Is it OK to mock ideas and idealogies?

[Schrodinger's Dog]

that's because gay males leave females to better ones.

Nope, it's because female with gay siblings have more young, so the represented xx chromosomal benficial nature may well be what makes the difference as this in xy may mean homosexuality but in xx may mean incresed fertility, thus I ask again define garbage? This is only tentative research at the moment based on one study, but it's clear their is some sort of pattern in male offspring, as you have more boys, the likelihood of them being gay starts to rise dramatically? Why? Why would this benefit the gene pool? Remember any trait that inhibits the birth of young, dies out quickly so you have an enigma here?

 

[whatta]

nope it's just shows how broken our genetic system is. more people is born, more failures it produces.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

nope it's just shows how broken our genetic system is. more people is born, more failures it produces.

No evidence of this, I suppose I'll have to put the links up.

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/sex/dn9413-male-sexuality-may-be-decided-in-the-womb.html

If you are male, having more older brothers makes it more likely you will be gay - and a new study suggests the basis of this is biological rather than environmental. The crucial factor influencing the likelihood of male homosexuality may be how many brothers were born before you to the same mother, not how many brothers you were brought up with.

The “fraternal birth order effect” - the finding that each additional older brother increases your chances of being homosexual by about 30% - has long been dogged by the suggestion that social factors rather than biological ones underpin it (see The big brother effect).

Some proposed that perhaps rough-and-tumble play between brothers, or even sexual abuse, may have led the impressionable younger boys to become gay.

Now Anthony Bogaert at Brock University in St Catharines, Canada, has largely ruled that out. He examined four population samples of homosexual and heterosexual men - 944 men in total.

The fourth sample included gay men who had grown up with non-biological male siblings. Bogaert reasoned that if simply being raised around a lot of older brothers had produced the effect, it should not matter whether they were born to the same mother or not.

In fact, it did matter: only the number of biological older brothers predicted sexual orientation in men, Bogaert found. This was true even when the biological older brothers lived separately. “It’s pretty strong in suggesting a prenatal origin,” he says.

http://www.newscientist.com/channel...omplexity-of-sex.html;jsessionid=EOLMIBEEBBAB

BACK in 1993, when Dean Hamer discovered what appeared to be a gene that predisposed men to homosexuality, he created a paradox. According to Darwinian thinking, if homosexual men have fewer children than straight men the "gay gene" should quickly disappear from the population. Yet we know that homosexuality persists.

So what is the mechanism that keeps the gene in circulation? Perhaps gay men are good at looking after their straight brothers, who share a proportion of their genes. That way, the gay gene may be passed on by the brothers of gay men, even if they themselves have no children. Unfortunately for this idea, studies so far have found that gay men do not help out their brothers financially or emotionally any more than straight men do.

Another idea espoused by Hamer and others is that a gene which predisposes men to homosexuality might also increase a woman's chances of having more children. In this way, the reduced likelihood of gay men passing on the gene would be more than compensated for by women carrying the same gene. This is precisely what a group of researchers from Italy have found. The mothers and maternal aunts of gay men had more children than those of straight men (see "Gay genetics"). And this difference does not appear in the father's family.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6519-survival-of-genetic-homosexual-traits-explained.html

Survival of genetic homosexual traits explained

Italian geneticists may have explained how genes apparently linked to male homosexuality survive, despite gay men seldom having children. Their findings also undermine the theory of a single “gay gene”.

The researchers discovered that women tend to have more children when they inherit the same - as yet unidentified - genetic factors linked to homosexuality in men. This fertility boost more than compensates for the lack of offspring fathered by gay men, and keeps the “gay” genetic factors in circulation.

The findings represent the best explanation yet for the Darwinian paradox presented by homosexuality: it is a genetic dead-end, yet the trait persists generation after generation.

“We have finally solved this paradox,” says Andrea Camperio-Ciani of the University of Padua. “The same factor that influences sexual orientation in males promotes higher fecundity in females.”
Relative differences

Camperio-Ciani's team questioned 98 gay and 100 straight men about their closest relatives - 4600 people in total. They found that female relatives of gay men had more children on average than the female relatives of straight men. But the effect was only seen on their mother’s side of the family.

