My Hypocrisy Towards Homosexuality: A Personal Revelation

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

You definitely come across as the type that think there is a radical homosexual agenda to turn children gay.

What if it is a NWO agenda to turn people gay?

And like.... the homosexuals aren't even aware of it?

reply to post by otherpotato

It isn't a rhetorical question what you asked. So there is where you are wrong.

what would you do if someone was trying to turn your children gay?

You are saying that this is not a rhetorical question?

How exactly can I be wrong, if I never made a declarative statement?

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by otherpotato

 

It isn't a rhetorical question what you asked. So there is where you are wrong.

what would you do if someone was trying to turn your children gay?

You are saying that this is not a rhetorical question?

How exactly can I be wrong, if I never made a declarative statement?

edit on 19-8-2012 by ErtaiNaGia because: (no reason given)

A rhetorical question is one that is difficult if not impossible to answer if asked.

How is this question difficult if not impossible to answer if asked?

I could answer this question if asked. It would be neither difficult nor impossible.

Try again.

reply to post by sligtlyskeptical

While being gay may truly be natural to some, I think for the majority it is a learned or adapted behavior.

Studies seem to indicate that there is a very good case for establishing a relation between fetal exposure to hormones and sexual preferences, it also was found some mathematical relevance in that in cases of multiple child if there is an increased probability for each subsequent male boys to be homosexual. This of course indicates that culture as a factor has not much relevancy (except in probably diminishing the negative social controls o gays). An increase in the liberty to admit differences will of course result an increase of gays but one should also consider that pollution and exposure to compounds that mimic human hormones or suppress and alter their activity will also be a major factor, and not all are artificial. For example soy has the capacity to mimic estrogen...

reply to post by otherpotato

A rhetorical question is one that is difficult if not impossible to answer if asked.

No it's not.

Again, for the THIRD TIME, here is the definition of a Rhetorical Question:

A rhetorical question is a figure of speech in the form of a question that is asked in order to make a point and without the expectation of a reply. The question is used as a rhetorical device, posed for the sake of encouraging its listener to consider a message or viewpoint. Though these are technically questions, they do not always require a question mark.

How is this question difficult if not impossible to answer if asked?

Your definition of a Rhetorical Question is incorrect, A.K.A. wrong... therefore your question is a baseless assertion.

I could answer this question if asked. It would be neither difficult not impossible.

Try again.

The definition of a rhetorical question has been posted in the last two pages, at least a half a dozen times.


Now, are you unwilling or unable to read it?

Originally posted by Panic2k11

Studies seem to indicate that there is a very good case for establishing a relation between fetal exposure to hormones and sexual preferences, it also was found some mathematical relevance in that in cases of multiple child if there is an increased probability for each subsequent male boys to be homosexual. This of course indicates that culture as a factor is has not much relevancy (except in probably diminishing the negative social controls o gays). An increase in the liberty to admit differences will of course result an increase of gays but one should also consider that pollution and exposure to compounds that mimic human hormones or suppress and alter their activity will also be a major factor, and not all are artificial. For example soy has the capacity to mimic estrogen...

It seems to me you read into studies what you want them to mean.

Please explain in detail you post. Because it really doesn't make any sense.

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia


Question:

"What would you do if someone was trying to turn your child gay?"

Answer:

Nothing.

There. I answered your #ing rhetorical question.

reply to post by otherpotato

Question:

"What would you do if someone was trying to turn your child gay?"

Answer:

Nothing.

There. I answered your #ing rhetorical question.

I told you that I was going to enlighten you.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Now really... was that so hard?

and here is the follow up question, just for you:

"What would you do if someone was trying to turn your child straight?"

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia


Not feeling particularly enlightened. Feels like argument for argument's sake. What skin do you have in the game? Any kids? If not who cares what you think?

In answer to your second question: nothing. Is that really a surprise?

Don't quit your day job.

reply to post by otherpotato

Not feeling particularly enlightened.

You are now aware of what a rhetorical question is.

That is a type of enlightenment.

Feels like argument for argument's sake.

Technically, it is argument for the sake of enlightenment on the topic of:

"My Hypocrisy Towards Homosexuality: A Personal Revelation"

What skin do you have in the game?

What game?

Any kids?

Are kids a game to you?

If not who cares what you think?

I never expressed my thoughts on the matter, actually.

Why are you being so hostile?

In answer to your second question: nothing. Is that really a surprise?

You are assuming that I expected a specific response.

This is incorrect.

Don't quit your day job.

does this have anything to do with our conversation?

