Liberal Forum

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

27 Jan 2024, 10:57 pm

I am saying that it is unreasonable to think it's a choice.

And I am saying that your concept of choice is as sophisticated as your comprehension of what science is and is not.

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

27 Jan 2024, 10:57 pm

I claimed that the science is pretty damn close to proving it is. Therefore, we should all be open minded to it.

Which, AGAIN, comments only on your ABYSMAL comprehension of what is and is not science.

You are not at all competent to examine the science - so you REALLY ought to re-examine your concept of what "choice" is. At the end of the day, that is the source of your confusion in this matter.
 

Vegas » 27 Jan 2024, 10:59 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2024, 10:59 pm

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

Go on, I'll wait.

Hey, your position is YOURS to keep on alternately changing up.

Who am I to third-guess you?    

Cannonpointer » 27 Jan 2024, 11:02 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2024, 11:02 pm

Hey, your position is YOURS to keep on alternately changing up.

Who am I to third-guess you? 

I am giving you a chance to prove that, but you keeping flapping your jaw. 

Cannonpointer » 27 Jan 2024, 11:01 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2024, 11:01 pm

And I am saying that your concept of choice is as sophisticated as your comprehension of what science is and is not.

Which, AGAIN, comments only on your ABYSMAL comprehension of what is and is not science.

You are not at all competent to examine the science - so you REALLY ought to re-examine your concept of what "choice" is. At the end of the day, that is the source of your confusion in this matter.

OK semen swallower. Most of the authors of this article are geneticists. There is around 15 authors here. Yes, some work in psychiatry, but most are geneticists or work directly in a field of biology. 

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aat7693

Vegas » 27 Jan 2024, 11:11 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2024, 11:11 pm

OK semen swallower. Most of the authors of this article are geneticists. There is around 15 authors here. Yes, some work in psychiatry, but most are geneticists or work directly in a field of biology. 

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aat7693

I'm a spitter, fruitcake - so do not call me semen swallower. 

I have no critique to offer of this study. It is my bedtime, but I doubt further perusal will produce any objection on my part. The lead in the study is in the right discipline and the journal it is published in is perfectly respectable. The size of the study is significant enough - the first in your gish gallop - to make serious findings. I will probably look at it again tomorrow.

I don't really have any issue at all with its findings, for that matter. My position has been that there is no gay gene, and they certainly confirm that. The fact that they find polygenic influences is far from surprising. The same influences operate throughout human behaviors. We have - and need - peace makers and psychopaths, leaders and followers. I suppose we need gays, as well - if only to kick around. Frankly, they tend to produce the very bests artists - possibly because they are forced to be subversives to avoid getting kicked around (which means we did society no favors by taking our boot of their necks). 

I particularly enjoyed them **** on Kinsey.   

I rather liked it that one of your links took a heaping **** on the other - and the one that did so is the one that I have no criticism of.   

Here are the findings: There is polygenic influence but not causation - precisely as I had always conceived. Nothing in their findings suggests that every last person expressing as homosexual has the relevant cohort of polygenic influences, or that every last person with that cohort of polygenic influences expresses as homosexual. Indeed, they found the reverse to be true. There is correlation between those polygenic influences and homosexual expression - but it is neither universal nor determinative.

As I said, there is no gay gene and there is no born gay. Your first decent study confirms this.

It also confirms your feeling that there IS nature, and not exclusively nurture, as an ingredient in the mix that makes people gay. I think that you expressed that feeling a bit more emphatically and categorically than you might have done, giving the impression that gay people are utterly without choice and formed in the womb to suck pete rather than stick it in a puss. The way you expressed it, one got the idea you felt it was 100% nature. It just isn't. It's a series of choices, coincidences, and fortunate or unfortunate events. Every kid born has the capacity to go either way - and nothing in your paper argues otherwise. And that, in a nut shell, has been my argument straight along. 

