- + New Debate
- Debate News
- About
- Debra AI More
frame
Best Fallacy Content
-
Gay at birth?
@ZeusAres42Where @just_sayin is concerned, there is the misuse of the term 'Fluidity' (probably thinking this means that orientation is a conscious choice when nothing could be further from the scientific truth), the implication that biology plays no role in orientation (that baffles me, let alone not even being stated in any of the literature he references), the negation of the interconnectedness of environmental factors (which he ignores to say anything about which is also in the literature he references), the blanket statements about LGBTQ+ people when we're explicitly talking about homosexuality, among other things such as studies with outdated methodologies as well as posting news blogs.
His scientific grandiosity speaks volumes.
And then again, there is the poisoning of the well where he is accusing me of posting AI content when I have done no such thing as some childish attempt to discredit me.
First an apology. After looking at https://typeset.io/, I think it can be a valuable research tool. I even added to my folders. I question the value of mentioning research from the 60-70's for sexual orientation fluidity, but more sources are better than less.
I did not misuse the term 'fluidity' to describe sexual orientation. That is the word the researchers use. I haven't said that sexual orientation is only a conscious choice - just that it is not immutable, nor biologically 'determinate' ( I haven't made any argument about biologically influenced). That is either a misunderstanding on your part or an intentional misrepresentation of what I have said. I have not disconnected the environmental factors from the biological ones. I am sure that sexual orientation fluidity involves those as well as a myriad of other things.
Since we are talking about homosexuality - exclusively, per your demand, let make these observations from the literature on https://typeset.io/. ;Approximately 19% of self-defined homosexual/bisexual men reported engaging in vaginal intercourse in the past year, with 42% reporting it in their lifetime [1]. - see https://typeset.io/papers/same-sex-sexual-behaviour-us-frequency-estimates-from-survey-4xdlm0oi9a
So, the majority of sexual fluidity occurs among non-heterosexual groups. According to
Prevalence and Stability of Sexual Orientation Components During Adolescence and Young Adulthood (you can view the more recent study at https://addhealth.cpc.unc.edu/ - same basic results ) which did a national longitudinal study of American teens over several years said:All attraction categories other than opposite-sex [heterosexual] were associated with a lower likelihood of stability over time. That is, individuals reporting any same-sex attractions were more likely to report subsequent shifts in their attractions than were individuals without any same-sex attractions [heterosexuals].
Those who engaged in same/both-sex [homosexual or bisexual] behavior during the first two waves were more likely to report Wave 3 exclusive opposite-sex [heterosexual] behavior than those who engaged in opposite-sex [heterosexual] behavior were to later report same/both-sex [homosexual or bisexual] behavior.
So my point is valid - that sexual orientation is not immutable, especially among those who identify as homosexual and are more likely to later identify as heterosexual than vice-versa.
His scientific grandiosity speaks volumes.
Hey, I have never made any personal scientific claim for myself. I have not claimed to be an expert or researcher on the topic.. I have tried to cite sources for any claim, which apparently makes me different than most. If that makes me 'grandiose', so be it.
And then again, there is the poisoning of the well where he is accusing me of posting AI content when I have done no such thing as some childish attempt to discredit me.
I don't mind if you use AI if it ads to the discussion at all. As I observed earlier. I'm not personally attacking you or your AI - I don't even understand the point of that. I may not see the benefit of some AI content in the discussion, but it is nothing personal. I am making an argument that I believe science agrees with. If you disagree with the argument and think sexual orientation is immutable, then show the evidence. Your comments have been so personally directed at me, I don't even have an idea about what your position is.
-
Gay at birth?
What a crappy website Zeus!!!!!ZeusAres42 said:
Try this link
https://typeset.io/search?q=What is the current understanding of the basis of homosexuality
Your site doesn't site sources since the half a million people dna study with some of your sources being from the 60's and 70's. I don't know if I am more disappointed in you or your AI. -
Gay at birth?
@just_sayin
Science done correctly doesn't offend me , you posting nonsense and calling it science does.
I did point out that sexual orientation is said to be fluid by researchers.
No, some researchers may claim this but they are in the minority.
Yes, researchers world wide have agreed with the fact that there is no gay gene and that sexual orientation is fluid, especially in teens.
Nonsense , some researchers may agree with your new agey sexual orientation nonsense but they are in the minority....... never had you a bible thumper down for this nonsense ,are you still identifying as male?
But I never said anything about gay genes you said sexual orientation is fluid., yet the evidence regarding the worlds population clearly proves that's utter nonsense.
I appealed to science, you appealed to whatever the opposite of science is. I sited Harvard, the National Institutes of Health, and NC State University. You cited no science sources.
But you're arguing with yourself , I still didn't mention a gay gene.
There is no known fat gene. Though the evidence for one seems stronger than for a gay gene
There you go arguing about gay genes again, who are you arguing with?
-
Gay at birth?
@just_sayin
No worries, man. I didn't think you made a case for anything.
But I wasn't " making a case", I was laughing at you arguing with yourself as usual.
I didn't say anything about something being natural or not natural.
Just Sayin resorts to his usual lyin by denying what he actually said .....Even though we have this, we can not stray away from our natural instincts.......
just said there is no gay gene and that sexual orientation is said to be fluid at least through someone's teens.
No you didnt " just say" that , you said " we cannot stray from our natural instincts" yet our sexual orientation is fluid ........there you go arguing with yourself again by totally contradicting yourself.
I am claiming nothing other than what researchers are saying - that sexual orientation is not fixed.
