seems to show that a small minority of individuals -- perhaps 10% -- have a "gay gene" or sequence of "gay genes." However, the gene is only expressed in perhaps 55% of those individuals, as a result of some unknown factor in the environment. In the remainder, it remains dormant and the person matures as a heterosexual.

Click to expand...

not seeing how this is a takedown.

Click to expand...

That's just one quote in the intro discussing the "twin study" argument put forth by religious conservatives and others which you are falsely characterizing here. You need to read the entire piece to understand that the above is simply a reference to the fact that the gene exists but remains dormant on occasion- which of course does nothing to defeat the argument that there homosexuality is at least in part a biological/genetic trait (which is what I'm arguing- I've never said it's the sole reason). Later, a further exploration of the numbers:

Assume that 5% of males have a homosexual orientation as adults. Consider two identical newborn twin boys who were separated at birth and raised in different homes without any contact with each other. If homosexuality were caused by something in the environment, then, if twin #1 turned out to be gay, the chances of the other twin becoming a gay adults would only be about 5%. That is because the second twin would have been exposed to a totally different environment during his upbringing. So his chances of being gay would be the same as for any other male -- about 5%. But, studies have reliably shown that if one twin is gay, there is about a 55% chance that the other twin will be gay.

Click to expand...

That's pretty conclusive IMO. This is followed by a discussion of possible reasons that it's 55% and not 100%, summarized with this:

The rejection of a genetic cause of homosexuality by essentially all conservative Christians and some others seem to be based upon a faulty or inadequate knowledge of the detailed workings of genetics.

Click to expand...

TobiasFunke said:

It's not 100% genetic, but it is 100% certain that genetics is a factor. The "twin studies" that tommyboy thinks show a lack of biological ties actually show the opposite.

I'd start with this intro:

http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=155

This discusses the scientific community's clear consensus that the factors leading to homosexuality are both genetic and environmental. And by "environmental," in some cases we're talking about neonatal stuff.

Click to expand...

i didn't say that twin studies show a lack of biological ties. I said that sexuality isn't a genetic trait. It isn't, in anyone, because like most human traits be they physical or behavioral, the end result is a product of both biology and environment. The science has gone back and forth for over a hundred years on this it swings in one era from primarily genetic (hitler/eugenics fad of the early 20th century) to primarily behavioral (skinner et al, mid century) to today where most scientists believe what I just said, that traits are a product of genetics and environment, not either exclusively.so when you claimed that homosexuality is a genetic trait, you were clearly lacking any context in which to make that claim. I just pointed that out to you.

About the whole Jesus weeping thing, isn't homosexuality technically a sin? If so, instead of crying he might be passing out some fist bumps to the voters.

I'm not a big religious guy so I don't know the church's stance on m4m

goldigger to Pickles:

"I wish I knew how to quit you."

TobiasFunke said:

That's pretty conclusive IMO. This is followed by a discussion of possible reasons that it's 55% and not 100%, summarized with this:

The rejection of a genetic cause of homosexuality by essentially all conservative Christians and some others seem to be based upon a faulty or inadequate knowledge of the detailed workings of genetics.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I havent read up on this subject or the links, and I have no desire to. So I have no idea if this is properly addresses, but correlation is not the same as causation.

tommyboy said:

TobiasFunke said:

It's not 100% genetic, but it is 100% certain that genetics is a factor. The "twin studies" that tommyboy thinks show a lack of biological ties actually show the opposite.

I'd start with this intro:

http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=155

This discusses the scientific community's clear consensus that the factors leading to homosexuality are both genetic and environmental. And by "environmental," in some cases we're talking about neonatal stuff.

Click to expand...

i didn't say that twin studies show a lack of biological ties. I said that sexuality isn't a genetic trait. It isn't, in anyone, because like most human traits be they physical or behavioral, the end result is a product of both biology and environment. The science has gone back and forth for over a hundred years on this it swings in one era from primarily genetic (hitler/eugenics fad of the early 20th century) to primarily behavioral (skinner et al, mid century) to today where most scientists believe what I just said, that traits are a product of genetics and environment, not either exclusively.so when you claimed that homosexuality is a genetic trait, you were clearly lacking any context in which to make that claim. I just pointed that out to you.

Click to expand...

