dontamend.com

[Bigus Dickus]

White skin drastically reduces the chances of survival for a particular line, as opposed to dark skin, because of the intensified radiation that gets through which causes cancer.

Thus it is a genetic disorder because of evolutionary principles.

It's obvious you don't understand the complexities of evolutionary theory, but I suppose I can overlook that.

What I can't overlook is your tendancy to make these tangent comparisons that attempt to prove a point, while the essence of the argument continues to elude you. White skin offers evolutionary advantages in the form of greater heat rejection. There may be several other advantages. It is a disadvantage in the form of lower resistance to skin cancer. There may be several other disadvantages.

If you're going to argue along these lines, please use analogies that have some relevance to the argument I presented. As I've indicated in previous posts, an example of how being gay conferred some evolutionary advantages to offset its disadvantages would be a good place to start. I've shown you the door... you only have to be intelligent enough to walk through it. I can't think of any obvious advantages. Can you? (not a rhetorical question... as a scientist I'm genuienly interested in any proposed theories here.)

My definitional construct does not fail under any circumstance, thus I consider it a better definition than Joe's.

Which is a very amusing way of deciding which definition is "better." A definition is better if it is more appropriate for the context of the discussion in question. Here, the two of you are using obviously different contexts, thus both chosen definitions are equally valid, neither being inherently better. Claiming one is "better" based on which tends to be true more cases than the other is about as useful as claiming which color car is "better" based on crapping in a dozen bags, throwing it up in a parking lot, and seeing which color car it lands on more often than not. You've only established which is likely more common, not which is "better." "Better" is itself a subjective term, and cannot be removed from the context of the discussion. "Better" can only be judged on those terms.

But you've made your point well enough. Homosexuals are completely natural. As are men who have their dicks cut off and get breast implants. Both are entirely natural, using your preferred context.

Your analogy of the scientific method is quite amusing as well... thanks for that.

And actually, I answered your question wrt beastiality and pedophilia on the last page. I'll copy and paste here so you can read it, if you missed it.

I didn't miss it, and the fact that you finally answered the question doesn't remove the numerous instances where you dodged it, using precisely the line(s) of reasoning I stated.

 

[Silent_One]

If I choose Joe's context, his definition, that natural is directly related to an inherent sense of right and wrong, then it changes completely. My inherent sense of right and wrong wrt homosexuality shows that homosexuality is indeed right, and thus, in Joe's context, natural. It fails under my interpretation of his contextual definition.

But it dosen't fail. The definition works properly for you and properly for Joe. The definition is dependent on the sense of right or wrong. The definition therefore works properly in either content. You are incorrect to state "It fails under my interpretation of his contextual definition" because for you the outcome that homosexuality is natural is the correct answer based upon your sense of right or wrong. The definition is contextually consistent.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Actually I do accept that Joe. I accept that you believe thus. I just see it as fundamentally flawed, due to the fact that what you choose to use as your definition for natural is fundamentally flawed due to the fact that it does not fit all criteria 100% of the time.

Sigh.

You can't accept my opinion as valid, and at the same time see the premise as fundamentally flawed. That's the entire point.

You can certinaly disagree with my opinion, even if you accept that the premise is fundamentally sound. I just don't think you're getting it.

I seriously don't know why you're upset over this.

I'm not upset over it. I'm simply reiterating how intolerant you are. You have to live with it not me.

This is simply unprovable because we are dealing with opinions.

(Applause).

At the same time, Natoma, we can't prove that our opinions are wrong. Understand? And yet time and time again, you claim how "fundamentally flawed" my premise is (therefore, nullifying any opinion based on it.)

My belief on the matter, however is 100% provable and repeatable. Homosexuality is found in nature. It is natural.

You belief on the matter, is irrelevant to the discussion of right and wrong.

My stance is provable in every case, thus it is a fact.

Man, You just don't get it.

Thus, your opinion is no longer valid, because we have knowledge to the contrary.

Really? We have positive knowledge that says homosexual acts are right or wrong?

I agree that the definition that you choose is inherently open to interpretation. I merely stated that your interpretation is flawed because it does not fit all circumstances.

(Shakes head)

Inherent in my definition is the fact that it does not fit all circumstances / contexts..

