Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   homosexuality
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 76 of 239 (21470)
11-03-2002 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by nator
11-03-2002 9:34 PM


quote:
Originally posted by schrafinator:
quote:
You are taking it way too seriously.
Look, all I am gently telling you is that you are a loose cannon rather frequently, and you frequently debate just as poorly as the Creationists you deplore.
I and others have offered advice about how you could be taken more seriously, but you either make excuses, blame others, or ignore the comments.
You can choose to take honest critique and learn and grow, or you can continue to do damage to the cause.
It's your choice.

You know, there's a big difference between Creationists and, um, let's call our group, "science-minded people".
If a Creationist is debating for the cause, it doesn't matter too much to most other Creationists if the arguments are presented poorly, or if the information is inaccurate, or if anything else which is presented is of poor quality. What matters is that there is another Creationist and they are spouting forth something that sounds kinda good.
Even if one Creationist doesn't agree with another, they won't really be seen contradicting each other very much.
We have seen this to pretty much be the case on this message board.
OTOH, the Science-minded folks analyze and correct each other's arguments all the time, and the grown-up people actually welcome the correction and will generally recognize when they are out of their element or don't know something.
In this regard, nos, you are much more like the Creationist in that you tend to disregard all correction and analysis no matter who it comes from.
It seems that you would rather feel right than learn the truth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by nator, posted 11-03-2002 9:34 PM nator has not replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 77 of 239 (21472)
11-03-2002 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by nator
11-03-2002 9:39 PM


quote:
Originally posted by schrafinator:
Hey John,
Ignore the childish behavior.

Yeah, I should.
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by nator, posted 11-03-2002 9:39 PM nator has not replied

nos482
Inactive Member


Message 78 of 239 (21500)
11-04-2002 5:33 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by nator
11-03-2002 9:34 PM


Originally posted by schrafinator:
Look, all I am gently telling you is that you are a loose cannon rather frequently, and you frequently debate just as poorly as the Creationists you deplore.
Who said that I was debating them? They don't so why bother.
I and others have offered advice about how you could be taken more seriously, but you either make excuses, blame others, or ignore the comments.
You can choose to take honest critique and learn and grow, or you can continue to do damage to the cause.
It's your choice.
Blame others?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by nator, posted 11-03-2002 9:34 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by nator, posted 11-06-2002 10:31 AM nos482 has not replied

nos482
Inactive Member


Message 79 of 239 (21501)
11-04-2002 5:35 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by nator
11-03-2002 9:39 PM


quote:
Originally posted by schrafinator:
Hey John,
Ignore the childish behavior.
Hey Nos,
Grow the &*#% up. You are the only one who thinks your "bonk" comments are funny.
Allison

They were never meant to be funny. Go to his site and see just how much he demeans women and then come back and defend him.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by nator, posted 11-03-2002 9:39 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by nator, posted 11-06-2002 10:49 AM nos482 has not replied

RedVento
Inactive Member


Message 80 of 239 (21520)
11-04-2002 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by John
11-01-2002 10:02 AM


