Is There a 'Gay' Gene?

[thenry]

A 'rock' is a 'rock'...with progress we can know more and more about the rock, but..it remains a 'rock' absolute and unchanging to all and for all time.

Such statements about absolutes are absolutely true. Definitively. In fact, no argument can be made to refute such a statement.

Incidentily, a 'schlumeebus' is a 'schlumeebus'...with progress we can know more and more about the schlumeebus, but..it remains a 'schlumeebus' absolute and unchanging to all and for all time.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Thank you Colly...nice up front reply...

You said..."In a world without absolutes,..."


Perhaps that is my stumbling point with most...I do not comprehend how others can state, "There are no absolutes"

Aristotle's axiom, (see I do quote other than fictional authors), his assertion that A is A. A thing is what it is, tied with an almost Geometry based expansion of that axiom, including the corollaries of B and C...ad infinitum, proves in logical terms that, 'Reality exists.'

In my perception, most everything in reality has absolute existence.

We use our senses to perceive that existence, our minds to categorize and store the information and language to communicate that knowledge to others.

A 'rock' is a 'rock'...with progress we can know more and more about the rock, but..it remains a 'rock' absolute and unchanging to all and for all time.

Absolute and Universal. Without that basic acknowledgement, the human mind rebels and seeks solace in 'faith' in order to maintain sanity.

Acquiring knowledge is not an easy task, extending that physical knowledge of reality into the metaphysical is even more difficult.

I guess if it were easy, everyone would do it.

regards and thank you again...amicus

In absolutes I was speaking in terms of conceptual truths, not physical ones. I acept the world is full of physical absolutes. It is also filled with physically based absolutes like condensation, evaporation and melting.

I think there are very few universal moral or ethical absolutes. Morality is muteable. For example, if a warrior of the Crow tribe cut out a man's liver and ate it, he wasn't mutilating the body, he was honoring his enemy and hoped to gain part of the enemy's strength. He was totally in sync with the morality of his people and time. Yet if an american soldier in Iraq did the same thing to a particularly strong & wiley insurgent, he would be courtmartialed at the least, unless he was proven "psychologically" unfit to know he was commiting an atrocity.

In many primitive cultures the word for enemy and stranger are the same and it is totally right and moral to try to kill any stanger. It would be immoral not to, as the stranger represents a possible threat to the group. Yet if I whip out the old .44 and blast the first stranger I see on the street I am bound for the nut house or prison.

Even within the same chronological period in some countries it is perfectly normal to kidnap a pretty girl, then rape her repeatedly, then go to her father and get married. Try that in NY and its the prison bell you will be hearing and not wedding bells.

Not too long ago an immigrant was arrested for mutilating his child. But female circumcision was not only normal, it was the moral thing to do where he came from. (Sudan I think, I could be mistaken)

There are multiple examples of two different "moral" codes that are both perfectly accepted and considered moral by their practioners, but are diametrically opposed to one another in application to some act.

A universal moral code, would have to make both parties right, without contradicting itself. To save yourself from such connundrums, your code would have to rank some vaguely defineable thing like "personal gratification" as the number one concern. By making the code hierarchical, you could then handle such situations by saying the tribesman is right to kill the stranger because that's what he wants to do. And his personal gratification outranks any prohibition against killing.

-Colly

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Amicus-

Deinitions by the wikipedia

Flamebait is a message posted to an Internet discussion group, such as a newsgroup or a mailing list, with the intent of provoking an angry response (a "flame"). Various motives or explanations can be sought for this puzzling behavior; from a common sense point of view, the practice seems usually to be a cry for attention.

It should be pointed out that, of course, it is often hard to determine who is really responsible for the degradation of a reasonable discussion into a flamewar. Someone who posts a contrary opinion in a strongly focused discussion forum may be easily labeled a "baiter", "flamer" or "troll". Therefore, it seems especially important to make the rules and focus of a discussion forum public to avoid misconceptions about its accepted use.

The conclusion to a flamewar precipitated by flamebait is usually determined by recourse to Godwin's Law.

See also Internet troll, Social software.

#

On the Internet, the term troll is a slang term used to describe a number of things, traditionally:

1. A post (on a newsgroup, or other forum) thought to be intended to incite controversy or conflict.
2. A person who posts these.