 
 

Cannonpointer » 27 Jan 2024, 9:41 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2024, 9:41 pm

Absolutely spot on. 

I have never argued that gayness is a choice. 

Vegas is pushing a false dichotomy that it is EITHER a choice OR genetic. The stew is far more complex than that.
 

While you never argued gayness is a choice, you never discussed why it happens naturally seemingly random to specific individuals each generation. I am not experiencing it myself but understand why instincts would emotionally drive a brain to choose homosexuality instead of heterosexual behavior. Instincts sensing something wrong inside out as each brain came from the nucleus of their fertilized cell.

I discovered eternal differences have a balancing point while evolving in series parallel time. Now is that universal point of time universal results are never same details past, present, future results changing forms shaped as contracting results expanding details that have eroded or decomposed into a perpetual moving universe present without intellectual design as every reality governs instinctive awareness with living uniquely here proportionately one ancestor at a time changing population left evolving forward here. See I incorporate thermodynamic principles into any idea of what else is possible to stay n proportion of uniquely here as one ancestor adapting in space as displaced as an ever changing form living eternally separated now.

Self evident evolving every intellectual reality doesn't tolerate being discussed in any arena of ideas suggesting what makes a tomorrow better than genetics achieved to date.

Dominant behavior vs passive resistance. Instincts since conceived vs intellect developed after birth. Dictatorships vs democracy serving God or Country, hope, faith, charity, power, wealth fame as all options given lead "people" to believe character counts and genetics are useless saving humanity's goals tomorrow.

Absolute power of suggestion absolutely corrupts each great great grandchild changing population forward historically since dawn of civilization within this species.

There are two versions of the same movie that covers this metaphorically, "Village of the Damned". alternate realities developing parallel universe theories to justify human behavior ignoring the natural process of living eternally separated now.

How, why, what, where, when, which people became every franchise of humanity. Means, motives, methods, opportunities, mayhem, madness, misery resulting from pretending eternity is beyond evolving here now.

why I came to using cyberspace technology used to govern minds by personal devices connected to one internet tech globally working each social justification against every other to sustain conflicts between ideas separating character role playing from genetically evolving in series parallel space.

Longitudes define time 24/7. latitudes describe climate changes in two sets of temperate zones equator to either axis pole within a species reproducing male and female replacements conceived by male and female parents never creating same lifetimes again.

Cannonpointer » 27 Jan 2024, 8:03 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2024, 8:03 pm

That's only one option. If I have to choose, you have to give me three. That's the rule. 

I'm going to choose that one - but I should still get options. 

If you could, please put that one in the middle, because I like it and I intend to pick it - but I always pick the middle option.
 
 

How about 31/64 options depending on which generation gap you(any lifetime) arrived in? Every 5th generation arrival has 30 previous ancestors making up 93.75% their unique chromosomes in their one time DNA displacement evolving from a fertilized cell to decomposed corpse.

Everyone calls how I came up with these numbers gibberish because they don't want to understand how corrupted their reality has become.

Vegas » 27 Jan 2024, 12:23 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2024, 12:23 pm

I have always maintained that homosexuality is not a choice. I say that for a few reasons:

1. I personally never chose to be straight. I just always was and still am. There was never any conscious effort that I made to commit to heterosexuality. Therefore, it seems logical that homosexuals didn't make a conscious effort to commit to their sexuality either. 

2. If social environment does indeed persuade one to choose one or the other, then it would seem reasonable to observe that the siblings of gay people should also be gay, given that they were all brought up in the same environment. However, this is not the case. Yes, there are examples of course, but it is rare. 

3. If we take 'attraction' on a general level, just broadly speaking, it is hard to nail down why we are attracted to certain physical traits, be it for straight or gay people. I love redheads, but not blondes for some reason. I don't know why, redheads get my dick hard, but blondes don't really do it for me. Yet, some love blonds but find red heads disgusting. Some men love 'asses' more than 'tits', some don't. Some women love broad shoulders, some don't. Some like tall, thin, others like thick and curvy. Whatever. The point is that with all the variables that come with attraction, we have a difficult time nailing down why. Thus, it would be reasonable to say the same about sexual orientation.

