Liberal Forum

Vegas » 27 Jan 2024, 9:42 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2024, 9:42 pm

I actually just gave you evidence of the gene. Hang on, I'll get again for you because I am such a nice guy. 

Just a minute.

No, you gave me a retarded gish gallop. 
 

Cannonpointer » 27 Jan 2024, 9:45 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2024, 9:45 pm

Can you not see the irony in your desperately googling ANYTHING that will save your silly thesis and then accusing ME of cherry picking?

You should.

Take a breath dude. Your life doesn't depend on your OP being correct.

No, YOU are doing what that cult does.

You are presenting silly **** as science. The first thing you threw out there was from the **** KINSEY INSTITUTE. **** Dianetics has a better name and less scandals. And dianetics isn't backed by **** rockefeller.

The second thing you produced from your desperate hasty googles is a silly *** paper that says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. It "interprets" three to be five.

WHERE'S THE BEEF?

I gave you journal articles, not some blog. Tell me what source you would like me to present to you and I will try to find it. Fair? 

You are saying it's silly science because it contradicts your thesis. I bet if it agreed with you, then you would love it.

Vegas » 27 Jan 2024, 9:46 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2024, 9:46 pm

@Cannonpointer  Here you go: One of them is on chromosome 13 and the other on chromosome 14.

Where is the link? Even a gish gallop has SOME standards, son.

Cannonpointer » 27 Jan 2024, 9:50 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2024, 9:50 pm

Where is the link? Even a gish gallop has SOME standards, son.

What's it matter? Any source I give is going to be full of **** according to you anyway. 

Vegas » 27 Jan 2024, 9:49 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2024, 9:49 pm

I gave you journal articles, not some blog. Tell me what source you would like me to present to you and I will try to find it. Fair?

A source that shows a credible link between genes and sexuality, as opposed to one that talks about the possibility of science beginning to find the possibility of a connection that might prove to offer the possibility of a connection interpreted to mean that lots and lots of adverbs prove a hypothesis that is beginning to take shape in the scientific community.

Fair? 

Vegas » 27 Jan 2024, 9:49 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2024, 9:49 pm

You are saying it's silly science because it contradicts your thesis. I bet if it agreed with you, then you would love it.

I have a history on this board of rejecting proofs of my thesis which are substandard.

As a human, I naturally appreciate agreement. But as a man, I strive to hold myself to a standard. I prefer that when people suggest the character flaw you are suggesting, they are as bereft of evidence as you are.

Vegas » 27 Jan 2024, 9:53 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2024, 9:53 pm

Cannonpointer » 27 Jan 2024, 9:50 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2024, 9:50 pm

Where is the link? Even a gish gallop has SOME standards, son.

What's it matter? Any source I give is going to be full of **** according to you anyway.

So you DO have some shame. Good on ya.

You are almost certainly correct in hiding your source from me. You are almost certainly correct that I will call **** on it.

It's not my fault that you cannot find a decent source to demonstrate that science is wrong, kid.

Cannonpointer » 27 Jan 2024, 9:54 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2024, 9:54 pm

A source that shows a credible link between genes and sexuality, as opposed to one that talks about the possibility of science beginning to find the possibility of a connection that might prove to offer the possibility of a connection interpreted to mean that lots and lots of adverbs prove a hypothesis that is beginning to take shape in the scientific community.

Fair? 

I have a history on this board of rejecting proofs of my thesis which are substandard.

As a human, I naturally appreciate agreement. But as a man, I strive to hold myself to a standard. I prefer that when people suggest the character flaw you are suggesting, they are as bereft of evidence as you are.

That wasn't the claim I made. You stated that science has concluded that homosexuality is not rooted in biology. That it has been ruled out. I provided sources that showed it has not been ruled out. I showed that you are incorrect in thinking that scientist has made a conclusive and exhausted stand that genes are not connected. I also said that science is always advancing. They don't just shut the door on specific issues. I gave you an example that they have not found the gene that causes MS, but they agree that it is genetic nonetheless. 

Cannonpointer » 27 Jan 2024, 9:56 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2024, 9:56 pm

So you DO have some shame. Good on ya.

