OT rant aargh!

SuperSlinky says:

How long will it be before you label me a Nazi and I
get to invoke Godwin's Law?


I'm assuming that happens a lot, SS, from the fact that you bring it up so
early in the discussion.

Does that tell you something?

Steve

"Bob M" wrote in message
news
Yeah, except I, speaking as one man, don't fart or do many of the other
things you say that most men do. Perhaps that's because I was raised by a
woman, mainly, but I don't like to do those things.


And I don't think
that's it has hurt my adult experience.

Of course it has Bob - you are obviously mentally and emotionally FUBAR
because of it. I can tell, and I bet everyone else here can too. FFS, get
out as fast as you can and spend as much time in sole male company, swapping
farts, cuttin', smashin' and explodin' stuff, before it's too late, and you
end up in a mental institution, or worse yet, become another suicide
statistic.


Shaun aRe can't believe some people can be sooooo damned blind to
themselves. So sad...........

"Monique Y. Herman" wrote in message
...

As someone who felt misunderstood most of her youth (yeah, I know,
that's everyone) and still often feels quite alienated by the rest of
the world, I hope that, if I have daughters who are at all like I was, I
will understand that "most girls" and "most women"


does not mean "all
girls" and "all women."

Of course it doesn't - we can only safely pre-judge to a certain level, so
as to make sense of the world, then reserve final/approaching final
judgement for after actual first hand experience of the individual prerson
or situation. A conclusion comes at the end, not before, or during.

See, for me, this conversation isn't about how to raise teenage boys, so
much as it is about how left out I felt as a teenage girl because it was
considered "normal" for boys to be off shooting guns, playing with
knives, burning stuff, etc. Sure, they get punished, but in the subtext
it's all "boys will be boys." On the other hand, if girls do these
things or want to, they are considered an embarrassment to their family,
and that is made quite clear to them. Girls aren't allowed to act like
boys, or there is holy hell to pay.

Same with my Wife, Kath - she hated that her slightly younger brother got to
do all this cool stuff with his mates, and she didn't, or worse still, had
to stay home and wash the dishes. Hey, she turned out great regardless, and
certainly is not a 'soft girly' woman, if you will - Kath is Kath, and fully
definable in no other way.

Like we all have to grow and learn as individuals, we too are growing and
learning as 'the human race' - it takes time, and it doesn't even nearly
happen all at once. I 'generally' see far more acceptance of individuals on
an individual basis now than I did even 10 years ago. I call that damned
good progress.


Shaun aRe Shaun aRe

"Monique Y. Herman" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 09:08:19 -0700, Penny S
penned:

methinks you should have a few kids and then repost with some real life
opinions.


methinks that was snide and rude.

Nah, I think it was a point made by someone that's been in their own version
of where you are at, then had kids and got the shock of their lives by way
of revelation after revelation, heheheheheh.........

It's true, all the theorising in the world goes out the window, I can see
that and I have no kids of my own (but I've been close to so many as they
grew up).

The problem with analysis and psycho-emotional dissection, is that we are
far, FAR greater than the sum of our parts, so the parts mean less than zero
on their own. Best way learn how an individual 'ticks' is spend some time
with them - no amount of theorising, psychology 'crap' can even come close.

Besides, I'm pretty sure that "I wanted to post to a.m-b about my real
life experiences" is just about the worst reason to have kids, ever.

Heheheh, I can think of worse!



Shaun aRe thinking of having a few kids with Kath in hopes they'll be ready
for next BBQ season ',;~}~

"Shaun Rimmer" wrote in message
...

Snip

Same with my Wife, Kath - she hated that her slightly younger brother got
to
do all this cool stuff with his mates, and she didn't, or worse still, had
to stay home and wash the dishes. Hey, she turned out great regardless,
and
certainly is not a 'soft girly' woman, if you will - Kath is Kath, and
fully
definable in no other way.

Yeah, but you still make her do all the dishes right?

Shaun aRe Shaun aRe

Steve.

"Super Slimy" wrote:

bomba said...

I hope you're joking.

No, I'm not. I don't believe they should be persecuted, but I don't
think it should be legitimized or promoted either. A very high
percentage of homosexuals have easily diagnosed mental disorders, and
institutionalized mental patients show a very high rate of homosexual
behavior. It is obviously abnormal and deviant behavior, but since they
voluntarily Darwinise themselves from the gene pool, we can't be too
upset about them. Before you so righteously defend them, maybe you
should reflect on the fact that most children are molested homosexually,
and that the astonishing promiscuity in the world of gay men fueled the
AIDS explosion which now threatens us all.

