Almost Smart  

Go Back   Almost Smart > The Lounge > Science

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 04-01-2010   #101
Funk*Sonic*7
Im super cereal!
 
Funk*Sonic*7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Randomly by chance out of nowhere, b/c that's more plausible
Posts: 3,748
Rep Power: 61
Funk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Truth About Albert Kinsey That Hollywood (Intentionally?) Forgot To Cover

Quote:
Originally Said by foxyphoenix View Post
The babies line was not in "Gay Manifesto;" I used it to illustrate understanding of satire.



Uh... you directly quoted a source that did:





I haven't seen any evidence of them oppressing others' views.
As you have wonderfully demonstrated, there are tons of websites (such as HOME) that are successfully displaying counterarguments; they have not been "oppressed".

The gay rights movement, as I have seen it with my homosexual friends, Gay and Lesbian groups in my area, civil rights groups such as the ACLU, and progressive groups such as MoveOn focuses on this:
1. Gay Marriage/Civil Unions/partners' rights
*inheritance, sharing of wages and property, tax breaks, hospital visits
2. Adoption
*allowing stable gay couples to adopt children
3. Disallowing discrimination
*violence or slander against homosexuals for being homosexual, not being fired simply for sexuality

I don't think any of those infringe on any other persons' rights (unless you think people have the right to discriminate, which calls into question all hate crime legislation and not just homosexual hate crime legislation), and I can't see why you're opposed to letting them have them.
Nice spin, spin doctor. I don't and I haven't.
__________________
"God is the shaper of your heart. God does not display his work in abstract terms. He prefers the concrete, and this means that at the end of your life one of three things will happen to your heart: it will grow hard, it will be broken, or it will be tender. Nobody escapes." - Ravi Zacharias
Funk*Sonic*7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2010   #102
foxyphoenix
Ubi dubium, ibi libertas.
 
foxyphoenix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Nature
Age: 30
Posts: 4,373
Rep Power: 106
foxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Truth About Albert Kinsey That Hollywood (Intentionally?) Forgot To Cover

Quote:
Originally Said by Funk*Sonic*7 View Post
Nice spin, spin doctor. I don't and I haven't.

Quote:
Originally Said by Funk*Sonic*7 View Post
A homosexual author named Michael Swift has stated: "Our [gay] writers and artists will make love between men fashionable and de rigeur....We will eliminate heterosexual liaisons....The family unit will be abolished."1 That is one indication of the pathological attitude some homosexuals have towards the opposite gender.

Here is another indication. A homosexual named Mark Dennis has admitted in the Wall Street Journal that "the gay agenda...plans the end of 'breeders' (heterosexuals) through a takeover of public education"2 In other words, some homosexual activists want the public schools to eventually teach that heterosexual man/woman sexual relations are wrong!
Are you not accountable for all of the sources you're posting, then? Have you not implied that you agree?


Or are you implying that you're not against homosexual rights?

Quote:
Originally Said by Funk*Sonic*7 View Post
Compassion for the GLBT community should not include drastic social and legal measures to accommodate the demands of this small but powerful politically active community, over and above the rights of the average citizen. Bodies of government, courts of law, schools, Hollywood, the media, and other organizations under pressure to accept this agenda will do well to remember that the demands and claims of GLBT activists are self-serving, and result in no societal good.
__________________
o.O

"In order to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe."
-
Carl Sagan

"It is always advisable to perceive clearly our ignorance."
-
Charles Darwin

"What is man without the beasts? If all the beasts were gone, man would die from a great loneliness of the spirit. For whatever happens to the beasts, soon happens to man. All things are connected."
-
Chief Seattle

Almost Smart Store

foxyphoenix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2010   #103
Funk*Sonic*7
Im super cereal!
 
Funk*Sonic*7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Randomly by chance out of nowhere, b/c that's more plausible
Posts: 3,748
Rep Power: 61
Funk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Truth About Albert Kinsey That Hollywood (Intentionally?) Forgot To Cover

OVER AND ABOVE THE AVERAGE CITIZEN...did you catch that part?
__________________
"God is the shaper of your heart. God does not display his work in abstract terms. He prefers the concrete, and this means that at the end of your life one of three things will happen to your heart: it will grow hard, it will be broken, or it will be tender. Nobody escapes." - Ravi Zacharias
Funk*Sonic*7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2010   #104
foxyphoenix
Ubi dubium, ibi libertas.
 
foxyphoenix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Nature
Age: 30
Posts: 4,373
Rep Power: 106
foxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond reputefoxyphoenix has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Truth About Albert Kinsey That Hollywood (Intentionally?) Forgot To Cover

Quote:
Originally Said by Funk*Sonic*7 View Post
OVER AND ABOVE THE AVERAGE CITIZEN...did you catch that part?

