Posts by Miwojedk

  • Why Discord should buy Microsoft

    I think the economic implications of Discord buying Microsoft could lead to an 37% increase in the stock based on my projections using the stock's current Fibonacci Retracement Levels. This will in turn lead to an increase in the size of Ivan 's general affinity for the cock of mine.

  • LGBTQ+ Rights / Similar Discussion

    @billy7oblos#12863

    Quote

    an example of a nonpoint you made is:

    So me continually emphazing that references to suicide rates are irrelevant to the topic matter and that you have only thus far only linked to studies debunking the idea of a “gay gene” which is something I never argued for, makes this a moot point?

    Quote

    First of all, its me who made the negative statement, and you are the one asking me to prove it. I said: the number of LGBT people has increased and you said that it has remained constant. For my statement, i used the premise that the number of LGBT identifying people has increased therefore the number of LGBT people has increased. You agree with this statement and it is supported by scientists

    No. I am telling you that you’re the one shifting the burden of proof by asking me to disprove your claim. Whether or not you can prove a negative is not what I’m talking about. You just acknowledged that you made the claim, and thus you also should acknowledge that the onus is on you to prove so.


    And I don’t even disagree that the number of people openly identifying as LGBT as increased, but I hope you understand that this is not at all what I’ve argued against. Your stat doesn’t dispute my rebuttal that the number of “naturally” gay persons has remained relatively constant.


    https://medicine.yale.edu/news-article/20510/
    “Vast Majority of World’s Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual Population Hide Orientation, YSPH Study Finds”


    Ultimately, as I noted before, we may never know what the real answer is due to the nature of the discussion being centered on past civilizations sexuality. I can only point to historical evidence that societies did practice homosexuality (LGBTQ+), but I can only point to theories and empirical data from the modern age. The burden of proof doesn’t shift to me when you have yet to actually prove your original assertion which was:


    “the percentage of people attracted to the same sex has increased throughout history” (implying that people are becoming more gay)


    not,


    “The percentage of people openly identifying as attracted to the same sex has increased” (implying people are being more open about being gay)


    If you had said the last part I wouldn’t be arguing with you, but you contine to claim that homosexuality is not a product of biology but instead one’s enviroment. This is why I continue to say that the onus of proof is on you. Here are some of the quotes you’ve made where you seem to support the first idea:

    If you have indeed changed your opinion on the subject matter, or you simply mispoke, then I won’t continue this discussion further because then we clearly agree that homosexuality is a natural part of the human condition and that the amount of people being naturally attracted the same sex has remained relatively constant throughout history. We agree that, as societies become more accepting, the amount of openly gay people will naturally rise, but that the amount of naturally gay people remains the same.

    Quote

    Me saying there is no test that can predict your sexuality was not an attack, but a point (so its NOT a strawman argument). [...]
    Addressing every claim or argument i make as a strawman is a fallacy in itself

    I gave more than ample reason for your claim being wrong besides it being a strawman. I'm just tired of you misconstruing my words so I continue to point it out when you do, and that in itself is not an argument from fallacy.
    I never claimed that a test can predict your sexuality, so your commentary was completely unnecessary as I have already established that I don't subscribe to that idea. Therefore the only reason you would bring it up is to misconstrue my point. The same way you like to bring up the “gay gene” studies, yet I have never argued for that notion.

    Quote

    What was shown in the 2019 study does not link homosexuality to biology.

    You still fail to read half of what I write:


    ""https://www.pbs.org/newshour/s…st-complex-study-confirms
    “There is no single gene responsible for a person being gay or a lesbian. That’s the first thing you need to know about the largest genetic investigation of sexuality ever, which was published Thursday in Science. The study of nearly a half million people closes the door on the debate around the existence of a so-called “gay gene.”
    “It’s effectively impossible to predict an individual’s sexual behavior from their genome,” said Ben Neale, a geneticist at Massachusetts General Hospital and the Broad Institute who led the study.
    “[Our study] underscores an important role for the environment in shaping human sexual behavior and perhaps most importantly there is no single gay gene but rather the contribution of many small genetic effects scattered across the genome,” Neale said"


    I never claimed that the “2019-study” linked homosexuality to biology. What I said was that it didn’t dispute the consensus that it is mostly or entirely a factor of biology. Which is why Dr. Neale says:
    “there is no single gay gene but rather the contribution of many small genetic effects scattered across the genome”.


    In other words, the complex interplay of small genetic effects all contribute to one’s sexual orientation. Enviromental factors can have an influence on the genome, thus further exemplifying that sexuality is a complex issue in needs of further examining.

    Quote

    He clearly says that "the genetic effects are small"? I never denied that there might be a small genetic influence on homosexuality. Why are you attacking a strawman?

    I’m pretty certain you said it plenty of times, so I don’t think I’m attacking a strawman.

    I don't see me misconstruing your argument? If you've changed your opinion, then just say so.

    Quote

    less stigmatization can be a result of increased homosexuality.

    I would argue that it goes the other way around. Less stigmatization leads to an increase in open homosexuality.

    Quote

    Just because a society admits something bad exists does not mean said bad thing is prominent in said society.

    I never claimed the opposite.

    Quote

    no, not trolling, they argued for a gene based answer while still admitting that the latest study estimates that genes can only explain 8-12% of "sexual orientation"

    The article you linked before: (https://theconversation.com/st…rive-homosexuality-122764), which you apparently realized doesn't support your viewpoint since you are not pointing to it anymore.
    Why would they argue for a gene-based answer if they know that the “latest study” estimated that genes account for 8-12% of sexual orientation? I’m getting curious, because it sounds an awful like cherry-picking:


    Some excerpts from the article:


    “By analyzing the DNA of nearly half a million people from the U.S. and the U.K., they [2019 study] concluded that genes account for between 8% and 25% of same-sex behavior.


    The new finding is consistent with multiple earlier studies of twins that indicated same-sex attraction is a heritable trait.


    The 2019 study is the latest in a hunt for “gay genes” that began in 1993, when Dean Hamer linked male homosexuality to a section of the X chromosome. [They continue to list examples of potential gene candidates for the “gay gene” throughout the last thirty years]


    With multiple gene candidates being linked to homosexuality, it seemed highly unlikely that a single “gay” gene exists. This idea is further supported by the new study, which identified five new genetic loci (fixed positions on chromosomes) correlating with same-sex activity: two that appeared in men and women, two only in men, and one only in women.


    Males with a genetic condition called androgen insensitivity syndrome can develop female genitalia and are usually brought up as girls, despite being genetically male – with an X and Y chromosome – and they are attracted to men. This suggests that testosterone is needed to “masculinize” a prenatal brain; if that doesn’t happen, the child will grow up to desire men.


    Similarly, girls who have a genetic condition called congenital adrenal hyperplasia are exposed to unusually high levels of male hormones like testosterone while in the womb, which may masculinize their brain and increase the odds of lesbianism.


    It’s also possible that hormonal shifts during pregnancy could affect how a fetus’ brain is configured. In rats, manipulation of hormones during pregnancy produces offspring that exhibit homosexual behavior.


    […] While there is no single “gay gene,” there is overwhelming evidence of a biological basis for sexual orientation that is programmed into the brain before birth based on a mix of genetics and prenatal conditions, none of which the fetus chooses.”


    So you were indeed cherry-picking. The fact that you didn't even read the headline for the first article is frankly quite hilarious. You aren't supposed to go out of your way to find answers which allign with your own beliefs.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

    Quote

    the review you showed is a collection of research supporting a biological answer to homosexuality, so its ironic how you call me out on nitpicking.

    The review “I showed” was an article you referenced lol. You were the one who referenced the article, not me:

    Quote

    here is another article talking about the study that debunked the gay gene
    https://theconversation.com/st…rive-homosexuality-122764


    The consensus is that we don't understand and that its complicated, and many scientists will still agree with a "non biological" answer.

    “Although no single theory on the cause of sexual orientation has yet gained widespread support, scientists favor biologically-based theories.”


    Frankowski BL; American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Adolescence (June 2004). "Sexual orientation and adolescents". Pediatrics. 113 (6): 1827–32. doi:10.1542/peds.113.6.1827. PMID 15173519.


    I agree that it’s a complicated issue, but the consensus is towards it being a biological consequence, not societal.

    Quote

    https://www.scientificamerican…same-sex-sexual-behavior/

    Why did you link to this article? This wasn’t the article you linked before.


    Anyways, since you fail to actually elaborate as to why you’re linking the article I thought I’d be appropriate to quote the most important bits:


    “The analysis, which examined the genomes of nearly half a million men and women, found that although genetics are certainly involved in who people choose to have sex with, there are no specific genetic predictors. Yet some researchers question whether the analysis, which looked at genes associated with sexual activity rather than attraction, can draw any real conclusions about sexual orientation.


