Richard Ellis wrote:
> On 2007-09-07 13:18:22 +0700, Douglas
cox.net> said:
> >>
>>
>> Richard Ellis wrote:
>>
>>> On 2007-09-06 10:37:00 +0700, Douglas
cox.net> said:
>>>
>>>>>
>> Heh, why did you snip the above when it references what is
>> being discussed here? I'd say that is fairly dishonest of
>> you.
>
>
> Would you? is that why you are too lazy to snip out irrelevant bits? I
> didn't believe it was relevant so I snipped it, if you disagree then
> that is just fine. Go right ahead.
>
Doesn't matter what you believe, by snipping the posts in the manner
you have, you remove the the subject of what the comments relate to,
which are relevant.
>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I merely point out that Tom isn't quite
>>>>>>> normal. And yes, I do think tht is OK to do. if it's OK with you.
>>>>>>> And
>>>>>>> if it isn't Ok with you in fact.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is "normal" to mean heterosexual white anglo saxon protetant?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No, normal generally means the those falling in the range of + or
>>>>> - a defined number of standard deviations from the mean. As I recall.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Heh, normal is nothing more than average besides the fact that people
>>>> have a tendency to not tell the complete truth in certain kinds of
>>>> surveys... particularly Geriatrics and Sex and Homosexuality. Look
>>>> up recent studies and you might learn something but I doubt you have
>>>> any interest in learning from your posts here.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So post some Douglas. Don't just talk, do...
>>>
>>
>> When you start to post some evidence I'll be sure to do so
>> as well since I've already done so in this post and you have
>> yet to in any post of yours that I have read. You have yet
>> to post any evidence for your claim that I replied to above.
>>
>> Do unto others and all that crap, dick.
>
>
> So no then? OK. You shouldnt confuse won't with can't Douglas, it makes
> you look stupid.
>
I haven't here whatsoever which makes you the one that is looking
like a fucktard dick.
I've posted evidence, that you don't want to accept it as
proof is your ignorance.
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In point of fact, bi-sexuality, homosexuality, and heterosexuality
>>>>>> are
>>>>>> all normal modes of human sexual expression. It's even (gasp)
>>>>>> found in
>>>>>> other animals.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yah. Sure they are. I assume you can provide scientific evidence to
>>>>> support your essertion that homosexuality or bisexuality are normal?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Natural Geographic provides some info:
>>>>
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "It will take a long time before such ideas reach the mainstream.
>>>> But Vasey sees Bagemihl's "exhaustively and meticulously researched"
>>>> book as a watershed. "His work will make it increasingly difficult
>>>> for anyone to write off the whole idea of homosexuality in animals."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> erm, I hate to be a party pooper, but where does it say that same-sex
>>> sexuality in animals is normal? In fact, where does it give any
>>> incidence rates or other statistice at all?
>>>
>>
>> The article reveals two animal species that naturally engage in
>> homosexual behavior. How do you explain that? It seems you think
>> that National Geographic is full of shit... got any statistics to
>> prove otherwise?
>
>
> So no statistics then? It is your point to prove, not mine to disprove.
> I doubt you can though.
>
Heh, you made the initial claim so the onus is on you to disprove my
rebuttal with evidence.
>
>>
>>> Just makes you feel goog that you aren't alone does it?
>>>
>>
>> I have no problems being alone and actually prefer it at
>> times.
>
>
> You say that like you have a choice Douglas, whereas we both know you
> don't.
>
Heh, now dick descends to the completely idiotic. I live in the
middle of the desert... I can drive an hour in just about
any direction and be completely alone. I can be in a crowd
and be alone in my thoughts, etc. I'll await the next
bit of textual idiocy to come from you again in response.
>>
>>> Correct me if I am wrong but you havent made any point at all in
>>> respect of the normalcy or otherwise of homosexual behaviour in
>>> humans. Or did I miss it? Just self-justifying froth I suspect.
>>>
>>
>> "Will S wrote:
>> "It seems to me that by bringing in the vague terms 'normal' and
>> 'abnormal' you are fogging the issue. If you want to express moral
>> approval or disapproval, then fine - you are right to do so. But it's
>> best if you use appropriate terms like 'good' and 'bad'. Then it's
>> clear where you stand".
>
>
> Normal is not a vague term no matter how much you and your dodgy quote
> would like it to be. Normal (as previously stated) means plus or minus a
> defined number of standard deviations from the mean. Not vague at all.
>
Heh, it figures you would miss the point of the cut and paste I
made... the portion you are taking issue with above was only
included so the rest of the cut and paste could be taken in
context.
It figures you would ignore the rest and snip it so you
can attempt to not look like an idiot. But here it is for
you to refute since you obviously avoided it previously:
"The definition of what is normal and what is abnormal in Medicine is
usually devoid of any moral, religious, or legal connotations, and is
based on scientific grounds that vary only according to the progress
made in the field.