The term troll has negative connotations, and is often applied as an insult. An individual posting honestly-held but controversial opinions is sometimes mis-labeled as a troll. By contrast, a troll's primary incentive is generally considered to be the incitement of conflict.

A troll's reactions to being identified as a troll often gives the game away. A person unjustly accused of being a troll may be hurt and express indignation. A troll is more likely to react with verbal abuse, raising the stakes with inflammatory remarks maligning the motivation of the accuser, and may pursue his/her perceived enemy from site to site.

Trolling is often described as an online version of the breaching experiment, where social boundaries and rules of etiquette are broken. Self-proclaimed trolls often style themselves as Devil's Advocates or gadflies, challenging the dominant discourse and assumptions of the forum they are 'trolling' in an attempt to subvert and introduce different ways of thinking. Detractors claim that true "Devil's Advocates" generally identify themselves as such for the sake of etiquette whereas trolls do not feel so bound.

Trolls are sometimes caricatured as socially-inept. This is often due to fundamental attribution error, as it is difficult to know the real traits of an individual solely from their online discourse. Indeed, since intentional trolls are alleged to knowingly flout social boundaries, it is difficult to typecast them as socially inept since they have arguably proven adept at their goal of inciting conflict.

Yes, the marketplace of ideas is something I believe in, but I also believe in resisting the urge to be a prick on the net. You are a troll, you are a flamebaiter. The definitions fit what you have been trying to do with this thread and The Feminine Mistake (as you yourself admitted).

What are you hoping to get out of this? You insult all of the community of a porno writer's clique and then complain when they turn nasty. I mean what'd you expect the community to be like? It's EROTIC LITERATURE, asshole! Of course the majority of the people will be liberal. So will the majority of the posters be of a certain political affiliation? No shit. However, you'll notice that much of the community is very tolerant of conservative views as long as they're well supported, logical, and not flame-baiting.

Listen sweet cheeks, you sometimes do a good enough job debating. In the global warming debate you kept your dismissing me as a leftist comments at what I assume for you is a minimum and you actually went out and found an article in a decent science magazine to support your position. However for every one of those you have ten of these, "I'm a god, dance before me angry liberals you can't touch me" threads that really grate my nerves. I know the point of this thread is just to attack liberals because you're not even bothering with the arguments and you personally couldn't care less about whether homosexuality is genetic-based or environment-based or a mixture of both. All you care about is the animosity so you can feel better about yourself. It disgusts me not as a liberal or a conservative or a fascist or a libertarian, but as a human being and a member of the scientific community you also denigrate. So in case my point is not clear enough, allow me to condense:

You are a troll. Stop it.

When you want to be a civilized member of the community of ideas again, let us know. Until then have fun in your nutshell under the bridge and mark how infinite your kingdom seems.

 

[amicus]

Hope you feel better now.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Hope you feel better now.

No, I really don't. But I do know now that you either don't read my posts anymore or that you simply don't care.

Sigh, that's the way it goes. I'll just pip in then and again with the science report I guess and watch while you ignore it because you spent so many years studying biology.

 

[Guest]

No, I really don't. But I do know now that you either don't read my posts anymore or that you simply don't care.

Sigh, that's the way it goes. I'll just pip in then and again with the science report I guess and watch while you ignore it because you spent so many years studying biology.

Just put him on ignore, Luc -

It's amazing how erudite the threads become!





P.S. *giggle* you called him sweet cheeks! *grin*

 

[pop_54]

Oh no, that was Catholic thocracy. Catholics aren't Christians, they are Idolaters worshiping mary & saints & collecting icons

Entering the mind of a fundamentalist, KJ version of course is a trip in convoluted logic and double speak. i know, i was raised a southern Baptist

-Colly

Yea but catholics must approve of gay sex Colly darling surely... I mean they shag choirboys don't they.

 

[snooper]

Yea but catholics must approve of gay sex Colly darling surely... I mean they shag choirboys don't they.

Pop, you disappoint me. That crack was not the product of the intelligent pop we know.

 

[pop_54]

Pop, you disappoint me. That crack was not the product of the intelligent pop we know.

Just a cheap shot at the hypocrisy of the church regarding things like this mate, and avoiding a page of blurb in the process... Of course me not being particularly religious and all... I thought some might be offended.... but that's just me I'm afraid.

I gave up long ago posting long drawn out blurbs here that no one much bothered to read or take any notice of, preferring the short sharp shock approach these days.