Homosexuality clearly determined in part (in large part, according to most experts) by genetics. That's all I've intended to say. I did not mean to suggest it's determined solely by genetics. So I guess we're just having a semantic argument, which is kinda beside the point. What's important to the context of what I was saying what that sexual attraction is in large part involuntary, and therefore disapproving a person based on their sexual attraction is bigotry.

dparker713 said:

TobiasFunke said:

That's pretty conclusive IMO. This is followed by a discussion of possible reasons that it's 55% and not 100%, summarized with this:

The rejection of a genetic cause of homosexuality by essentially all conservative Christians and some others seem to be based upon a faulty or inadequate knowledge of the detailed workings of genetics.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I havent read up on this subject or the links, and I have no desire to. So I have no idea if this is properly addresses, but correlation is not the same as causation.

Click to expand...

I have no idea what you think I'm claiming is causing something else based on a correlation.

The Z Machine said:

goldigger to Pickles:"I wish I knew how to quit you."

Click to expand...

Statorama said:

About the whole Jesus weeping thing, isn't homosexuality technically a sin?

Click to expand...

Jesus never said so.

TobiasFunke said:

tommyboy said:

TobiasFunke said:

It's not 100% genetic, but it is 100% certain that genetics is a factor. The "twin studies" that tommyboy thinks show a lack of biological ties actually show the opposite.

I'd start with this intro:

http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=155

This discusses the scientific community's clear consensus that the factors leading to homosexuality are both genetic and environmental. And by "environmental," in some cases we're talking about neonatal stuff.

Click to expand...

i didn't say that twin studies show a lack of biological ties. I said that sexuality isn't a genetic trait. It isn't, in anyone, because like most human traits be they physical or behavioral, the end result is a product of both biology and environment. The science has gone back and forth for over a hundred years on this it swings in one era from primarily genetic (hitler/eugenics fad of the early 20th century) to primarily behavioral (skinner et al, mid century) to today where most scientists believe what I just said, that traits are a product of genetics and environment, not either exclusively.so when you claimed that homosexuality is a genetic trait, you were clearly lacking any context in which to make that claim. I just pointed that out to you.

Click to expand...

Homosexuality clearly determined in part (in large part, according to most experts) by genetics. That's all I've intended to say. I did not mean to suggest it's determined solely by genetics. So I guess we're just having a semantic argument, which is kinda beside the point. What's important to the context of what I was saying what that sexual attraction is in large part involuntary, and therefore disapproving a person based on their sexual attraction is bigotry.

Click to expand...

you are really good at making blanket statements regardless of what the facts say. I'm good with that. At least I see where you're coming from. You want to make absolute black and white judgements based on a bunch of grey, hey we all do that sometimes.

TobiasFunke said:

dparker713 said:

TobiasFunke said:

That's pretty conclusive IMO. This is followed by a discussion of possible reasons that it's 55% and not 100%, summarized with this:

The rejection of a genetic cause of homosexuality by essentially all conservative Christians and some others seem to be based upon a faulty or inadequate knowledge of the detailed workings of genetics.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I havent read up on this subject or the links, and I have no desire to. So I have no idea if this is properly addresses, but correlation is not the same as causation.

Click to expand...

I have no idea what you think I'm claiming is causing something else based on a correlation.

Click to expand...

HTH

The Z Machine said:

goldigger to Pickles:"I wish I knew how to quit you."

Click to expand...

Golddigger can't become involved with Mr. Pickles; he already is in an "interesting relationship" with Konotay.

Konotay said:

Mr. Pickles said:

I'm not attacking you. I go after hypocritical posts and people not adequately supporting their argument. If you were to make up a new alias tomorrow, chances are you'd play the same game and I'd end up criticizing your post not knowing who the heck you are.

You're the one inviting the scrutiny here, and you're the one running from your legacy. That link I posted back to the RNA thread was an instance where you outright denied you were the same person as Master of Orion and golddigger. That's pretty consistent with someone that's ashamed of their legacy as a poster.

None of this is about "fighting" or making insulting attacks. In a dry thread like this, I'm considering what people write. I surely didn't come in here looking to pick a fight. As much as I disagree with you (or anyone else), I don't take it personally if we clash over it. You should realize, though, that you have a consistent pattern of illogical thought and a very impractical approach to a debate. It's frustrating when people attempt to have a reasonable discussion and someone decides to post a bunch of ridiculous links (e.g., Discovery Institute propaganda in a science thread) and not stick around to defend the position personally.