I wasn't planning on quitting my day job... why do you bring this up?

reply to post by r2d246

Your analogy would be better if you instead said:
"In the future pedophiles will be understood to have a sexual preference disorder for children and not a moral deficit. They will receive lighter sentences in prison, comparable to conventional rape sentences. Additionally, they will be required to see behavioral correction specialists for the remainder of their lifetimes. Pedophile porn will be less repulsive to common people, but it will still be illegal to involve real underage people in sexual exploitation media such as in movies or pictures or games. There will be many more movies about the pedophile disorder and many hate crime laws will be passed to ensure that pedophiles aren't verbally harassed or discriminated against. Some pedophiles will be known to marry their own child robots, in addition to having large private child porn collections."

In the far future adults will be able to bio-engineer their body to be like a child. So it will really throw a wrench in the machine when adult humans are indistinguishable from children by sight alone. Moreso, and sooner, AI will be able to assume any body shape in simulated universes. There will be vast numbers of these simulated universes where AI have sex in child-like bodies with and/or without human-controlled avatars. Many pedophile humans will live a portion of their lives in these computer generated realities. They'll commonly be accompanied by other humans with other disorders.

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia


I still disagree that your question was rhetorical. You can debate me on this point in another thread, with another example, and I'm happy to debate about the term and reach a conclusion (maybe). But I respect the OP and don't want to derail the valuable thread she started with our own nitpickiness on a device.

My question still stands though: do you have children. DO YOU?

Children are not a game. I have four. I fight for them every day.

reply to post by otherpotato

I still disagree that your question was rhetorical.

I know.... but you are still wrong.

You can debate me on this point in another thread, with another example, and I'm happy to debate about the term and reach a conclusion (maybe).

Do you think that I'd be likely to start a whole new thread to debate you about what is and isn't a Rhetorical Question?

But I respect the OP and don't want to derail the valuable thread she started with our own nitpickiness on a device.

I posited my Rhetorical Question to expand a perspective about the topic, not to derail the topic.

Your assertion that I was being "Nitpicky" to derail the thread is fallacious.

My question still stands though: do you have children. DO YOU?

If I said that I didn't have any children, would you claim that my contribution to the thread is irrelevant?

Children are not a game. I have four. I fight for them every day.

Well, good on you!

Originally posted by Panic2k11
reply to post by sligtlyskeptical

 

While being gay may truly be natural to some, I think for the majority it is a learned or adapted behavior.

Studies seem to indicate that there is a very good case for establishing a relation between fetal exposure to hormones and sexual preferences, it also was found some mathematical relevance in that in cases of multiple child if there is an increased probability for each subsequent male boys to be homosexual. This of course indicates that culture as a factor is has not much relevancy (except in probably diminishing the negative social controls o gays). An increase in the liberty to admit differences will of course result an increase of gays but one should also consider that pollution and exposure to compounds that mimic human hormones or suppress and alter their activity will also be a major factor, and not all are artificial. For example soy has the capacity to mimic estrogen...

That is fine and dandy. So some kids may have a greater disposition to being gay due to hormones. I wonder what percentage of those end up straight and happy instead because of proper parenting skills? I would say a large percentage. Hormones also effect much more than sexual preference. They can cause all other kinds of deviant behavior. Should we just let the kids roll with this as well?

reply to post by Annee
reply to post by sligtlyskeptical

Please explain in detail you post. Because it really doesn't make any sense.

Early hormonal influences on childhood sex-typed activity and playmate preferences: Implications for the development of sexual orientation
Neurohormonal functioning and sexual orientation: A theory of homosexuality–heterosexuality.

Following a historical sketch of attempts to explain homosexuality, we review evidence indicating that the process of determining human sexual orientation is fundamentally the same in all mammals

In this process, four phenotypic dimensions of sexuality develop from two more or less distinct sex genotypes. Studies are reviewed that indicate how phenotypic deviations from these two genotypes (called sexual inversions) can occur. The causes of sexual inversions are categorized as genetic-hormonal, pharmacological, maternal stress, immunological, and social experiential. From this evidence, we propose a theory of how the entire spectrum of human sexual orientation (vs. simply homosexuality) is determined.

I think that I was clear and that I did not say a definitive discovery, just that studies do indicate a co-relation. There are many corroborative but distinct works on the subject (like the Finger-length ratios and sexual orientation study). The point I was making is that acculturation and social pressures and indoctrination are not major drives for gayness, and that social acceptation can be perceived as exacerbating the notability of the "deviations"

Homosexuality is found in nature and other species so it should not be considered unnatural, it may and seems to also serve some evolutionary purposes, but it can be considered deviant from the normal reproductive function of sexuality, not many other species engage in sex for other purposes than reproduction. Those that practice sex outside of that primary function seem to do so for social cohesion and integration.