Regardless of what you are attracted to at the end of the day it's always a choice who you lay down with. 



 

Vegas » 27 Jan 2024, 7:46 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2024, 7:46 pm

Damn. I guess she was lonely. 

and desperate...
 

Nostradamus'omh » 27 Jan 2024, 7:33 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2024, 7:33 pm

Murdock's given avatar he cannot change.

 
 

Cannonpointer » 27 Jan 2024, 7:25 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2024, 7:25 pm

When I was 15, there was a report of three women raping a man they held captive for several days. I was dumbfounded. I expressed doubt that a woman could possibly rape a man. The logistics just did not make sense to my 15 year old sense. 

My grandmother set me straight in the matter. She said, "They scared him stiff."

  ...

my old supervisor was the only guy I've ever met whose dream didn't come true by being accosted....  
 

Whenever this topic would come up 10 or 20 years ago ....about 1/2 the responders would be hissy fit throwing Queers calling everyone who believes that queerness might be a choice..... "ignorant" or else poorly educated ""Homophobes".
I grew up with several girls who looked like "boys wearing dresses" and 50 years since we graduated HS and reunited several of them have turned out to be life long lesbians.
Not a very scientific study..but what I've witnessed aligns with what my young eyes as a kid told me would probably come true.
One girl I grew up with had a father who was definitely a most feminine man. He had 4 kids and was married to a great woman.
[Both were very liberal for a WW II Gen Couple]
I think this is a case where peer pressure in the father's professional world [advertising executive] and his desire to have children had something to with his choice to live the life of a straight man.

Hank » 28 Jan 2024, 8:25 am » wrote: ↑

28 Jan 2024, 8:25 am

Regardless of what you are attracted to at the end of the day it's always a choice who you lay down with.

Unless you are being violated, who the hell lays down with someone they are not attracted to?

Cannonpointer » 28 Jan 2024, 12:23 am » wrote: ↑

28 Jan 2024, 12:23 am

I'm a spitter, fruitcake - so do not call me semen swallower. 

I have no critique to offer of this study. It is my bedtime, but I doubt further perusal will produce any objection on my part. The lead in the study is in the right discipline and the journal it is published in is perfectly respectable. The size of the study is significant enough - the first in your gish gallop - to make serious findings. I will probably look at it again tomorrow.

I don't really have any issue at all with its findings, for that matter. My position has been that there is no gay gene, and they certainly confirm that. The fact that they find polygenic influences is far from surprising. The same influences operate throughout human behaviors. We have - and need - peace makers and psychopaths, leaders and followers. I suppose we need gays, as well - if only to kick around. Frankly, they tend to produce the very bests artists - possibly because they are forced to be subversives to avoid getting kicked around (which means we did society no favors by taking our boot of their necks). 

I particularly enjoyed them **** on Kinsey.   

I rather liked it that one of your links took a heaping **** on the other - and the one that did so is the one that I have no criticism of.   

Here are the findings: There is polygenic influence but not causation - precisely as I had always conceived. Nothing in their findings suggests that every last person expressing as homosexual has the relevant cohort of polygenic influences, or that every last person with that cohort of polygenic influences expresses as homosexual. Indeed, they found the reverse to be true. There is correlation between those polygenic influences and homosexual expression - but it is neither universal nor determinative.

As I said, there is no gay gene and there is no born gay. Your first decent study confirms this.

It also confirms your feeling that there IS nature, and not exclusively nurture, as an ingredient in the mix that makes people gay. I think that you expressed that feeling a bit more emphatically and categorically than you might have done, giving the impression that gay people are utterly without choice and formed in the womb to suck pete rather than stick it in a puss. The way you expressed it, one got the idea you felt it was 100% nature. It just isn't. It's a series of choices, coincidences, and fortunate or unfortunate events. Every kid born has the capacity to go either way - and nothing in your paper argues otherwise. And that, in a nut shell, has been my argument straight along.