I think most of your frustration and the need to backpedal into this "personal attacks" martyr mode is due to your inability to articulately defend or argue your position. I've posted plenty of reasonable points of view in this forum over the years, and to have someone like you call me out for being nothing more than a troll is just kind of dumb. I've engaged in countless debates in this forum, and I've never heard anyone cry foul about my contributions more than you. It's not even remotely close, in fact. You're #1 with a bullet. Ironically, you're exactly the kind of poster you claim to loathe.

Do I get abrasive at times? You bet. But it's never personal. I've never sought you out to antagonize you for sport. And if you're not comfortable with how I do things, I suggest you either stop reading what I write, leave the site, or report me.

Click to expand...

There is something extraordinarily pathological about this post. Then it dawned on me, you are very comfortable in telling bold face lies. For example, you are not a Chemical Engineer much less a Chemical Engineer Professor. You have no compunction about making up crap.

I'm not attacking you. This is just delusional. You and you aliases have been horanging me for at least 2 years with deeply personal ad hominum attacks. It isn't my imagination and I can't just ignore it anymore. Most of your points were off point with the sole purpose of creating a strong personal response from me.

It's frustrating when people attempt to have a reasonable discussion and someone decides to post a bunch of ridiculous links (e.g., Discovery Institute propaganda in a science thread) and not stick around to defend the position personally.

Where the hell did I link anything from Discovery Institute? You make crap up and then make me defend it. I posted tier I publications like PNAS, Science, Nature, PubMed.... I absolutely stuck around to defend my position. Again you just make up crap and make me defend it. It was you who ran around claiming to be some hot shot scientist, not adding a whit to the discussion scientifically, all the time making trying to derail the thread with personal attacks.



I think most of your frustration and the need to backpedal into this "personal attacks" martyr mode is due to your inability to articulately defend or argue your position. I've posted plenty of reasonable points of view in this forum over the years, and to have someone like you call me out for being nothing more than a troll is just kind of dumb. I've engaged in countless debates in this forum, and I've never heard anyone cry foul about my contributions more than you.

It is deeply personal with you. You quit doing this but you use to stalk me. I couldn't just couldn't ignore you. You made an effort to make pot shot remarks about be on every thread on nearly every post. You wanted to hoarse me off the board. I can't simply ignore you, you make it impossible. This so called "martyr mode" was me asking you to stop but that just egged you on further.

I was very able to defend my position scientifically you just didn't like my position. Talk about thin skin. I only accused you of being a troll on one thread. You are a bully who can't take a punch.

But it's never personal.

This is extraordinarily pathological. Your posts are very visceral. You have been attacking me for at least two years. Almost every post you call me out as golddigger.

Does this add anything to the discussion at hand? no

Is it meant to dehumanize me? yes

Is is designed to create a strong personal response? yes

Golddigger has been gone for about 2 years. It is time to get over it. Because it beyond petty at this point. BTW it is not his legacy I am running from. The fact that you use it attack my legitimacy and use it as a personal attack is what I avoid. I don't want to fight but you leave no other choice. After 2 years you think you could move on. But the fact that haven't moved on states that it just isn't going away. I would rather have an honest debate, but you leave me no other option.

If you want peace I am more than willing.

Click to expand...

1. There are several here who can verify Pickles' current employment and degree2. You are a freak.

urbanhack said:

Konotay said:

Mr. Pickles said:

I'm not attacking you. I go after hypocritical posts and people not adequately supporting their argument. If you were to make up a new alias tomorrow, chances are you'd play the same game and I'd end up criticizing your post not knowing who the heck you are.

You're the one inviting the scrutiny here, and you're the one running from your legacy. That link I posted back to the RNA thread was an instance where you outright denied you were the same person as Master of Orion and golddigger. That's pretty consistent with someone that's ashamed of their legacy as a poster.

None of this is about "fighting" or making insulting attacks. In a dry thread like this, I'm considering what people write. I surely didn't come in here looking to pick a fight. As much as I disagree with you (or anyone else), I don't take it personally if we clash over it. You should realize, though, that you have a consistent pattern of illogical thought and a very impractical approach to a debate. It's frustrating when people attempt to have a reasonable discussion and someone decides to post a bunch of ridiculous links (e.g., Discovery Institute propaganda in a science thread) and not stick around to defend the position personally.