In any case the field is mostly open in regards to an absolute finding but our understanding of sexuality indicates that voluntary preferences are not learned. In relation to the OP I was defending also that an exacerbation of acceptance of behavior may indeed increase also events of homosexual behavior on the sexual promiscuous but it is not in itself a cause.

For a more complete reply you have to indicate what part you did not understand. You are free to disagree but this is how I see the issue. Sexual preference is not a learned process (it can not be unlearned, but it can be redirected). Sexual preferences are defined mostly while the brain develops and among other aspects of the brain seem to be prone to chemical interference, that may be even natural, as I said one hypothesis is that a mother will generate antibodies that increase the probability of any subsequent male child to be homosexual. See Neuroscience and sexual orientation for a broader view of the subject...

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia

What if it is a NWO agenda to turn people gay?

And like.... the homosexuals aren't even aware of it?

NWO is the umbrella term for many conspiracy theories that don't have enough evidence to warrant their own name

Please elaborate evidence for the shadow governments goal of 'turning children gay'.

More to the point. They can't do it if they wanted to without some hypothetical technology I am not privy to.

Sexual orientation is not a decision. People don't decide regularly they are going to continue to be a particular orientation ergo it's not a choice.

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia


You have no other reason to argue this issue with me other than you want to win an argument. I get that.

I, on the other hand, actually care about and have a vested interest in what I'm arguing for.

But I can be the bigger the person. If you need to be "right" I will let you be right.

You are right.

Here's your gold medal.

There is nothing left to argue about. You get the gilded prize.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

NWO is the umbrella term for many conspiracy theories that don't have enough evidence to warrant their own name

I think that you are referring to "Illuminati", but point taken.

Please elaborate evidence for the shadow governments goal of 'turning children gay'.

Again... Do rhetorical questions require evidence?

More to the point. They can't do it if they wanted to without some hypothetical technology I am not privy to.

Unless they are merely using advanced knowledge of human psychology that you are not privy to... but, yes, essentially you are correct.

Sexual orientation is not a decision. People don't decide regularly they are going to continue to be a particular orientation ergo it's not a choice.

But my question presupposed that sexual orientation is pliable, given some advanced knowledge of human psychology that we are not privy to.....

I'm pretty sure that I already explained that it was rhetorical... didn't I?

Originally posted by jonnywhite
reply to post by r2d246

 

Your analogy would be better if you instead said:
"In the future pedophiles will be understood to have a sexual preference disorder for children and not a moral deficit. They will receive lighter sentences in prison, comparable to conventional rape sentences. Additionally, they will be required to see behavioral correction specialists for the remainder of their lifetimes. Pedophile porn will be less repulsive to common people, but it will still be illegal to involve real underage people in sexual exploitation media such as in movies or pictures or games. There will be many more movies about the pedophile disorder and many hate crime laws will be passed to ensure that pedophiles aren't verbally harassed or discriminated against. Some pedophiles will be known to marry their own child robots, in addition to having large private child porn collections."

In the far future adults will be able to bio-engineer their body to be like a child. So it will really throw a wrench in the machine when adult humans are indistinguishable from children by sight alone. Moreso, and sooner, AI will be able to assume any body shape in simulated universes. There will be vast numbers of these simulated universes where AI have sex in child-like bodies with and/or without human-controlled avatars. Many pedophile humans will live a portion of their lives in these computer generated realities. They'll commonly be accompanied by other humans with other disorders.

edit on 20-8-2012 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)

Pedophiles are not the same as homosexuals. Let's be clear about this. All the pedophiles I have met are church going straight men. Am I wrong?

Let us also be clear about this: pedophiles need to go. They have no redeeming qualities. Sex between children and adults is unacceptable. Pedophiles need to go. By any means necessary.

reply to post by otherpotato

You have no other reason to argue this issue with me other than you want to win an argument. I get that.

Then you "get" what is not true.

I, on the other hand, actually care about and have a vested interest in what I'm arguing for.

You are implying that I don't care about what I am arguing... how cute.

But I can be the bigger the person. If you need to be "right" I will let you be right.

Awww.... how sweet... you are now implying that If I don't stop arguing my point, that I am a small person.... how deliciously transparent!

You are right.

Here's your gold medal.

There is nothing left to argue about. You get the gilded prize.

There is only one prize that I am after....

Truth.