Mothers of gay men produced an average of 2.7 babies compared with 2.3 born to mothers of straight men. And maternal aunts of gay men had 2.0 babies compared with 1.5 born to the maternal aunts of straight men.

“This is a novel finding," says Simon LeVay, a neuroscientist and commentator on sexuality at Stanford University in California. “We think of it as genes for ‘male homosexuality’, but it might really be genes for sexual attraction to men. These could predispose men towards homosexuality and women towards ‘hyper-heterosexuality’, causing women to have more sex with men and thus have more offspring.”

Camperio-Ciani stresses that whatever the genetic factors are, there is no single gene accounting for his observations. And the tendency of the trait to be passed through the female line backs previous research suggesting that some of the factors involved are on the male “X” chromosome, the only sex chromosome passed down by women. “It’s a combination of something on the X chromosome with other genetic factors on the non-sex chromosomes,” he says.
Immune system

Helen Wallace, of the UK lobby group GeneWatch, welcomes the new research that moves away from the controversial single-gene theory for homosexuality. “But it’s worth noting that the data on the sexuality of family members may be unreliable, so more studies are likely to be needed to confirm these findings,” she says.

Even if the maternal factors identified by Camperio-Ciani’s team are linked with male homosexuality, the research team’s calculations suggest they account for only about 14% of the incidence.

Their findings also support earlier findings that when mothers have several sons, the younger ones are progressively more likely to be gay. This might be due to effects changes to the mother’s immune system with each son they carry.

But Camperio-Ciani calculates the contribution of this effect to male homosexuality at 7% at most. So together, he says, the “maternal” and “immune” effects only account for 21% of male homosexuality, leaving 79% of the causation still a mystery.

This leaves a major role for environmental factors, or perhaps more genetic factors. “Genes must develop in an environment, so if the environment changes, genes go in a new direction,” he says. “Our findings are only one piece in a much larger puzzle on the nature of human sexuality.”

 

[whatta]

No evidence of this

what you mean no evidence, it's in your post: "as you have more boys, the likelihood of them being gay starts to rise dramatically"

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

what you mean no evidence, it's in your post: "as you have more boys, the likelihood of them being gay starts to rise dramatically"

But this means if you have more gay boys than straight boys the gene pool suffers, if that is the only reason, what on Earth is the benefit of having gay siblings at all? It's a genetic dead end, more gay boys, less offspring? There must by Darwinian law be some benefit,or like ginger haried people no disadvantage and perhaps some small advantage in cooler climates. What is the mechanism that keeps something so detrimental in the gene pool? And don't say it's broken because it would die out if that was the only reason? You're going round in circles here. What do you mean by garbage?

 

[whatta]

so I said: mere failures of our genetic system. since it apparently was not created by god, it's not perfect.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

so I said: mere failures of our genetic system. since it apparently was not created by god, it's not perfect.

I'm thinking you don't understand evolution to well so here's a basic tennant, any characteristic that is detremental to the gene pool will by natural selection be removed, especially terminal ones or ones that lead to fewer offspring. Thus only traits that benefit a system should be introduced into further generations, with detrimental factors only remaining existent if they have some unkown benefit that mitigate the disadvantage, usually this is localised, but not always.

So placing the research above into the context of this what can you surmise about your views of homosexulaity meaning the gene pool is carrying garbage? Define garbage?

 

[whatta]

Define garbage?

Under system you are advocating in this thread, I would be probably shot for doing so :)

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Under system you are advocating in this thread, I would be probably shot for doing so :)

No not at all, you have a right to say anything you like about homosexuals, I take the piss and I have bisexual and homosexual friends, I've been known to say yeah but your gay so your opinion doesn't count or I remember saying when I was a teenager to a friend it's not fair x is gay and he's gotten more action with the ladies than I have, or that gays are just wrong in jest or whatever, just as long as it's not liable to lead to hate crimes or violence against them, although you do need to understand that it's not a choice any more than what hand you favour to write with, if you believe that you might as well believe the BS Fred Phelps spouts out his hate filled mouth, and go live in a cave with all his fundie friends. God put homosexuality in the gene pool to test fundies :rofl: in the smae way as he did dinosaurs in teh ground, no your just a sanctimonious hypocrite now shut up your making yourself look more and more stupid.