I think most of your frustration and the need to backpedal into this "personal attacks" martyr mode is due to your inability to articulately defend or argue your position. I've posted plenty of reasonable points of view in this forum over the years, and to have someone like you call me out for being nothing more than a troll is just kind of dumb. I've engaged in countless debates in this forum, and I've never heard anyone cry foul about my contributions more than you. It's not even remotely close, in fact. You're #1 with a bullet. Ironically, you're exactly the kind of poster you claim to loathe.

Do I get abrasive at times? You bet. But it's never personal. I've never sought you out to antagonize you for sport. And if you're not comfortable with how I do things, I suggest you either stop reading what I write, leave the site, or report me.

Click to expand...

There is something extraordinarily pathological about this post. Then it dawned on me, you are very comfortable in telling bold face lies. For example, you are not a Chemical Engineer much less a Chemical Engineer Professor. You have no compunction about making up crap.

I'm not attacking you. This is just delusional. You and you aliases have been horanging me for at least 2 years with deeply personal ad hominum attacks. It isn't my imagination and I can't just ignore it anymore. Most of your points were off point with the sole purpose of creating a strong personal response from me.

It's frustrating when people attempt to have a reasonable discussion and someone decides to post a bunch of ridiculous links (e.g., Discovery Institute propaganda in a science thread) and not stick around to defend the position personally.

Where the hell did I link anything from Discovery Institute? You make crap up and then make me defend it. I posted tier I publications like PNAS, Science, Nature, PubMed.... I absolutely stuck around to defend my position. Again you just make up crap and make me defend it. It was you who ran around claiming to be some hot shot scientist, not adding a whit to the discussion scientifically, all the time making trying to derail the thread with personal attacks.



I think most of your frustration and the need to backpedal into this "personal attacks" martyr mode is due to your inability to articulately defend or argue your position. I've posted plenty of reasonable points of view in this forum over the years, and to have someone like you call me out for being nothing more than a troll is just kind of dumb. I've engaged in countless debates in this forum, and I've never heard anyone cry foul about my contributions more than you.

It is deeply personal with you. You quit doing this but you use to stalk me. I couldn't just couldn't ignore you. You made an effort to make pot shot remarks about be on every thread on nearly every post. You wanted to hoarse me off the board. I can't simply ignore you, you make it impossible. This so called "martyr mode" was me asking you to stop but that just egged you on further.

I was very able to defend my position scientifically you just didn't like my position. Talk about thin skin. I only accused you of being a troll on one thread. You are a bully who can't take a punch.

But it's never personal.

This is extraordinarily pathological. Your posts are very visceral. You have been attacking me for at least two years. Almost every post you call me out as golddigger.

Does this add anything to the discussion at hand? no

Is it meant to dehumanize me? yes

Is is designed to create a strong personal response? yes

Golddigger has been gone for about 2 years. It is time to get over it. Because it beyond petty at this point. BTW it is not his legacy I am running from. The fact that you use it attack my legitimacy and use it as a personal attack is what I avoid. I don't want to fight but you leave no other choice. After 2 years you think you could move on. But the fact that haven't moved on states that it just isn't going away. I would rather have an honest debate, but you leave me no other option.

If you want peace I am more than willing.

Click to expand...

1. There are several here who can verify Pickles' current employment and degree2. You are a freak.

Click to expand...

Its always cute when the hippies protect their own

dparker713 said:

TobiasFunke said:

dparker713 said:

TobiasFunke said:

That's pretty conclusive IMO. This is followed by a discussion of possible reasons that it's 55% and not 100%, summarized with this:

The rejection of a genetic cause of homosexuality by essentially all conservative Christians and some others seem to be based upon a faulty or inadequate knowledge of the detailed workings of genetics.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I havent read up on this subject or the links, and I have no desire to. So I have no idea if this is properly addresses, but correlation is not the same as causation.

Click to expand...

I have no idea what you think I'm claiming is causing something else based on a correlation.

Click to expand...

HTH

Click to expand...