Your (#87 in this thread) decrying hate speech and discrimination as freedom of speech is directly in conflict with my third point of the homosexual rights movement...

So yes, I did, but there is still evidence that you are against some rights for homosexuals that are not above or beyond what the average citizen gets.
__________________
o.O

"In order to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe."
-
Carl Sagan

"It is always advisable to perceive clearly our ignorance."
-
Charles Darwin

"What is man without the beasts? If all the beasts were gone, man would die from a great loneliness of the spirit. For whatever happens to the beasts, soon happens to man. All things are connected."
-
Chief Seattle

Almost Smart Store

foxyphoenix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2010   #105
Zanahoria_Picante
Orange you glad she's not a banana?
 
Zanahoria_Picante's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,952
Rep Power: 140
Zanahoria_Picante has a reputation beyond reputeZanahoria_Picante has a reputation beyond reputeZanahoria_Picante has a reputation beyond reputeZanahoria_Picante has a reputation beyond reputeZanahoria_Picante has a reputation beyond reputeZanahoria_Picante has a reputation beyond reputeZanahoria_Picante has a reputation beyond reputeZanahoria_Picante has a reputation beyond reputeZanahoria_Picante has a reputation beyond reputeZanahoria_Picante has a reputation beyond reputeZanahoria_Picante has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Truth About Albert Kinsey That Hollywood (Intentionally?) Forgot To Cover

Quote:
Originally Said by foxyphoenix View Post
I agree with you about this idea. We (and other animals) have the capacity to disregard our urges.

However, if our genetics give us the capacity for homosexual behavior, an our body "demands"--as you stated--homosexual behavior, why should we be forced to deny it?
What is wrong with completing a behavior your body wishes you to do (as long as it doesn't hurt others)?
Other animals do not disregard urges in the same way humans do; only humans disregard urges for the sake of morality. We may interpret the behavior of animals through our understanding of (why not call it religious, or philosophical, or even simply systemic) morality, but, with animals, instincts are king. (Not that I am telling you anything you don't already know.)

I think our bodies "demand" that we do all sorts of things that might--conflict with our morality. That may be why we are forced--or, really, force ourselves--to deny our urges. And, unfortunately, this may lead to another impasse, because that is, unfortunately, what it seems to boil down to: Morality. What is immoral behavior?

For someone who does not believe that homosexuality is immoral and feels the urge to practice homosexuality, there is no reason to deny that urge.
For someone who does believe homosexuality is immoral, there is every reason to deny that urge.

So, I think it boils down to one's moral explanation of homosexuality--one small part of one's moral explanation of existence.

Quote:
How, then, do you explain the statistically higher incidence of the finger ratios in transgendered people? There is a correlation.
If you think it's a choice, then why are people with such hands more likely to choose to be transgendered?
I was looking through just a couple of those studies (may look through more later) you listed as sources to support this. To be blunt, it is rather shocking how arbitrary some of the conclusions seem to be and how, if one factor does not fit the "correlation," tenaciously another inexplicable "re-correlation" is sought, or, rather, contrived.

Like this one, one of the first sources:

http://msu.edu/~breedsm/pdf/breedlove2000.pdf

Quote:
"The 2D:4D ratio of homosexual men
was not significantly different from that of
heterosexual men for either hand
(P >
0.09). However (nope, this word shouldn't be here), segregating male subjects
based on birth order provided support for
the role of fetal androgens in male sexual
orientation."
How is this science? It seems the desire is so strong to prove homosexuality--ultimately, undeniably expressed in an action--is so innate as to be expressed in the physical structure of the body that blatant, empirically-proven contradictions of this (almost hyperbolic) assumption are casually breezed by and another, utterly arbitrary explanation is "found." An equal leap would be to compare what color hair the subjects' mothers had or how many friends the subjects themselves had. Where is the logical leap from "there is no correlation with this group" to, oh, let's look at the number of siblings, instead? They later attempted to make the same comparison with female subjects (of the number of siblings), but found absolutely no correlation. It just seems so forced. All of it does.

