Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 10:25 am
Hitler outlawed homosexuals too.
Godwin'd in 4 pages.
I win.
Godwin'd in 4 pages.
I win.
Discussions about Silent Computing
https://www.silentpcreview.com/forums/
https://www.silentpcreview.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=34189
Not really, there's no way for phpbb to tell if the period is part of the URi or not. It's a valid URI character.vertigo wrote:Hmm, the period was supposed to be at the end of the sentence. It seems PHPBB has a parsing bug.
I suppose for URN's it makes sense to allow a trailing dot, for names like "next...".Not really, there's no way for phpbb to tell if the period is part of the URi or not. It's a valid URI character.
Barring everything else, I think that alludes to the real problem in society, which is that people lack integrity, and thus they can be bribed. Can we agree on that?Trip wrote:They can bribe and lobby politicians for starters.
The probability that any one thing will occur is 1 divided by the number of probable events, given that the number of probable events is infinite, that gives us one divided by infinity, which when considered with a limit as x (the number of probable events) tends to infinity, yields zero.justblair wrote:I reject the notion that nature intends anything. Stuff happens accidentally all the time.
I'm no mathmentalist so cant really counter that one other than to say that yes everything logically does occur for some reason or another, but that is no proof of intent, and I did say I reject the notion that nature intends anything.Shining Arcanine wrote:The probability that any one thing will occur is 1 divided by the number of probable events, given that the number of probable events is infinite, that gives us one divided by infinity, which when considered with a limit as x (the number of probable events) tends to infinity, yields zero.justblair wrote:I reject the notion that nature intends anything. Stuff happens accidentally all the time.
Mathmatically, this means that it is impossible that anything has occurred by chance, as the probability that any one thing that could have occurred by chance did occur is zero. Thus, we can conclude that everything happens for a reason.
I cant see why homosexual rights are at odds to the traditional family unit? I am not homosexual, so therefore any rights that a homosexual has has no bearing on my own rights, I feel that everyone has rights equally regardless of gender, sexuality colour etc etc etc. What rights are homosexuals enjoying or campaigning for that in particular you feel have an adverse effect on a family unit?homosexual rights is at the expense of the traditional family unit which is ideal for raising children.
I do disagree with this comment I am afraid Trip. I am an aethiest, but that does not mean that I do not have moral ideals that I strive towards. I believe monogamy is important in a relationship, I believe that war is rarely justified, I believe in following the laws of the society that I live in. I can think of several examples of Christian sects who dont practice monogamy, support politically a party that took the US to an unethical war or break the laws of the state they reside in.A belief in no creation leads to "anything goes."
I can't follow your logic here. If the probability that any one thing will occur is zero, as you say, the conclusion that I come to is that nothing will ever happen. Period. I don't understand where "by chance" comes into this, although I can see that it is true by virtue of the fact that if nothing ever happens, then nothing can every happen by chance. However it is equally true that nother can ever happen by design either.Shining Arcanine wrote:The probability that any one thing will occur is 1 divided by the number of probable events, given that the number of probable events is infinite, that gives us one divided by infinity, which when considered with a limit as x (the number of probable events) tends to infinity, yields zero.
Mathmatically, this means that it is impossible that anything has occurred by chance, as the probability that any one thing that could have occurred by chance did occur is zero. Thus, we can conclude that everything happens for a reason.
Intuitively, if you add 0 to itself any number of times, you still are left with 0. Even if you were to do it an infinite number of times, you should still have 0, right? Infinity can't manufacture something out of nothing.The probability that any one thing will occur is 1 divided by the number of probable events, given that the number of probable events is infinite, that gives us one divided by infinity, which when considered with a limit as x (the number of probable events) tends to infinity, yields zero.
Mathmatically, this means that it is impossible that anything has occurred by chance, as the probability that any one thing that could have occurred by chance did occur is zero. Thus, we can conclude that everything happens for a reason.