    […] “The message should remain the same that this is a complex behavior that genetics definitely plays a part in,” said study co-author Fah Sathirapongsasuti. […] Other studies have linked sexual orientation with environmental factors such as hormone exposure before birth and having older brothers.


    In the new study, a team led by Brendan Zietsch of the University of Queensland, Australia, mined several massive genome data banks [...] They asked more than 477,000 participants whether they had ever had sex with someone of the same sex, and also questions about sexual fantasies and the degree to which they identified as gay or straight. The researchers found five single points in the genome that seemed to be common among people who had had at least one same-sex experience. Two of these genetic markers sit close to genes linked to sex hormones and to smell—both factors that may play a role in sexual attraction. But taken together, these five markers explained less than 1 percent of the differences in sexual activity among people in the study. When the researchers looked at the overall genetic similarity of individuals who had had a same-sex experience, genetics seemed to account for between 8 and 25 percent of the behavior. The rest was presumably a result of environmental or other biological influences."


    (published in Science: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/365/6456/869)

    Quote

    https://www.thenewatlantis.com…mary-sexuality-and-gender
    https://www.bbvaopenmind.com/e…on-determined-by-biology/
    "But if there is one thing the authors of the study stress, it is that the genetic variants identified “do not allow meaningful prediction of an individual’s sexual behaviour.” "

    You link to two articles but only cite one of them?

    Quote

    https://www.thenewatlantis.com…mary-sexuality-and-gender

    This is an excerpt from the Wikipedia page on the Journal you referenced first:


    ()https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…antis_(journal)#Criticism)
    “A journal founded by thesocial conservative advocacy group the Ethics and Public Policy Center. The journal is not peer-reviewed, and covers topics about the social, ethical, political, and policy dimensions of modern science and technology.”
    ("Welcome to The New Atlantis". Reason. May 5, 2003. Retrieved December 6, 2012.)


    We are going full circle. You're back to sourcing your claims from religious / conversative advocacy groups. This is not a reliable source.


    Here’s another snippet directed at that same “study” you just cited:


    “In August 2016, Paul R. McHugh, at the time a retired professor, co-authored a 143-page review of the scientific literature on gender and sexuality in The New Atlantis, a non-peer reviewed journal published under the auspices of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a Christian-focused conservative think tank. In September 2016 Johns Hopkins University faculty members Chris Beyrer, Robert W. Blum, and Tonia C. Poteat wrote a Baltimore Sun op-ed, to which six other Johns Hopkins faculty members also contributed, in which they indicated concerns about McHugh's co-authored report, which they said mischaracterized the current state of science on gender and sexuality. More than 600 alumni, faculty members and students at the medical school also signed a petition calling on the university and hospital to disavow the paper. “These are dated, now-discredited theories,” said Chris Beyrer, a professor at the public health school and part of the faculty group that denounced McHugh's stance. Brynn Tannehill, a board member of the Transgender United Fund wrote that "this isn’t a study, it’s a very long Opinion-Editorial piece."”
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…and_Gender_Special_Report

    Quote

    https://www.bbvaopenmind.com/e…on-determined-by-biology/
    "But if there is one thing the authors of the study stress, it is that the genetic variants identified “do not allow meaningful prediction of an individual’s sexual behaviour.”

    What is “OpenMind”? I can’t find anything describing the source.
    Also, your quote doesn’t negate anything I’ve said thus far. I never claimed that we could predict sexual behaviour. I said that sexual orientation is a result of biology according to the consensus.

    Quote

    I personally would say that political factors are behind most LGBT saying/thinking they were "born that way”

    I would say that millenials are more open about their sexuality compared to their parents and grandparents, but that’s maybe just me.

    Quote

    also see https://news.gallup.com/poll/2…gbt-population-rises.aspx
    "LGBT identification is more common among those with lower incomes, as has been the case consistently since 2012. The income gap is larger this year than it has been, with 6.2% of those making less than $36,000 a year in household income identifying as LGBT, compared with 3.9% of those making $90,000 or more."

    You think that since wealthier people tend to be straight is proof that being gay is linked to your economic or political status? You wouldn’t make the connection that LGBTQ+ are more likely to be discriminated against and therefore have less job opportunities. This could be based on appearance, unconscious bias, or other aspects.


    Or the fact (which you just cited with your image above) that millenials are more prone to be openly LGBTQ+ compared to their progenitors? You forgot to make the connection that as you become older your income rises with seniority and experience. And as you get older the more wealth you accrue.


    You also forgot to include the quote from the Gallup Poll:


    "As LGBT demographic expert Dr. Gary Gates noted in his report on Gallup data last year: "A variety of factors can affect the willingness of adults to identify as LGBT. These can include how comfortable and confident survey respondents feel about the confidentiality and privacy of data collected." Thus, it is possible that those in the younger generation who are LGBT are feeling increasingly comfortable over time with their sexual orientation, and thus are more likely to identify as such. Self-reported LGBT identification among older Americans is much more stable.


    Self-identification as LGBT is only one of a number of ways of measuring sexual and gender orientation. The general grouping of these four orientations (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) into one question involves significant simplification, and other measurement techniques which ask about each of these categories individually yield different estimates. Additionally, self-identification of sexual orientation can be distinct from other measures which tap into sexual behavior or attraction."

    Quote

    I did not mean immoral, i was speaking on the premise that you did not accept sex with dead animals. To clarify, do you?

    I never said that I do or do not accept sex with dead animals. I have made that very clear in the last previous 5 posts I’ve made. I can be persuaded to either side depending on the argument put forth.

    Quote

    Also the reason it would be immoral is because sexual deviation is morally wrong.

    I honestly can’t tell if you’re trolling or not anymore lmao. This is the fifth time I will be asking you:

    Why is “sexual deviation” morally wrong?

    Quote

    There is many reasons why someone would upload CP, they could be trading with someone else or they could believe that it lowers molestation cases. The one youtube video i mentioned was discussing the trade of CP on twitter.

    So you have no sources. Gotcha. If you’re trading CP you’re exploiting others suffering for your own (and others) pleasure.

    Quote

    I would say depression in the western world is because of many factors, sexualization and accepting LGBTQ are just some of them

    Good. We agree. Now you have acknowledged that simply linking suicide and depression rates and correlating them with LGBTQ+ acceptance is retarded.

    Quote

    homosexuality and race are different because race cant be hidden, so blacks would not be able to hide themselves. Its my belief that there was mainly white people and there was a 1/90 chance that you were born black and black people were killed, black people would stand up for their rights.

    You didn’t respond to my example of black history in the US. But it’s easy to be a tough guy and essentially be saying that it’s obvious that a marginalized group would stand up for their rights. But yes, race and sexual orientation are indeed different in that regard, but both groups have been marginalized throughout history in the Americas and Europe.

    Quote

    are you claiming or not that the KSA did not display the accurate amount of people who received the death penalty, also i did cite the number of executions https://www.bbc.com/news/world-

    I am saying that your thinking that the government of Saudi Arabia is a reliable source is absurd. In that very same article it is noted multiple times that the numbers from the government of Saudi Arabia are misleadning and/or false.
    You also claimed that 27 people had received the death penalty in total because of their sexual orientation.

    Quote

    you cant prove that there are gay people in the KSA, less than 27 people received the death penalty TOTAL lol, why would you compare that to natzi Germany

    However, you did in fact “correct” this misleading statement 2 days ago (or just ignore that it happened)

    Quote

    Non argument, homosexuality is immoral, and i have factored in the possibility of them being killed (27 people were killed in the KSA in 2020)

    Also, you have yet to answer these questions I asked you previously:

    Why is simulated child porn or child sex dolls inherently bad?


    Are you implying that unwillingly spreading STDs is somehow immoral?


    What constitutes a “sexualized country”?


    Wouldn't the fact that the show Cuties got concalled due to outrage from the public speak against your argument? You used this show as an example for the "normalization" of pedophelia.


    Can you find mainstream examples of a trans-woman claiming they have real periods?

  • LGBTQ+ Rights / Similar Discussion

    @billy7oblos


    Also, you have yet to answer the these questions I asked you previously:


    Why is simulated child porn or child sex dolls inherently bad?


    Are you implying that unwillingly spreading STDs is somehow amoral?


    What constitutes a “sexualized country”?


    And that show [Cuties] got cancelled due to outrage from the public. Wouldn’t that speak against your argument?


    Can you find mainstream examples of a trans-woman claiming they have real periods?


    What would be inherently moral about a sexual deviant?

  • LGBTQ+ Rights / Similar Discussion

    @billy7oblos

    Quote

    i have a problem with this statement. Not sure what a furry is exactly but i know the fetishize animals, which is not ok, depraved and degenerate

    Why wouldn’t this be okay exactly? Just because?

