You argue like you constantly need to be perfect in the way you phrase things. Like everyone needs to be as precise as necessary. I'll be honest, I didn't follow precisely what you were saying at first- this entire time your position has been largely neutral-at least from what you've explicitly said.
However, it doesn't take a genius to see that what you imply is far from neutral. You're the type to use the lack of certainty necessary in science to be an asshat.
Its pretty apparent that you never actually investigated FLRW's source did you? Don't worry, i did your homework for ya-
"In the discovery samples (UK Biobank and 23andMe), five autosomal loci were significantly associated with same-sex sexual behavior. Follow-up of these loci suggested links to biological pathways that involve sex hormone regulation and olfaction. Three of the loci were significant in a meta-analysis of smaller, independent replication samples. Although only a few loci passed the stringent statistical corrections for genome-wide multiple testing and were replicated in other samples, our analyses show that many loci underlie same-sex sexual behavior in both sexes. In aggregate, all tested genetic variants accounted for 8 to 25% of variation in male and female same-sex sexual behavior, and the genetic influences were positively but imperfectly correlated between the sexes [genetic correlation coefficient (rg) = 0.63; 95% confidence intervals, 0.48 to 0.78]. These aggregate genetic influences partly overlapped with those on a variety of other traits, including externalizing behaviors such as smoking, cannabis use, risk-taking, and the personality trait “openness to experience.” Additional analyses suggested that sexual behavior, attraction, identity, and fantasies are influenced by a similar set of genetic variants (rg > 0.83); however, the genetic effects that differentiate heterosexual from same-sex sexual behavior are not the same as those that differ among nonheterosexuals with lower versus higher proportions of same-sex partners, which suggests that there is no single continuum from opposite-sex to same-sex preference."
Pretty interestin' i'd say, to dumb it down for ya' they found some loci (specific points on a chromosome) that were associated with same sex behavior- hormone production and the like- they investigated these and found that 8 to 25% of VARIATION in male and female same-sex behavior.
Whats the point of all this? That you like to hide behind, "we can't confirm that" or "we have no way to know that"- no we can't be 100% certain but it can certainly be argued to be likely. If you truly believe people mean, "I think it 100% a fact that x is true" when they same "x is true", then your a bit more naïve then i thought. What i have realized is that your logic isn't very sound most of the time- lemme give you an example though- you like those.
There are not percentages in causality, there are percentages in quantities. If 50% of people who get wet could avoid being wet by wearing a raincoat that does not mean raincoats are 50% the cause of dryness nor that the absence of raincoats are 50% the cause of wetness.
People who wear raincoats don't get wet. People who don't wear raincoats do get wet (if it rains).
50% may come from a statistic but it has nothing to do with the mechanics of the phenomenon. This is why they say statistics lie, because people who use statistics without understanding deductive logic shoot themselves in the foot and produce pseudoscience.
"people who wear raincoats don't get wet" (the implication being that its raining)- but thats...false? Like completely, your neck gets wet, your forehead, your nose, your face in general. Your hands, your legs, etc, etc, etc. Yes you do. The raincoat does however protect a certain region of your body-almost a PERCENTAGE. Yes yes, obviously i understand causation and correlation- cool not the point here.
There absolutely is percentages in "causality" or- "the relationship between cause and effect." i.e, something happens which causes something else to happen. The cause of an effect. If i were to say, "there is a chance eating spoiled food will make me sick", i am saying that there is a certain percent chance that the cause- eating spoiled food- will result in an effect - getting sick. Quantities certainly help to specify those numbers, absolutely, without the statistics providing a sample to test how likely someone is to get sick from eating certain things, I couldn't give you a specific percent chance that I'd get sick from eating that spoiled food.
What am I saying then? Im saying that you make 0 sense and frankly i don't wanna talk to you anymore. You come off as insincere and manipulative. You can call me manipulative if you like in response- don't care- but the longer we've talked the less i believe im gonna get anything outta conversing with you.
