-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Oromagi is gay, so he is already biased on the topic.
Choice is clearly a factor in determining sexuality
Posts
Total:
325
-->
@Double_R
It would have been more fun if you chose to be aroused. Next time choose differently.
Sexual attraction meanwhile is preceded by arousal, which is not a choice.
I noticed you said this a few times. Are you saying that the determining factor in the gay thing is that a man is aroused when another man touches his dong?
-->
@Vegasgiants
Even your evidence uses seems to be important or allows the possibility
What it stated was that it is very difficult to prove a negative, so until we're able to do that the possibility will always be there. But the possibility of something does not make it a reasonable position.
People who claim it can't be a choice do so out of political agenda not science
If they're speaking in absolutes then yeah, that's not scientific. Most people are not talking in absolutes, they're just stating the obvious.
-->
@Double_R
I can be pretty certain that being born with green eyes was not a choice
The science is nowhere near that clear for being gay
I choose not to eat sometimes and I still get hungry.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I've explained to you why you're doing it (social reasoning) all wrong in detail before.
WebMD is not social reasoning, it's an organization of qualified medical experts whose purpose is to provide credible information to the general public.
You haven't explained why it's wrong for any non medical expert to tentatively accept the information it provides, what you've done is conflated the negative connotation to the word authority with expertise as an excuse to hand waive away any information you don't like.
-->
@Vegasgiants
If science is not clear, then that means we must trust our belief and believe that gay is a choice. Of course, one must wonder why gays in muslim countries chose to be gay. Maybe they like getting killed by muslims.
-->
@Best.Korea
Trust our belief?
Hahahahaha
-->
@Best.Korea
Oromagi is being with the capacity for rationality and happens to have expressed belief in genetic causality of homosexuality. Accusations of bias are irrelevant. The argument is either made or it is not. Either sound or not.Oromagi is gay, so he is already biased on the topic.
The evaluation of inductive arguments leaves some room for judgement in most cases, but the originator can't sabotage objectivity by making an argument.
-->
@DavidAZ
I noticed you[DoubleR] said this a few times. Are you saying that the determining factor in the gay thing is that a man is aroused when another man touches his dong?
It was fairly obviously sarcastic banter.
-->
@Slainte
Try harder. Or better yet, identify as a plant.I choose not to eat sometimes and I still get hungry.
-->
@Double_R
I've explained to you why you're doing it (social reasoning) all wrong in detail before.WebMD is not social reasoning, it's an organization of qualified medical experts whose purpose is to provide credible information to the general public.You haven't explained why it's wrong for any non medical expert to tentatively accept the information it provides, what you've done is conflated the negative connotation to the word authority with expertise as an excuse to hand waive away any information you don't like.
The WebMD statement was completely true as far as I can tell, so I also waive away assertions I like. By "waive away" we mean pointing out that assertions are still just assertions.
This particular assertion has nothing at all to do with any hard science. If you asked WebMD to "prove it" the only thing they could say would boil down to: "Everybody we asked said they didn't choose their sexual orientation and we can't find anyone who changed their sexual orientation on purpose."
Nothing wrong with conducting a survey; that's data. There is something wrong with acting like the analysis of that data is reserved for a priesthood.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Oromagi's rationality might be questionable overall, but I do have an alliance with LGBT now, so I am ready to overlook Oromagi's bias.
-->
@Vegasgiants
I say hahaha when I see Biden falling.
-->
@DavidAZ
I noticed you said this a few times. Are you saying that the determining factor in the gay thing is that a man is aroused when another man touches his dong?
Arousal is the basis of sexuality, to deny what arouses you is to deny your sexuality.
If you are a man who is aroused by women, you are straight. If you are a man who is aroused by other men, you are gay. If you are aroused by both men and women, you are bi. You can choose to not live in accordance with what arouses you, but you can't choose what arouses you.
An adult brain has approximately 60 trillion neuronal connections. How can anything go wrong?
Brain scans have provided the most compelling evidence yet that being gay or straight is a biologically fixed trait.
The scans reveal that in gay people, key structures of the brain governing emotion, mood, anxiety and aggressiveness resemble those in straight people of the opposite sex.
The differences are likely to have been forged in the womb or in early infancy, says Ivanka Savic, who conducted the study at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden.
“This is the most robust measure so far of cerebral differences between homosexual and heterosexual subjects,” she says.