    Quote

    because its morally wrong and disgusting, its not natural and leads to higher depression, suicide, std's and death rates. (just the same way you would be against sex with animals)

    False. You have yet to link to a single study that links homosexuality to higher depression rates, suicides and death rates.


    Just because homosexuals are more prone to STD’s does not make the inherently wrong or disgusting. You have also yet to actually give any reason as to why it’s “morally wrong and disgusting”
    Also pretty funny that you say it’s not natural, but yet you were the one saying that the appeal to nature argument previously in this thread was obsolete/irrelevant.


    Do you have any philosophical logic/reasoning as to why we should consider being attracted to the same-sex as morally wrong? Because you have only displayed a regurtitation of circular reason as to why throughout this entire thread.


    Darth

    Quote

    Citation needed.

    I don’t doubt that he is right. But the explanations he is inferring are not correct.


    Both “gays make societies more prone to suicide/depression”


    or that “gays are more prone to depression/killing themselves inherently because they’re homosexual”.


    Are two very simplistic and illogical conclusions that seem to display a lack of deductive reasoning. He’s literally making the “correlation equals causation” argument.

    Quote

    everywhere you get your morals from be it from a religious scripture or from nature. the same reason i don't like zoophiles

    Which morals do we get from nature? Weren’t you the one pointing out the appeal to nature fallacy previously in this thread?

    Quote

    Most people will accept that we have inherent morals inside us whether they were made by god or made by evolution.

    I vehemently disagree. I think most people will tacitly subscribe to a version of moral relativism in that they believe morality depends on the culture and time period. 100 years ago it was considered immoral to be in an interracial relationship. Are you going to argue that this is still immoral?

    Quote

    Why is homosexual acts different from sex with dead animals (why is one better than the other) or letting a dog fuck you

    A dead animal cannot consent and I would argue that it isn’t even in the realm of what the umbrella term “sexual consent” would encompass.
    A dead animal is not a human.
    An animal is not a human
    A dead person is not able to consent, and I would still argue the same thing above.
    Letting a dog fuck you still means that the dog cannot consent. Yes, they can “willingly” fuck you, but they don’t have the intellect or the means to communicate the consent. Boys get stiffies at age 10, but I doubt you’d let a kid fuck you.

    Quote

    Why is it ok to be homosexual if its not biological

    So you have completely forgotten the tirade you had previously in this thread about the non-sensical appeal to natural fallacy?


    Also, it is biological.

    Quote

    Why do countries who have way less LGBT acceptance and way more "bigoted" views than the us have lower suicide and depression rates.

    Do you think that the only reason suicide and depression rates have risen are because of the gays?

    Quote

    If countries that don't accept homosexuality have lower suicide and depression rates, why is suppressing LGBT bad

    Because being attracted to the same gender is not immoral. Wanting to transition is not immoral. Do you want me to give you reasons as to why they’re not immoral? Morality implies that an act is a conscious decision. Being gay is not a choice. Being born the wrong gender is not a choice.

    Quote

    Non argument, homosexuality is immoral, and i have factored in the possibility of them being killed (27 people were killed in the KSA in 2020)

    Where did you get this 27 people number from? Citation deeply needed. I have asked for it many times over in this thread already lol.

  • LGBTQ+ Rights / Similar Discussion

    @billy7oblos#12617

    Quote

    so i wont respond to nonpoint responses

    I make a point in each of my responses, so the only reason I could see for you not wanting to respond is because you don’t have a good rebuttal or you’re lazy. Why not just admit this?

    I never said that I believe God exists. I used it as an example to demonstrate that it is impossible to prove a negative in this context, which is what you wanted me to do by your deliberate shifting of the burden of proof onto me. It’s clear to me that you don’t understand the concept of “burden of proof”, because I have linked to a slither of sources in this thread, but apparently you don’t feel like reading, because you have yet to acknowledge that the burden of proof is upon the one making the first claim. I demonstrated that you made the first claim (homosexuality is increasing), yet you have not been able to prove to me that it is other than unrelated suicide/depression stats and a study saying there’s no “gay gene”, which is not something I ever argued for.


    I even detailed why the 2019 study does – not – support your thesis in my previous comment, but apparently you skipped over that part. Your simplistic view that homosexuality would’ve simply died out because they couldn’t procreate is silly. If the chance of being born homosexual is 1/20, then that same statistic should remain relatively constant regardless of homosexuals being able to bear children or not.

    Quote

    no matter how much people want to claim homosexuality is linked to genetics, there is still no test than can predict your "sexuality"

    And this is yet again a strawman. I even said so in my last post that I didn’t disagree with this. I said that homosexuality, as was explained in the 2019 study and the general scientific consensus, is that it is most strongly linked to biology. I doubt you have read a single study or academic paper I have supplied thus far in this thread because you continue to regurtitate this exact same point over and over.

    Quote

    https://harvardmagazine.com/20…there-s-still-no-gay-gene

    Oh. Is this an article detailing there being no “gay gene”? I thought I explained that I never said this. Should I go as far as to point out that this is yet another example of you misconstruing my argument?


    I think it’s disingenuine to not quote the relevant supplemental quote to the one you listed:


    “Though the genetic effects are small and their provenance uncertain, Neale continued during the press conference, the results do show that genes have a role to play in the development of sexual behavior. “There is no single gay gene, but rather the contribution of many small genetic effects scattered across the genome,” he emphasized.”


    Insofar as this thread is concerned I have argued that biology is what the scientific consensus seems to link most heavily to same-sex attraction. The 2019 study doesn’t dispute this.


    I will quote my previous post because it’s clear to me what you didn’t read it:

    Quote

    A detailed article explaining the study:
    https://www.pbs.org/newshour/s…st-complex-study-confirms
    “There is no single gene responsible for a person being gay or a lesbian. That’s the first thing you need to know about the largest genetic investigation of sexuality ever, which was published Thursday in Science. The study of nearly a half million people closes the door on the debate around the existence of a so-called “gay gene.”
    “It’s effectively impossible to predict an individual’s sexual behavior from their genome,” said Ben Neale, a geneticist at Massachusetts General Hospital and the Broad Institute who led the study.
    “[Our study] underscores an important role for the environment in shaping human sexual behavior and perhaps most importantly there is no single gay gene but rather the contribution of many small genetic effects scattered across the genome,” Neale said.


    THE ONLY THING WE CAN EXAMINE is the percent of open homosexuals, we cant examine anything else, so the burden of proof is on you. You have to prove that [openly]gay people are increasing because they are being accepted more. Its not on me to prove that a secret 5% of society hiding themselves did not exist, its on you to prove they did

    No. The burden of proof is upon the one making the claim. You made the first claim that homosexuality is increasing, thus the burden of proof is on you.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)


    I have also already given ample reasons as to why the openly gay population is increasing in the West (less-stigmatisation).

    Quote

    as far as i can tell, the laws were against sodomy, that involves most sexual indecency and deviation

    We can agree to disagree then. I think most people would agree that sharia is a set of laws deeply rooted in (e.g.) anti-homosexual views.

    Quote

    here is another article talking about the study that debunked the gay gene
    https://theconversation.com/st…rive-homosexuality-122764
    " By analyzing the DNA of nearly half a million people from the U.S. and the U.K., they concluded that genes account for between 8% and 25% of same-sex behavior."
    I implore YOU to try to find studies/articles claiming that homosexuality is based mostly on genes after this study in 2019

    Are you trolling? Did you read the headline of your article? “Stop calling it a choice: Biological factors drive homosexuality”


    https://www.sciencedirect.com/…cle/pii/S0018506X19304660


    “These studies, taken together, have provided substantial support for biological influences underlying the development of sexual orientation, but questions remain unanswered, including how biological mechanisms may differ in contributing to men's and women's sexual orientation development.”


    I implore you to read data instead of nitpicking the stuff that supports your argument and omitting what doesn’t.

    Quote

    no, but that study significantly changes things and is the biggest study on homosexuality yet

    Then why do you continue to want me to link to studies after the 2019-study? You won’t accept studies before that, so that makes it seem as though you find them irrelevant now because another larger study was made? And no, the study still agrees with the consensus.

    Quote

    you said it relied mainly on genes, and i argued against that


    you never said what? you argued that genes are the main cause of sexuality. What do you mean i never said so

    Biology. It relies mainly on biology. If I said genes then I apologize for my miswording.

    Quote

    If its amoral, why is it not ok? or do you think it is ok? if people went looking for dead animals in the forest to have sex with would you be ok with that?

    Amoral means un-moral: nothing to do with morals. I’m assuming you mean “if it’s immoral”.


    I claimed that I could swayed to either side that it’s either “amoral” or “immoral” depending on the argument. I’m not confined to my beliefs, so I can see it from the side that would argue that “if people want to go into the wilderness and fuk dead animals, then more power to them,


    or I could be persuaded to the belief that it would be wrong because “X reason”.