You are almost certainly correct in hiding your source from me. You are almost certainly correct that I will call **** on it.

It's not my fault that you cannot find a decent source to demonstrate that science is wrong, kid.

I have the source, but you know as well as I do that you will call the scientists hacks or something. 

On chromosome 13, SLITRK6 is a neurodevelopmental gene mostly expressed in the diencephalon, which contains a region previously reported as differing in size in men by sexual orientation. On chromosome 14, TSHR genetic variants in intron 1 could conceivably help explain past findings relating familial atypical thyroid function and male homosexuality. Furthermore, skewed X chromosome inactivation has been found in the thyroid condition, Graves’ disease, as well as in mothers of homosexual men.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598- ... 400a1eba24

Vegas » 27 Jan 2024, 10:00 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2024, 10:00 pm

That wasn't the claim I made. You stated that science has concluded that homosexuality is not rooted in biology.

Careful constructing that straw man - and be aware that I refuse to defend it.

I said it wasn't determined by genetics.

Vegas » 27 Jan 2024, 10:00 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2024, 10:00 pm

That it has been ruled out.

I said there is no gay gene. You've shown no source disputing that.

Vegas » 27 Jan 2024, 10:00 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2024, 10:00 pm

I provided sources that showed it has not been ruled out.

It will never be ruled out by your rockefeller backed sources. But science has found that sexuality is not determined by any gene or set of genes.

The fact that some gays have been found to share some (likely epigenetic) genetic dysfunctions - as the article you are ashamed to source suggests - can as easily be CAUSED by gayness as be the cause OF it (assuming it is true). Nothing you have shown indicates otherwise, and most of what you have shown is from very shoddy sources AND is utterly meaningless drivel that APPEARS to say something while saying nothing.

I never said there is not a genetic component. I said there is no genetic determinant. You are extremely imprecise in your thinking and language.

Vegas » 27 Jan 2024, 10:00 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2024, 10:00 pm

I also said that science is always advancing.

Not as quickly as pseudo-science - in large measure thanks to gullible people whose names I will not say.

Vegas » 27 Jan 2024, 10:00 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2024, 10:00 pm

They don't just shut the door on specific issues.

Nor did I. I said the science shows you are wrong in arguing that gayness is genetically predetermined.

Vegas » 27 Jan 2024, 10:00 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2024, 10:00 pm

I gave you an example that they have not found the gene that causes MS, but they agree that it is genetic nonetheless.

Yes, they agree MS is genetic. They do NOT agree that gayness is.

That's where the science is.
 
 
 

Cannonpointer » 27 Jan 2024, 10:17 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2024, 10:17 pm

Careful constructing that straw man - and be aware that I refuse to defend it.

I said it wasn't determined by genetics.

 

I never said it was either. I said that science hasn't ruled it out. You insist that the science is pseudo-science. I gave you three different sources now, all from research journals. Have you considered perhaps that it's not the research that has some agenda, rather it's that you have one? 

I said there is no gay gene. You've shown no source disputing that.
 

As of now, there is no source that 100% proves the gene that causes MS. Thereby, according to your logic, the patients with MS chose to have that disease. That is where your logic leads to.

They are as close to being convinced that there is a gay gene as they are that MS is genetic, though they haven't found the MS gene yet. The scientific methodology is the same. Why is the former ignored , but the latter substantiated? 

Vegas » 27 Jan 2024, 10:05 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2024, 10:05 pm

I have the source, but you know as well as I do that you will call the scientists hacks or something. 

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598- ... 400a1eba24

Well, I DO have a habit of assessing the person providing me with information - his agenda, his qualifications. You've got me there.

Here is your lead author's bone fides:

• Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, NorthShore University HealthSystem Research Institute, Evanston, Illinois, 60201, United States of America
• Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neuroscience, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, 60637, United States of America

As it happens, I have extremely little regard for the pseudo-science of psychiatry, which in my view exists for the exclusive purpose of pushing wall street's drugs and narratives. So, there is that. But beyond that, let's look at what the paper ACTUALLY SAYS in the real world of **** actually getting said. 

