(12-27-2011 10:52 AM)wvucrazed Wrote:  

(12-27-2011 08:35 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  So why are you on this forum criticizing others? Hypocrite.

I'm bashing those who practice naked bigotry and ignorance;

Pfft. You can't even define bigotry, let alone avoid it.

Quote:You tell me the "homosexual lifestyle" - i'm sure the answer will be fascinating.

Quote: Judging by the wingnut media that some of you folks absorb like bitter little sponges, I assume it goes something like this: "gays are all devoid of anything but self-interest, they can't have long-term relationships, they sleep around and are promiscuous, they are all drug addicts and are AIDS riddled, but they somehow have more money than the rest of us, etc, etc."

I defer to the lifestyle advocated by gays themselves. Read their literature, go to their rallies. Or look at the health concerns raised by gay activists, why do they address issues like AIDS, alcoholism and drug abuse and domestic violence?

Are they wingnuts? Or are you too busy promoting dogma to pay attention to reality?

Quote:Meanwhile promiscuity among straight people in college is often seen as a rite of passage, lol.

Which is totoally irrelevent. But even more hypocritical of you, since "Evangelicals" have been repeatedly bashed for opposing that too.

Quote:But innate prejudices are hard to overcome,

Which is proven by your ridiculous, uninformed posts.

Quote: Maybe you should actually try to figure out what the hell you are talking about before saddling up to a keyboard.

My thoughts to you exactly. You just parrot what gets printed by low IQ journalists who are as ignorant and illogical as you. Your hypocrisy, inconsistency, and ignorance of various subjects has been exposed.

(12-27-2011 11:11 AM)wvucrazed Wrote:  

(12-27-2011 11:06 AM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  Sorry you can't understand The Bible, BUT you have such a high opinion of your intellect, I guess they don't teach you how to think at WVU. Good luck with defining your own moral standards, that's the road to no where.

If your definition of "thinking" is being indoctrinated to one particular mythology out of the thousands that humans have invented over history, then by all means - have at it.

Says the guy who boasts of modern education and "progress".

Your ignorance of history, philosophy, science is enormous. Yet somehow you're convinced of your superiority over all previous human history.

Sounds like bigoted indoctrination to me.

(12-27-2011 11:18 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(12-27-2011 10:52 AM)wvucrazed Wrote:  

(12-27-2011 08:35 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  So why are you on this forum criticizing others? Hypocrite.

I'm bashing those who practice naked bigotry and ignorance;

Pfft. You can't even define bigotry, let alone avoid it.

Now that's what I'd call bashing.

Quote:

Quote:You tell me the "homosexual lifestyle" - i'm sure the answer will be fascinating.

Quote: Judging by the wingnut media that some of you folks absorb like bitter little sponges, I assume it goes something like this: "gays are all devoid of anything but self-interest, they can't have long-term relationships, they sleep around and are promiscuous, they are all drug addicts and are AIDS riddled, but they somehow have more money than the rest of us, etc, etc."

I defer to the lifestyle advocated by gays themselves. Read their literature, go to their rallies. Or look at the health concerns raised by gay activists, why do they address issues like AIDS, alcoholism and drug abuse and domestic violence?

Are they wingnuts? Or are you too busy promoting dogma to pay attention to reality?

AIDS, alcoholism, drug abuse, and domestic violence are all issues for everyone. If you think they're not, then you need to get your head out of the sand and pay attention to reality.

Quote:

Quote:But innate prejudices are hard to overcome,

Which is proven by your ridiculous, uninformed posts.

Proven not by wvucrazed's posts but by your responses.

Quote:

Quote: Maybe you should actually try to figure out what the hell you are talking about before saddling up to a keyboard.

My thoughts to you exactly. You just parrot what gets printed by low IQ journalists who are as ignorant and illogical as you. Your hypocrisy, inconsistency, and ignorance of various subjects has been exposed.

So someone's opinions are random strings of information poured out by low IQ journalists who are as ignorant and illogical as you? I think that's a low hit, calling names and pointing fingers. A good example of a logical fallacy.

(12-27-2011 10:51 AM)mtsufan561 Wrote:  I believe the point is that generalizing the lifestyles of an entire group of people is wrong.

Then you're a fool, b/c the fields of psychology, sociology, anthropology, medicine and others are founded on that very principle. And you're the one who references organizations from those fields below.

Quote: I ask, do you actually know these facts? If it was so wonderful as you say, why, then, would nine major American healthcare organizations be so opposed to it? They include, for good measure, the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, the American Counseling Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the National Association of School Psychologists, and the American Academy of Physician Assistants. Well, seems to me like they might know a little bit more than you about this whole issue.

They didn't always say this, they've changed their position. So who's to say they won't change it back?