quote:
Originally posted by John:
No it doesn't. You seem to be making the case that more-offspring==better-chance-of-survival and this simply isn't the case. Some creatures lay thousands of egg, of which only 1% survive to reproduce. Some creatures have few offspring but take care of them.
The number of offspring WHICH SURVIVE TO REPRODUCE has a direct correlation on the survival of the species. Social structure has a lot to do with that survival. Homosexual critters contribute to that structure, hence indirectly contribute to the survival of the species.
Right, the number that survie to reproduce to survive. So if there are 1 million eggs, and 10% of them survive.. that is 100,000 that can go on to reproduce.
If the same survivability rate is applied to a human then one in 10 of her children will live, over 10 years. That has no bearing on the species?
quote:
I expected something like this response. Try jumping your best friend and see how convincing the argument is. "I'm not gay... just jockying for position"
Ok that made me laugh pretty hard becuase I just imagined myself doing it...
But since dogs and us do get our social status in the same way my point still stands..
"Leg humping. Nearly all dogs at some time in their lives show a little too much interest in people's legs.
It's an unpleasant habit that's not only confined to male dogs. Most dogs either outgrow it or give it up once they've been neutered. Some dogs, however, do it all the time. It's not about sex, it's about power. Dogs who hump people's legs are saying "I'm higher on the totem pole than you," explains Jeff Nichol, D.V.M, a veterinarian and newspaper columnist in Albuquerque, New Mexico."
This is from Bbrescue.org btw.
quote:
Yeah, I know. I found some better stuff.
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.sciencenews.org/sn_arc97/1_4_97/bob1.htm
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.subversions.com/french/pages/science/animals.html
The phrase 'homosexual animals' in Google returned mountains of results.
Ok cool, I'll check em out, I like learning new things
quote:
And you know this how? Essentially the same organs-- in mammals anyway-- are involved as are involved in your own copulations.
I was pretty clear when I said I hadn't come across anything to show me I was wrong.. If you have something please share it, I am quite willing to learn new things and my opinions are not set in stone
quote:
Think carefully.
If everyone ate only bananas, very soon there would be no bananas and we all die. The Koala is having this problem. It only eats eucalyptus.
If everyone worked at a gas station, food supply would vanish as nobody would be growing crops or raising livestock.
If everyone slept only on the left side of the bed, we'd never get any sleep and go insane. Not good for survival. Or we'd all have seperate beds. Also not good for survival.
You can fill in just about anything and it works.
Interestingly, I found the same argument elsewhere.
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.almenconi.com/media/may02/050202.html

When you put it that way I can't disagree. I am going to check that link, I love reading interesting arguments.. My friends tell me I should have become a lawyer rather than a Stock Broker since I love to argue.
Red

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by John, posted 11-01-2002 10:02 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by nator, posted 11-06-2002 11:08 AM RedVento has not replied
 Message 91 by John, posted 11-06-2002 2:11 PM RedVento has replied

RedVento
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 239 (21521)
11-04-2002 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by nator
11-02-2002 8:46 AM


quote:
Originally posted by schrafinator:
quote:
As far as I know they are also the only other species that get pleasure from the act.
This is a very broad statement. How do you know?
quote:
I don't know for sure, but I have never come accross any research that demonstrates any animal having sex for purely pleasurable motives. Even the bonobo monkies are have sex to reduce group aggression not because it just feels good.
Um, maybe it reduces agression precisely because it feels good???

Probably, or the act of orgasm is just so draining that all that can be done afterwords is looks for a snack and a place to take a nap.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by nator, posted 11-02-2002 8:46 AM nator has not replied

RedVento
Inactive Member


Message 82 of 239 (21524)
11-04-2002 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by John
11-02-2002 10:45 AM


[QUOTE] Pretty much how it works with me...
I think Red has fallen under the spell of thinking that non-human animals are somehow fundamentally different than human animals.
[/B][/QUOTE]
Actually I think they are fundamantally the same as us. However there are some major differences between MOST humans and other animals, such as cognative thought process. However sex I think is all rooted in the same mechanism, need to procreate. How often that gets done is different from species to species. Also I am quite content with the possibility that my argument is totally off base. If I am way off just show me and I will change my thinking to take in the new facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by John, posted 11-02-2002 10:45 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by John, posted 11-04-2002 10:55 AM RedVento has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 83 of 239 (21528)
11-04-2002 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by RedVento
11-04-2002 10:35 AM


quote:
Originally posted by RedVento:
However there are some major differences between MOST humans and other animals, such as cognative thought process.
I don't agree. There are certainly differences in brain-power, and in how we direct that brain-power, and in our dependence upon it. I just don't find it to be a major difference. Primatologist studying communication among apes for ex. have the problem of distinguishing between human comunication and chimp comunication. Every time someone defines a line, someone else finds a chimp that crosses it. They aren't all that different from other mammals and we aren't much differenct from them. We're just arrogant about our big heads.
quote:
However sex I think is all rooted in the same mechanism, need to procreate. How often that gets done is different from species to species.
What Schraf and I have been arguing is that there is a lot of behavior and biology that does not make sense purely in the context of procreation. Or, maybe it would be better to say that the biology and behaviors associated with sex have been co-opted for other things.
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by RedVento, posted 11-04-2002 10:35 AM RedVento has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by RedVento, posted 11-04-2002 12:41 PM John has replied