Wrong.

Menopause is not a biological safeguard against producing flawed children. Women are born with roughly 400 Eggs. A finite supply. The female body cannot produce anymore than 400 Eggs it is born with. 400 eggs released at a rate of 1 per month lasts exactly 33 years 4 months. Once that supply is exhausted, menopause sets in. Puberty begins roughly 12-14 years of age in females. 33 years 4 months later, you're looking at 45 - 47 years of age, i.e. the average onset of menopause.

Menopause is not essential to healthy reproduction. It is the result of the lack of reproductive capability left in that body.

(I'll disregard your misunderstanding of physical aspects of menopause in and of itself...Menopause does not set in due to the release of the "final egg", nor is the female only born with 400 or so eggs...)

You just proved my case, regardless.

Why are there only roughly 400 eggs released? Why not 800?

Because as the eggs age, they become less and less viable and more prone to genetic problems.

The lack of reproductive capability / onset of menopause is an inherent safeguard against the production of problem offspring.

See above. Menopausal reproduction is simply impossible.

Actually, it's not...but those are isolated cases.

Therefore, by your definition, since human reproduction wholly excludes post menopausal sex, then it is unnatural to you, by definition.

See above. The onset of menopause is the inherent way to safeguard against "problem" offspring, due to eggs that are "too old."

My line of argumentation does not. You can have your line of argumentation and you can fight for your opinion through that line of argumentation, but the fact of the matter remains that it is flawed because of its failures under a different perspective.

The fact of the matter is you are intolerant of other points of view, and therefore see it as flawed.

If I were intolerant of your viewpoint I wouldn't be having this discussion with you. I would simply ignore you.

Now, there's some sound logic.

If the KKK were actually intolerant of blacks, they would just ignore them.

 

[Sabastian]

What is "natural". Well you could rightly say that everything is natural because it all has to follow the absolute rules of physics in order to exist or work. Poison is natural, is it good for humans? No. There are all sorts of things that are regarded as natural but from a human perspective they are not regarded as a good thing. If it is man made I don't consider it natural or necessarily good. When it comes to human behavior I would suggest that, what is natural or normal is where most choose to behave. In this case it is regarding heterosexuality is normal other sexualities are not normal therefore not as natural at all, particularly if homosexuality is a man made creation. (Nurture.) If it is biological then it is natural but not normal or necessarily a good biological trait.(eg. Mental illness is not considered a good biological trait.)

 

[Natoma]

Well, here's one heterosexual married Republican (RNC member, never voted for a Dem for President, etc) who is also in favor of legalizing gay marriage.

Thank you.

It constantly amazes me how some Republicans can go ballistic about homosexual promiscuity on one hand and then come out against gay marriage on the the other hand. You can't treat a group of people like pariahs and not expect some portion of them to *act* like pariahs. Mainstreaming gays will be good for everyone.

To be fair, heterosexuals are mainstream and you see a lot of promiscuity. I don't think heterosexual or homosexual promiscuity will ever go away simply because of the fact that that is a part of human nature.

 

[Sabastian]

To be fair, heterosexuals are mainstream and you see a lot of promiscuity. I don't think heterosexual or homosexual promiscuity will ever go away simply because of the fact that that is a part of human nature.

The promiscuity thing is normal, I think. But the environment that allows for it is totally unnatural and man made.

EDIT: One should ask if it is good even if it is a normal biological inclination, should humans try to temper it? Most definitely.

 

[Natoma]

White skin drastically reduces the chances of survival for a particular line, as opposed to dark skin, because of the intensified radiation that gets through which causes cancer.

Thus it is a genetic disorder because of evolutionary principles.

It's obvious you don't understand the complexities of evolutionary theory, but I suppose I can overlook that.

You framed a supposition wrt homosexuality based on a reduced chance of offspring (if homosexuality is genetic) and continuing a particular genetic line. I framed a supposition wrt white skin (which we know is genetic) based on a reduced chance of offspring and continuing a particular genetic line.

I know evolutionary theory quite well. I was pre-med in college you know, and I took AP Biology in High School (got a 4 on the test too. ). I just followed your "theory" to another logical end to show you how ridiculous your assertions about reduced genetic viability somehow automatically making the cause of that reduced genetic viability a disorder.