My first issue with the paper is that the abstract breaks the rule - for the very first time in my experience, and I have studied hundreds of peer reviewed abstracts - of expressing the abstract itself in plain lay english, and saving the tech stuff for the body of the paper so that it can be assessed by actual peers. For the very first time in my experience, I am not competent to intelligently understand what a science abstract is SAYING - so, there's that. I consider it obfuscation. 

As to the part that I CAN understand, there is this: "The genes nearest to these peaks have functions plausibly relevant to the development of sexual orientation." So... that actually says nothing of any meaning. 

Then there is this: "could conceivably help explain past findings" - again, nothing of any meaning. 

I am going to stop right here, and ask you a very clear question. In YOUR MIND, what does the paper you have presented ACTUALLY SAY?
 

Vegas » 27 Jan 2024, 10:29 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2024, 10:29 pm

I never said it was either. I said that science hasn't ruled it out. You insist that the science is pseudo-science.

No, you insist that the pseudo-science is science.

Vegas » 27 Jan 2024, 10:29 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2024, 10:29 pm

I gave you three different sources now, all from research journals.

And none of them says a **** thing to support your OP's thesis - NOW ABANDONED IN A MIGHTY FLURRY OF SKIRT HIKE - that homosexuality is genetic.

Vegas » 27 Jan 2024, 10:29 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2024, 10:29 pm

As of now, there is no source that 100% proves the gene that causes MS. Thereby, according to your logic, the patients with MS chose to have that disease. That is where your logic leads to.

OMG - the STRAWMANITY! Look away, kids!

Vegas » 27 Jan 2024, 10:29 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2024, 10:29 pm

They are as close to being convinced that there is a gay gene as they are that MS is genetic, though they haven't found the MS gene yet. The scientific methodology is the same. Why is the former ignored , but the latter substantiated?

Sorry, I can only laugh at this. ^
 

Cannonpointer » 27 Jan 2024, 10:31 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2024, 10:31 pm

Well, I DO have a habit of assessing the person providing me with information - his agenda, his qualifications. You've got me there.

Here is your lead author's bone fides:

• Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, NorthShore University HealthSystem Research Institute, Evanston, Illinois, 60201, United States of America
• Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neuroscience, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, 60637, United States of America

As it happens, I have extremely little regard for the pseudo-science of psychiatry, which in my view exists for the exclusive purpose of pushing wall street's drugs and narratives. So, there is that. But beyond that, let's look at what the paper ACTUALLY SAYS in the real world of **** actually getting said. 

My first issue with the paper is that the abstract breaks the rule - for the very first time in my experience, and I have studied hundreds of peer reviewed abstracts - of expressing the abstract itself in plain lay english, and saving the tech stuff for the body of the paper so that it can be assessed by actual peers. For the very first time in my experience, I am not competent to intelligently understand what a science abstract is SAYING - so, there's that. I consider it obfuscation. 

As to the part that I CAN understand, there is this: "The genes nearest to these peaks have functions plausibly relevant to the development of sexual orientation." So... that actually says nothing of any meaning. 

Then there is this: "could conceivably help explain past findings" - again, nothing of any meaning. 

I am going to stop right here, and ask you a very clear question. In YOUR MIND, what does the paper you have presented ACTUALLY SAY?

If you believe psychiatry to be a pseudo science, then this conversation is pointless. Obviously then, there isn't a source that you will accept. So I don't know what to tell you. 

In plain English, it says that they have convincing reasons to believe that they found a gay gene (well two actually). Therefore, that justified more research into this phenomenon...kind like how they haven't found the MS gene yet, but whatever I guess. 

Cannonpointer » 27 Jan 2024, 10:34 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2024, 10:34 pm

No, you insist that the pseudo-science is science.

 

Your definition of pseudo-science is anything that contradicts your thesis. 

And none of them says a **** thing to support your OP's thesis - NOW ABANDONED IN A MIGHTY FLURRY OF SKIRT HIKE - that homosexuality is genetic.

OMG - the STRAWMANITY! Look away, kids!

Sorry, I can only laugh at this. ^

Where in my OP did I say it was 'definitely' biological? I simply gave my reasons as to why I think it could be. You haven't addressed one of those reasons. 

You went on to get pissed off at my sources that proved you wrong. How's that my problem? 