Quote:
"We found that the male 2D:4D ratio,
which is unlikely to be influenced by social
factors,
also varies with the number of older
brothers."
Done. They just straight-up deny, without explanation, the equally probable social implications of having different numbers of or no siblings. There are HUGE social factors involved there; like competitiveness for parents' attention, for instance? Their influence on each other, versus no sibling influence? I mean, isn't any of that even possible? And pertinent to affecting behavior? And no doubt more possible and complex social implications than those generalities? No, it is "unlikely"--for no other reason offered here than the implicit: The existence of this correlation is preferred.

No, where the results deviate from that correlation, the perimeters of the study are changed to ensure that a or any correlation is found--not found, but created.

...

It is an interesting idea, but it just seems flawed.
The second study I looked at seemed even more sketchy.

This is what is used to "uncover" how "feminine" or "masculine" a person is:

http://www.mindgarden.com/products/bemss.htm
The creator of this test-like thing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandra_Bem

Can't a heterosexual woman, for instance, have a more masculine personality? And, either way, what does that have to do...with anything? I could choose to be blatantly, stereotypically masculine, if I wanted, and that would not make me homosexual. Personalities are more complex than rating a list of self-describing adjectives that are blithely labeled to be either masculine, feminine, androgynous, or undifferentiated:

http://www.neiu.edu/~tschuepf/bsri.html

That just seems too subjective and tawdry to be considered or to contribute to impartial science of any kind.

...

I know those are just two studies; but they just strike me as trying way too hard to prove something when, if the evidence were truly so striking, would not require so much force to see.

Quote:
Again, if your hormones are pushing you to do something that doesn't harm anyone else, why should you have to fight it, to deny it, to overcome it?
And again, if that something is immoral, deny it.

Quote:
So... when my behavior involves weeks-long bouts of devastating depressive thoughts, with no triggers (as confirmed by psychologists, psychiatrists) or ways to alleviate it (without medication)... should I "take responsibility" or blame my body?

(I do not intend a correlation between depression or homosexuality, just commenting on your idea that behavior is completely mentally controlled.)
Appeal to emotion, a logical fallacy.

Just kidding, sorry. Although, this does seem like a quagmire, in a way; because depression is such a personal thing and it would probably be offensive (not to mention wrong) for me to try to analyze your experience with it. But I am sorry that it is something you suffer.

So...I shan't attempt to do that, if you'll forgive me, but instead turn to my own experience, which I can comment on without offending myself. For me, I have found, whilst extreme, inexplicable sadness can be overwhelming as to be its own, immaterial force--in time, reasons for it appear or, even if they don't, in time, I realize this state is often self-inflicted; it is preferred over the harder, action-(for me, prayer-)requiring task of overcoming it--for me, by the grace of God. I can choose to face it; to not curl up by myself and succumb to it. More than that, life is pain, Highness. Anyone who says differently is selling something. (For now, anyway.)

So yes, it seems again, our differing beliefs bring about our drastically different explanations for...most everything. :)

Quote:
I reiterate my point a third time: even if it is a choice, why should they have to choose against what their bodies are saying? Why should they have to live a life of sexual dissatisfaction?
And, a third time, morality would be the reason. Or even possibly to learn, life is not all about sexual satisfaction (of any kind).
__________________
Zanahoria_Picante

..| |
.| | |
_____
\ love /-|
-\__/--|

"When I first read the dictionary, I thought it was a long poem about everything."
Steven Wright




;

Last edited by Zanahoria_Picante; 04-02-2010 at 07:19 AM.
Zanahoria_Picante is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2010   #106
Yugoloth
-----
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: California
Age: 34
Posts: 2,150
Rep Power: 76
Yugoloth has a reputation beyond reputeYugoloth has a reputation beyond reputeYugoloth has a reputation beyond reputeYugoloth has a reputation beyond reputeYugoloth has a reputation beyond reputeYugoloth has a reputation beyond reputeYugoloth has a reputation beyond reputeYugoloth has a reputation beyond reputeYugoloth has a reputation beyond reputeYugoloth has a reputation beyond reputeYugoloth has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Yugoloth
Re: Truth About Alfred Kinsey That Hollywood (Intentionally?) Forgot To Cover

Life is pain? Your moral system has let you down.
Yugoloth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2010   #107
Funk*Sonic*7
Im super cereal!
 