Quote: I have no problem with people willingly going to these "clinics" to seek treatment. ...No one should ever be forced to go to such a clinic.

When did anyone say otherwise?

Quote:There are certainly some people who would want this type of treatment for whatever reason, but there are even more people who are living happy lives, who are comfortable with who they are and loving themselves, and who have good relationships with those around them.

The facts don't bear that out.

(12-27-2011 11:26 AM)mtsufan561 Wrote:  

(12-27-2011 11:18 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(12-27-2011 10:52 AM)wvucrazed Wrote:  

(12-27-2011 08:35 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  So why are you on this forum criticizing others? Hypocrite.

I'm bashing those who practice naked bigotry and ignorance;

Pfft. You can't even define bigotry, let alone avoid it.

Now that's what I'd call bashing.

So, who asked you? I didn't bring up the word, furthermore, my statement is true.

Quote:AIDS, alcoholism, drug abuse, and domestic violence are all issues for everyone. If you think they're not, then you need to get your head out of the sand and pay attention to reality.

Somebody believes the propaganda.

Quote:So someone's opinions are random strings of information poured out by low IQ journalists who are as ignorant and illogical as you? I think that's a low hit, calling names and pointing fingers. A good example of a logical fallacy.

What fallacy is that? An ad hominem attack? Sorry, but that's not the case. Journalists (in general haha) are poor students who have no track record of mastering difficult subjects, but instead provide concise, selected bits of information. At times this is adequate to tell a story (John Smith's house burned down last night at 10:30 pm), but for involved issues it is woefully inadequate. Journalists take little time to consider the deeper issues, and often ignore them simply to put forward their agenda.

So, you don't even know the basics of logic or related fallacious reasoning, yet you continue down this path of broadcasting your ignorance. Not my cup of tea, but it's a free country.

(12-27-2011 11:27 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(12-27-2011 10:51 AM)mtsufan561 Wrote:  I believe the point is that generalizing the lifestyles of an entire group of people is wrong.

Then you're a fool, b/c the fields of psychology, sociology, anthropology, medicine and others are founded on that very principle. And you're the one who references organizations from those fields below.

Really? I'm a fool for saying that you can't generalize an entire group of people?? Wow, that's quite shocking to me if you really believe that.

Quote:

Quote:I ask, do you actually know these facts? If it was so wonderful as you say, why, then, would nine major American healthcare organizations be so opposed to it? They include, for good measure, the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, the American Counseling Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the National Association of School Psychologists, and the American Academy of Physician Assistants. Well, seems to me like they might know a little bit more than you about this whole issue.

They didn't always say this, they've changed their position. So who's to say they won't change it back?

You're right. They have this position though, even after all the things you point to in your argument are brought to light.

Quote:

Quote: I have no problem with people willingly going to these "clinics" to seek treatment. ...No one should ever be forced to go to such a clinic.

When did anyone say otherwise?

I don't think anyone did, I was just stating my opinion.

Quote:

Quote:There are certainly some people who would want this type of treatment for whatever reason, but there are even more people who are living happy lives, who are comfortable with who they are and loving themselves, and who have good relationships with those around them.

The facts don't bear that out.

Really? What are these facts you claim? Do you have any homosexual friends? Do you know these things about them?

(12-27-2011 11:33 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(12-27-2011 11:26 AM)mtsufan561 Wrote:  

(12-27-2011 11:18 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(12-27-2011 10:52 AM)wvucrazed Wrote:  

(12-27-2011 08:35 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  So why are you on this forum criticizing others? Hypocrite.

I'm bashing those who practice naked bigotry and ignorance;

Pfft. You can't even define bigotry, let alone avoid it.

Now that's what I'd call bashing.

So, who asked you? I didn't bring up the word, furthermore, my statement is true.

No one did, but I don't have to be asked something to be able to state my opinion on it. (It's a free country, as you said.)

Quote:

Quote:AIDS, alcoholism, drug abuse, and domestic violence are all issues for everyone. If you think they're not, then you need to get your head out of the sand and pay attention to reality.

Somebody believes the propaganda.

Really? Just... really?

Quote:

Quote:So someone's opinions are random strings of information poured out by low IQ journalists who are as ignorant and illogical as you? I think that's a low hit, calling names and pointing fingers. A good example of a logical fallacy.

What fallacy is that? An ad hominem attack? Sorry, but that's not the case. Journalists (in general haha) are poor students who have no track record of mastering difficult subjects, but instead provide concise, selected bits of information. At times this is adequate to tell a story (John Smith's house burned down last night at 10:30 pm), but for involved issues it is woefully inadequate. Journalists take little time to consider the deeper issues, and often ignore them simply to put forward their agenda.

So, you don't even know the basics of logic or related fallacious reasoning, yet you continue down this path of broadcasting your ignorance. Not my cup of tea, but it's a free country.