What I can't overlook is your tendancy to make these tangent comparisons that attempt to prove a point, while the essence of the argument continues to elude you. White skin offers evolutionary advantages in the form of greater heat rejection. There may be several other advantages. It is a disadvantage in the form of lower resistance to skin cancer. There may be several other disadvantages.

Greater heat rejection? Now I've heard it all.

That depends on the time of year would it not? In the heat of summer this would be true. In the cold of winter, you'd definitely want to keep all the heat in your body as possible, which would make white skin most certainly an evolutionary disadvantage.

If you're going to argue along these lines, please use analogies that have some relevance to the argument I presented. As I've indicated in previous posts, an example of how being gay conferred some evolutionary advantages to offset its disadvantages would be a good place to start. I've shown you the door... you only have to be intelligent enough to walk through it. I can't think of any obvious advantages. Can you? (not a rhetorical question... as a scientist I'm genuienly interested in any proposed theories here.)

I wouldn't know any evolutionary advantages or disadvantages to being gay anymore than I would know any evolutionary advantages or disadvantages for having blond hair or blue eyes. Nor do I know any evolutionary advantages to having round eyes as opposed to slanted eyes. They're merely variations on a theme. If homosexuality also caused a resultant inability to reproduce then I would certain agree with you that it could be considered a disorder or an evolutionary dead end. But homosexuals are quite capable of reproducing.

My definitional construct does not fail under any circumstance, thus I consider it a better definition than Joe's.

Which is a very amusing way of deciding which definition is "better." A definition is better if it is more appropriate for the context of the discussion in question. Here, the two of you are using obviously different contexts, thus both chosen definitions are equally valid, neither being inherently better. Claiming one is "better" based on which tends to be true more cases than the other is about as useful as claiming which color car is "better" based on crapping in a dozen bags, throwing it up in a parking lot, and seeing which color car it lands on more often than not. You've only established which is likely more common, not which is "better." "Better" is itself a subjective term, and cannot be removed from the context of the discussion. "Better" can only be judged on those terms.

Better: More advantageous or effective.

My definition, by your admission, is true in more cases than his, thus it is more effective than his, thus it is better.

Subjective qualification not required.

But you've made your point well enough. Homosexuals are completely natural. As are men who have their dicks cut off and get breast implants. Both are entirely natural, using your preferred context.

Actually there are quite a few instances in nature of transexuality. And to be frank, transexuals feel all their lives that they are the opposite sex. This can be explained quite easily by the way in which the human fetus actually changes sex while in the womb. I can explain this process in my next post if you wish, but if you understand the process then I won't go into detail.

And actually, I answered your question wrt beastiality and pedophilia on the last page. I'll copy and paste here so you can read it, if you missed it.

I didn't miss it, and the fact that you finally answered the question doesn't remove the numerous instances where you dodged it, using precisely the line(s) of reasoning I stated.

My dear Bigus Dickus. If I were truly intent on dodging the question I would have never responded with my answer now would I. Your line of reasoning is simply false, as I stated earlier.

 

[Natoma]

If I choose Joe's context, his definition, that natural is directly related to an inherent sense of right and wrong, then it changes completely. My inherent sense of right and wrong wrt homosexuality shows that homosexuality is indeed right, and thus, in Joe's context, natural. It fails under my interpretation of his contextual definition.

But it dosen't fail. The definition works properly for you and properly for Joe. The definition is dependent on the sense of right or wrong. The definition therefore works properly in either content. You are incorrect to state "It fails under my interpretation of his contextual definition" because for you the outcome that homosexuality is natural is the correct answer based upon your sense of right or wrong. The definition is contextually consistent.

The definition itself fails under different circumstances because the interpretations are different. I never said Joe's interpretation failed. I said his interpretation is quite valid and I accept his right to his interpretation. I just said he can't build an entire line of argumentation on that definition because it will not hold up under all circumstances and interpretations. Well, actually he can. But it will be a fundamentally flawed line of argumentation.

 

[Natoma]

To be fair, heterosexuals are mainstream and you see a lot of promiscuity. I don't think heterosexual or homosexual promiscuity will ever go away simply because of the fact that that is a part of human nature.