    So far, you have yet to give me a single reason as to why it would be immoral other than circular reasoning.

    Quote

    i believe twitter is notorious for that kind of stuff <although i wouldn't know>. actually twitter MAPs justify this with the rationale that they are not hurting anyone. (i dont actually know i watched one youtube video). does it matter if i know about the sites or why the uploader uploaded it? would you be ok or now with someone downloading CP from an anonymous source like the example i gave before?

    So your only sources are Twitter and “one YouTube video”, which has an active policy for removing said material?


    It matters to the conversation because you’re driving yourself into absurdity. Why would anybody upload material unless it was for their own sake or to share the material?

    Quote

    the same study that you cited says "all of the information stored in our genes and passed between generations — can only explain 8 to 25 percent of why people have same-sex relations, based on the study’s results." Read your own studies before you link them

    I never argued that being gay is inheritable. I did read the study and it doesn’t rebuke anything I’ve said thus far. Strawman yet again.

    Quote

    you still seem to be skipping over the depression rates for some reason

    Because I don’t think they’re relevant unless you’re going to argue that the only reason for an increase in depression in the Western world is because of LGBTQ+ and not other aspects, which would be pretty funny to see you do so.

    Quote

    discrimination would not stop blacks from speaking up and advocating for rights lmao

    Is that so? I guess the history of African Americans in the states is news to you. Do you think every person is like MLK? Are you that much a tough guy that you would speak up to a regime that would kill you for doing so? Ok tough guy.

    Quote

    yes on studies, i see why they tried to hide the fact that they killed a journalist

    That’s a very odd distinction to make, but if you believe so, then I doubt I will convince you otherwise with the amounts of studies and articles I can throw at you. I think deep down you do in fact know that the KSA is not a reliable source on these matters and you’re just arguing for the sake of not admitting that you don’t have other sources beside them. You didn’t even reply to any of the material I linked as examples of the KSA being a misleading/unreliable source.


    Also, you have yet to cite that “27 executions” number.

  • LGBTQ+ Rights / Similar Discussion

    @fssp#12604

    Quote

    No, I am saying that they do not connect with the majority of the population. Seemingly useless courses offered by universities have been mocked for quite some time and the concept of higher education being on a decline (both educationally and intellectually) is no younger than the supposed liberalization of universities.


    Courses offered by universities have been the target of mockery by many parties, including (but not limited to) "contrarians, edgelords, and/or anti-social justice warriors." Universities have been a target for many years because those who reside in them for long periods of time have a tendency to act intellectually superior and, as previously mentioned, because of the narratives pushed by some academic disciplines regardless of whether or not they are respected by other fields in their particular branch of higher education.

    I would like to see a source other than a wikipedia article describing the perjorative (which does not demonstrate a majority consensus). When you make the claim that the majority of the population do not connect with some university courses, then I’d expect a study detailing as such. I’d also like a citation on the “concept of higher education being on a decline” both academically and intellectually. I wouldn’t be surprised if that has been said for centuries, but I’d assert that this demonstrates absolutely nothing about the actual value provided by universities.


    Universities have been a target for many years because those who reside in them for long periods of time have a tendency to act intellectually superior and, as previously mentioned, because of the narratives pushed by some academic disciplines regardless of whether or not they are respected by other fields in their particular branch of higher education.


    That’s a stereotype, and unless you’re willing to substantiate your claim with evidence, then I don’t see it as anything but conjecture. But yes, I do agree that – recently – there has been a - fringe - anti-intellectualism / anti-education movement (e.g. see recently-elected American politicians and their following). It’s a common republican saying that universities are “liberal indoctrination camps”


    https://www.economist.com/grap…ctrinating-their-students
    https://video.foxnews.com/v/5816094387001/#sp=show-clips
    https://www.newsweek.com/socia…sors-soviet-union-1307591


    and so on. Point being htat I do tacitly agree with the notion that a – fringe, – not a majority, of Americans are skeptical of higher academia. But since the only example you give is that of a stereotype dating back centuries (e.g. ivory tower) I won’t be focusing on it too much. But a reference to said “narratives pushed by academic disciplines” that is not a fringe course. I realize I am moving the goalpost, but I wouldn’t call it a problem unless the most respected social sciences (e.g. (psychology, political science) are pushing a liberal/socialistic agenda.

    Quote

    I could have pointed to a similar country like the ones you have listed, but I didn't, because they did not have an age of consent law that neared the age of eleven. For the sake of demonstrating that a modern-day nation has an age of consent law which nears such an age, I pointed to Nigeria: a country that sets the age at eleven years old for children(?) (I'm not sure what that country's standards are -- in my book, they are children) that can consent to sex with another party. If this isn't what you're asking, you need to phrase your question in a clearer manner. From the likes of it, nobody's trying to obfuscate anything except for you.

    ->Nigeria (third-world, socially-regressive)
    -> “Modern-day nation” (first-world, modern, liberal)


    Choose one.


    My quarrel is still that by pointing to Nigeria you’re smearing me by implying that this is what I’m talking about. I continue to point to similar countries which are equal technologically and have a similar culture / social beliefs.
    Your “nigeria-comment” was not a response to a question, but my comment were I put the word ‘raped’ in inverse commas:

    Quote

    “Homosexual relations between a man and a boy; homosexual anal intercourse, usually with a boy or younger man as the passive partner.”

    I did so to demonstrate that there is a clear difference between an adult male fuking a 15-year old vs. fuking a 7-year old. But you have yet to acknowledge that there is any difference between the two scenarios, which is why I have yet to be convinced that you’re being nothing but disingenuine in this argument.
    I said that is asinine to point to Nigeria in that they are one of the least-similar countries to Western European and the US, which were the countries I wished to compare to since their sexual ages of consent support my view that modern civilizations (liberal) do indeed see a difference between fuking a minor (0-13) and fuking a adolescent youth (13-18). Your continued efforts to not acknowledge this is what I have issues with.

    Quote

    I have never heard of the term "general castration" or the phrase "copping one's balls off" (to "cop" means to catch or obtain something; figuratively, "cop" means to "strike" something, like a bearing). Can you source any of this?
    The distinction between chemical castration and surgical castration is not semantic. "Literally removing the ballsack" and the process of chemical castration do not have identical effects.

    Prime example of what I mean by you being obtuse and focusing on semantics. I have already explained what I meant by “chopping” your balls off, but yet you continue to focus in on this minute detail because… reasons? I won’t go out of my way to “source” idiom because I have already explained what I meant by it, so even if I were to use the wording incorrectly (or just make it up) you would still be certain of what I meant. I never claimed that the distinction between a chemical castration and surgical castration is merely semantic.


    Have you finished strawmanning me?

    Quote

    It should come as no surprise to you that my opinions regarding pedophilia are rather simple, and bear little concern for their sexual livelihood after treatment, considering I only fostered this discussion by answering a question you posed to another user in this thread.

    Simple and naive in my view, but yes it does come at no suprise because that’s what you have expressed on this thread. The fact that you only see one side to the equation is the simple view, and the fact that you think that “chopping the balls off” (idiom for chemical castration…) of a pedophile will somehow solve the issue is the naive part. If you were to actually read my posts before replying, perhaps you’d understand why I believe this is the case.


    Now, as I asked last time: I have to ask you to steelman my arguments plainly for me to read, because I still have yet to be convinced that you're being sincere in this dicussion. Don't quote me - just summarize my argument for each of these topics we're discussing currently.

  • LGBTQ+ Rights / Similar Discussion

    @billy7oblos#12530

    Quote

    are you saying the simulation theory is invalid?

    No. I used that as an example because you claimed that my “prove god isn’t real” quote was the only example of an appeal to ignorance that I could come up with. I simply supplied with another example.
    You have yet to acknowledge that the buden of proof lies upon the one making the claim. You made the first claim that homosexuality is increasing, and the onus is therefore on you to prove said claim. This is why I asked you to prove to me that “God isn’t real” because you made an obvious attempt to shift the burden of proof on me to prove you wrong, when you made the claim in the first place. And no. My rebuttal that the percentage of homosexuals has “remained relatively constant” was not the first claim, as that comment was made in – response – to your claim. The only things you’ve pointed to thus far are suicide statistics (which I have already emphasized aren’t relevant) and studies not finding a “gay gene” which is a strawman.
    I, on the other hand, have linked 10-20 studies, wherein the consensus seems to be that being gay is mostly a result of biology – which would imply that the gay percentage of the human populus has remained relatively constant, - unless – something in our genome has changed due to modern pollution etc. But if you were to make that claim, then you’d be in league with Alex Jones on claiming that the chemicals in the water are turning the frogs gay.