Okay so let me get this straight. You ask me what type of fallacy it is and then go on to accuse me of not knowing the basics of logic and broadcasting my ignorance. You seem to have a pretty good idea of what that type of fallacy is, even if you say I don't. Seems like you're trying to bash me just because you don't agree with my views.

(12-27-2011 11:34 AM)mtsufan561 Wrote:  

(12-27-2011 11:27 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(12-27-2011 10:51 AM)mtsufan561 Wrote:  I believe the point is that generalizing the lifestyles of an entire group of people is wrong.

Then you're a fool, b/c the fields of psychology, sociology, anthropology, medicine and others are founded on that very principle. And you're the one who references organizations from those fields below.

Really? I'm a fool for saying that you can't generalize an entire group of people?? Wow, that's quite shocking to me

Which makes it even funnier.

Quote:Really? What are these facts you claim? Do you have any homosexual friends? Do you know these things about them?

Of course. I make observations, because that's what I do.

You try to cheat in physical science, and you'll only make a fool of yourself, b/c reality can't be cheated. Reality can't be cheated in the soft sciences either, but you can bluff for a long time and lots of people get hurt.

(12-27-2011 11:41 AM)mtsufan561 Wrote:  Okay so let me get this straight. You ask me what type of fallacy it is and then go on to accuse me of not knowing the basics of logic and broadcasting my ignorance. You seem to have a pretty good idea of what that type of fallacy is, even if you say I don't. Seems like you're trying to bash me just because you don't agree with my views.

No, you don't have it straight. I had a pretty good idea of what type of fallacy you think it is, but you're wrong.

I'm bashing you b/c you're wrong, I also don't agree w/ you views b/c they're wrong. However, that's correlation, not causation.

(12-26-2011 10:13 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(12-26-2011 09:07 PM)mtsufan561 Wrote:  Homosexuality isn't the same as alcoholism and can't be compared to it. Instead of trying to divert the issue, why not answer what he said? You can brainwash someone to believe just about anything, but that doesn't make what is brainwashed true.

Please answer the rest of my post...

Is homosexuality the one, and only so far 'proven' aspect of humanity which is 100% nature and 0% nurture..

What he said is that you cant reform a homosexual and the he decides that anyone who is reformed is not really reformed... That's called circular reasoning. You see he sets up a hypothesis and then discounts *anything* that contradicts his hypothesis as not being true by the definition of they hypothesis.

There are people who were homosexual who are, no longer, living as homosexuals.

I suppose it CAN work. It apparently worked for you.

(12-27-2011 11:57 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(12-27-2011 11:34 AM)mtsufan561 Wrote:  

(12-27-2011 11:27 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(12-27-2011 10:51 AM)mtsufan561 Wrote:  I believe the point is that generalizing the lifestyles of an entire group of people is wrong.

Then you're a fool, b/c the fields of psychology, sociology, anthropology, medicine and others are founded on that very principle. And you're the one who references organizations from those fields below.

Really? I'm a fool for saying that you can't generalize an entire group of people?? Wow, that's quite shocking to me

Which makes it even funnier.

Quote:Really? What are these facts you claim? Do you have any homosexual friends? Do you know these things about them?

Of course. I make observations, because that's what I do.

You try to cheat in physical science, and you'll only make a fool of yourself, b/c reality can't be cheated. Reality can't be cheated in the soft sciences either, but you can bluff for a long time and lots of people get hurt.

I think we may be misunderstanding what the other means. What I'm saying is you can't stereotype some group of people. Just because a group advocates a specific cause doesn't mean that everyone is afflicted by it. Not all gay people have AIDS, not all people who drink alcohol occasionally are alcoholic, not all married people who have fights resort to domestic violence. There's a very wide range of lifestyles in terms of homosexuality, I know this firsthand. Just because you have a gay friend who acts, dresses, or talks one way does not mean that all gay people act the same way, dress the same way, or talk the same way. It's called diversity, and there's examples everywhere. You're right, reality can't be cheated. But it can be distorted.

(12-27-2011 11:57 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(12-27-2011 11:34 AM)mtsufan561 Wrote:  

(12-27-2011 11:27 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(12-27-2011 10:51 AM)mtsufan561 Wrote:  I believe the point is that generalizing the lifestyles of an entire group of people is wrong.

Then you're a fool, b/c the fields of psychology, sociology, anthropology, medicine and others are founded on that very principle. And you're the one who references organizations from those fields below.

Really? I'm a fool for saying that you can't generalize an entire group of people?? Wow, that's quite shocking to me

Which makes it even funnier.

Quote:Really? What are these facts you claim? Do you have any homosexual friends? Do you know these things about them?

Of course. I make observations, because that's what I do.

