On 2007-09-09 04:30:38 +0700, Douglas
cox.net> said:
>
>
> 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.
Rubbish. get a life. Relevant snipping is only sensible.
>
>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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.
So you say, but then you would say that I suppose. Safer for you to
call everyone else names than it is to consider the actual worth of
what you are dribbling about.
>
> 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.
Not at all. homosexuality is estimated to be the preferred choice of
about 2.5%% of men. Oh, you want support for this? OK, here is an
extract from a course at Utexas:
(
http://www.utexas.edu/courses/bio301d/Topics/Gay/Text.html):
"Being gay/lesbian has social consequences, especially to the
individuals with the homosexual preferences. It is estimated that
2%%-5%% of men are gay, 1%%-2%% of women are lesbian, and these percentages
appear to hold across cultures, as best one can tell. "
So there it is Douglas. Hardly normal no matter how much you would like
to believe it is so, you seem to be in denial.
>
>>
>>>
>>>> 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.
Sorry you didn't understand my jibe, here, I will explain it. Being
alone inb the context of my jibe is an internal state. You could
probably be quite alone in a footballl stadium at game time.
>
>>>
>>>> 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."
Well that is nice bt you ought to get back on-topic. Homosexuality and
it form in people who cant make up their mind what they want,
bisexuality are not normal. That;s it in a nutshell really, all you
have done is blather and fantasise.
>
>
>>>
>>> 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.
Sorry you werent abe to understand the definition. Your paste was quite
irrelevant. We aren't talking about what is normal in medicine you
dullard, we are talking about the distribution in the population of
homosexuality. Sorry it went over your gay head.
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
When are statistics not accepted as proof in matters relationg to
distribution in populations Douglas?
>
>> 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...
Right. And this is relevant how Douglas? you really are wandering now.
How does 51 species not being a normality in a species list of 51,000
relate to humans having an opposable thumb?
Do you have an opposable brain by any chance?
> so all other species of animals would be normal while humans
> would not if we were to believe your ridiculous thinking.
What on earth are you talking about Douglas? It was you who the
article, which stated 51 species (other than man). Now you are
rubbishing your own source? Goodness gracious. Even by your lamentable
standards this is not rational.
>
>>
>>>
>>> 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.
Where did you pull this from Douglas? Are you on drugs?
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
So unproveable means OK does it? Does the scientific method not mean
anything at all to you or is it only us fucktards that know about
science? You gayboys too precious to care, is that it?
>
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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,
Well, no, actually you haven't. You keep saying you have bubt you can't
seem to show where.
> 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.
Erm I just did provide support. Of course that won't suit you at all...
>
>>>
>>> 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.
Douglas, you are getting boring. Everyone who reads this thread will
think you are a moron. They would be right.
>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
As a percentage, it isnt normal you moron.
Can't be bothered with idiots Douglas... come back when you have
doubled your mental capacity.
--
Rich