Previous studies have also shown differences in brain architecture and activity between gay and straight people, but most relied on people’s responses to sexuality driven cues that could have been learned, such as rating the attractiveness of male or female faces.
The scans reveal that in gay people, key structures of the brain governing emotion, mood, anxiety and aggressiveness resemble those in straight people of the opposite sex.
The differences are likely to have been forged in the womb or in early infancy, says Ivanka Savic, who conducted the study at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden.
“This is the most robust measure so far of cerebral differences between homosexual and heterosexual subjects,” she says.
Previous studies have also shown differences in brain architecture and activity between gay and straight people, but most relied on people’s responses to sexuality driven cues that could have been learned, such as rating the attractiveness of male or female faces.
-->
@Vegasgiants
I can be pretty certain that being born with green eyes was not a choiceThe science is nowhere near that clear for being gay
No, it's not. But what does science say on why some people like blue while others like red? Why do some people like Snickers while others prefer Kit Kats? Just because science hasn't figured that out doesn't mean we're reasonable to assert that any of these things is a choice. We are beholden to our physiology.
-->
@Double_R
Arousal is the basis of sexuality, to deny what arouses you is to deny your sexuality.
Are there more categories? Like midgets or is it only gender qualified?
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Nothing wrong with conducting a survey; that's data. There is something wrong with acting like the analysis of that data is reserved for a priesthood.
And you demonstrate yet again that your entire opposition to everything I'm saying is based on one big strawman, because you don't listen.
No one is claiming the opinions of experts should be treated as gospel, what I'm saying is that the opinions of experts should be weighed for what they are as we use Occam's razor to determine what is most reasonable.
If you want to sit and sort through multiple scientific studies every single time you hear about a new discovery or anything you've never heard before be my guest. Most of us don't have that time nor care enough to do so. But if that's your standard for what you are willing to tentatively accept before you share your input with others then you need to be consistent and follow that same standard every single time you argue for anything.
-->
@Double_R
Can you name a scientific agency that says homosexuality is not a choice?
-->
@DavidAZ
Are there more categories? Like midgets or is it only gender qualified?
Some people are into midgets, there's a market for everything. You'd be surprised how prevalent sexual fetishes are.
-->
@Vegasgiants
Can you name a scientific agency that says homosexuality is not a choice?
No, because no one has made that determination since it is much harder to prove a negative as my earlier source already explained.
Do you have a point? Does the failure to prove sexuality is not a choice mean that it is a choice? Have you read any of my points explaining why it is absurd to come to any conclusion other than sexuality not being a choice?
-->
@Vegasgiants
Who you are attracted to is not a choice, it is how your brain is wired. see my post #76.
-->
@FLRW
There is no doctor on earth that can look at different brain scans and consistently pick out the gay people
It can't be done
-->
@Double_R
You make an affirmative declaration that gay is not a choice
No scientific agency agrees with you
-->
@FLRW
Which scientific agency says that gay is not a choice?
Produce their position paper
-->
@Double_R
Some people used to hate snickers and now love them
Attractions change
-->
@Vegasgiants
-->
@FLRW
Great! So the AMA or APA has changed their official position and now say gay is not a choice?
But not everyone finds the results convincing. And the kind of DNA analysis used, known as a genetic linkage study, has largely been superseded by other techniques. Due to the limitations of this approach, the new work also fails to provide what behavioral geneticists really crave: specific genes that might underlie homosexuality.
-->
@Double_R
as we use Occam's razor to determine what is most reasonable.
in the absence of evidence...
If you want to sit and sort through multiple scientific studies every single time you hear about a new discovery or anything you've never heard before be my guest. Most of us don't have that time nor care enough to do so. But if that's your standard for what you are willing to tentatively accept before you share your input with others then you need to be consistent and follow that same standard every single time you argue for anything.
Not every argument requires obscure data, in fact most of the important ones don't.
I have no problem with assertions as commentary, if you had said "sexual orientation is not a choice" etc... etc... I would have no comment.
No assertion is in itself a fallacy, fallacies are implied inference; and your useless link dumping (and I know you are nowhere near alone in this) implies support for a conclusion. Note useless = containing bare assertions, arguments you should understand before making, and generally lacking any hard data.
P.S. I see this clown is baiting everyone by asking for authority instead of arguments. Don't think I'm giving him a pass.