RedVento
Inactive Member


Message 84 of 239 (21537)
11-04-2002 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by John
11-04-2002 10:55 AM


quote:
Originally posted by John:
What Schraf and I have been arguing is that there is a lot of behavior and biology that does not make sense purely in the context of procreation. Or, maybe it would be better to say that the biology and behaviors associated with sex have been co-opted for other things.
Oh definetly, I will not disagree with you there. And I would agree with your feelings of sex and social bonding. I do think that it is all part of procreation though, and is linked to the continued survivability of the species. Since we procreate so much less than other species I am inclined to believe that sex, like you and schaf propose, does help with social bonding to keep social units together to help the groups chances of survival. I guess what I am pointing to in a really slow, drawn out, somewhat meandering manner is that unlike other animals humans have evolved to such a point that we no longer have small family units that are bonded. We are really a global community.. In that context there is no argument against homosexuality(hmm is it bad debat form to defeat your own argument?) since the individuals are so far removed from the survivability of the whole. I'm not sure if it was you and Schafs comments alone that made changed my mind or me just being confused... but alas the damage is done.
(sarcasm)Thanks John and Schaf, because of your comments I've been forced to think out the entire argument and change my mind... (/sarcasm)
Red
Damn html formatting won't let me be creative with my fake html tags...
[This message has been edited by RedVento, 11-04-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by John, posted 11-04-2002 10:55 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by John, posted 11-04-2002 10:59 PM RedVento has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 85 of 239 (21558)
11-04-2002 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by RedVento
11-04-2002 12:41 PM


quote:
Originally posted by RedVento:
Oh definetly, I will not disagree with you there.
This is a strategy I highly recommend.
quote:
hmm is it bad debat form to defeat your own argument?
Bad debate form... ? Only in competition, but that is a game.
Good politics.... wait... no... bad politics....
quote:
(sarcasm)Thanks John and Schaf, because of your comments I've been forced to think out the entire argument and change my mind... (/sarcasm)
Drat....!!!
Perhaps you were trying to do this: <sarcasm>....</sarcasm>
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by RedVento, posted 11-04-2002 12:41 PM RedVento has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by RedVento, posted 11-05-2002 9:00 AM John has not replied

RedVento
Inactive Member


Message 86 of 239 (21582)
11-05-2002 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by John
11-04-2002 10:59 PM


quote:
Drat....!!!
Perhaps you were trying to do this: <sarcasm>....</sarcasm>
Hey you cheated! I don't know the < and > codes...
well now I do.. except I will most likely foget them...
Btw there is a big article about gay sheep on MSN today so I can add that to my list of homosexual animals. Link here ... MSNBC News - Breaking News and News Today | Latest News
Red
PS However I am still sure about dogs not having homosexual tendencies .