You try to cheat in physical science, and you'll only make a fool of yourself, b/c reality can't be cheated. Reality can't be cheated in the soft sciences either, but you can bluff for a long time and lots of people get hurt.

You are pure comic gold Torchy.

(12-27-2011 12:01 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(12-26-2011 10:13 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(12-26-2011 09:07 PM)mtsufan561 Wrote:  Homosexuality isn't the same as alcoholism and can't be compared to it. Instead of trying to divert the issue, why not answer what he said? You can brainwash someone to believe just about anything, but that doesn't make what is brainwashed true.

Please answer the rest of my post...

Is homosexuality the one, and only so far 'proven' aspect of humanity which is 100% nature and 0% nurture..

What he said is that you cant reform a homosexual and the he decides that anyone who is reformed is not really reformed... That's called circular reasoning. You see he sets up a hypothesis and then discounts *anything* that contradicts his hypothesis as not being true by the definition of they hypothesis.

There are people who were homosexual who are, no longer, living as homosexuals.

I suppose it CAN work. It apparently worked for you.

I don't even get what you are trying to say? What that I was gay? Is that really where you are?

(12-27-2011 10:17 AM)Paul M Wrote:  

(12-26-2011 08:00 PM)wvucrazed Wrote:  Nope. There is zero evidence that someone's innate sexuality is changeable and plenty that it is not.

I don't know, the prison system is pretty big. Seems to me a lot of straights go in, get fagoty, go home straight again. You'll agree that's more than zero evidence. Unless you have no regard for facts. Oh, never mind.

bumping this up because none of the people who have been screaming 'no evidence' had bothered to address Pauls point!

Why is there is higher rate of practiced homosexuality in prison than the population at large?

(12-27-2011 04:08 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Why is there is higher rate of practiced homosexuality in prison than the population at large?

Please also address religious conversions and stabbings with make-shift knives.

(12-27-2011 04:14 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(12-27-2011 04:08 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Why is there is higher rate of practiced homosexuality in prison than the population at large?

Please also address religious conversions and stabbings with make-shift knives.

At no point in this thread have I said *religious affiliation and propensity for violence are innate properties. You're born that way and cant change*..

The voice from the left is that sexuality is a nicely formed little package in the womb and you're either born gay or not. It's about the only complex human behavior for which they will make such a patently absurd statement.

I have, in point of fact, said that its both nature and nurture which forms a human being sexuality.

(12-27-2011 04:18 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(12-27-2011 04:14 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(12-27-2011 04:08 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Why is there is higher rate of practiced homosexuality in prison than the population at large?

Please also address religious conversions and stabbings with make-shift knives.

At no point in this thread have I said *religious affiliation and propensity for violence are innate properties. You're born that way and cant change*..

The voice from the left is that sexuality is a nicely formed little package in the womb and you're either born gay or not. It's about the only complex human behavior for which they will make such a patently absurd statement.

I have, in point of fact, said that its both nature and nurture which forms a human being sexuality.

Many people are bi. But getting raped in prson does not make someone gay. Where do you get these ideas? Is that what the bible says?

(12-27-2011 04:08 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  bumping this up because none of the people who have been screaming 'no evidence' had bothered to address Pauls point!

Why is there is higher rate of practiced homosexuality in prison than the population at large?

Do you really need this spelled out for you, or are you making a really dumb joke?

In the unlikely event that you are serious, here it is in a nutshell:

Guys in prison have no sexual outlet other than fellow inmates. In such a circumstance, some guys will do things that they might not normally do. This doesn't mean when he's released he's suddenly gay. This doesn't mean that he would choose to screw a guy if the prison was co-ed. And rape is more about power anyway, whether man-on-man, or man-on-woman.

Just like two college guys in a dorm room who've had too much beer and one night jerk each other off (you are aware this kinda stuff happens all the time... right?) That doesn't mean they are gay. It doesn't even mean they are bi. Experimentation happens with a wide swath of the populace.

But these things are, of course, very different than someone being primarily attracted to members of the same sex. Some gay guys might on occasion have sex with a woman. Some folks are truly bi-sexual. There are of course variances.

But the ex-gay fraud factories aren't primarily intended to rehabilitate prisoners who raped their cell-mates, or college guys who once fooled around with another dude. They are aimed at those who identify as gay, who are primarily and innately attracted to members of the same sex.

I'm sure you weren't serious (really... tell me you weren't serious...) so I'm sure that whole spiel was unnecessary, but... just in case.... now ya know.

Lawdy. Just when I think I've read everything on this forum, you folks surprise me again.

LMAO... how the f*ck the talk of Liberty moving to FBS end up into a discussion of gays in prison...

(12-27-2011 04:08 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Why is there is higher rate of practiced homosexuality in prison than the population at large?

Fewer options?