It's probably a complex mix of genes birth conditions and nurture, but to lable it as a choice is not only naive, it's kind of nonsensicle. Especially considering how prevalent it is in animal and human gene pools, bisexuality now maybe that is a choice? Who knows? But then it's relatively rare in men, and relatively more common in women? Why do you think that is, genetic or social reasons?

 

[radou]

I remember saying when I was a teenager to a friend it's not fair x is gay and he's gotten more action with the ladies than I have

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

 

[Gokul43201]

No, YOU should consider using it since YOU are the one who refuses to explain his point. Regurgitating general remarks is not very convincing, you know.

I've explained suffieciently in my first post, and if you fail to comprehend that I'm not going to expect any different from additional clarification.

But the ban you quote contradicts with history. I would say that is a pretty big difference !

So now you do an about turn and argue based on the truth value of the banned speech. Would you support a ban on evolution denial because it "contradicts with history"?

 

[marlon]

I've explained suffieciently in my first post, and if you fail to comprehend that I'm not going to expect any different from additional clarification.

You agreed that the hoocaust ban is very harmful to our free society. I asked you to name me some of those dangers which harm our way of living. I still have not seen any such examples.

So now you do an about turn and argue based on the truth value of the banned speech. Would you support a ban on evolution denial because it "contradicts with history"?

I do not turn anything since i have always used the "historical facts" reasoning.

History is science. The denial of evolution contradicts history, so YES it needs to be banned. Evolution is a historical, thus scientific, fact.

marlon

 

[Gokul43201]

You agreed that the hoocaust ban is very harmful to our free society.

Yes, it is almost a tautology. Every time you suppress a freedom (that does not infringe on anyone else's rights), you become less of a "free society".

I do not turn anything since i have always used the "historical facts" reasoning.

I admit I've not read every post in the thread, but I got the impression you wanted to ban all expression that would "harm society" through being disrespectful of peoples' feelings, not on the basis of its truth value.

History is science. The denial of evolution contradicts history, so YES it needs to be banned. Evolution is a historical, thus scientific, fact.

For example, opinions that can harm our democracy (eg denying holocaust, neo nazism etc etc) should be banned. Also, mocking the church should be banned because too many people care about religion (too much, but we NEED to respect that).

So, by your previous admission, any scripture mentioned publicly that contradicts a result of science should be banned, and by this quote above, any denouncement of aforementioned reading of scripture on the basis of its contradiction with science should also be banned?

 

[Anttech]

History is science. The denial of evolution contradicts history, so YES it needs to be banned. Evolution is a historical, thus scientific, fact.

Let me get this straight, any opinion that contrdicts scientific fact should be outlawed?

 

[vanesch]

This is why it's no longer illegal in Europe, and why it's no longer classified as a mental illness or disorder by both the BMA and AMA.

Ok, but there is still a huge difference between *forbidding* something on one hand and requiring absolute non-discrimination on the other: these are two extremes. The problem I have with absolute non-discrimination, is that it would then be illegal *in any circumstance* to make any difference between those who do/are/belong to and those who don't - and by extrapolation, forbidding to SAY SO. When we include in a kind of constitution, the principle of non-discrimination, this is what will come out of it: that even making a difference based upon that in a statement of opinion will ultimately become illegal. The only thing for which I can accept that, as I said, is "race". I think there could be circumstances in which even gender should be "discriminated" against (as in who has access to the ladies rest room to give a silly example - while I can perfectly well accept that there shouldn't be any "black's rest room" or something of the kind). And I certainly don't want sexual practices to be absolutely protected of any kind of instance where it might be discriminated against. That's something entirely different than the other extreme, which is forbidding it, or harassing people who do so.