Funk*Sonic*7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Randomly by chance out of nowhere, b/c that's more plausible
Posts: 3,748
Rep Power: 61
Funk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Truth About Alfred Kinsey That Hollywood (Intentionally?) Forgot To Cover

Sexual satisfaction has little to nothing to do with "orientation" anyways.
__________________
"God is the shaper of your heart. God does not display his work in abstract terms. He prefers the concrete, and this means that at the end of your life one of three things will happen to your heart: it will grow hard, it will be broken, or it will be tender. Nobody escapes." - Ravi Zacharias

Last edited by Funk*Sonic*7; 04-03-2010 at 02:04 PM.
Funk*Sonic*7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2010   #108
wordy
Newbie Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 8
Rep Power: 0
wordy is doing greatwordy is doing great
Re: Truth About Alfred Kinsey That Hollywood (Intentionally?) Forgot To Cover

Foxy,

FYI (I don't think this has been posted before): While Swift's assertion---that homosexuals want to eliminate the family unit---sounds unbelievable, homosexual authors Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen had this to say about it: "Luridly overstated as it is, it's fairly representative of the line taken by gay media radicals." That's from their book After the Ball (NY: Doubleday, 1989), p. 361.
wordy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2010   #109
cstoll
?!
 
cstoll's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,154
Rep Power: 76
cstoll has a reputation beyond reputecstoll has a reputation beyond reputecstoll has a reputation beyond reputecstoll has a reputation beyond reputecstoll has a reputation beyond reputecstoll has a reputation beyond reputecstoll has a reputation beyond reputecstoll has a reputation beyond reputecstoll has a reputation beyond reputecstoll has a reputation beyond reputecstoll has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Truth About Albert Kinsey That Hollywood (Intentionally?) Forgot To Cover

Quote:
Originally Said by Zanahoria_Picante View Post
Isn't research from the opposing side biased, as well, save for in the opposing direction?

Who can interpret evidence completely without bias, anyway? That seems almost impossible. Even the most empiristic scientist collects and reads evidence through the sieve of his worldview: "What does this say about the natural world?" Not even just his worldview, but the sieve of his ken. And no one gathers information for a study or research without intent.

Even the word "evidence" seems loaded: "Evidence of what?" And the answer to that "of what?" seems to stem pretty closely from how a person views the world.
I have a problem with the idea of "opposing side," as if there are only two sides. When there are two sides, then the obviously "anti-gay" Family Research Council is put up against a "pro-gay" side.
Then, we shrug our shoulders in an "everyone's biased" reaction. That obscures a range of people who are in between, including responsible researchers who probably have less strong agendas than a religious group that consistently ignores contradictory information.

The scientific studies noted by Funk aren't as clean-cut or as simple as described; the people doing those studies are having an ongoing, check-and-correct conversation about the topic. The non-scientific and more obviously biased ones he noted? The conversation is over for them--all they're doing is pulling together the evidence they like and ignoring the rest. That's a huge difference in how "bias" works.

As you note, everyone comes to an issue with a worldview. No way to escape it. But if bias is put along a range:
more biased----------less biased,
then it's possible for people to examine evidence on a case-by-case basis.

We can ask good questions about it, we can look if there's a history of an agenda, we can see the reactions and criticisms of other experts. The point is that we should be aware of bias, but not take it to an extreme of "everyone is biased, so we can't rely on anyone."

And most of the bias comes from us, the people interpreting it (as you point out). Which is why we need to look at a range of information, from a range of viewpoints. But some people are only interested in what fits their view, their experience.
And here's some timely evidence of my point:

Quote:
Originally Said by Funk*Sonic*7 View Post
Saying that it's wrong or irresponsible of me to just copy and paste select excerpts from articles to fit my viewpoint doesn't make sense. I think that if they fit my views, then it doesn't matter.
__________________

"I have a plan so cunning you could put a tail on it and call it a weasel."
--Blackadder
cstoll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2010   #110
Funk*Sonic*7
Im super cereal!
 
Funk*Sonic*7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Randomly by chance out of nowhere, b/c that's more plausible
Posts: 3,748
Rep Power: 61
Funk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Truth About Alfred Kinsey That Hollywood (Intentionally?) Forgot To Cover

^ you can have an issue or a problem with that all you want.
I would not be so strong in my views if my level of experience was so great both directly and indirectly.
All people need to do is really open their eyes and peel back all the thick layers of the onion to see what the real deal is when it comes to that lifestyle. I see what I see, and my experiences all so include what most of the GLBT people that I've known throughout my life go through first hand themselves. I've heard it and seen it directly out of the camels mouth much more often than not. So my experiences are not only mine that i'm sharing but theirs too as they live their lifestyle like a functioning alcoholic lives theirs.
No matter where the sources come from, bias or not, they have more than valid points, and we need to stop being such cowards and hypocrites to discredit it due to fear incited by and through political correctness.