Pfffftttttt bwaaaaahahahahahahahahah! Your view is _madly_ skewed, probably
due to the fact you have your head firmly rammed up your arse. There's more
bull**** in what you just wrote than even MV spouts here. Oh, and don't even
think of pulling that 'you're just falling for the PC line' ****e, 'cos it
couldn't be further from reality if it were in another dimension. And don't
even bother saying I'm 'pro gay' either, the world doesn't work that way,
and a truly balanced view doesn't even nearly equate to 'pro' or 'anti'. I
suppose subtleties of thought, imagination and reason are beyond you though.
Is your world black and white? How utterly dull then, if so.

Your prejudice and irrational fear of homosexuality has obviously stopped
you from even taking in the information that's out there that may disagree
with you.

I could intelligently dissect your statements with reason in so many ways,
but really, I can't be bothered wasting my time - I think your mental state
is a permanent problem.

Shaun aRe - You are what is wrong with this world.

"Tlacatecatl" wrote in message
. giganews.com...
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 21:39:52 -0700, Super Slinky wrote:

Ditto for schizophrenia. Does this demonstrate that schizophrenia isn't
a disorder?

One of the classic arguments against a biological basis for homosexual
orientation has been that it is a cultural phenomenon, brought about by
various pressures of family and society. When the incidence of
homosexuality
is seen to be virtually identical in cultures all over the world, which
have
radically different customs, practices, traditions, family structures,
social
structures, and so on, it is impossible to pin down a specific element
common
to all of those cultures and societies that could be the cause of
homosexuality.

And thus your point is right on target, although perhaps not the target
you
intended. Schizophrenia clearly has a biological basis, and so does
homosexuality, and so do a variety of other characteristics. They are
similar
in that respect. I¹ll return to the topic of disorders in a moment.


Many animals eat their own feces and kill the offspring of rivals. Does
that equate to normal behavior in humans?

³Normal² has a variety of applications. Statistically, Shaquille O¹Neal is
highly abnormal with respect to his height. Einstein was also highly
abnormal
with respect to his intelligence. However it is normal for a certain
percentage of the population to be over 7 feet tall, just as it is normal
for
a certain percentage of the population to have astronomically high IQ¹s.
³Normal² turns out not to be a very useful term.

The point of the research cited above is that the organization of the
brain
is very similar among vertebrates, and more similar still among mammals.
If
animals, particularly mammals, engage in homosexual behavior, it is a
stretch
to attribute that to cultural or societal factors, given that different
animal species have very different social structures, if in fact they have
a
social structure at all.

Other research that I cited indicated that genetic factors, prenatal
stress
and various drugs influence the development of the sexual regions of the
vertebrate brain. This produces a homosexual orientation in a variety of
animal species, including humans. Along with other research I cited which
demonstrates that there are measurable differences between the brains of
heterosexuals and homosexuals, the conclusion is inescapable. Homosexual
orientation is a biological phenomenon, which involves differences in the
development, organization and function of specific portions of the
vertebrate
brain. Homosexuals don't "choose" to be sexually attracted to members of
the
same sex, they're born that way.


Sophistries, fallacies, and non sequiturs.

I don¹t see your evidence or your reasoning. One of the great things about
science is that it is conducted in the public forum. All of the articles I
cited are available at the library. If you think you have found flaws in
those studies, point them out.


Are you really a scientist,
or do you just play one on Usenet?

Using an inclusive rather than an exclusive ³or², the answer is ³yes².


Because it can be linked to genetic
and prenatal factors precludes it from being a disorder? A bizarre
conclusion. Countless disorders have genetic and prenatal causes. I am
baffled as to why you think this is such a disarming argument.

As I discussed above, you can consider Shaq to have a height disorder and
Einstein to have an intelligence disorder if you wish. But the term
³disorder² generally has a more specific meaning in science, namely that
there is some morbidity or impairment of function. Yet there is no known
impairment or morbidity for homosexuals. With respect to measures of
intelligence, physical health, psychological health, social adjustment,
vision, hearing, chemical senses, tactile and proprioceptive senses,
mechanical aptitude, athletic ability, verbal ability, mathematical
ability,
spatial ability, and on and on they are the same as heterosexuals.

Promiscuous individuals, homosexual and heterosexual, who engage in risky
sexual practices have a lower life expectancy and higher incidence of
disease. But homosexuals in monogamous relationships, or who practice safe
sex, have the same incidence of morbidity and mortality as heterosexuals
in
the same situations. Individuals with a homosexual orientation (think back
to
biological differences in brain structure) are no different than
heterosexuals in any way except one: Their sexual orientation.


The
associations between homosexuality and various mental disorders are more
than tenuous. I have cited one very important association and there are
others.