Animals also have many behaviours and characteristics that differ from humans (ie spiders/praying mantis eating mates). Picking and choosing one characteristic and then saying this is "natural" is disingenuous. IMHO being gay is a product of upbringing and social acceptance/encouragement; many homosexuals have strong mother figures and weak/absent father figures. If homosexuality is innate, how do you explain that so many gays have similar personality traits (heightened interest in their appearance and clothes/fashion etc, catty behaviour, many other behaviours which are stereotypically associated with women).Justblair@Homosexuality is a behaviour that appears to occur naturally. Studies have repeatedly shown that other animals also have homosexuals within their communities.
At that time homosexuals were outlawed just about everywhere and if they weren't outlawed, they were considered insane.Mar. wrote:Hitler outlawed homosexuals too.
I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for a good reason. People don't always need logical reasons to like or dislike something. There are many things I don't like, which I cannot explain. For example I cannot explain why I don't like the color yellow. Gaysex disgusts me and I cannot explain why it does so. It could be my upbringing, because I was raised christian, but turned agnostic when I learned to think for myself. But even so, I am not sure it's my upbringing that makes the act of two men having sex disgusting, because the act of two women having sex is very ahem.. arousing . I don't hate gays.justblair wrote:I suspect though that the opposition to homosexuality is more deep routed than just the act itself. I would be interested in hearing from someone opposed to homosexuality what they think is so wrong?
I agree, that justblairs justification for homosexuality is flawed. But I don't really understand why homosexuality would even need to be explained or justified? I have always believed, that everything should be accepted unless a good reason is given to do otherwise. And there really are no logical reasons not to accept homosexuality. Even the STDs that have been a problem with gays is imo a product of the society driving the gay culture underground and giving it an environment to flourish. And back in the days people didn't know about AIDS. It's very different to these days. I'm guessing the STDs won't be plagueing the gay culture for much longer.jaganath wrote:Animals also have many behaviours and characteristics that differ from humans (ie spiders/praying mantis eating mates). Picking and choosing one characteristic and then saying this is "natural" is disingenuous. IMHO being gay is a product of upbringing and social acceptance/encouragement; many homosexuals have strong mother figures and weak/absent father figures. If homosexuality is innate, how do you explain that so many gays have similar personality traits (heightened interest in their appearance and clothes/fashion etc, catty behaviour, many other behaviours which are stereotypically associated with women).Justblair@Homosexuality is a behaviour that appears to occur naturally. Studies have repeatedly shown that other animals also have homosexuals within their communities.
What were the odds for me to reply to this? For all my infinite possible actions I answered, although the probability was close to 0... And mathematically it's not impossible, it's only very unlikely to happen. Actually if something has even the slightest possibility to happen, it will inevitably happen given enough opportunities and time.Shining Arcanine wrote:The probability that any one thing will occur is 1 divided by the number of probable events, given that the number of probable events is infinite, that gives us one divided by infinity, which when considered with a limit as x (the number of probable events) tends to infinity, yields zero.justblair wrote:I reject the notion that nature intends anything. Stuff happens accidentally all the time.
Mathmatically, this means that it is impossible that anything has occurred by chance, as the probability that any one thing that could have occurred by chance did occur is zero. Thus, we can conclude that everything happens for a reason.
I could gather from this that we are on the same page, but your god is a guardian of morality, my "possible god" would just be a loaded dice.Trip wrote:I'm not sure I agree nature is fully random. I do tend to think that way, but a full acceptance of such would be a full acceptance of evolution. I suspect a part of my desire to retain what is natural is simply because it is what was created. However, it's also what is and is important simply because it is a boundary and an ideal, insofar as purposes of nature can be ascertained, that can be preserved and pursued.