    Quote

    gay people did not identify as gay, have gay sex or have gay relationships in MOST societies, me saying the number of homosexuals is increasing is just citing the visible, if you want to claim there is something more than what is on the surface you need to provide proof for that.

    And I never claimed that they identified as being gay. I already provided plenty of proof that substantiated my claim (e.g. see comments above), and yet again: you’re shifting the burden of proof. You have yet to demonstrate that homosexuality is increasing besides people now being more openly gay, which is – not – the same as an “increasing percentage” of homosexuals in the population. I have continued to say that there are so many reasons as to why this isn’t necessairly explanatory of people turning gay, but that it simply could be a result of people coming out of the closet due to a more open and accepting culture.

    Quote

    (and you cant say they just "weren't called homosexuals" because there was laws against homosexuality, so people couldn't have practiced it anyway)

    What are you even trying to say? Yes, they weren’t called homosexuals because “homosexual” isn’t that old of a term. Regardless of a word being used or not doesn’t mean that a practice didn’t take place.
    Also, you – just claimed – that there were laws against homosexuality, but how could there laws against something that people didn’t “identify as” or didn’t practice by “having gay sex” or having “gay relationships.

    Quote

    […] but homosexuality was not implemented either in the majority of areas

    What does that even mean? Homosexuality isn’t implemented, which is the crux of my argument lol.

    Quote

    i don't know what last 2 comments you are talking about but the majority of the scientific community agrees that homosexuality cannot be explained with genetic factors alone. I agree that just because something is not "described" does not mean it does not exist, but homosexuality was not implemented either in the majority of areas

    The last two comments I made before the post in which you quoted me? I already stated as such and gave citations for the quote:


    “Although no single theory on the cause of sexual orientation has yet gained widespread support, scientists favor biologically-based theories”


    Frankowski BL; American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Adolescence (June 2004). "Sexual orientation and adolescents". Pediatrics. 113 (6): 1827–32. doi:10.1542/peds.113.6.1827. PMID 15173519.


    “There is considerably more evidence supporting nonsocial, biological causes of sexual orientation than social ones, especially for males.”


    Bailey JM, Vasey PL, Diamond LM, Breedlove SM, Vilain E, Epprecht M (2016). "Sexual Orientation, Controversy, and Science". Psychological Science in the Public Interest. 17 (21): 45–101. doi:10.1177/1529100616637616. PMID 27113562. LeVay, Simon (2017). Gay, Straight, and the Reason Why: The Science of Sexual Orientation. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199752966.


    Balthazart, Jacques (2012). The Biology of Homosexuality. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199838820.


    If you want to disagree with me, then you’re tacitly acknowledging that you also disagree with the scientific consensus, and unless you have anything to back up your claim that those exact same scientists haven’t thought of (I implore you to try), then you’re simply spouting an unsubstantiated claim.

    Quote

    i did give justification when i called it illogical (my justification was they cant reproduce [a disability]), not sure how you ignored that

    And I said that your justification was a non-sequitur (not sure how you ignored that): “It’s not “logical” to have intercourse without the intent of procreating yet that’s standard practice for everybody.”

    Quote

    In a detailed compilation of historical and ethnographic materials of pre-industrial cultures, "strong disapproval of homosexuality was reported for 41% of 42 cultures; it was accepted or ignored by 21%, and 12% reported no such concept. Of 70 ethnographies, 59% reported homosexuality absent or rare in frequency and 41% reported it present or not uncommon -Adolescence and puberty By John Bancroft, June Machover Reinisch, p.162

    You’re making the point for me. I agree that homosexuality was rare (and despised). But I will argue that this was because of the threat of persecution and discrimination, not because it didn’t happen because the gay wasn’t implemented. Have you paid any attention for last 140 posts?

    Quote

    all the studies you cited here are before 2019; when the study debunking the gay gene came out

    So all those studies are just no longer viable because a single study came out saying that a single “gay gene” didn’t exist? You do know that there have been studies saying that before, yes? I have never claimed that being gay is – heritable -. I have also never claimed that it was purely biology, but I have pointed to the consensus saying that it is mainly or entirely biology. Now, biology is a broad generalization. The same study from 2019 you linked said that sexuality is polygenic (A lot of different genes make contributions to the trait.) Polygenic traits can be influenced by enviroment or your genome from birth.


    A detailed article explaining the study:
    https://www.pbs.org/newshour/s…st-complex-study-confirms


    “There is no single gene responsible for a person being gay or a lesbian. That’s the first thing you need to know about the largest genetic investigation of sexuality ever, which was published Thursday in Science. The study of nearly a half million people closes the door on the debate around the existence of a so-called “gay gene.”


    “It’s effectively impossible to predict an individual’s sexual behavior from their genome,” said Ben Neale, a geneticist at Massachusetts General Hospital and the Broad Institute who led the study.


    “[Our study] underscores an important role for the environment in shaping human sexual behavior and perhaps most importantly there is no single gay gene but rather the contribution of many small genetic effects scattered across the genome,” Neale said.

    Quote
    1. you said many times that the scientific consensus is that homosexuality is explained by genes

    Exactly. I never claimed that a single gay gene existed. Thank you for acknowledging that you were strawmanning me.

    Quote
    1. when i say homosexuality has to do with your upbringing, i am trying to say that its mostly about how you were raised

    Okay, but I never said so, so you were still strawmanning me.

    Quote
    1. again, you argued that they are mainly a product of genetics

    Mainly =/= exclusively. I argued that they are a product of biology. Enviroment can affect biology.

    Quote

    fair, but keeping your slave happy can be in your own interest

    Have you heard the of the term “pet” before?

    Quote

    you just justified raping an animal with a lower iq? Also i don't see why consent is an issue here, if you are ok with killing an animal you should be ok with the animal being raped, simple as. If you are ok with killing the animal but not ok with raping it, the animal can be killed and "raped" while dead. To clarify are you even saying that sex with dead animals is immoral or..

    I never justified raping an animal with a lower IQ? I’ve literally said that everything is considered rape if you fuk a living being who’s incapable of consenting due to intellectual impairment. You can’t fuk a dog because they can’t consent. You can’t fuk a toddler because they can’t consent. Why do you continue to strawman me?


    I have also never claimed that I think it’s okay to kill an animal. I can understand why we kill animals, because it has a purpose in that it gives us nourishment, clothing and other products as a result of their death. I also never advocated for cruelty against animals, and raping an animal is indeed cruel, because, once again, they can’t consent. And as I mentioned countless times before: raping an animal serves no purpose other than pleasure, whereas the byproducts of killing an animal can and are essnetial for survival. I am also in full support of meat substitutes so killing any beings can be avoided.

    Quote

    To clarify are you even saying that sex with dead animals is immoral or..

    I said that a discussion can be held as to whether it’s immoral or amoral to fuk a dead animal. I could be persuaded by both sides if a good argument was put forth. This is obviously not including scenarios wherien other parties are involved (e.g fuking a recently-deceased family dog).


    There’s a reason why we don’t categorize necrophilism as “raping the dead”. One viewpoint is that once you’re no longer a living being you don’t fall under the potntial “rape umbrella” - you can’t rape a grass, you can’t rape a plastic box.

    Quote

    circumventing both of these is very possible, one can download CP from an anonymous site that does not show the uploader how many times it has been downloaded or the child how many times it has been viewed

    Do you personally know of any such sites? And what would be point of putting that material online other than for it to be evidence for the FBI to charge you with?

    Quote

    i never claimed its rape, i claimed its immoral because its sexual deviation, a tree is an inanimate object and so is a dead animal. Cutting an animal up is not exactly 'desecrating' so fucking it wouldn't be either.

    And I never said that you claimed it’s rape. I said that I thought you’d agree that it wasn’t rape, which you do.


    Sexual deviancy does not equal immoral. What would be inherently moral about a sexual deviant?

    Quote

    Also the definition of 'desecration' is here, it means "to violate the sanctity of" and essentially goes back to morality

    And?

    Quote

    the scientific consensus does not agree with you

    https://www.pbs.org/newshour/s…st-complex-study-confirms


    “Although no single theory on the cause of sexual orientation has yet gained widespread support, scientists favor biologically-based theories”


    Frankowski BL; American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Adolescence (June 2004). "Sexual orientation and adolescents". Pediatrics. 113 (6): 1827–32. doi:10.1542/peds.113.6.1827. PMID 15173519.


    “There is considerably more evidence supporting nonsocial, biological causes of sexual orientation than social ones, especially for males.”


    Bailey JM, Vasey PL, Diamond LM, Breedlove SM, Vilain E, Epprecht M (2016). "Sexual Orientation, Controversy, and Science". Psychological Science in the Public Interest. 17 (21): 45–101. doi:10.1177/1529100616637616. PMID 27113562. LeVay, Simon (2017). Gay, Straight, and the Reason Why: The Science of Sexual Orientation. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199752966.