Very few people seem to want to be accountable and take responsibility for their own feelings, actions, and behaviors anymore. It all starts with being able to feel your own true feelings just as much as others who truly care...that unfortunately seems to be an outdated concept.
__________________
"God is the shaper of your heart. God does not display his work in abstract terms. He prefers the concrete, and this means that at the end of your life one of three things will happen to your heart: it will grow hard, it will be broken, or it will be tender. Nobody escapes." - Ravi Zacharias

Last edited by Funk*Sonic*7; 04-04-2010 at 05:08 PM.
Funk*Sonic*7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2010   #111
hai Jay
Time for breakfast!!!
 
hai Jay's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 9,098
Rep Power: 105
hai Jay has a reputation beyond reputehai Jay has a reputation beyond reputehai Jay has a reputation beyond reputehai Jay has a reputation beyond reputehai Jay has a reputation beyond reputehai Jay has a reputation beyond reputehai Jay has a reputation beyond reputehai Jay has a reputation beyond reputehai Jay has a reputation beyond reputehai Jay has a reputation beyond reputehai Jay has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Truth About Alfred Kinsey That Hollywood (Intentionally?) Forgot To Cover

at this point i think we might as well agree to disagree.
__________________
Dare to dream.
hai Jay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2010   #112
Yugoloth
-----
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: California
Age: 34
Posts: 2,150
Rep Power: 76
Yugoloth has a reputation beyond reputeYugoloth has a reputation beyond reputeYugoloth has a reputation beyond reputeYugoloth has a reputation beyond reputeYugoloth has a reputation beyond reputeYugoloth has a reputation beyond reputeYugoloth has a reputation beyond reputeYugoloth has a reputation beyond reputeYugoloth has a reputation beyond reputeYugoloth has a reputation beyond reputeYugoloth has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Yugoloth
Re: Truth About Albert Kinsey That Hollywood (Intentionally?) Forgot To Cover

Quote:
Originally Said by Zanahoria_Picante View Post
There kind of are only two sides in a debate about homosexuality, aren't there? I really don't see much of a gray area; save for those who are apathetic, in which case they would probably not engage in debate, unless they are troubled (or trolling, in this context).
I'm a radical apathetic. Not only will I fight to the death to defend my right not to care, I support the "anti-care" agenda by donating to don't-care lobby groups

We tried to have a rally in DC last year but no one could be bothered to show up - a smashing success, I suppose.
Yugoloth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2010   #113
Funk*Sonic*7
Im super cereal!
 
Funk*Sonic*7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Randomly by chance out of nowhere, b/c that's more plausible
Posts: 3,748
Rep Power: 61
Funk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Truth About Alfred Kinsey That Hollywood (Intentionally?) Forgot To Cover

Regarding what Cstoll stated about the Bayer book and how complicated the issue is---the bottom line on it is that Bayer wrote the book, because he clearly was not at all happy with HOW the APA decision was made. He was clearly not happy that sexual politics played such a major role in the decision (hence the book's title), and that the APA was basically rolling over due to pressure. You can try to downplay the obvious by overcomplicating it all you want, but just because the APA listened to testimony or considered evidence (which was probably just for show---going through the appropriate motions), does NOT mean that that testimony or evidence was going to affect the APA's decision.
 
Also, Cstoll stated that Socarides "doesn’t have any evidence to back up his claims." Really! I'd like to see you debate most psychologists or psychiatrists that. There's a ton of evidence that dysfunctional parents can affect the sexual orientations of their children.

Too, Cstoll tries to discredit some of my sources as biased (as if the sources used by homosexuals, (e.g., Kinsey Institute, AREN'T biased). But if Mormon psychiatrists say pedophiles are sick and pedophilic behavior wrong, are those psychiatrists off-base or are they right? Maybe they have a bias (towards morality) because of religion, but the ultimate issue is are they right?

Also, I've been criticized for copying and pasting, which is a nice and easy way out of sticking to the real issues. Usually people do that when they know their position is weak.

Tiger Woods lost millions of dollars in endorsements, because of his sexual escapades. Not too many people are complaining about it. Other people who engage in overtly promiscuous and aggressive sexual behavior (like most gays and lesbians do) shouldn't be surprised if they have fewer rights than people who don't. But don't be surprised if someday the GLBT community will ask to be treated like women and blacks and expect the government to favor their "minority" by awarding their group government contracts like the gov helps women and blacks via affirmative action. There will then be pressure on businesses to follow suit. This in many ways has already started.

And if anybody is questioning the impermanence of gay and lesbian relationships, well they're out of touch with reality. Even many gays and lesbians complain about all the promiscuity as well as the discrimination and prejudice that occurs within their subculture.