It is not because something is "genetically favored", that we should declare it something against which absolutely no discrimination can be made, in no single circumstance. As I said, even gender doesn't qualify in my eyes, so certainly not homosexuality. Also, with fine enough magnifying glasses, I'm sure one can even find a genetic favor/disfavor to be a good soccer player or not, or a mass murderer or not, or a brilliant scientist or not. And we do discriminate against those properties without problems.

 

[vanesch]

History is science. The denial of evolution contradicts history, so YES it needs to be banned. Evolution is a historical, thus scientific, fact.

Ok, we're home. I rest my case.

 

[marlon]

I admit I've not read every post in the thread, but I got the impression you wanted to ban all expression that would "harm society" through being disrespectful of peoples' feelings, not on the basis of its truth value.

Well, if you had read all posts, at least mine, you would know i never said that. I only tried to outline why the holocaust is treated in "a special way"

So, by your previous admission, any scripture mentioned publicly that contradicts a result of science should be banned, and by this quote above, any denouncement of aforementioned reading of scripture on the basis of its contradiction with science should also be banned?

No. I already outlined why, as a society, the majority of people wanted to ban holocaust denial. I explained, over and over again why this was done in the past. I live in a country that has this law but we have a total freedom of speach as well.


marlon

PS : i gues i am not getting any answers to my questions to you then ?

 

[marlon]

Ok, we're home. I rest my case.

:rofl:

You rest YOUR case ? That's a bit easy, no ? How 'bout you answer to the questions i asked you over and over again. Why is that sodifficult ? Yeah, i really wonder why that is.

Besides, what i said above was a response to Gokul and has nothing to do with what we were talking about. You are placing my words out of their context and conclude that "ohh, this marlon just wants to ban all notions that contradict with history". Well, my friend, that is not what i have said and this is not why holocaust denial is banned, as i have explained for a 1000 times.


marlon

 

[marlon]

So, by your previous admission, any scripture mentioned publicly that contradicts a result of science should be banned, and by this quote above, any denouncement of aforementioned reading of scripture on the basis of its contradiction with science should also be banned?

Lol, i guess this is what people call "jumping to conclusions". What is read in scripture has nothing to do with science what so ever. I suggest you actually attend to a catholic mass. Nor is it the intention of the church to contradict science. Religion and science are two separate human activities and one can perfectly coexist next to the other. Don't you know that the content of the Bible needs to be looked at "through different glasses" than the ones you use to read a scientific paper ? .That is all i have to say about that.

marlon

 

[marlon]

This is nevertheless exactly what the law states.

Ofcourse the main point of the law is just that but you forget to consider all the associated reasons as to why this law exists. I already outlined this so i am not going to repeat myself over and over again.

If tomorrow I write a book

LOL
God beware us of that

Anyways, you were saying :

(hypothetical! Really! I'm just giving an example in an argument, your Honor! Please don't put me in jail for that!) in which I try to explain that I'm convinced that the holocaust actually concerns the execution of 50000 Jews, and that all the rest is propaganda invented by the Americans and British at the end of WWII to vilify Adolf Hitler a bit more and to justify their military intervention in continental Europe with all the losses it entailed towards their public opinion (a bit like the "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq), then *I go to court for just that*. Even if my book is NOT about Nazism, NOT about anything anti-semitic, but just about a conspiracy theory concerning the allied forces in WWII.

Even if that book is not about neo nazism ? Lol About what than ?

Anyhow, what is your point ?

Now, THAT's a great argument. You won
OF COURSE it is a limitation of the free expression of one's opinion. EVEN without any hate speech.

Thanks, but i would still like to have an answer please.

The fact that a satiric journal goes to court for a few drawings I think should be compulsory in middle school !

What is so bad about that. Let justice do its part.

It is difficult to *prove* historic facts, if you are a believer in a conspiracy.

So ? Does this specific argument means that the law is bad ? :rofl:

I'm of the opinion that for ecological reasons, we should exterminate 90% of the Earth's population (I belong to the 10% survivors of course). Now there. Maybe this is the ONLY WAY to save humankind, and the idea has been banned by law. So humankind is doomed because of a stupid law

Again some poor example, just like the "i want to be leader of the world"

You are not basing yourself on facts. We have had this discussion already. Don't start again.