I think that this point is flawed. Yes a lot of the people we can instantly identify as gay follow the behaviours that you describe. Its could be that gay men have a more effeminate side, but I think it is more likely that most gay men dont behave in this manner. If a gay man exhibits "straight" characteristics, how do you as a stranger to him know he is gay? I have had over the years a few gay friends. One or two are effeminate, even behaving as you describe long before they accepted that they were gay. However more of the gay men I know do not behave as you describe, and in fact look down on the effeminate behaviour as conforming to stereotype.jaganath wrote:Animals also have many behaviours and characteristics that differ from humans (ie spiders/praying mantis eating mates). Picking and choosing one characteristic and then saying this is "natural" is disingenuous. IMHO being gay is a product of upbringing and social acceptance/encouragement; many homosexuals have strong mother figures and weak/absent father figures. If homosexuality is innate, how do you explain that so many gays have similar personality traits (heightened interest in their appearance and clothes/fashion etc, catty behaviour, many other behaviours which are stereotypically associated with women).Justblair@Homosexuality is a behaviour that appears to occur naturally. Studies have repeatedly shown that other animals also have homosexuals within their communities.
I think that this is down to social conditioning. I was raised as aethiest by fairly liberal parents. My Mum and Dad were in to acting, a traditionally liberal group of friends resulted. I am quite used to gay men expressing affection to each other in others company. My own feelings about gay sex are fairly neutral. I dont think of it as disgusting, nor do I find it arousing. I agree that female gay sex is very ahem. I find one naked girl arousing, two.... well that's just double the visual stimulation.I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for a good reason. People don't always need logical reasons to like or dislike something. There are many things I don't like, which I cannot explain. For example I cannot explain why I don't like the color yellow. Gaysex disgusts me and I cannot explain why it does so. It could be my upbringing, because I was raised christian, but turned agnostic when I learned to think for myself. But even so, I am not sure it's my upbringing that makes the act of two men having sex disgusting, because the act of two women having sex is very ahem.. arousing Wink. I don't hate gays.
I know it is. Gay men have to contend with this in their lives. They meet a young man they are attracted to and who flirts with them, however once a relationship develops, the straight guy cannot get fulfilment. Because as lonely as he is, he is not at heart a true homosexual. Curiosity is also a factor. I dont think though that you can convince yourself falsely about your sexuality forever.I suspect it is possible to convince oneself that one is gay, esp if lonely and longing for companionship.
I think it is stupid to say "hey look, the animals do it so its okay". Do the animals go to university? Do they go to work?I dont think it is disengenious to look to "gay animals" to give an indication that homosexuality occurs naturally.
You are talking about the logical fallacy of Hume's Guillotine, the is-ought problem. You cannot draw moral rules based on facts. It's especially classic form, when used to defend homosexualism.vertigo wrote:I think it is stupid to say "hey look, the animals do it so its okay".I dont think it is disengenious to look to "gay animals" to give an indication that homosexuality occurs naturally.
Homosexuals already have the right to marry the opposite gender, and like heterosexuals, homosexuals are barred from marrying the same gender. If homosexuals gained the right to marry their own gender, then heterosexuals would lack the right to marry their own gender, and if both heterosexuals and homosexuals gained the right to marry their own gender, would this not mean that this is not equal rights that we are discussing, but new rights, of which the implications for society are not known?justblair wrote:I cant see why homosexual rights are at odds to the traditional family unit? I am not homosexual, so therefore any rights that a homosexual has has no bearing on my own rights, I feel that everyone has rights equally regardless of gender, sexuality colour etc etc etc. What rights are homosexuals enjoying or campaigning for that in particular you feel have an adverse effect on a family unit?homosexual rights is at the expense of the traditional family unit which is ideal for raising children.
In other words, you're scared of the unknown.Shining Arcanine wrote:Homosexuals already have the right to marry the opposite gender, and like heterosexuals, homosexuals are barred from marrying the same gender. If homosexuals gained the right to marry their own gender, then heterosexuals would lack the right to marry their own gender, and if both heterosexuals and homosexuals gained the right to marry their own gender, would this not mean that this is not equal rights that we are discussing, but new rights, of which the implications for society are not known?