There are many people who try to avoid getting into discussions about the higher instances of gay and lesbian domestic violence that occurs in comparison to most heterosexual relationships, and whether homosexuals can change their orientations, because to them, they are side issues. If human males are "born promiscuous" or "born to be violent," does that make promiscuity or violence right? If the homosexual domestic violence rate is somewhat higher than the hetero domestic violence rate, does that mean homosexual behavior is wrong? Whatever our orientations are, they do not justify immoral behavior or our behaviors in general. And whether someone violently abuses his/her lover does not necessarily mean his/her sexual behavior is wrong. They are unrelated subjects.
__________________
"God is the shaper of your heart. God does not display his work in abstract terms. He prefers the concrete, and this means that at the end of your life one of three things will happen to your heart: it will grow hard, it will be broken, or it will be tender. Nobody escapes." - Ravi Zacharias

Last edited by Funk*Sonic*7; 04-05-2010 at 07:09 PM.
Funk*Sonic*7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2010   #114
cstoll
?!
 
cstoll's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,154
Rep Power: 76
cstoll has a reputation beyond reputecstoll has a reputation beyond reputecstoll has a reputation beyond reputecstoll has a reputation beyond reputecstoll has a reputation beyond reputecstoll has a reputation beyond reputecstoll has a reputation beyond reputecstoll has a reputation beyond reputecstoll has a reputation beyond reputecstoll has a reputation beyond reputecstoll has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Truth About Alfred Kinsey That Hollywood (Intentionally?) Forgot To Cover

Quote:
Originally Said by Funk*Sonic*7 View Post
Regarding what Cstoll stated about the Bayer book and how complicated the issue is---the bottom line on it is that Bayer wrote the book, because he clearly was not at all happy with HOW the APA decision was made. He was clearly not happy that sexual politics played such a major role in the decision (hence the book's title), and that the APA was basically rolling over due to pressure. You can try to downplay the obvious by overcomplicating it all you want, but just because the APA listened to testimony or considered evidence (which was probably just for show---going through the appropriate motions), does NOT mean that that testimony or evidence was going to affect the APA's decision.
Bayer's book disagrees with your view of what Bayer's book does.

You say, "He was clearly not happy that sexual politics played such a major role in the decision (hence the book's title)."

From the book:
Quote:
Originally Said by Bayer
This book presents a political analysis of the psychiatric battle over homosexuality. Such an analysis is not, however, external to the 'real issue' of whether homosexuality represents a psychiatric disorder. To assume that there is an answer to this question that is not ultimately political is to assume that it is possible to determine, with the appropriate scientific methodology, whether homosexuality is a disease given in nature. I do not accept that assumption, seeing in it a mistaken view of the problem. The status of homosexuality is a political question, representing a historically rooted, socially determined choice regarding the ends of human sexuality.
He's saying that politics HAVE to play a major in such a decision. And he's doing a political analysis of a political problem--hence the title. He does not accept the idea that it can be scientifically determined as a psychiatric disorder.

You've misunderstood the title and the purpose of the book.

In the book, he explains how political views have always shaped the direction of psychiatric views of homosexuality. Before the APA's decision, Bayer explains how studies had been available for two decades that complicated the traditional view that homosexuality was a disorder--when political views shifted, this work took on more importance.

Those studies that complicated the views of homosexuality were important in the changing of the APA's view.
Quote:
Originally Said by Bayer
Together with more recent research it (the older research) provided the justification for ending the psychiatric classification of homosexuality as a disorder.
You either haven't read the book, or you have major reading fail.

Quote:
Originally Said by funk
Also, I've been criticized for copying and pasting, which is a nice and easy way out of sticking to the real issues. Usually people do that when they know their position is weak.
Wrong, Funk. I criticize the copy/paste because of what I just showed. You're basing your understanding of Bayer's book from biased websites reporting a distortion of the book.

Elsewhere in the thread you copy/pasted someone describing "Evelyn Hooker, a REAL psychologist" when it suited your purposes. If you had read Bayer's book, you would have seen that Hooker's work was a part of the APA's decision to remove homosexuality as a disorder. That's another reason I don't like the copypasting: it seems schizophrenic.
__________________

"I have a plan so cunning you could put a tail on it and call it a weasel."
--Blackadder
cstoll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2010   #115
Zanahoria_Picante
Orange you glad she's not a banana?
 