Ok fine you sperm spitting prostate poker. We will compromise and just agree that Biden is a senile pedo. 

 

Cannonpointer » 27 Jan 2024, 7:11 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2024, 7:11 pm

It depends on what prison you picked it up in.

Some people are just born to suck cock. Others develop a taste for it. Still others are manhandled on the mainline and forced to take it RITA (right in the the ***).

Some men are born gay, some men become gay, and some men have gayness thrust upon them.
 

So you started sucking dick in 5th grade?

Hank » 28 Jan 2024, 8:25 am » wrote: ↑

28 Jan 2024, 8:25 am

Regardless of what you are attracted to at the end of the day it's always a choice who you lay down with. 



 

Choice of mating with to avoid becoming a parent or creating children/next generation that won't arrive without being conceived.

ROG62 » 27 Jan 2024, 7:20 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2024, 7:20 pm

Count me in... @Skans  can attest to that... I got the shudders just reading redhead narratives...

I do like redheads. Generally prefer blonds, but....  Perhaps its because I dated a redhead in my mid 20's who actually wanted to fornicate as much as I did.  Which is a great thing, that is until you catch her out with another guy.   But, what goes around comes around - a couple years later she did the same thing to her fiance....with me.  

As for blonds, it's not just any blond that I'm attracted to.  Its a certain look.  Its a good thing my wife has never seen my previous girl friends.  She would think I chose her because she looked like them.  That wouldn't be true at all.  I chose them all because they all looked a little bit like the girl I had a crush on from 1st-6th grade.  

As for brunettes  - dated one for 6 months - very attractive; had Sumela-approved tits too, which is quite unusual for me.  Crushed on another brunette for a looooong time, but not much happened there - timing/age difference, just weird.

The one thing I know is they were all had pussies and were all very feminine. The one I chose to marry (freaking beautiful BTW) had a lot more going on and we just compliment each other like we were made to be together.  No regrets at all there!!!

 
 

GHETTOBLASTER » 28 Jan 2024, 9:10 am » wrote: ↑

28 Jan 2024, 9:10 am

I think this is a case where peer pressure in the father's professional world [advertising executive] and his desire to have children had something to with his choice to live the life of a straight man.

Choice being the relevant term. 

Vegas » 28 Jan 2024, 11:59 am » wrote: ↑

28 Jan 2024, 11:59 am

Unless you are being violated, who the hell lays down with someone they are not attracted to?

As Hollywood has shown us, attraction is learned. 

I think there IS a genetic component. Sexual desire naturally runs toward the fecund - toward what one views as likely to produce offspring. But socialization can absolutely alter that, as it has in America, where a nation of mother **** became a nation of daughter **** in the span of a single generation, due to relentless programming. 

The relentless programming has now shifted toward queer identity - and guess what we are seeing more and more of.

Just guess - don't peek and don't google. 
 

Kobia2 » 27 Jan 2024, 2:20 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2024, 2:20 pm

                It's been a long time, but I think I remember Black Vegetable when I came here years ago... He went by the handle Wharf Rat, and claimed to be a Negro Indian from Texas.... I used to call him Dances with Food-stamps... 

What evidence do you have that beevee was wharf rat?

I do not believe that to be true. Wharf rat was a slovenly, anti-hierarchy sniveler. Beevee is boastful and prideful, casting himself at the top of the hierarchy. 

Even the screen name does not jibe. Black Vegetable is an homage to hierarchy-topping Monty Python, and Rico Suave is a screen name suggestive that he tops the sexual hierarchy. Wharf rat? That is self-deprecating. Have you EVER observed beevee engage in self-deprecation in even one single post - much less in his very profile?

No way - I would need to see some very strong evidence to believe that claim.