>First of all you confuse your speculation with a fact, second you deny what you obviously did, which is to imply that fundamental brain structures that are controlled by genetics could possibly be caused by behaviour (which is absurd, in my opinion). I expect better than this sort of weasel wording from a man who puts himself forward as a moral judge. First, heal thyself, Pilch.<
Very well then, believe as you will. The fact is, the brain is a very elastic organ, the structures of which are possibly influenced by behavior. That the fundamental structures are caused exclusively or even primarily by behavior is something I did not say or imply, and you cannot prove that I did either (go ahead, bucko-- try it).
You have painted yourself into a corner with your 'widely distributed homosexual genes', and you now desire to deflect attention away from them. Dear sir, where are these genes? Where are they? You here have revealed yourself to be a phony. You deliver the genes, then you deliver your credibility.
We need from you genes that are expressly the cause of homosexuality, just as we have genes that cause sex and race. Don't bring up twin-studies and all that illogic. I want dem genes! (grin)
>It is you who confuse concepts. I believe this is a result of your being so ponderously wordy, which leads to error simply from the weight of unneeded verbiage.<
I write it directly into the SI editor, trusting you to have the fraction of a brain it requires to get through it. Very well then. Here is something simple enough for yez. Deliver dem genes-- bucko. Got that?
>According to you. But you don't accept causality, as you said before, so your standard of proof is pretty suspect to me.<
Okey-dokey. Here is standard of proof for you: deliver the genes, bucko. Understand that?
>Here we agree. When discussing an issue with someone like yourself who is deliberately intransigent, I sometimes have to lower myself to the general tone of the debate.<
Lower yourself to this: delivering the genes, bucko. Too difficult to understand?
>Try to remember, Pilch, that your stubborn tone is indestinguishable from stupidity to those of us on the outside of the effect.
I would have said it better. I would have said "You must understand that to people of reason, your tone is indistinguishable from stupidity."
And this applied to me is yet far better than a reasoned judgement not only of your tone, but of your ideas.
Deliver those widely distributed genes you so boldy taught us of, and we will deal with language at a later date - bucko. (LOL)
>See, I can write like that too! Actually you have had me tending toward your own style for some time now - a tendency in writing I have been trying to overcome. I shall perservere.<
Well, persevere in this: delivering the genes----------bucko.
>Pure Calvinists considered it a sin even to try to earn a place in heaven by good deeds, as this would have been bargaining with God, and insulting his omnipotence. In their philosophy miscreants were punished simply because God had decreed that they sinned and also decreed that punishment be applied. (Of course, the Calvinists were full of crap.)<
(See how the poor creature squirms in fear of admitting its error? Shall we be kind, and let it off the hook, or shall we torture it further? Shall we benevolently extend the hand of charity toward it, or shall we crush it into the earth? Our human nature desires that we grind it into the dust, but our divine nature has taken pity upon it. What to do? What to do?)
My dear friend, this is profoundly irrelevant to the issue at hand. I never once, even by implication claimed the Calvinists even thought of trying to earn a place in heaven by good deeds. Since you desire to use this to avoid the real issue, I will let it die. I need not press this issue. If you would be so kind, git dem genes. If you'd prefer not, I certainly understand.
>Tut tut. The Gods themselves were full of sins. That you conclude humans would not have had laws and punishment unless their gods had decreed it is your conclusion…<
(Why not crush it?) (Because were you in the same circumstances-- ignorant, hurting, blind to depravity and perversion-- you would desire someone to have pity upon you).
This, sir, is not my conclusion. And I will assume the genes will not be forthcoming.
>...and a transparent logical fallacy depending on the idea that laws exist because people always do what the Gods will them to do. Actually, practical laws exist because not everyone is as stupid as the true believers.<
Precisely, and the punitive counterparts to these laws were applied as a result of civilized society's recognition that the individual must pay for his own unlawful action, this, regardless of the sinfulness of the gods. This was the point, a point that had nothing to do with getting to heaven, pleasing the gods or anything of the sort. (But here we have become much too complex for it.) (Too complex?) (Yes. Much too complex.) Shoot man! Let's jez fuhGIT it.
>Were their no agnostics, atheists, non-deist mystics, or religious hypocrits, humans would be unlikely to survive their own dogma. It is these people who make the survival decisions when the true believers are heading for the edge of the cliff. Otherwise we'd be at war forever, shun medicine, spend the day praying instead of working, and adopt a thousand other absurdities. Otherwise no religion would ever make peace with another.<
LOL. Surely you must reread this and try and understand its lame-brained implications. This is pure emotion and anger. No argument. Just-- (you must have mercy upon it.)---- (*%**!@#&%AAAAhHH!) Very well then. This issue will die.
>OK, I'll bite. The two instruments share a common descent in many ways.<
Merely on the basis of their similarity we cannot know this, and this is the point. You came to your conclusion via means other than simple comparison. We have no such luxury where nature is concerned. (You are being much too complex for it, have pity). Doggonit! Have pity yourself! Oops. (ahem). (Doggonit! Have pity yourself!)
>The wood they are made of comes from trees that share a common genetic ancestry.<
Fallacy. You be beggin' dat deah question, bucko (Very good. At least you are being simple enough for it) That the trees used to form the two instruments shared a common ancestry, is the issue under debate.
(snipped the rest of the illogic)
>That 9th grade schoolbook version of how science proceeds via the scientific has never been correct nor practical.<
Well of course its not practical for those who are determined to prove the unprovable. So then we must discard reason, and accept the new science. It is imperative... hmmm... JUST GIT DEM WIDELY DISTRIBUTED GENES, and git dem NOW! (lol)
(Not so loudly, we do not want to frighten it more than it is. And you already know it does not have the genes it claims are widely distributed. Why must you make it suffer so?) ((sigh) Yes. This is true.Very well.)
Dear friend, I am tired of this. I leave it to the undiscerning to believe you, and trust thinking men will see the fakery.
>And you are betraying your predudices by assaulting the reputations of these scientists with your slurs. Some facts, please.<
(Remember, be as kind as you can.)
You stup- (kind!) endous person you! How benevolent of you (and simple!)... dang nice of yez to show me de erruhs o'm'wayes.
>Nobody gives a rat's ass about Kinsey anymore. Sociologists and psychologists of that long-ago era aren't even respected by other scientists…<
Then scientists and homosexual proponents should reject his work, and repudiate the flawed statistics and concepts that were hatched from him and kicked upon the earth to filter through our society.
>He did do some good:<
And he did a whole lotta bad. (Very nice and simple.) (Why thank you.) (You're most welcome.)
>You should really shed that cloak of pomposity. You're not kidding anyone.<
Sir. I only attempt to "kid" idiots. My attempts with you should tell you... (Really now!)... should tell you how grand an opinion I have of you. (Hmmm. I don't think I am very impressed. Try again) (sigh) My attempts with you, sir, were designed to illustrate... (far too complex) they were designed...(simple!!!) I did it to show you how... (can't you just compliment him?) (Why certainly) I attempted to "kid" you to show you precisely how great you are. lol |