The proportions of homosexuals may differ from those of heterosexuals with
respect to any particular psychological disorder, just as the proportions
of
males and females differ for specific disorders, and likewise with the
proportions of individuals of various races, nationalities, socioeconomic
status, and so on. But across the board, considering all disorders taken
together, there is no difference in the incidence of psychological
disorders
between homosexuals and heterosexuals. That was one of the articles I
cited.


As for child molestation and homosexuality, it all depends on
where the statistics come from. Boys are less likely to report the abuse
than girls. I'm sure you have heard of NAMBLA, but there is no
equivalent organization for the systematic molestation of girls. But no
matter what statistics you choose to believe, there can be no denying
that homosexuals are vastly over-represented as child molesters compared
to their prevalence in the general population.

The Department of Justice does not classify crimes by sexual orientation,
and
as you point out there are problems in reporting as well as problems in
the
methodology used for counting crimes. As a result all of the numbers in
this
area are highly speculative.

In any case the fact remains that the probability of a child being
molested
by a heterosexual is much higher than the probability of molestation by a
homosexual, based solely on the fact that homosexuals represent only a
small
fraction of the population. If we¹re concerned about the incidence of sex
crimes against children, the heterosexual population will contribute the
vast
majority of sex offenders and sex crimes.


There are no doubt many
reasons for homosexual behavior, but whether a person has some sort of
brain malfunction, or if what would otherwise be a heterosexual person
is drawn to the hype surrounding the gay culture, my point was that
homosexuality is abnormal, deviant behavior. That is self-evident, and
like the emperor who wore no clothes, all the potentates in the land
claiming to see that which is not there does not alter reality.

What is evident to you is not evident to the scientific community at
large,
and hopefully is becoming less "evident" to the population at large. A
certain percentage of the population is born with a homosexual
orientation,
just as certain percentages are born left handed, or over 6 feet tall, or
with unusually good eye-hand coordination, and so on. To deny this is to
be
out of touch with reality. To call these "disorders" is to use a highly
idiosyncractic personal definition of the term.


Which brings us to your long-winded bibliography. Is it any surprise
that the academia of psychology has adopted the activist gay cause?

In many of the articles I cited the research was conducted not by
psychologists, but by biochemists, neuroscientists, physiologists, cell
and
molecular biologists, physicians, and so on.


The
home of the academics is the same as that of the gay movement--college
campuses. I spent years in that world, and I know how it works. Not only
is it an incestuous relationship to begin with, since there are any
number of research PhDs who are also homosexual, but the gay movement is
an irresistible force there, and the academics are no immovable object.
In fact there is a conflict of interest, because the gay activists and
their sympathizers are their students, their colleagues, and ultimately
their meal ticket. Of course they took the path of least resistance and
gave the gay movement the orthodox approval they demand. To do anything
less would have started a battle that they hadn't bargained for. It just
wasn't a hill they were prepared to die on. You can still find a few
mavericks who reject what is obviously a capitulation and a sell-out,
but such honesty comes with a high price, since they are invariably
shouted down as religious fanatics or bigots, as is happening to me in
this thread.

You have just put forth, without evidence, a conspiracy theory in which
you
propose that the majority of the scientific community in this field is
somehow in league against heterosexuals. Unlike homosexuality, this has
the
makings of an identifiable psychological disorder.


So let's just say that we have both had our say and that we aren't going
to convince each other. I won't detail the myriad health problems,
diseases and generally shortened life span that is endemic to the gay
lifestyle. You would no doubt shrug that off too, in spite of the fact
that these concerns alone should mark homosexuality as an illness and a
health concern demanding the attention of health professionals.

You¹re confusing homosexual behavior with homosexual orientation. The
former
consists of actions, the latter consists of neural development and brain
structures. As I said above, a promiscuous lifestyle by any individual
results in a variety of health problems, but homosexual orientation by
itself
results in none.

I had already surmised that you would probably not be receptive to the
information I posted. My goal was to provide the information for those who
might not know the science behind all of this, in the hope that eventually
the bigotry against homosexuality, as well as the bigotry involving race
and
gender and so on, may become a thing of the past.

If you want to discuss this further I will gladly continue, but for the
benefit of the readers of am-b we should take this offline.

too damned good to snip



Thank you for your clear and intelligent presentation of the facts there TT,
glad someone fully lucid and without prejudice here actually was in
possession of all the facts.




Shaun aRe woulda said something to him more along the lines of "You are a
stupid ****wit Super Slimy, go read up, lose your prejudices and fears.", or
summink................

Shaun Rimmer said...