Vegas » 27 Jan 2024, 10:37 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2024, 10:37 pm

If you believe psychiatry to be a pseudo science, then this conversation is pointless.

Ths conversation is about genetics - not psychiatry. What you just said is stupid, even though it does appear to be true for reasons OTHER THAN my opinion of the pseudo-science of psychiatry.

Vegas » 27 Jan 2024, 10:37 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2024, 10:37 pm

Obviously then, there isn't a source that you will accept.

Poppycock.

A geneticist would fill the bill.

Vegas » 27 Jan 2024, 10:37 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2024, 10:37 pm

So I don't know what to tell you. 

An abject apology would be a nice start.

Vegas » 27 Jan 2024, 10:37 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2024, 10:37 pm

In plain English, it says that they have convincing reasons to believe that they found a gay gene (well two actually). Therefore, that justified more research into this phenomenon...kind like how they haven't found the MS gene yet, but whatever I guess.

I do not see that at all. I see obfuscation and suggestion and equivocation and everything that is not science. "Plausibly relevant... Could CONCEIVABLY help explain..."

This sort of equivocation simply does not exist in papers of merit, and is not published in journals of merit. It is NOT MY FAULT you are a science illiterate.

I did not bother to really get into your author's past, the outcome of the peer review, the quality of the journal, the publishing history of your author and his associate authors - and this, because you're just hasty-googling an unexamined gish gallop and putting me to work in a fool's labor. If I were not bored, I'd not have gone this far. It is a **** of a lot more work showing you how silly your hasty googles are than it is for you to put them shamelessly forward.

Given that you have abandoned the thesis with which I disagreed - that homosexuality is genetic, - I see no reason to continue arguing that it isn't.

I am confident I could gut that **** like a carp, if I cared to take the time and put in the effort. It is ****. It is not science. And it does not actually say what you wish it to say, notwithstanding it popped up when you typed what you WISHED to find into google.

Cannonpointer » 27 Jan 2024, 10:48 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2024, 10:48 pm

Poppycock.

A geneticist would fill the bill.

 

Ok. I will search for one. But I am certain that you will call the authors hacks or something. 

An abject apology would be a nice start.
 

       For giving you science that only your opinion refutes? Ummm....no thanks. I think I'll pass on the apology. 

Given that you have abandoned the thesis with which I disagreed - that homosexuality is genetic, - I see no reason to continue arguing that it isn't.

Ummmm...speaking of strawman...no, I haven't. Why? Because the science hasn't abandoned it either. That's why. They are still pursuing it. 

Vegas » 27 Jan 2024, 10:45 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2024, 10:45 pm

Where in my OP did I say it was 'definitely' biological?

If it was not your thesis that gayness is genetic, why have you spent six pages producing hastily googled pseudo-science which you believe says gsayness is genetic?
 
 

Vegas » 27 Jan 2024, 10:54 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2024, 10:54 pm

Ummmm...speaking of strawman...no, I haven't. Why? Because the science hasn't abandoned it either. That's why. They are still pursuing it.

So you're back, then, to saying homosexuality is genetic? 

Can you give me the number of posts you will promise to stick with that thesis before you abandon it again and insist that was never your thesis?

Just an estimate, even - just give me a ball park...      
 

Cannonpointer » 27 Jan 2024, 10:54 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2024, 10:54 pm

If it was not your thesis that gayness is genetic, why have you spent six pages producing pseudo-science which you believe says gsayness is genetic?

I am saying that it is unreasonable to think it's a choice. I have not confirmed that it was genetic. However, the science appears to be leaning that it is. I gave my reasons as to why, but I never claimed that it was genetic. I claimed that the science is pretty damn close to proving it is. Therefore, we should all be open minded to it. If these scientist are wrong, then ok. They are wrong and my OP fails. But as of now, I see a lot of indication that it is genetic. 

Cannonpointer » 27 Jan 2024, 10:57 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2024, 10:57 pm

So you're back, then, to saying homosexuality is genetic? 

Can you give me the number of posts you will promise to stick with that thesis before you abandon it again and insist that was never your thesis?

Just an estimate, even - just give me a ball park...    

How about you first show me where I said it was definitely genetic, 100%, through and through. 

Go on, I'll wait.