The quote is a theory on why conservative Christians mistakenly reject something. I didn't claim any correlation or causation in the context of the quote, I was simply directing Tommyboy to where I thought the link rejected his viewpoint as I understood it. In fact, I don't see any argument about correlation or causation, mistaken or otherwise, in the quote at all. I'm still completely baffled as to what you're trying to say here. I guess I'm just too slow.

Konotay said:

There is something extraordinarily pathological about this post. Then it dawned on me, you are very comfortable in telling bold face lies. For example, you are not a Chemical Engineer much less a Chemical Engineer Professor. You have no compunction about making up crap.

Click to expand...

It's bald-faced lies, and I'm not lying about my job, sorry.

This is just delusional. You and you aliases have been horanging me for at least 2 years with deeply personal ad hominum attacks. It isn't my imagination and I can't just ignore it anymore. Most of your points were off point with the sole purpose of creating a strong personal response from me.

Click to expand...

My points in a debate are always with the intent of furthering the debate. You have a history of crying foul and thinking it's a personal attack when I expose your arguments. It's a strange response, but I guess it's one way to get sympathy. It's never personal, however.Oh, and it's "harangue" and "ad hominem." That's not a personal attack. One way I know who you are throughout this strange trail of aliases is due to your poor application of logic and worse spelling. It sticks out like a sore thumb. I don't go around looking for the next golddigger alias, they kind of bubble to the surface on their own. It's impossible not to know who you are.

Where the hell did I link anything from Discovery Institute? You make crap up and then make me defend it.

Click to expand...

You did it here. There's more where that came from too. As golddigger, you couldn't get enough of it. It's a shame you wiped any history of that guy. MasterofOrion has his own fabled history, though.A common criticism of your posting style over the years has been your tendency to let others do the talking for you. Yes, you have posted links to top journals like Science, Nature, and PNAS (in which I have two publications, if you do your homework), but usually you misinterpret what the authors are saying or post them only to criticize the conclusions.

In many instances you have posted very long posts, sometimes lifted from other sources (blogs, etc.) uncited, and then refused to engage in a discussion over their validity (probably because they're not your words). There have been many threads where you attempt to wrest control of the dialogue through brute force of posting volume where you don't allow people to rebut the arguments already presented before you're off posting something new. Your lack of will to stand behind what you post is very telling of your motivation and your handle on the material. It's also telling that you resort to calling people trolls and claim you're being unfairly attacked. People with strong debate skills don't do that. Like I said before, shining path was one of the most respected and patient posters in this forum, and you called him out for unfairly attacking you on several occasions. That tells me you don't like to be criticized, and crying that you're being attacked is your default approach to fending off a reasonable rebuttal.

It is deeply personal with you. You quit doing this but you use to stalk me.

Click to expand...

I've never had a personal problem with anyone on here, including you. I also have no interest in "stalking" someone. I think you're confused here. If I point out your past mistakes and missteps by posting links, that's not "stalking." I have a long memory and am more than willing to expose someone for being a hypocrite or making incorrect assertions. The fact that you're still unwilling to admit that you've posted as golddigger is really strange. It's equally strange that you think I have this cadre of aliases that stalk you. Once you thought that everyone that registered on this site on April 14, 2003 was an alias of mine. Yes, all 3000 of us.

Golddigger has been gone for about 2 years. It is time to get over it. Because it beyond petty at this point. BTW it is not his legacy I am running from. The fact that you use it attack my legitimacy and use it as a personal attack is what I avoid. I don't want to fight but you leave no other choice. After 2 years you think you could move on. But the fact that haven't moved on states that it just isn't going away. I would rather have an honest debate, but you leave me no other option.

Click to expand...

Golddigger is gone because you're ashamed of what you did with that username, and you should be. You had him nuked. Heck, I probably would have too. The trouble is that you still use the same tactics now as you did then. I'm just pointing out to you that the "new and improved golddigger" is pretty much the same old golddigger.Where do you get this idea that I'm going to battle with you? It's funny how you first suggested that my post was civil and then went back to label it as "pathological."

Look, I enjoy engaging in debate with people, and I love to expose bad logic and misinformation. If you have a problem with that, that's kind of too bad. It's never personal though. I dislike bad ideas, not the people that propagate them.

Relax, champ. We'll all make it through this somehow.

You're both wrong. It's bare-faced lie.

sjacksonfan said:

You're both wrong. It's bare-faced lie.