The promiscuity thing is normal, I think. But the environment that allows for it is totally unnatural and man made.

EDIT: One should ask if it is good even if it is a normal biological inclination, should humans try to temper it? Most definitely.

Explain how the environment for promiscuity is unnatural and man made? Promiscuity occurs every day and it doesn't necessarily have to involve brothel houses or prostitutes. It could be a woman or man committing adultery on their spouse in a private setting. See Kobe Bryant as an example.

Oh, and marriage is the human response to further temper promiscuity. Monogamy is not necessarily a human response as we see monogamy in animals as well.

 

[Natoma]

What is "natural". Well you could rightly say that everything is natural because it all has to follow the absolute rules of physics in order to exist or work. Poison is natural, is it good for humans? No. There are all sorts of things that are regarded as natural but from a human perspective they are not regarded as a good thing. If it is man made I don't consider it natural or necessarily good.

Agreed. Cancer is natural, but it isn't good for us. The natural argument can't be used against cancer because it is indeed natural. But the subjective connotation of right/wrong can certainly be argued.

Some people consider cancer a blessing from god because it stops them from smoking. A little loopy, but yea, I've heard that before on Discovery Health. Lance Armstrong considers cancer to be the best thing to happen to his career (he stated this a couple of weeks ago before the onset of the Tour de France) because it forced him to retrain and rededicate himself in a way he didn't think he ever would have.

I would consider cancer a curse. Others who have had cancer would concur.

Oh and btw, poison is not bad for humans, depending on your perspective. Poisonous tree frogs, when licked, produce a psychadelic effect which has been shown to be completely non-lethal to human beings. Snake Venom is used to cure snake bites. Botulin toxin (a *very* lethal poison) is used to smooth away wrinkles.

So you could not necessarily build a flawless argument that poison is bad for humans.

When it comes to human behavior I would suggest that, what is natural or normal is where most choose to behave. In this case it is regarding heterosexuality is normal other sexualities are not normal therefore not as natural at all, particularly if homosexuality is a man made creation. (Nurture.) If it is biological then it is natural but not normal or necessarily a good biological trait.(eg. Mental illness is not considered a good biological trait.)

Homosexuality cannot be a man made creation as it exists in other animal species. It is therefore natural..

Taken as a percentage of the human species, homosexuality doesn't occur all the time, so you are correct. It isn't normal. But then, taken as a percentage of the human species, neither is white skin or blue eyes or blond hair.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

I just said he can't build an entire line of argumentation on that definition because it will not hold up under all circumstances and interpretations. Well, actually he can. But it will be a fundamentally flawed line of argumentation.

Natoma,

When discussing matters of "right and wrong" (morals, etc.), it's ALL open to interpretation / circumstances.

Whatever reasoning you have to say Homosexuality is "right" is guaranteed to be "fundamentally flawed" by your definition.

The typical leftist, demanding that others are held to higher standards than your own...

 

[Natoma]

I just said he can't build an entire line of argumentation on that definition because it will not hold up under all circumstances and interpretations. Well, actually he can. But it will be a fundamentally flawed line of argumentation.

Natoma,

When discussing matters of "right and wrong" (morals, etc.), it's ALL open to interpretation / circumstances.

Whatever reasoning you have to say Homosexuality is "right" is guaranteed to be "fundamentally flawed" by your definition.

The typical leftist, demanding that others are held to higher standards than your own...

No. If I try to say homosexuality is natural because it is "right," then yes, that would be a fundamentally flawed exercise. If you try to say homosexuality is unnatural because it is "wrong," then yes, that would be a fundamentally flawed exercise.

If I try to say homosexuality is natural because it exists in nature, that is completely flawless. If you try to say homosexuality is unnatural because it exists in nature, you've just broken the definition and are immediately in default, i.e. wrong. You can only come to one conclusion with my definition.

That is all I've been saying.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Homosexuality cannot be a man made creation as it exists in other animal species. It is therefore natural..

That of course, is an illogical argument.

Natural is that which is not man made? Man is held "separate" from nature, no?

How does the fact that homosexuality occurs in "nature", (between two non human species) have any bearing on whether or not, between HUMANS, it's man-made or not?