It is funny that you should say that, as I intentionally withheld my knowledge concerning the implications of homosexual marriage so that people could ponder it for themselves. The idea behind that was so that people would think for themselves, rather than have me give them all of the answers without them ever having a had a single thought. You are one of the people who refused to think even though I did not tell you what to think, given that you did not reply with any possible result.qviri wrote:In other words, you're scared of the unknown.Shining Arcanine wrote:Homosexuals already have the right to marry the opposite gender, and like heterosexuals, homosexuals are barred from marrying the same gender. If homosexuals gained the right to marry their own gender, then heterosexuals would lack the right to marry their own gender, and if both heterosexuals and homosexuals gained the right to marry their own gender, would this not mean that this is not equal rights that we are discussing, but new rights, of which the implications for society are not known?
Some scientist also believe that religious tendencies are one form of mental illness, where the subject refuses to evaluate existing evidence and chooses to believe in something in spite of, or even because of the lack of evidence.Shining Arcanine wrote:I would define an illness as the state of being unwell, but being a student, I have yet to come across an exact scientific definition, despite its widespread usage.
Some scientists would say that the lack of religious tendencies is a mental illness. It is a debate.Erssa wrote:Some scientist also believe that religious tendencies are one form of mental illness, where the subject refuses to evaluate existing evidence and chooses to believe in something in spite of, or even because of the lack of evidence.Shining Arcanine wrote:I would define an illness as the state of being unwell, but being a student, I have yet to come across an exact scientific definition, despite its widespread usage.
If homosexuality were an illness, then what would be the cure? Jesus?
I do not like cancer; does that make it moral cowardice to dub it as an illness?vertigo wrote:It's moral cowardice to dub things you don't like as illnesses. This goes for people who call homosexuality an illness and those who call religion an illness.
The APA removed their listing solely because of that experiment; all scientific information known until then and even after then had affirmed that homosexuality should be on the list of psychological illnesses, as it is a disorder.vertigo wrote:If the APA removed their listing, I would think it would be because it has become something almost normal, and therefore not a disorder, because disorder means not ordinary or not normal.
If that gender reassignment proved that genders can't be reassigned, that is not an argument against homosexuality per se, but only against the transience of gender. Some could still be born more homosexual than heterosexual.
I love the topic of eugenetics. But tell me something. If homosexuality really was a genetic disorder that caused homosexuality, then how come the problem hasn't solved itself yet? How has the geen been able to survive? It would clearly had to be a very common recessive gene, one that is found everywhere, among every race and population, It's also not a gender specific. Why would the same gene have opposite effect on men and women? Homosexual males become feminine and attracted to men and homosexual females become more masculine and attracted to women. And why would such an illness leave no traces of unusual hormonal activities or any other symptoms, that can be measured inside a laboratory?Shining Arcanine wrote:As for the cure, I would imagine Gene Therapy would be, but not enough research has been done in that field to produce one.
I like how you compare homosexuality to cancer. But your answer to vertigo is moot and shows how you completely missed his point. Cancer is medically proven illness, therefore it's ok to call it an illness. Homosexuality is not a proven illness. The fact that you hate homosexuals, doesn't make it an illness, so therefore it's immoral to dub it as such.I do not like cancer; does that make it moral cowardice to dub it as an illness?vertigo wrote:It's moral cowardice to dub things you don't like as illnesses. This goes for people who call homosexuality an illness and those who call religion an illness.
I don't really think that religion is an illness. I was just making a point of how silly it sounds to call something an illness because of moral beliefs, not scientific reasons. But empirical evidence has proven to me that most religious people are idiots, who abandon logic, when reality conflicts with the words of their ancient holy books (not limited to christians). This is hardly a newsflash, since most people lack the ability to think for themselves anyway... But what I really dislike is this bs coming from religious people, who are trying to justify their prejudiced views, that are based on the holy book, by some pseudo-scientific crap like ID. Saying homosexuality is a disease falls to the same category, it's just and attempt to justify their moral beliefs with pseudo-science.vertigo wrote:It's moral cowardice to dub things you don't like as illnesses. This goes for people who call homosexuality an illness and those who call religion an illness.