Click to expand...

Maybe if you're a limey.

TobiasFunke said:

tommyboy said:

TobiasFunke said:

It's not 100% genetic, but it is 100% certain that genetics is a factor. The "twin studies" that tommyboy thinks show a lack of biological ties actually show the opposite.

I'd start with this intro:

http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=155

This discusses the scientific community's clear consensus that the factors leading to homosexuality are both genetic and environmental. And by "environmental," in some cases we're talking about neonatal stuff.

Click to expand...

i didn't say that twin studies show a lack of biological ties. I said that sexuality isn't a genetic trait. It isn't, in anyone, because like most human traits be they physical or behavioral, the end result is a product of both biology and environment. The science has gone back and forth for over a hundred years on this it swings in one era from primarily genetic (hitler/eugenics fad of the early 20th century) to primarily behavioral (skinner et al, mid century) to today where most scientists believe what I just said, that traits are a product of genetics and environment, not either exclusively.so when you claimed that homosexuality is a genetic trait, you were clearly lacking any context in which to make that claim. I just pointed that out to you.

Click to expand...

Homosexuality clearly determined in part (in large part, according to most experts) by genetics. That's all I've intended to say. I did not mean to suggest it's determined solely by genetics. So I guess we're just having a semantic argument, which is kinda beside the point. What's important to the context of what I was saying what that sexual attraction is in large part involuntary, and therefore disapproving a person based on their sexual attraction is bigotry.

Click to expand...

So if I disapprove of you because you are sexually attracted to sheep, that's bigotry?

oneohh said:

TobiasFunke said:

tommyboy said:

TobiasFunke said:

It's not 100% genetic, but it is 100% certain that genetics is a factor. The "twin studies" that tommyboy thinks show a lack of biological ties actually show the opposite.

I'd start with this intro:

http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=155

This discusses the scientific community's clear consensus that the factors leading to homosexuality are both genetic and environmental. And by "environmental," in some cases we're talking about neonatal stuff.

Click to expand...

i didn't say that twin studies show a lack of biological ties. I said that sexuality isn't a genetic trait. It isn't, in anyone, because like most human traits be they physical or behavioral, the end result is a product of both biology and environment. The science has gone back and forth for over a hundred years on this it swings in one era from primarily genetic (hitler/eugenics fad of the early 20th century) to primarily behavioral (skinner et al, mid century) to today where most scientists believe what I just said, that traits are a product of genetics and environment, not either exclusively.so when you claimed that homosexuality is a genetic trait, you were clearly lacking any context in which to make that claim. I just pointed that out to you.

Click to expand...

Homosexuality clearly determined in part (in large part, according to most experts) by genetics. That's all I've intended to say. I did not mean to suggest it's determined solely by genetics. So I guess we're just having a semantic argument, which is kinda beside the point. What's important to the context of what I was saying what that sexual attraction is in large part involuntary, and therefore disapproving a person based on their sexual attraction is bigotry.

Click to expand...

So if I disapprove of you because you are sexually attracted to sheep, that's bigotry?

Click to expand...

Thats not very "tolerant" of you, shame on you, bigot

oneohh said:

TobiasFunke said:

tommyboy said:

TobiasFunke said:

It's not 100% genetic, but it is 100% certain that genetics is a factor. The "twin studies" that tommyboy thinks show a lack of biological ties actually show the opposite.

I'd start with this intro:

http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=155

This discusses the scientific community's clear consensus that the factors leading to homosexuality are both genetic and environmental. And by "environmental," in some cases we're talking about neonatal stuff.

Click to expand...

i didn't say that twin studies show a lack of biological ties. I said that sexuality isn't a genetic trait. It isn't, in anyone, because like most human traits be they physical or behavioral, the end result is a product of both biology and environment. The science has gone back and forth for over a hundred years on this it swings in one era from primarily genetic (hitler/eugenics fad of the early 20th century) to primarily behavioral (skinner et al, mid century) to today where most scientists believe what I just said, that traits are a product of genetics and environment, not either exclusively.so when you claimed that homosexuality is a genetic trait, you were clearly lacking any context in which to make that claim. I just pointed that out to you.

Click to expand...