 

[Natoma]

Homosexuality cannot be a man made creation as it exists in other animal species. It is therefore natural..

That of course, is an illogical argument.

Natural is that which is not man made? Man is held "separate" from nature, no?

How does the fact that homosexuality occurs in "nature", (between two non human species) have any bearing on whether or not, between HUMANS, it's man-made or not?

Steel is solely a man made creation. No other animal can create steel.

Homosexuality is not a man made creation because it exists in man and other animal species.

 

[Sabastian]

Explain how the environment for promiscuity is unnatural and man made?

Well in two words: the pill.

But before you go and gore me on this also consider the wide range of other things we do to facilitate promiscuity. Sex education and denial of abstinence as a perfectly good alternative to condoms, pornography, damage control in the medical field wrt a wider and growing epidemic of STDs that are a direct result of promiscuity, a welfare system that facilitates single parenthood (not making a judgment wrt this here though I am merely stating a fact.) break down wrt social morals opposing divorce there are all sorts of man made environmental factors that create an environment in favor of promiscuity.

The greatest influential factor in all of the above though is the pill. Which is a man made contraceptive. This is the single largest reason we have such a break down in the traditional family and marriage. I don't know what to do about it all I can say is that the consequences of the introduction of it for mankind have yet to be fully realized.

You can see that indeed the environment is entirely contrived particularly after the advent of the pill. Before that point the natural family reigned supreme with low divorce rates and low levels of promiscuity as a result of the fact that women have a high likelihood of pregnancy when they engage in sex. In other words sex used to be taken much more seriously then it is today and the reason for that change in attitude is a direct result of mans intervention in normal reproductive activity.

Bah, I don't have any more time for this I have to find a job soon. [action]runs to hide from the mob of left wingers for bringing up the pill[/action]

Just saying.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

No. If I try to say homosexuality is natural because it is "right," then yes, that would be a fundamentally flawed exercise.

No, that is your opinion.

If you try to say homosexuality is unnatural because it is "wrong," then yes, that would be a fundamentally flawed exercise.

No, it is an opinion.

If I try to say homosexuality is natural because it exists in nature, that is completely flawless.

Wrong. See my previous post. Homosexuality occuring "in nature" does not mean that homosexuality between humans is "natural."

If you try to say homosexuality is unnatural because it exists in nature, you've just broken the definition and are immediately in default, i.e. wrong. You can only come to one conclusion with my definition.

Wrong. If I say that homosexuality between humans is unnatural I have not broken any definition.

That is all I've been saying.

And you are wrong.

 

[Natoma]

All something has to satisfy in order to be natural is that it exists in nature. Humans are part of nature, therefore if it exists in human beings, it is indeed natural. That is indeed never wrong. Not to mention its existence in primates, geese, and other animals, which are part of nature.

We are animals after all. Highly evolved, yes, but still animals.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Homosexuality is not a man made creation because it exists in man and other animal species.

No, Natoma....

At best, you can say that homosexuality in other animal species is not "man made" or "influenced by man".

That has no bearing on how human homsexuality.

I mean, "man" is the key difference between natural and unnatural, correct? Presumably because we have some intellect or "consciousness" that other "natural" things don't posess. So how can anything among man be considered natural at all?

 

[Himself]

That depends on the time of year would it not? In the heat of summer this would be true. In the cold of winter, you'd definitely want to keep all the heat in your body as possible, which would make white skin most certainly an evolutionary disadvantage.

Erm, sine we all wear clothes of some sort or another and have been for thousands of years, it's rather a moot point what colour your skin is for thermal absorption. Without clothes we would have died off long ago, either boiled in deserts in the day, frozen at night or frozen in snow elsewhere. Before that we probably had fur and the colour of fur is mostly about camaflouge. So, adaptation to your environment isn't an species disadvantage, take a point off the tally board for Natoma.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

All something has to satisfy in order to be natural is that it exists in nature. Humans are part of nature, therefore if it exists in human beings, it is indeed natural.

Great, then as I said before everything is natural then?

But you just told me that Steel was not natural. But it is a product of human beings. Human beings are part of nature. How can something that we produce not be "natural"?