Zanahoria_Picante's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,952
Rep Power: 140
Zanahoria_Picante has a reputation beyond reputeZanahoria_Picante has a reputation beyond reputeZanahoria_Picante has a reputation beyond reputeZanahoria_Picante has a reputation beyond reputeZanahoria_Picante has a reputation beyond reputeZanahoria_Picante has a reputation beyond reputeZanahoria_Picante has a reputation beyond reputeZanahoria_Picante has a reputation beyond reputeZanahoria_Picante has a reputation beyond reputeZanahoria_Picante has a reputation beyond reputeZanahoria_Picante has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Truth About Albert Kinsey That Hollywood (Intentionally?) Forgot To Cover

Quote:
Originally Said by Yugoloth View Post
I'm a radical apathetic. Not only will I fight to the death to defend my right not to care, I support the "anti-care" agenda by donating to don't-care lobby groups

We tried to have a rally in DC last year but no one could be bothered to show up - a smashing success, I suppose.
Perhaps you are less radical than you think; you did type all that out, after all.
__________________
Zanahoria_Picante

..| |
.| | |
_____
\ love /-|
-\__/--|

"When I first read the dictionary, I thought it was a long poem about everything."
Steven Wright




;
Zanahoria_Picante is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2010   #116
wordy
Newbie Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 8
Rep Power: 0
wordy is doing greatwordy is doing great
Re: Truth About Alfred Kinsey That Hollywood (Intentionally?) Forgot To Cover

Cstoll,

You may want to read Bayer's book more carefully, especially the first few pages. You seem to have glossed over or flat-out missed these words of his about the wrongheaded and unscientific APA decision---"The result was not a conclusion based on an approximation of the scientific truth as dictated by reason, but was instead an action demanded by the ideological temper of the times"---to get to the words you prefer. Gee, I wonder why? Maybe your bias is showing. Do those words convey Bayer's happiness with the way the decision was made? Not. Bayer, though, could have written his book in a less confusing manner. Sometimes he seems to play both sides.

Also, it's pretty obvious that, just like a male mind in a female body and a female mind in a male body are disorders, so a homosexual mind in a heterosexual body is a disorder (which the APA for decades used to logically consider it before caving). If you do some research you'll find the APA actually ignored one of its own criteria when it "normalized" homosexuality. It's decision is clearly irrational.
wordy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2010   #117
wordy
Newbie Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 8
Rep Power: 0
wordy is doing greatwordy is doing great
Re: Truth About Alfred Kinsey That Hollywood (Intentionally?) Forgot To Cover

Cstoll,

Before I call it a night (a long night) I thought I'd add these other words Bayer wrote just to clarify my point: "America's psychiatrists were called to vote upon the question of whether homosexuality ought to be considered a mental disease. The entire process, from the first confrontations organized by gay demonstrators at psychiatric conventions to the referendum demanded by orthodox psychiatrists, seemed to violate the most basic expectations about how questions of science should be resolved. Instead of being engaged in a sober consideration of data, psychiatrists were swept up in a political controversy. The American Psychiatric Association had fallen victim to the disorder of a tumultuous era, when disruptive conflicts threatened to politicize every aspect of American social life. A furious egalitarianism that challenged every instance of authority had compelled psychiatric experts to negotiate the pathological status of homosexuality with homosexuals themselves."

Sure sounds like Bayer thinks negotiating the pathological status of homosexuality with homosexuals makes about as much sense as negotiating the pathological status of (say) schizophrenia with schizophrenics or sociopathy with sociopaths. (I'm not comparing homosexuality with schizophrenia or sociopathy. Just illustrating a point.)
wordy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2010   #118
Funk*Sonic*7
Im super cereal!
 
Funk*Sonic*7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Randomly by chance out of nowhere, b/c that's more plausible
Posts: 3,748
Rep Power: 61
Funk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Truth About Alfred Kinsey That Hollywood (Intentionally?) Forgot To Cover

^ One can't compare homosexuality directly with schizophrenia or sociopathy, but I honestly feel that the pathologies behind them or leading up to them are all very similiar.
__________________
"God is the shaper of your heart. God does not display his work in abstract terms. He prefers the concrete, and this means that at the end of your life one of three things will happen to your heart: it will grow hard, it will be broken, or it will be tender. Nobody escapes." - Ravi Zacharias

Last edited by Funk*Sonic*7; 04-06-2010 at 03:30 PM.
Funk*Sonic*7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2010   #119
Psychosis
*Watch This Space*
 