Homosexuality clearly determined in part (in large part, according to most experts) by genetics. That's all I've intended to say. I did not mean to suggest it's determined solely by genetics. So I guess we're just having a semantic argument, which is kinda beside the point. What's important to the context of what I was saying what that sexual attraction is in large part involuntary, and therefore disapproving a person based on their sexual attraction is bigotry.

Click to expand...

So if I disapprove of you because you are sexually attracted to sheep, that's bigotry?

Click to expand...

I thought I was pretty clear on what made you a bigot. You said a judge who might be gay would be unable to render a fair, detached decision because of his gayness, whereas you were unwilling to assume the same regarding any number of other judges who might be similarly "interested" in the outcome of a decision. That pretty clearly indicates that you think less of a gay judge than you think of a straight judge based solely on the fact that the judge is gay. And that makes you a bigot.ETA: Here's where the oneohh-Mongol3 silliness about how a gay judge can't possible be impartial starts. They try to backtrack pretty quickly in the face of ridicule before dropping the subject completely.

oneohh said:

So if I disapprove of you because you are sexually attracted to sheep, that's bigotry?

Click to expand...

yes

TobiasFunke said:

oneohh said:

TobiasFunke said:

tommyboy said:

TobiasFunke said:

It's not 100% genetic, but it is 100% certain that genetics is a factor. The "twin studies" that tommyboy thinks show a lack of biological ties actually show the opposite.

I'd start with this intro:

http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=155

This discusses the scientific community's clear consensus that the factors leading to homosexuality are both genetic and environmental. And by "environmental," in some cases we're talking about neonatal stuff.

Click to expand...

i didn't say that twin studies show a lack of biological ties. I said that sexuality isn't a genetic trait. It isn't, in anyone, because like most human traits be they physical or behavioral, the end result is a product of both biology and environment. The science has gone back and forth for over a hundred years on this it swings in one era from primarily genetic (hitler/eugenics fad of the early 20th century) to primarily behavioral (skinner et al, mid century) to today where most scientists believe what I just said, that traits are a product of genetics and environment, not either exclusively.so when you claimed that homosexuality is a genetic trait, you were clearly lacking any context in which to make that claim. I just pointed that out to you.

Click to expand...

Homosexuality clearly determined in part (in large part, according to most experts) by genetics. That's all I've intended to say. I did not mean to suggest it's determined solely by genetics. So I guess we're just having a semantic argument, which is kinda beside the point. What's important to the context of what I was saying what that sexual attraction is in large part involuntary, and therefore disapproving a person based on their sexual attraction is bigotry.

Click to expand...

So if I disapprove of you because you are sexually attracted to sheep, that's bigotry?

Click to expand...

I thought I was pretty clear on what made you a bigot. You said a judge who might be gay would be unable to render a fair, detached decision because of his gayness, whereas you were unwilling to assume the same regarding any number of other judges who might be similarly "interested" in the outcome of a decision. That pretty clearly indicates that you think less of a gay judge than you think of a straight judge based solely on the fact that the judge is gay. And that makes you a bigot.ETA: Here's where the oneohh-Mongol3 silliness about how a gay judge can't possible be impartial starts. They try to backtrack pretty quickly in the face of ridicule before dropping the subject completely.

Click to expand...

So if I disapprove of you because you are sexually attracted to sheep, that's bigotry?

oneohh said:

TobiasFunke said:

I thought I was pretty clear on what made you a bigot. You said a judge who might be gay would be unable to render a fair, detached decision because of his gayness, whereas you were unwilling to assume the same regarding any number of other judges who might be similarly "interested" in the outcome of a decision. That pretty clearly indicates that you think less of a gay judge than you think of a straight judge based solely on the fact that the judge is gay. And that makes you a bigot.

ETA: Here's where the oneohh-Mongol3 silliness about how a gay judge can't possible be impartial starts. They try to backtrack pretty quickly in the face of ridicule before dropping the subject completely.

Click to expand...

So if I disapprove of you because you are sexually attracted to sheep, that's bigotry?

Click to expand...

Don't feel like defending your earlier statements, I see? Just gonna gloss over that stuff where you thought a gay judge was inferior to a straight judge solely by virtue of his being gay? Probably for the best, I suppose. Why defend the indefensible?Not sure why someone who interest is clearly in changing the subject rather than defending his earlier statements deserves a response, but: yes, it is.