    Balthazart, Jacques (2012). The Biology of Homosexuality. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199838820.

    Feel free to point me to a metastudy that claims the opposite.

    Quote

    in your argument, they would not commit suicide but would still be depressed for being forced to repress their 'identity'

    I would argue that some wouldn’t commit suicide due to their religious beliefs, but some would still. I didn’t argue for a false dichotomy.

    Quote

    The section you cited did not say that there is a law against lgbt activism? I did find a case that an lgbt activist was jailed and deported though, but the law (in your narrative) cant stop people from 'being attracted to the same gender'.

    Do you honestly want me to point to a paragraph in sharia law stating that “LGBT activism is illegal”? You don’t believe somebody can be discriminated against unless it explicitly says that (e.g.) “blacks are inferior to whites”?

    Quote

    Why are you implying that a government body would lie about how many people received the death penalty? I dont see why the saudi human rights commission to lie, and it makes sense that when there is a lockdown less crimes will happen. And whatever you quoted did not link to a source and did not even imply that the number was false

    You genuinely believe that the KSA are a reliable source? You believed the government of Saudi Arabia when they claimed that Jamal Khashoggi had left the consulate alive? Or that he had been strangled during a “fist fight”? Don’t you think you’re being a tad naive lol.
    Also, I’m not implying. I am saying that the KSA are lying about their death penalty statistics, which is why I cited – your own article – detailling this exact thing. And yes they did link to sources: Amnesty International, Reprieve and European-Saudi Organisation for Human Rights (ESOHR).
    They also mentioned that the numbers are misleading or false:


    "The decline can partly be attributed to the Covid-19 lockdown from February to April, when the government carried out no executions due to restrictions to control the virus," it [Reprieve] said.


    'The government recommenced executions at an increased rate in the final quarter of 2020: approximately one-third of all executions last year were carried out in December alone.'


    According to Amnesty International, Saudi Arabia put to death a record 184 people in 2019. Half were foreign nationals and six were women.


    Reprieve and the European-Saudi Organisation for Human Rights (ESOHR) are monitoring the cases of 80 people believed to be facing the death penalty at various stages of trial."


    Feel free to read your own source here.
    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-55710005

  • LGBTQ+ Rights / Similar Discussion

    @fssp#12499

    Quote

    In recent times, universities have been known to offer courses which have been highly critized and seen as "poor scholarship decisions." These fields offered in the form of courses by various universities include "gender studies," "fat studies," and "queer studies," just to name a few. (More academic journals are specified by the article on the Sokal Squared scandal which makes a case for the increasing prevalence of "postmodern jargon" and "academic-babble" in some courses offered by universities.) In addition to the message of these articles being almost entirely nonsensical,

    Good example, although I would have to note that these are examples of generally less-respected disciplines. The fields they submitted in were “cultural, queer, race, gender, fat, and sexuality studies” as opposed to general fields like psychology, biology or sociology. So I wouldn’t agree if you tried to claim that this means that the entirety of (American) academia has been corrupted by poor science.

    Quote

    concepts to the likes of "fat studies" are rather extreme and do not connect with the majority of the population. Rather, they are made fun of.

    I don’t understand what you mean. Are you saying that “useless” degrees like “fat studies” are mocked regularly online, because I don’t think that means anything besides contrarians/edgelords/anti-SJW’s need something to point to instead of concrete policy from the left (as in: most anti-SJW’s are on the right as far as I’m aware). If that is indeed what you mean, then I don’t think that broadly encapsulates the entirety of the US populus.

    Quote

    Now you're just repeating yourself despite the fact that I have continually answered this question.
    I mentioned Nigeria because it has the "youngest age of consent in the world," and no European country has an age of consent law that nears the age of eleven. If you believe that I am intentionally making an implication about African countries, that's your opinion and there's nothing I can do about that.

    Because you continue to obfuscate and not answer my question. You have yet to answer why you couldn’t simply point to a similar culture/country like the ones I listed instead of attempting to smear my argument by pointing to a socially-backwards country. My question is not “why did you point to Nigeria”. The age of 11 is obviously below the consensus in the US and Europe, which is why I find it silly to point to a country with vastly different cultural characteristics when you could’ve simply listed a country from Europe (e.g. Germany) which has a low sexual age of consent, and you would’ve still gotten your point across. It all boils down to the fact that Nigeria is so vastly different to Europe and the US that they are irrelevant to the conversation.


    It doesn’t look like you’ll acknowledge my question fairly, so feel free to end the discussion on this note.

    Quote

    My quote included that which was pertinent to the argument, because the original quote does not imply that there was no consensus of opinion that Athenian law "recognized both consent and age as factors in regulating sexual behavior." If there were truly no consensus on that subject, the sentence regarding Athens would not be separate from that which concerns how "scholars have debated the role or extent of pederasty."

    Your quote included that which merely supported your argument, and you omitted the entirety of it to not stain your argument. The entirety of your argument relies on the example of Athens, which is why I said it was important to include the first part in that scholars don’t have a clear consensus on the role or extent of pederasty. I could just as easily say that the reason why they included Athens in the quote is because it was an outlier: an example of such variations across local customs and individual inclination. So yes, including the first part of the quote is indeed important for the context, and your exclusion of such is nothing less than cherry-picking.

    Quote

    To assert that [perhaps] in a majority of cases it favored either party places you in a state of abeyance, considering there were no records kept of those who were abused and it has already been established that certain territories of Ancient Greece exerted autonomy with respect to the laws concerning this subject.

    I never said that the relationship favoured either party? I said in that all likelihood it was a teenage-adult relationship, which is why I cited the quote in the first place. You won’t get me to use the wording “favoured either party” because that implies that I support adult-teen relationships which is something I have never said I do or don’t. What I argued was that there is a clear distinction between an adult male fuking a 6-year old vs. an adult male fuking a 15-year old. I used the wording “perhaps” because all I could go off is the quote I originally cited, wherein I also mentioned that I do not have a enough knowledge on the subject to continue arguing with you, but then you boil this argument down to semantics, which has even less relevancy to the topic at hand.

    Quote

    Chemical castration is regarded by the majority of sources as a form of castration by way of chemical injection. The act of "removing one's balls" refers to surgical castration, and chemical castration does not involve acid as previously mentioned.


    There is (and should continue to be) a social stigma against pedophiles in order to discourage them from any form of public participation until they are no longer attracted to children, which can be done by eliminating (or severely lowering) their sex drive. The social stigma against pedophiles is a natural reaction against something which can be physically and emotionally harming to children. Nobody should be "attracted" to a child in a sexual manner.

    You’re still being obtuse, so I will continue to explain that “copping one’s balls off” is a synonym for general castration, at least that’s how I used it in this context, and yet again you’re trying to direct this conversation over to a semantics game. Whether that is literally removing your ballsack or simply injecting one with a chemical to hinder the production of x. I would assume by your wording that you think there should be a social stigma against depression, axiety and PTSD as you want to continue the stigmatisation of pedophiles, people suffering from a mental illness. I explained in previous comment why this is a bad idea and will only lead to more children getting abused, but your seemingly narrow vision only enables you to see the false dichotomy of “either we remove their balls” (I still have to explain that this is a synonym for removing their ability to reproduce) or more children will get removed.
    Removing a part of one’s body is – not – treatment. If you get infection in your arm, the go-to is not to remove the arm itself unless it is the only way to avoid harming the body further. No pedophile will go in for your proposed treatment of cutting their dick off (not literally) and will thus keep an influx of child abusers. I’m sorry, but your viewpoint is why schizophrenic were imprisoned for their illness, why people suffering from depression have killed themselves en mass and why more children will continue to get abused.
    I never claimed that anybody should be attracted to children, which is why I am advocating for treatment of their illness, so it is deeply disingenuine to insinuate that I have said otherwise:

    Quote

    Nobody should be "attracted" to a child in a sexual manner.


    If the process of castration diminishes the sex drive of somebody who is at a risk of offending, how is that not a form of treatment?

    Limiting the sex drive of pedophiles is an option – an option which will severely diminish the potential life quality they could get with an (adult) partner in the future if they were to be fully rehabilitated. Do you advocate for a social stigma against transgenderism or homosexuality? How’d that go for the last 100s of years? The social stigma against pedophiles should be directed towards child molesters. Those people should indeed get punished and get help for their urges. You’re simplying this issue so much that the only choice for you seems to be chemical castration. I wouldn’t be surprised if you told me that depressed people should simply stop being unhappy. Nobody should indeed be attracted to a child, but you're acting as if it's the individual's own fault for their mental illness. Being depressed is not a choice, being anxious is not a choice, being a pedophile is not a choice. Get people help when they need it. Period.