Wow! Reasearchers worldwide have agreed this , when ? Your " revelation " is going to come as a huge shock to the billions of majority of the worlds population who's sexuality remains fixed for life.
'Choice' is a loaded term. I don't think that someone whose orientation has been one way for some time can easily switch to another orientation.
How is it a " loaded term" ? But you just said its not fixed? What do you mean " easily switch"
However, there are no genetic reasons why it can't.
Wow! You're all over the place do you even know what you're trying to say?
-
Gay at birth?
@just_sayin
ARGUMENT TOPIC : JUST SAYIN STILL REFUSING TO ANSWER WHAT I SAID AND ASKED WHICH REMAINS ........
I never mentioned a " gay gene" or made a case for one
I asked you ......You say being gay is " not natural" , living in a tree house is " not natural " so what makes something " natural"?
Being gay you're claiming is a life style choice? Seriously?
-
"Unfair universe" paradox
People who have religious mindsets like Factfinder, who want to believe in social fantasies because they most fervently wish that they were true, usually resort to the three monkeys rule. : First deny, deny, deny, then pass the buck, and if that doesn't work, shoot the messenger
-
"Unfair universe" paradox
@Bogan
Given the number of stu-pid “debates” on Debate Island that nobody is even bothering to contribute to, it looks like it is up to me again to get things moving? Although, since I have categorised MayCaesar and Factfinder as trolls who have no intention of debating honestly, and who’s are only interest is in stifling debate on the topic of “Are Races Equal”, it like it is over to you, Maxx?
Meaning the the facts truth and reality based logic we present destroys your bias erroneous assertions in all the debates you consistently lose. So you get mad, call people trolls and whine about it like right now.
Ever consider debating legitimately? 
-
"Unfair universe" paradox
Given the number of stu-pid “debates” on Debate Island that nobody is even bothering to contribute to, it looks like it is up to me again to get things moving? Although, since I have categorised MayCaesar and Factfinder as trolls who have no intention of debating honestly, and who’s are only interest is in stifling debate on the topic of “Are Races Equal”, it like it is over to you, Maxx?
The premise for this debate is that intelligent people, like MayCaesar, Factfinder, and Maxx believe that 2+2 equals 4, and religious people like “just- sayin” think that 2+2 equals 3?
Okay, let’s look at that. By any application of reasoned logic, it is screamingly obvious that races are not equal. Yet MayCaesar, Factfinder, and Max refuse to discus this subject on it’s merits. They think up every dirty tactic that they can think of to prevaricate, muddy the water, refuse to acknowledge the simplest of connections, and worse still, refuse to to even submit any argument supporting their religious belief that all races are equal. So, I find it amusing that they are attacking poor old “just-sayin” for his religious convictions, when they have exactly the same religious conviction on a topic which they themselves so desperately want to believe is true. I think that this way of thinking is essential to religious belief. You so desperately want to believe in a fantasy, be it a religious fantasy, or a social fantasy, that you simply stop thinking rationally about it. And when somebody like me comes along and makes you think rationally about it, you stick you fingers in your ears and shout NANANANANANA!
I will give the devil “just-sayin” his due. At least he debates honestly and admits that his beliefs are the result of his religious convictions. Maxx, MayCaesar, and factfinder, on the other hand, display exactly the same religious beliefs as “just-sayin” of the subject of whether races are equal, yet they act superior to “just-sayin” and pretend that they are his intellectual superiors because they pretend to think differently.
-
Gay at birth?
@just_sayin
ARGUMENT TOPIC : JUST SAYIN STILL REFUSING TO ANSWER WHAT I SAID AND ACTUALLY ASKED WHICH REMAINS ........
I never mentioned a " gay gene" or made a case for one
I asked you ......You say being gay is " not natural" , living in a tree house is " not natural " so what makes something " natural"?
Being gay you're claiming is a life style choice? Seriously?
Sigh. I don't blame you for your ignorance.
Yet the only one displaying ignorance ( as usual) is you. You cannot even comprehend the study you just posted and never even read the part stating what it said as in it was conducted on a sampling of individuals of European ancestry with no one from any other part of the globe represented.
There is some misdirection going on in some of the reports of the study.
Yes by you it's seems as you cannot comprehend what it actually says.
2/3rds of all people who said they were LGBTQ+ had none of the polygenic markers to which you reference
What are the names of these people and print up their individual results ( watch him run folks)
. So, you can't say that for them there is any genetic evidence for their sexual orientation. Further, and this is important you understand the difference, the study DID NOT SHOW that the 5 genetic markers show GENETIC DETERMINISM. The claim was for GENETIC INFLUENCE. There is a huge difference in scientific meaning. The study reported that “all tested genetic variants accounted for 8 to 25% of variation in same-sex sexual behavior” Even though LGBTQ people had one or more of these "genetic markers" in 33% of the group, however, more than 1/3 of all heterosexual people also had one or more of the genetic markers also, with 1 of the markers appearing in closer to 50% of heterosexuals. That would make heterosexuals more genetically gay, than gay people based on the evidence of having the so called genetic markers. That's a completely debunked and illogical notion. That's why they can't say that any genetic marker or combination of markers is a clear indicator of same sex attraction - because those genetic markers are more prevalent in heterosexual people.
Hilarious , as I said before you haven't the ability to comprehend basic science so why pretend otherwise?
-
Gay at birth?
@ZeusAres42
The guy is hilarious, every topic be holds forth on he constructs arguments no one is making and then sets about attacking them.