How can "all scientific knowledge obtained since the Renaissance" indicate that homosexuality is an illness if it can't even explain what an illness is? I might add I think it's quite likely that the idea of "illness" has evolved signficantly since the Renaissance, or even since the 50's.Shining Arcanine wrote:I would define an illness as the state of being unwell, but being a student, I have yet to come across an exact scientific definition, despite its widespread usage.
Shining Arcanine wrote:
It is funny that you should say that, as I intentionally withheld my knowledge concerning the implications of homosexual marriage so that people could ponder it for themselves. The idea behind that was so that people would think for themselves, rather than have me give them all of the answers without them ever having a had a single thought. You are one of the people who refused to think even though I did not tell you what to think, given that you did not reply with any possible result.
I knew someone during High School, whose father was a sociologist; according to his father's information, statistically speaking, suicide rates are several times higher among children in homosexual unions than in heterosexual ones. Historically, homosexual marriage is an old issue; it was allowed during the Roman Empire after its peak, and it did not last long after that. From a scientific standpoint, all scientific knowledge obtained since the Renaissance has indicated that homosexuality itself is an illness, and therefore encouraging it harms those who have it. The reason that the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its list of psychological illnesses is because of an experiment that was performed on a child whose penis was severely damaged during birth. It was so damaged that the child would have never have had normal function, so his doctors decided to try a new unproven scientific theory on gender identity and castrated him. The gender change surgery was said as a huge success and the child was considered to have been changed into a girl, providing the impetus that caused the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality its list of illnesses, solely because of this "success." It was not until 1999, that the child, now an adult, came forward and informed everyone that the surgery was a completely failure and he still liked girls, providing a counter case that demonstrated that the gender identity theory was wrong and demonstrating that everything that was based on it was solely mistaken, including the APA's decision. Everyone of course, ignored it, but the fact remains that all scientific literature concerning homosexuality that had been accepted as scientific truth prior to the gender identity theory is scientifically correct. New research, since then, has demonstrated a flaw in past scientific knowledge in that past scientific knowledge considered homosexuality to be exclusively a psychological illness, while new research in the field of genetics has demonstrated that it is a genetic illness, but this has yet to be recognized, as the exact genetic cause is unknown. Recently, scientists discovered a gene from the Y chromosome on a X chromosome of a male that was chromosomally female; future research into this gene will likely demonstrate mutated versions of it in the homosexual population.
Neither did a "single study" cause the reclassification you speak of, nor do studies show a correlation between same-sex parents and suicide.Is Homosexuality a Mental Illness or Emotional Problem?
No. Psychologists, psychiatrists, and other mental health professionals agree that homosexuality is not an illness, a mental disorder, or an emotional problem. More than 35 years of objective, well-designed scientific research has shown that homosexuality, in and itself, is not associated with mental disorders or emotional or social problems. Homosexuality was once thought to be a mental illness because mental health professionals and society had biased information.
In the past, the studies of gay, lesbian, and bisexual people involved only those in therapy, thus biasing the resulting conclusions. When researchers examined data about such people who were not in therapy, the idea that homosexuality was a mental illness was quickly found to be untrue.
In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association confirmed the importance of the new, better-designed research and removed homosexuality from the official manual that lists mental and emotional disorders. Two years later, the American Psychological Association passed a resolution supporting this removal.
For more than 25 years, both associations have urged all mental health professionals to help dispel the stigma of mental illness that some people still associate with homosexual orientation.
Can Lesbians, Gay Men, and Bisexuals Be Good Parents?
Yes. Studies comparing groups of children raised by homosexual and by heterosexual parents find no developmental differences between the two groups of children in four critical areas: their intelligence, psychological adjustment, social adjustment, and popularity with friends. It is also important to realize that a parent's sexual orientation does not indicate their children's.
Another myth about homosexuality is the mistaken belief that gay men have more of a tendency than heterosexual men to sexually molest children. There is no evidence to suggest that homosexuals molest children.