In the "good ol' days", the rules, as approved by the majority, required the Jews to have a big yellow star on their coat.

So ?
Did i say that the majority ALWAYS takes the best decisions ?

For how long ?

Who says there is a danger ?

marlon

 

[Gokul43201]

Lol, i guess this is what people call "jumping to conclusions".

No, it's called "asking a question." The punctuation at the end, often referred to as a 'question mark' is used to indicate that a question is being asked.

I suggest you actually attend to a catholic mass.

Now this is called "jumping to conclusions."

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Ok, but there is still a huge difference between *forbidding* something on one hand and requiring absolute non-discrimination on the other: these are two extremes. The problem I have with absolute non-discrimination, is that it would then be illegal *in any circumstance* to make any difference between those who do/are/belong to and those who don't - and by extrapolation, forbidding to SAY SO. When we include in a kind of constitution, the principle of non-discrimination, this is what will come out of it: that even making a difference based upon that in a statement of opinion will ultimately become illegal. The only thing for which I can accept that, as I said, is "race". I think there could be circumstances in which even gender should be "discriminated" against (as in who has access to the ladies rest room to give a silly example - while I can perfectly well accept that there shouldn't be any "black's rest room" or something of the kind). And I certainly don't want sexual practices to be absolutely protected of any kind of instance where it might be discriminated against. That's something entirely different than the other extreme, which is forbidding it, or harassing people who do so.

It is not because something is "genetically favored", that we should declare it something against which absolutely no discrimination can be made, in no single circumstance. As I said, even gender doesn't qualify in my eyes, so certainly not homosexuality. Also, with fine enough magnifying glasses, I'm sure one can even find a genetic favor/disfavor to be a good soccer player or not, or a mass murderer or not, or a brilliant scientist or not. And we do discriminate against those properties without problems.

You do have laws against sexual discrimination though already, in my opinion provided these laws remain on a very limited number of circumstances I don't feel my civil liberties have been compromised, obviously if it was something else like say, people with ginger hair, then I would draw the line and no doubt TB would veto such a proposition as being silly, again there's no slippery slide going on here, it's taken 100 years just to get these five and I find it very unlikely that they're going to be added to very much.

Also the courts decide whether it warrants there attention, if I go down the road and meet x, and shout you effin n****r at him, then that's not likely to get me locked up, if however I get together a group of 200 people and start saying they're vermin let's get them out of the country, we hate them and we want them to go back to friggin abo jabo land, come here stealing our jobs, or spongeing off the dole etc; or on the other hand they say we hate them, I've had a few scrapes with, soft as anything, take 'em out, punch 'em, there scum treat 'em how you like. Again, but if I get a group of people together and poke light hearted fun at x race, then I'm sure the courts aren't going to take much notice. The law is very particular on what constitutes incitement of hatred and discrimination.

 

[marlon]

No, it's called "asking a question." The punctuation at the end, often referred to as a 'question mark' is used to indicate that a question is being asked.

Ok then, let me answer to your question by repeating what i said above : what is read in scripture needs to be looked at through different glasses as the ones you use for reading science. You know this as well as i do and it is because of this essential difference that your question does not apply to the holocaust denial ban.

Now this is called "jumping to conclusions."

Not at all. I asked you an associated question to which i, surprisingly, did not get an answer.

Why is it that i always answer your questions but you just ignore mine ?

Also, both you and Vanesch are going for the easy way out. You guys say : ok, this marlon says that all opinions violating historical facts need to be banned. Then you say : i rest my case :rofl:, which implies that you think you proved the harmful nature of the holocaust denial ban.

This is very cheap because although what i said is my PERSONAL opinion, it does not prove that the holocaust denial law is bad, as you guys are claiming. My personal opinion is very different from a law that is accepted by majority. You are therefore using two measures to asses this case.

I suggest you come up with some actual arguments to defend your point and stop using my own personal opinion to counter a law

marlon