Psychosis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: UK
Age: 34
Posts: 757
Rep Power: 28
Psychosis has a reputation beyond reputePsychosis has a reputation beyond reputePsychosis has a reputation beyond reputePsychosis has a reputation beyond reputePsychosis has a reputation beyond reputePsychosis has a reputation beyond reputePsychosis has a reputation beyond reputePsychosis has a reputation beyond reputePsychosis has a reputation beyond reputePsychosis has a reputation beyond reputePsychosis has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Truth About Alfred Kinsey That Hollywood (Intentionally?) Forgot To Cover

Quote:
Originally Said by Princess Jasmine View Post
at this point i think we might as well agree to disagree.
at this point no one is listening jas..its all just been thrown back an forth an repeated...ugh
__________________
The two greatest trolls on the interweb

Psychosis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2010   #120
cstoll
?!
 
cstoll's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,154
Rep Power: 76
cstoll has a reputation beyond reputecstoll has a reputation beyond reputecstoll has a reputation beyond reputecstoll has a reputation beyond reputecstoll has a reputation beyond reputecstoll has a reputation beyond reputecstoll has a reputation beyond reputecstoll has a reputation beyond reputecstoll has a reputation beyond reputecstoll has a reputation beyond reputecstoll has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Truth About Alfred Kinsey That Hollywood (Intentionally?) Forgot To Cover

Quote:
Originally Said by wordy View Post
Cstoll,
You may want to read Bayer's book more carefully, especially the first few pages. You seem to have glossed over or flat-out missed these words of his about the wrongheaded and unscientific APA decision---"The result was not a conclusion based on an approximation of the scientific truth as dictated by reason, but was instead an action demanded by the ideological temper of the times"---to get to the words you prefer. Gee, I wonder why? Maybe your bias is showing. Do those words convey Bayer's happiness with the way the decision was made? Not. Bayer, though, could have written his book in a less confusing manner. Sometimes he seems to play both sides.
Nope. I read that, too. I wasn't ignoring it. You're interpreting "wrongheaded," by the way, when he doesn't actually say that.

(His book isn't confusing at all. It's only confusing if you're expecting a purely partisan book, or if you think a book only has three options--this side, that side, or play both sides. There are more options. His book offers a viewpoint about how these decisions are never scientifically neutral and are always driven by current norms.)

As I noted in my earlier post, yes, he is talking about how the decision was not "scientific." But he's not criticizing that. His book's thesis is that these psychiatric decisions are always political, always shaped by the ideologies of the time.

From the conclusion of the book.
Quote:
Originally Said by bayer
For psychiatrists engaged in clinical work, the extent to which normative considerations inform contemporary definitions of mental health and illness remains largely an unexamined matter.
He's pointing out there that the existing norms of society influence the "scientific truths" psychiatrists give to mental illness. He points out how these beliefs go unexamined. (And note in a later quote how he celebrates the "self-reflective posture.")

His book discusses how this normative influence has happened through the various views upon homosexuality. (Look at the table of contents and the history he covers).

More from the conclusion. He's talking about the effects of political intrusion on psychiatry to make the profession more self-reflective. His take is positive on this:
Quote:
Originally Said by bayer
Only when their conventional orientations have been challenged by extraordinary occurrences have therapists been forced to assume a more self-reflective posture. The dispute over the status of homosexuality as a disorder did just that, compelling many clinicians to confront the extent to which social values frame the most basic elements of their professional work.
Efforts on the part of psychiatrists to articulate a theory of mental health that could serve as a standard by which to evaluate behavior have been marked by unmistakably normative assertions regarding the appropriate relationship between the healthy individual and the society in which he or she lives.
As support, he cites other scholars on how mental health is always "value soaked" and always "bears a strong cultural stamp."
That's the effing point of his book.

A few pages later he talks about how "challenges to the standards of psychiatry would be beset by controversy and internal confusion." Is he bothered by this? Clearly not:
Quote:
Originally Said by bayer
But it is precisely at such moments that the profession acquires a degree of relative autonomy. Freed from the strictures of hegemonic and unquestioned standards, it may side either with the still-dominant norms of behavior or with the values that inspire critical and challenging forces.
As a result of recognizing the influence of ideology, Bayer states, "the posture of value-neutrality becomes untenable."
I honestly don't see how this could be any clearer.

So, then. I'm tired of reading this book for you.
It seems like you just skimmed for "gotcha" quotes and not much else.
__________________

"I have a plan so cunning you could put a tail on it and call it a weasel."
--Blackadder

Last edited by cstoll; 04-07-2010 at 01:03 AM.
cstoll is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:00 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2000 - 2006, Almost Smart