Richard Ellis wrote:
> 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.
>
Heh, your logic is the only thing rubbish here.
Snipping the subject of your comments is not relelvant snipping
and is far from sensible fucktard.
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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.
This is one of the saddest rejoinders you utilize.
> Safer for you to call
> everyone else names than it is to consider the actual worth of what you
> are dribbling about.
>
Safer??? I'll clue you into somthing dick... there is nothing
dangerous going on in this usenet group.
>>
>> I've posted evidence, that you don't want to accept it as
>> proof is your ignorance.
>>
Heh, dick ignored this one, must have been on the mark.
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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.
>
If it isn't normal, how do you classify the homosexual
orientation? And why do you continue to use language
associated with homosexuality in a demeaning manner?
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>
Heh, which I point out in my reply above dumbass. I find nothing
wrong in being alone in the context of social situations or
relationships... most likely because I'm constantly in social
situations and have long term relationships. Something I'm
sure your fucktard personality isn't capable of doing.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>
Normal as in not average according to the definition you put forth...
but than geniuses are not normal and many of the most creative people
in history are not normal if it is equated with not average... but you
are obviously attempting to paint a different picture equating not
normal with deviant or other negative behavior.
Heh, you are so far up your own ass in knowing anything about
bisexuality. Bi-sexuality has nothing to do with not making up
ones mind but such ignorance is par for the course for you.
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>
I find the topic to be more along the lines of why you use
homophobic type slurs and attempt to utilize your narrow
definition of "normal" to justify such behavior.
By your definition having an interest in magick is not
normal thus you are not normal either.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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?
>
You may be talking about distribution in population but I
am not.
>
>>
>>> 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.
"Scientists are currently uncertain as to whether homosexuality is
primarily caused by environmental or genetic factors. The uncertainty
arises because much of the available data involves correlations, human
behavior is likely affected by interactions (complexity) and humans are
VERY difficult research subjects when it comes to sex. But evidence is
pointing to a combination of genetic and environmental factors
influencing sexual preference."
Evidence points to something but it is still a mystery as they
do not no conclusively what the cause is. You shot yourself in
the foot with this one dick.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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?
>
You really are thickheaded dick. Because humans having opposable
thumbs is not normal, according to your definition, among all
species.
> Do you have an opposable brain by any chance?
>
Do you have a brain that can function rationally because
thus far it does not appear so.
>
>> 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.
>
Heh, it is no surprise you can't follow along dick. I'm using
your argument against you and you can't even see it.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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?
>
No, but you must be to not be able to follow somthing as
simple as I have put forth.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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?
Heh, you like putting words in other peoples mouth. I suppose
it is the best you can do but it really comes accross as
moronic.
> Does the scientific method not mean
> anything at all to you or is it only us fucktards that know about
> science?
Heh, your knowledge of science is lacking dick.
> You gayboys too precious to care, is that it?
>
Ahhh... more homophobic slurs... you just can't help
yourself.
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>
Just because you can't follow along is your own problem.
>
>> 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...
>
The only thing you have done is provide evidence that normal is
equated with not average... but you have yet to justify your
use of homophobic slurs and why you parade your ignorance around
in spite of evidence that shows how stupid such comments make
you look.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>
I doubt it... the only one typing, thinking and acting like
a moron is you dick and I'm sure if we were to take a vote
on alt.magick, you would come up being voted the moron of
the month with your only supporters being some of the
more wingnut posters around here.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>
It is not average but you seem to want to discount any other
use of the concept of "normal" other than you limited and
somewhat irrelevant definition in this case.
>
>
> Can't be bothered with idiots Douglas... come back when you have doubled
> your mental capacity.
>
It must be hard living with yourself dick... since you can't
be bothered with yourself.
-Douglas