Thus, for an Internist, normal is what is Physiological, and abnormal is
Pathological.
For a Psychiatrist things are more complicated since normal human
behaviour is difficult to define (Psychiatry is indeed one of the least
"scientific" branches of Medicine, and the brain is still the last
frontier), and so is human sexual behaviour. One may be tempted to say
that normal is what is "natural", ignoring the fact that many animals
practice homosexuality, rape, and incest (eg. Bonobo monkeys) when they
don't kill and eat their male partner.
Therefore, unfortunately, definition of what is an abnormal human sexual
behaviour has varied with the zeitgeist and, in particular, with the
morals and religious attitudes of the times, and this is particularly
relevant for homosexuality.
Nowadays, homosexuality is considered a variant in the spectrum of
normal sexual behaviour not because new discoveries or experiments have
shown that it is so, but because the mental attitudes have changed, and
whatever happens sexually between two(or more) mutually consentient
adults in their privacy is physiological, morally (if still not
religiously) acceptable and legal. It is true, as you write, that
violence may intervene between hetero- and homosexual partners but,
unless you consider violence as normal human behaviour, it is immoral,
abnormal an illegal, and is called Rape."
>>
>> You are hung up on your own definition of "normal" it appears
>> discounting rational definitions in relation to science.
>
>
> Well, no. The definition is quite clear, though I am sure it suits you
> to pretend otherwise. Why is that Douglas? Do you like to have five bob
> each way as well?
>
No it's not... as evidenced by the cut and paste you ignored
previously above.
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> And not a statistic anywehere.
>>>
>>
>> Statistics are not everything. Surely they don't do anything
>> to support your view of magick.
>
>
> Statistics are proof in many many instances,
And in many instances they are not, besides "proof" is what
evidence you choose to believe and not necessarily the
truth.
> like sexual preferences for
> example. Magick cannot be measured to statistics is irrelevant. Nice try
> at a diversion though.
>
Sexual preference is as mysterious as magick both socially and
biologically and statistics do not prove whether sexual preference
is wrong or right, natural or unnatural, etc.
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Nope, not here either.
>>>
>>
>> 51 species... still can't account for why it is natural behavior
>> with these species.
>
>
> How many species are there in the world Douglas? And would 51 be in the
> usual band of plus or minus (say) 2 standard deviations?
>
Heh, humans have opposable thumbs while other species do not...
so all other species of animals would be normal while humans
would not if we were to believe your ridiculous thinking.
>
>>
>> Once again you provide nothing that refutes the article.
>
>
> Your poijt to prove, not mine to disprove. An article that tries to
> prove homosexuality in animals is normal and can only quote 51 species
> that *sometimes* engage in homosexual sex in support of that proposition
> is a bit of a joke Douglas. But you already know that wasn't the purpose
> of the article and are just desperately trying to prove that nature is
> what you want it to be.
>
So humans would not be a normal animal species according to you.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Nor here. Not a one.
>>>
>>
>> You still provide nothing in the way of statistics to prove your
>> point whatsoever. Hell, not even an article or anything other
>> than your blowhard word.
>
>
>
> Still no proof though Douglas is there? Which means you are the
> blowhard... all piss and wind.
>
Not every study relies on statistics... but you are obviously
to much of a fucktard to figure such simple concepts out.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> lets see you address the point that was actually being discussed. And
>>> some serious support for whatever point you think you are trying to
>>> make would prevent you looking pretty silly Douglas.
>>>
>>
>> Heh, you are doing a fine job of looking pretty silly yourself dick.
>
>
> So you will now address the point?
>
I have, but you have a habit of snipping that which you do not
agree with or just sticking your head in the sand and crowing
about your claims in which you provide no evidenciary support.
>>
>> You posted: "No, normal generally means the those falling in the range
>> of + or -
>>>>> a defined number of standard deviations from the mean. As I recall."
>>
>> Heh, just your word here... nothing to back it up as usual. Can you
>> even come up with one article from a respected scientific,
>> anthropoligical or medical site, journal that supports your
>> veiwpoint?
>
>
> I thought not. But since you seem determined to get your ass kicked,
> here is a definition - from Princeton. I assume you will find them
> reputable enough...
>
> being approximately average or within certain limits in e.g.
> intelligence and development; "a perfectly normal child"; "of normal
> intelligence"; "the most normal person I've ever met"
>
> See the bit about 'certain limits'? Good
>
Heh, please provide the full quote as this doesn't state
anything about normal... since you snipped the definition.
And some evidence that the qoute is from Princeton as
well... such a url, etc.
Your qoute also points out that normal is approximately
average and not a pointer to abnormal/deviant, etc which
you attempt to paint the situation as.