    I would genuinely like you to steelman my arguments before you continue the conversation on both topics, because I honestly don’t believe you’re being sincere in this conversation.

  • LGBTQ+ Rights / Similar Discussion

    @fssp#12406

    Quote

    I believe this to be an issue on the basis that increased polarization between urbanized and rural counties in the United States, if brought to such a degree, would almost certainly lead to a political fracture between regions depending on their lenience. Those who are "pushed" to the political right usually do so in response to agitation on behalf of the political left, particularly in response to extreme narratives published by academics which do not necessarily contrast with the generally moderate public, while self-identified "leftists" usually rank "right-wing extremists" as among the most urgent crises in our country. As for your argument regarding political labels, I believe that Americans who identify politicians having anything to do with democratic socialism as "far-left" demonstrates a considerable hostility to the shift towards liberalism in America in the minds of some voters.

    Can you give an example of an “extreme narrative”?
    And I don’t disagree with you saying that when right-wingers label social democrats as “far-left” shows hostility, and by extension, a fracture in US politics. However, that doesn’t negate my point that people ultimately can’t categorize these labels accurately, and the study you linked is therefore an absurdly simplified approach to a broader complex issue.

    Quote

    The political or geographic situation of Nigeria is irrelevant to why the country was referenced; Nigeria has the youngest age of consent in the world. I can't tell if you're intentionally undermining the point regarding this statistic by asserting what I was "trying to say" even though nothing of the sort was remotely mentioned in my post.

    What isn’t irrelevant is that you pointing to a sociall-regressive country which is typically in the category of what people think of when we say “third world”. When you point to such a country you insinuate, whether intentionally or not, that only “backwards” or highly-conservative countries have a low sexual age of consent, because they simply just want to rape little kids legally.
    This is why I continue to ask you why you didn’t point to a similar society like the countries I listed in Europe if your intention was to simply point to a country with a low age of consent. Just because you didn’t explicitly say something doesn’t mean that your words can’t tacitly imply something.

    Quote

    If you are of the persuasion that Wikipedia is the be-all and end-all for historical consensus, then I am willing to entertain that by citing various elements of the same article: "[the] extent of pederasty [...] is likely to have varied according to local custom and individual inclination," which goes on to exemplify Athenian law as recognizing age as factorial thus implying that laws for other cities of Ancient Greece were lacking in this regard; "[in the modern world] prepubescent and adolescent children are not socially equal to adults, and abusers emotionally manipulate the children they victimize."

    Are you genuinely of the belief that I value Wikipedia as the “be-all and end-all” for historical consensus?
    I think Wikipedia is a valuable tool for references or for summarization of a topic enabling one to get a more accurate portrayal of said consensus. One can then evaluate whether or not the Wikipedia article agrees with the literature, because every article includes a reference table at the bottom.
    The fact that you were the first one to link to the Wikipedia speaks more about you than it does me for citing that very same article.


    I think it is disingenious to omit the whole quote:


    “Scholars have debated the role or extent of pederasty, which is likely to have varied according to local custom and individual inclination. Athenian law, for instance, recognized both consent and age as factors in regulating sexual behavior.”


    Your quote excludes the wording that this is a debated topic by scholars, and not a consensus as your quote makes it seem. One might even call it cherry-picking. Also, I have still yet to claim that it was uncommon for older men to have sexual relations with minors (<13). All I have said is that the very same page you used as a source says that it was usually between a teenage boy and an adult male. When you cite a quote saying that it varied from city state to city state doesn’t refute my point when I recognize that, yes, it likely happened to minors as well.

    Quote

    Chemical castration does not entail the "removal of their [genitalia]" and would aim to decrease the sexual drive of a pedophile. The purpose of such a treatment would be to prevent somebody that does not want to hurt anyone from acting upon an urge so vile and detrimental to children. In short, decreasing the sexual drive of pedophiles and other offenders not only aims to remedy someone of their own illness, however seeks to make these individuals useful for society after undergoing a certain therapeutic routine.

    You’re being obtuse. Removing one’s balls is a common synonym for castration. Chemical castration does indeed involve mutilation of the body, which I why I said I was against it instead of getting treatment for an individual suffering from this illness. You’re setting up a false dichotomy that we either mutilate the body of a pedophile or they will go on to rape innocent children. The solution should be treatment, and if that was not useful, then we can perhaps start to talk about forced castration. It seems as though you agree with this notion, but you contradict this viewpoint by starting your paragraph with a false dichotomy. Getting people help for their mental illness (and yes, pedophelia is considered a mental illness) should always be the go-to, and if you were to go the other route you simply continue down the same route of stigmatization – meaning that pedophiles won’t go for the “treatment” you wish they receive, and will instead be left to themselves to either act on their urges or supress them and suffer for it. I don’t want to compare pedophiles to homosexuals, because homosexuality is not an illness, but this is an issue which affects both parties, and the fact that pedophilia is often misconstrued as child molestation just further exemplifies that people have a hard time seeing it from the other side. Child molestation is horrible, and the perpetrator should be sentenced and afterwards get help for their illness. The best path would be for them to get treatment – before – they act on their urges.


    Of course, if the individual in question wants their dick removed to remove their urges (I apparently have to state that I don’t mean this literally), then I would in most circumstances be fine with it.


    But when you say

    Quote

    “I would not want any sort of "pedophile" around my child, or anyone else's child (if they had any significant sexual drive or were "attracted" to children).”

    you demonstrate a one-sided view on the scenario, and perhaps even a misguided view on mental illness as a whole. There’s a reason why homosexuals have stayed in the closet until recently and why many have killed themselves due to the social stigma.

  • LGBTQ+ Rights / Similar Discussion

    @billy7oblos#12402 “Making up homosexuality” means making up the word, not the practice. I never argued that the word, or our direct understanding of the word “homosexuality” or “gay” has been ingrained in culture before the modern age. Humans have existed for 100s of thousands of years, but the term “human” originated less than 300 years ago.

    Quote

    Its crazy how you gave the example of god (especially because god would be the only example of something that causality theoretically does not apply to

    And the example is still valid. I think we live in a simulation, prove me wrong.

    Quote

    because THAT IS EXACTLY what you are doing, you are claiming something existed by default and telling ME to prove you wrong.

    No. I rebuked your point (being that homosexuality has increased) with my claim that it has remained relatively constant, but that the practice is now more open due to acceptance. I already showed you that you made the claim first, so I don’t get why you continually want me to disprove you, when you have yet to give proof. I even quoted you lol.

    Quote

    Gay people don't exist by DEAFAULT,


    yea but they were still human, people didn't just have gay sex and call themselves something else.

    The majority of the scientific community disagree with you (see last two comments). As I noted earlier, just because something isn’t described doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Gravity wasn’t described in detail before Newton but it still existed. Humans did still exist even though the term “human” only originates back 300 years.

    Quote

    its not logical because they cant reproduce and EVEN if it was possible we have significant evidence against it; what does it mean to that most societies either were against homosexuality or did not even know about it (12%) .

    Saying “It’s not logical” does not mean that something is illogical without further justification. when you don’t give anything that supports your claim you’re merely arguing with your feelings. It’s not “logical” to have intercourse without the intent of procreating yet that’s standard practice for everybody.
    Also: citation needed for that 12% number, and the fact that “most societies did not even know about it (homosexuality)”.

    Quote

    Here is an example: if zoophilia was popularized and 5% of american society 'came out' as zoophiles, would their disputant need to prove that zoophiles are increasing? (zoophiles would claim that they were in the 'closet' because of stigma) The answer is surely no: the zoohpiles would need to prove that they existed in a constant number through history, and they would not be able to although (like you) they would probably mention some zoophiles from the past.


    whenever i say influenced by society in this thread i mean influenced mainly/fully by society.

    The one who makes the first claim has the burden of proof. I don’t get why that is so hard to fathom.


    It highly depends on what you mean by “increasing”. When you say “increasing” I interpret it as though people are – turning – gay. If I were to use the wording “increasing” I would be refering to the number of openly homosexual persons – in that, as society becomes more accepting, they will “come of out the closet”.


    I can only point to the scientific consensus that homosexuals are mostly a consequence of biology. There is considerably more evidence supporting nonsocial, biological causes of sexual orientation than social ones, especially for males.


    Frankowski BL; American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Adolescence (June 2004). "Sexual orientation and adolescents". Pediatrics. 113 (6): 1827–32. doi:10.1542/peds.113.6.1827. PMID 15173519.


    Bailey JM, Vasey PL, Diamond LM, Breedlove SM, Vilain E, Epprecht M (2016). "Sexual Orientation, Controversy, and Science". Psychological Science in the Public Interest. 17 (21): 45–101. doi:10.1177/1529100616637616. PMID 27113562. LeVay, Simon (2017). Gay, Straight, and the Reason Why: The Science of Sexual Orientation. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199752966.