Pfffftttttt bwaaaaahahahahahahahahah! Your view is _madly_ skewed, probably
due to the fact you have your head firmly rammed up your arse. There's more
bull**** in what you just wrote than even MV spouts here. Oh, and don't even
think of pulling that 'you're just falling for the PC line' ****e, 'cos it
couldn't be further from reality if it were in another dimension. And don't
even bother saying I'm 'pro gay' either, the world doesn't work that way,
and a truly balanced view doesn't even nearly equate to 'pro' or 'anti'. I
suppose subtleties of thought, imagination and reason are beyond you though.
Is your world black and white? How utterly dull then, if so.

Your prejudice and irrational fear of homosexuality has obviously stopped
you from even taking in the information that's out there that may disagree
with you.

I could intelligently dissect your statements with reason in so many ways,
but really, I can't be bothered wasting my time - I think your mental state
is a permanent problem.

Shaun aRe - You are what is wrong with this world.

Gee, I thought you were the one who didn't take things seriously. I
guess that only applies when you aren't on your soap box.

Tlacatecatl said...

As I discussed above, you can consider Shaq to have a height disorder and
Einstein to have an intelligence disorder if you wish. But the term
³disorder² generally has a more specific meaning in science, namely that
there is some morbidity or impairment of function. Yet there is no known
impairment or morbidity for homosexuals. With respect to measures of
intelligence, physical health, psychological health, social adjustment,
vision, hearing, chemical senses, tactile and proprioceptive senses,
mechanical aptitude, athletic ability, verbal ability, mathematical ability,
spatial ability, and on and on they are the same as heterosexuals.

Sex is a reproductive function, so at the very least homosexual
orientation results in impairment, complete dysfunction in fact, of the
reproductive function. The last I checked, the reproductive function was
one of the cornerstones of life. I guess you were asleep that day in
biology 101. Glad I could help to round out your education. Any life
form that comes into existence incapable of reproducing is an impaired
creature indeed.

Promiscuous individuals, homosexual and heterosexual, who engage in risky
sexual practices have a lower life expectancy and higher incidence of
disease. But homosexuals in monogamous relationships, or who practice safe
sex, have the same incidence of morbidity and mortality as heterosexuals in
the same situations. Individuals with a homosexual orientation (think back to
biological differences in brain structure) are no different than
heterosexuals in any way except one: Their sexual orientation.

Actually, there are serious health issues associated with anal sex,
including a risk of anal cancer that is 40 times higher than the
heterosexual population. There are a number of illnesses carried through
fecal matter, for example typhoid fever, and the gay population has the
only known outbreaks of this now rare disease in the United States. AIDS
is much easier to spread through anal sex.

The proportions of homosexuals may differ from those of heterosexuals with
respect to any particular psychological disorder, just as the proportions of
males and females differ for specific disorders, and likewise with the
proportions of individuals of various races, nationalities, socioeconomic
status, and so on. But across the board, considering all disorders taken
together, there is no difference in the incidence of psychological disorders
between homosexuals and heterosexuals. That was one of the articles I cited.

This is at odds with a number of other studies which show much higher
risk for psychological problems, including suicide attempts, bipolar
disorder and multiple disorders. See for example the Dutch NEMESIS
study.

The Department of Justice does not classify crimes by sexual orientation, and
as you point out there are problems in reporting as well as problems in the
methodology used for counting crimes. As a result all of the numbers in this
area are highly speculative.

In any case the fact remains that the probability of a child being molested
by a heterosexual is much higher than the probability of molestation by a
homosexual, based solely on the fact that homosexuals represent only a small
fraction of the population. If we¹re concerned about the incidence of sex
crimes against children, the heterosexual population will contribute the vast
majority of sex offenders and sex crimes.

Even the most conservative estimates place the percentage of boys
molested at about 40% and the vast majority of the perpetrators are men.
Female child molesters often choose female victims as well. Thus, a very
high percentage of child molestations are a homosexual act, regardless
of what you consider to be orientation of the offender.

You have just put forth, without evidence, a conspiracy theory in which you
propose that the majority of the scientific community in this field is
somehow in league against heterosexuals. Unlike homosexuality, this has the
makings of an identifiable psychological disorder.

No conspiracy, just an illustration of how pressure group politics
works. Feel free to call the men in white uniforms to come and take me
away. That way I can live free and easy on the dole and won't have to
bother with working anymore.

If you want to discuss this further I will gladly continue, but for the
benefit of the readers of am-b we should take this offline.

No need to discuss it further. You aren't going to dissuade me from the
self-evident truth with your circular logic anymore than I can convince
you of what you choose not to see.

On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 15:05:52 +0100, "Shaun Rimmer"
wrote:

Shaun aRe woulda said something to him more along the lines of "You
are a
stupid ****wit Super Slimy, go read up, lose your prejudices and
fears.", or
summink................

Sounds like Slinky is doing a whole lotta banging on that closet door.

pete fagerlin

::Revolutionary! Evolutionary! Yet so retro!
::www.yestubes.com