>
>>>>
>>>> It was a decent description that fits quite well.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Evidence? Silly boy. Or does do you feel threatened by anyone who
>>> takes a rational and normal approach to sexuality? Seems you feel the
>>> compulsion to automatically insult and denigrate so you dont have to
>>> actually address the point which was made.
>>>
>>
>> These days your approach isn't close to natural or rational
>> given the consistant observation of animals in the wild or
>> humans in modern society.
>
>
> Oh, you mean the *very* small minority of 51 species do you. Do you not
> perhaps think you are attaching rather too much weight to that Douglas?
>
In actual numbers 1%% of the species is a quite
large number.
>
>>
>> Your point is not supported by nothing other than your word
>> and that of homophobic dolts who are stuck in Victorian morality.
>> Please do try to do what you ask of others.
>
>
> Homophobic? Does pointing out the perfectly obvious fact that
> homosexuality is not the normal sexual preference, mean that somehow I
> am terrified witless of homosexuals?
>
The problem is not so much with what you consider normal but
the negative conotations you attach to anything outside the
average which is idiocy on your part.
I'm quite sure there is some dysfunctional psychological explanation
for your negative view of homosexuality.
> You need to inject some rationality into your posts before jumping in
> like this Douglas. If you care about having any credibility at all that
> is (which must be in doubt).
>
Heh, states the fucktard with absolutely no credibility.
>
>>
>>
>>> Since I am sure you would have provided evidence that homosexuality
>>> or bisexuality is normal, one assumes there isn't any, in which case,
>>> you would be better advised to practice that hermetic discipline of
>>> remaining silent.
>>>
>>
>> Consistant observation of animals in the wild supports my
>> point but you have yet to supply one shred of evidence to
>> the contrary.
>
>
> Ah, yes. The 51 species again. Just for you Douglas, I will point out
> that there are an estimated 51,000 species of fish, animals, reptiles,
> birds and amphibians. This excludes the estimates 2 million species of
> insect. Noweven with your limited intellect, you would have to agree
> that 51 is unlikely to be in the range of what is normal. But then
> perhaps you ,might.
>
As I've stated previously your problem is paiting anything outside
of your definition of normal as somehow abnormal/deviant, etc. with
no evidence to support such a take on the subject.
>
>>
>> You would do well to take your own advice but I doubt you
>> ever will.
>
>
> I always take my own advice Douglas, I doubt you can show me where I
> have not done so. As opposed to just blustering about it.
>
And quite often you do not. You state in this thread multiple
times to provide evidence which is something you fail to do
quite often on alt.magick.
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I sure hope someone teaches you how to tidy your posts up Douglas.
>>>
>>
>> Heh, hopefully one day you will update your viewpoint to
>> include the whole of the last 50 years research into
>> homosexual behavior.
>
>
> Which came up with what Douglas? 51 species out of 51,000 is normal? Or
> that homosexuality/bisexuality in humans is normal? Which I note you
> dont even attempt to support.
>
The portion of my cut and paste that you snipped and I repasted
above proves my point quite effectively, but I'm sure you will
ignore it as I have predicted above.
>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you Toms gay lover?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Heh, you are the one that probably wants to be... your sort of
>>>> bashing is a tell-tale sign of repressed homosexuality.
>>>>
>>>> -Douglas
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Ah, the old 'projection' ploy is it? I can see a London bus is dirty
>>> so it means I need washing. Is that right Douglas?
>>
>>
>> No projection whatsoever... I have no fear of homosexuality... but
>> you obviously do.
>
>
> How did you work this out Douglas? Did you wave your handbag about?
>
Heh, more homophobic comments from dick. No dick... I have gay
relatives, gay friends, gay clients, etc.
>
>>
>> Heh, probably just your glasses that need washing... but you
>> are not bright enough to consider such.
>
>
> Glasses? I do not wear glasses Douglas.
>
Heh, you expect anyone to take you at your word?
>>
>>>
>>> A bit wimpy for a serious argument...
>>
>>
>> Heh, says the fucktard that doesn't supply one shred of
>> evidence to support his own viewpoint... just more
>> blowhard anti-gay propaganda.
>>
>> Try again dick.
>>
>> -Douglas
>
>
> Hmmm. Well, it is your point to prove, not mine to disprove. But we both
> know you can't Douglas so you might as well just go down the pub and cry
> about how the world always seems to think you are dumb.
Heh, the world doesn't seem to do this whatsoever... and here
there is only one deluded fucktard, which is you, that is
stating such.
You still have not proven that anyone not conforming to your
definition of normal is abnormal or deviant in any way or
providing evidence of such. You put this forth so once
again the onus is on you.
But keep weaseling... it is about the best you can do.
-Douglas