    Balthazart, Jacques (2012). The Biology of Homosexuality. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199838820.

    Quote

    yes i did read your comment, and none of my arguments have been strawman arguments


    Okay. Can you point to when I said:

    “There exists - a – gay gene”
    “It (homosexuality) has nothing to do with how you were raised”
    “LGBTQ+ people are exclusively a product of genetics.”

    Quote

    ""we dont enslave animals" Yes we do we milk cows [inhumanely] and cramp thousands of chickens into rooms so we can eat them later, we give them chemicals so they breed more and genetically engineer fish (and cut off dogs pp).

    Good point. I agree, which is why I support meat alternatives like Impossible Foods or Beyond Meat. I look forward to the day that all real meat comes from animals who’ve had a good life, and everything else is either grown or made in a lab.

    Quote

    Personally i wouldn't say 'enslaving' animals is bad (as long as its not inhumane) because animals don't understand.

    So you agree that animals – can’t consent to sex because they “don’t understand”.

    Quote

    Also feeding your slave is not 'remuneration', its keeping them alive to do more work.

    Feeding a slave is still a form remuneration, especially if the feed is tasty, and not just for nourishment. How would you go about giving your slave horse, dog or cat “remuneration” besides feed? It’s known that some sheep/cattle dog breeds literally get depressed if they don’t have any work to do (e.g. herding)

    Quote

    As for the consent, i too once tried to use that argument and it failed horribly

    Your example doesn’t negate my argument. I said, and you just agreed to it yourself in the quote above, that animals (e.g. horses) don’t have the mental aptitude to consent to a sexual act, which is the same reasoning why a 6-year old can’t consent to it as well.
    The reasoning you give for it being different than a child consenting is also not a rebuttal to what I said. The reason killing an animal is considered different than killing a person is again due to intellect, and killing an (intelligent) animal mercilessly is still illegal and will land you an animal cruelty charge. And just because it’s a full-grown horse doesn’t negate the fact that horses, again, aren’t smart enough to consent. This is why I pointed to the debate about whether or not a low-iq individual (>70) can consent to sex.

    Quote

    As for the rules of consent being made around iq, animals can have a higher iq than 70 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44559261

    Except IQ tests aren’t meant for animals and according to her own instructor and caregiver, Francine Patterson,
    “it is specious to compare her IQ directly with that of a human infant – because – gorillas develop locomotor abilities earlier than humans and many IQ tests for infants require mostly motor responses. Gorillas and humans also mature at different rates, so using a gorilla’s chronicial age to comput their IQ results in a score is not very helpful for comparative purposes.”


    https://web.archive.org/web/20…s/root/pdfs/teok_book.pdf

    Quote

    and one more thing: its possible to make it that there are no consequences from having sex with an animal. I feel like you are avoiding the real question here: if an animal came willingly to have sex with a human and there were no consequences [to the animal], would you have a problem with it and why (if you reject that sexual deviation is wrong)

    I never said that in all instances there are consequences from having sex with an animal (for the animal specifically). This has never been the focal point of my argument.


    And yes, I would still have a problem with an animal going to a person for intercourse, because animals can’t consent. You’re arguing from a merely utilitarian viewpoint which isn’t that useful in the context of this debate.


    Lastly: I don’t subscribe to the idea that sexual deviation is inherently wrong. I believe that fuking beings whom are incapable of sexual consent. If you want to argue that children or animals can indeed consent to sexual intercourse, then be my guest.

    Quote

    you would not be exploiting the person though, the person is already exploited and has already suffered. Watching it wont hurt the person, and not watching it wont unrape them.

    Exploit: “to make use of meanly or unfairly for one's own advantage”
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exploit


    You are exploiting the child who has been abused for viewing purposes by viewing said material. That’s why the material was filmed, and that’s what you’re engaging in.
    How can you be certain that watching said material won’t hurt the person emotionally, in that they will know that other’s have partaken in distributing or watching their abuse. As I mentioned previously: when you watch content for pleasure you’re tacitly showing your approval of the content. If you like towatch lesbian porn, then you’re showing approval for the content, and this can help perpetuate the market for such material.


    Now, if you’re going to argue that child porn could be used in a clinical setting for treatment and therapy, then you might get me to agree to some aspects.

    Quote

    are you claiming its moral (fucking a dead animal)? would you be ok with people getting married to dead animals?

    I don’t understand why you switch from fucking a dead animal to marrying one. I would think that fucking a dead animal is worse.
    No. It is not moral, nor would I necessairly think it is immoral in all contexts, because it heavily depends on when the line is drawn. Fucking a dead person is desecrating their corpse, so ultimately fucking a dead dog would be the same, yes? But since dogs don’t understand human concepts such as respect, then I would be torn between it being amoral (nothing to do with morals), or it being immoral. I would think that you would agree that fucking a tree isn’t rape, nor is fucking a dead tree trunk considered desecration. So it all really depends on where you draw the line.

    Quote

    You said "there are gay people in the ksa" when that doesn't really mean anything because there are probably WAY less gay people in ksa than in the us, meaning that homosexuality can still be linked mostly or entirely to society and how you were raised

    That doesn’t negate the fact that there still are gay people in the KSA, and I would still contend that the percentage of the population is relatively equal to that of other more open societies like Western Europe. For my argument, it doesn’t matter whether someone is outwardly gay, suprpressing their sexuality or being persecuted, because being homosexual simply means you’re attracted to the same gender, and I hope you would agree that being gay is – not – a choice, because that is what the entirety of my argument relies upon.
    So no, I still beg to differ that homosexuality is mostly or entirely linked to society and your upbringing. The scientific consensus agrees with me.

    Quote

    and yet they still have lower depression and suicide rates; things you claim come from repressing sexuality

    And you continue to use this to support your argument, even though I have continually told you why this is a non sequitur. Do you believe that the only thing that causes people to suffer from depression and ultimately suicide is being gay?


    Suicide is a deadly sin in all of the world’s major religions. 93% of the KSA are Muslim. If your religion, state or culture actively persecute you for your sexuality, then I doubt you would be outwardly expressing said sexuality. I wouldn’t put it past others for either fleeing the country or simply suppressing who you are.

    Quote

    my answer to why nazi Germany cant be compared was the amount of people who received the death penalty. The punishment for homosexuality in saudi arabia is the country's interpretation of sharia: they are punished either by stoning or lashing. This is not an "unreadable source"; its very clear


    no, the law clearly is not against LGBT activism or "being gay" its against sodomy, lets remember that it was YOU who brought up the KSA so you cant exactly call me out on "cherry picking". Saudi arabia is a good example though because it is an ultra-conservative country and the only country that claims to have the sharia law as its legal system. As for the source of the death penalty. (i heard egypt is much more harsh on lgbt)

    The law is not against LGBTQ activism or homosexuality? Please read this section before you make yourself sound even more silly:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…y_of_same-sex_sexual_acts


    Saying that the law is not against something is a ridiculous notion. You can still discriminate against something without explicitly saying it. Drug war being a good example.
    I also didn’t say it was an “unreadable source”. I said that the KSA is not a reliable source, and if you’re being genuine in this discussion you would agree. Also, you have yet to actually link the stats you’re spouting.


    The KSA does not recognize same-sex marriage, domestic partnerships or civil unions. The government actively arrests people for being gay (e.g. in 2005 when 92 men were arrested and the sentences varied from fines to prison or lashings. The law derives from Sunni sharia. This is not to mention discrimination and harassment or censorship and education.
    no, the law clearly is not against LGBT activism or "being gay" its against sodomy, lets remember that it was YOU who brought up the KSA so you cant exactly call me out on "cherry picking". Saudi arabia is a good example though because it is an ultra-conservative country and the only country that claims to have the sharia law as its legal system. As for the source of the death penalty. (i heard egypt is much more harsh on lgbt)


    The reason why I called you out for cherry-picking is because you have yet to point to other sources beyond the government of Saudi Arabia. In your linked article, the one who is making the claim that the KSA is reducing the number of people put to death is a - governmental body -:


    “Saudi Arabia "drastically" reduced the number of people it put to death last year, according to a governmental body.”


    And this has been questioned by a variety of different groups:
    "''The campaign group Reprieve warned that the number might increase this year.


    'The decline can partly be attributed to the Covid-19 lockdown from February to April, when the government carried out no executions due to restrictions to control the virus,' it said.


    'The government recommenced executions at an increased rate in the final quarter of 2020: approximately one-third of all executions last year were carried out in December alone.'


    According to Amnesty International, Saudi Arabia put to death a record 184 people in 2019. Half were foreign nationals and six were women.'""

    Quote

    before the study debunking the gay gene came out

    It has been known for many years that there is no single “gay gene”