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by John, posted 11-04-2002 10:59 PM John has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 87 of 239 (21708)
11-06-2002 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by nos482
11-04-2002 5:33 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by nos482:
[B]Originally posted by schrafinator:
Look, all I am gently telling you is that you are a loose cannon rather frequently, and you frequently debate just as poorly as the Creationists you deplore.
quote:
Who said that I was debating them?
This is a moderated debate board. It's what we do here. If you don't want to debate within the guidelines (I suggest you read them) then you can head to the Free For All.
quote:
They don't so why bother.
Actually, TB, TC, and several others do a pretty good job of debating in good faith.
What we are trying to do here at EvC forum which is different from most of the other on-line discussion boards on this subject is to have a civilized exchange of ideas. We want to raise the level of discourse above the usual abrasive, insulting, flame-happy garbage that one finds on such boards. We have a vision of a better place with more interesting and thoughful discussion. You are not doing a very good job of contributing to this vision.
What you do mostly is take thoughtless, often content-less, pot shots at people.
This is extremely annoying and simply childish and stupid. It adds nothing to the discussion, actually diminishes it, and is a waste of web space.
quote:
I and others have offered advice about how you could be taken more seriously, but you either make excuses, blame others, or ignore the comments.
You can choose to take honest critique and learn and grow, or you can continue to do damage to the cause.
It's your choice.
quote:
Blame others?
You blame others for your own poor behavior.
You did it in this very reply to me; you justified your poor debating with Creationists by saying that Creationists don't debate, so why should you bother?
Thus, it's the Creationist's fault that you do not debate well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by nos482, posted 11-04-2002 5:33 AM nos482 has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 88 of 239 (21709)
11-06-2002 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by nos482
11-04-2002 5:35 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by nos482:
[B][QUOTE]Originally posted by schrafinator:
[b]Hey John,
Ignore the childish behavior.
Hey Nos,
Grow the &*#% up. You are the only one who thinks your "bonk" comments are funny.
Allison[/QUOTE]
quote:
They were never meant to be funny.[QUOTE] I don't care how you meant them, you are using them to try to discredit your opponent instead of debating the facts of the matter at hand. This must mean that you don't have a good argument, so even though you certainly do not realize it, every time you resort to that "Bonk" business or it's contentless equivalent, John wins a point.
It is the equivalent of saying "So's your Mama." It's just an empty attack.
This is poor debate and childish behavior and I, for one, am getting fed up with it.
Go to his site and see just how much he demeans women and then come back and defend him.[/B]
I went to his site.
I don't think he demeans women.
I think that the title to the essay you are referring to was chosen to get people to read it. While I do not agree with John about all of his ideas regarding consent laws, I did not think it demeaning towards women. Idealistic and rather naive WRT the status of women (i.e. his scenario would only work if girls and women actually had equal status in our culture, and if female sexuality was celebrated rather than fetishized/oppressed), but not demeaning.
The gaming art-style picture is kind of silly and adolescent, but not demeaning.
Can you perhaps point me to something at his site that I am missing?
[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 11-06-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by nos482, posted 11-04-2002 5:35 AM nos482 has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 89 of 239 (21710)
11-06-2002 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by RedVento
11-04-2002 10:16 AM


quote:
It's an unpleasant habit that's not only confined to male dogs. Most dogs either outgrow it or give it up once they've been neutered. Some dogs, however, do it all the time. It's not about sex, it's about power. Dogs who hump people's legs are saying "I'm higher on the totem pole than you," explains Jeff Nichol, D.V.M, a veterinarian and newspaper columnist in Albuquerque, New Mexico."
I say is IS about sex, AND about power.
If it were just about power, then why the sexual actions?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by RedVento, posted 11-04-2002 10:16 AM RedVento has not replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 91 of 239 (21714)
11-06-2002 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by RedVento
11-04-2002 10:16 AM


quote:
Originally posted by RedVento:
Right, the number that survie to reproduce to survive. So if there are 1 million eggs, and 10% of them survive.. that is 100,000 that can go on to reproduce.
If the same survivability rate is applied to a human then one in 10 of her children will live, over 10 years. That has no bearing on the species?

I really don't understand the argument. Maybe, try again? I confused.
quote:
But since dogs and us do get our social status in the same way my point still stands.
I am confused again. Maybe you meant to say "... dogs and us DO NOT get our ....."
quote:
This is from No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.bbrescue.org/Articles/DogPeopleTalk.html btw.
I understand that this is the party line, but I don't completely buy it, for reasons I've stated.
Also, all respect due, that the man is a vet does not make him an authority on animal behavior, just as being a doctor does not make one understand people. I once knew a vet who threw a fit because an injured cat-- my injured cat-- scratched him... go figure.
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by RedVento, posted 11-04-2002 10:16 AM RedVento has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by RedVento, posted 11-07-2002 2:22 PM John has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024