mike1011 Posted November 25, 2006 Share Posted November 25, 2006 Yeah, because the pre-1800s definition is just SO relevant in the year 2006. 847250[/snapback] Well than don't be crass enough to tell me I'm changing the meaning of a word that was usurped, and can be still be found in Oxford dictionaries in the context I'm using it. That's revisionism and lack of intellectual vigor. It is relevant, but you want to undue it's relevance by forcing me to use your definition that defies it's own etymology. Brilliant! That's why it should be classified as experimental science vs. science alone. It's more exacting, which is the function of words last time I checked, namely, the communication of ideas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daquixers_is_back Posted November 25, 2006 Share Posted November 25, 2006 I've seen a few studies where they tried to track both fraternal and identical twins and the results I saw were more in the 40-60% range. However it's hard to put much stock in these because from what I understand these studies were poorly done in that they fail to account for a lot of variables which could have skewed the results. Right. But either way if it was DNA, Chromosomes, or whatever the results should be around atleast 90%, with the 10% being from those who *chose* not to be gay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike1011 Posted November 25, 2006 Share Posted November 25, 2006 Dude, if you were any more of a parody you'd be your own television show. What would it be called? "Wiping Up Darin's Buffoonery?" Your "truth" is nothing more than than the regurgitated bile of organized religion that has literally kept humanity at war against some faceless boogieman for our entire existance. Strange, only in Catholic/Christian countries is their science, universities, etc. and no where else in the world. Without a Christian worldview there would be none of the following developed without the true Christian humanism that seeks to make man better. You keep kidding yourself without facts or history. You're right. There's no way I'd bash any of those others if they had a systematic coverup while abusing children. I'd certainly leave them alone because of my overt anti-Catholic agenda - because I'm alot like YOU. That's not the point, those other groups are covered up systemically. There is no outrage by the media. Nor would I ever condone it, and have done far more than a guy who sits behind a computer to work against it. I don't rail against a computer, I actually try to stop these monsters so don't call anyone a hypocrite unless there is hypocrisy. Strange concept isn't it? You're right... forced organized prayer at the national level. If a guy bashes a jew or a black man he is blasted on the front page of the paper but if someone bashes Catholics there is no outcry. Mel Gibson got so much flack for a drunken outburst, but where was the media for Penn Jillette's recent outburst that much worse and vicious (and all done sober)? There is no comparison to the unfairness of how Catholics are treated. Try making those statements against rabbis on the news, then do it on Catholics and tell me the difference. Same thing with the teacher's unions which have a higher rate of assault on youth. Oh, we're talking about removing really important symbolism like "In God We Trust" and the all important "Daily Prayer" because you zealots can't get as much recruiting done on the public stage without some mind control. Labels, and no facts. The questions was never answered: 1. Does God exist (demonstrative) 2. Is your view just as controlling against those who believe in God That'll make it a hell of alot harder to steal from the poor to build some glorius temple for your "leadership" to rape "little" (this apparently means under the age of 14 when the zealots are defending child rape) boys. Think of how stupid that sounds. Do you ever contemplate how ridiculous that sounds? Honestly. People build great temples for child abuse. There is no connection. The poor built the great Churches, not the rich. They wanted the great Churches for their posterity, not rich controlling monsters. Sadly it's the loss of the aesthetic you lack and you don't realize how those great Churches feed the spiritual lives of people for over a thousand years. You people are rich. You play the same arguments for yourselves that you use when you describe the faceless demons like "queers" and "blacks". The best part is you're not even smart enough to realize you're doing it. And that game is what? You are the clueless non sequitur extraordinare and you care to expose someone else while making no logical distinctions or connections. Yeah, you're really doing a service for America and the world. Good luck stamping out homosexuality with your ignorance. Maybe the next prayer meeting will do the trick. And that ignorance would be? Oh that's right, you are busy preparing your next reply with empty statements and no proof. I'll be waiting. I'll believe the Catholics are serious about fighting sexual predators when they start doing something about their own WITHOUT a camera having to be involved. It's hard for you to believe that people do try isn't it? Let me ask this to you what have you done to stamp out teachers abuse on children that is never exposed? You seem really interested to stamp and root out evils. What have you done in your life? Who knows you're complaints and your attempts that can be verified other than complain here? It seems you don't care except when it fits your agenda. I have a track record of trying, call up the Holy Office or write to them in the Vatican if you want confirmation. My name is Michael Solimanto so use my name as a reference. When you are finished actually determining supposed hypocrisy you might realize part of the problem is your own lethargy in doing anything to actually help people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 25, 2006 Share Posted November 25, 2006 What would it be called? "Wiping Up Darin's Buffoonery?" That the best you've got? Strange, only in Catholic/Christian countries is their science, universities, etc. and no where else in the world. Without a Christian worldview there would be none of the following developed without the true Christian humanism that seeks to make man better. You keep kidding yourself without facts or history. Mostly because they aren't actually allowed to rule (not that Bush hasn't tried invoking the "God thing" - and we all know how well that's worked out). But you go ahead and keep patting yourself on the back for the work of others because you obviously need something to belong to. That's not the point, those other groups are covered up systemically. There is no outrage by the media. Nor would I ever condone it, and have done far more than a guy who sits behind a computer to work against it. I don't rail against a computer, I actually try to stop these monsters so don't call anyone a hypocrite unless there is hypocrisy. Strange concept isn't it? Sure they are. It can't be that the church kept it under wraps with payola for decades (actually centuries) and the media finally got off their ass and did their jobs because the monetary amounts were so huge it caught their attention. Nah, it's a gigantic conspiracy by one of the most incompetent professions on the planet. They finally got their act together just so they could screw the Jesus followers! If a guy bashes a jew or a black man he is blasted on the front page of the paper but if someone bashes Catholics there is no outcry. Mel Gibson got so much flack for a drunken outburst, but where was the media for Penn Jillette's recent outburst that much worse and vicious (and all done sober)? There is no comparison to the unfairness of how Catholics are treated. Try making those statements against rabbis on the news, then do it on Catholics and tell me the difference. Same thing with the teacher's unions which have a higher rate of assault on youth. Did you seriously just compare Mel Gibson to Penn Jillette? Priceless. I love the "Rush Limbaugh/Al Franken" technique of pushing the finger toward another group because they're supposedly statistically worse. Great stuff. Labels, and no facts. The questions was never answered:1. Does God exist (demonstrative) I'll believe he does when he/she/it shows up here. Until that day, I'll believe the Incas were as smart for worshipping the sun as you are for hoping there is eternal life because there has to be something better than here. 2. Is your view just as controlling against those who believe in God. You must be in a tizzy. Did you just ask me if I'd like to control people because they believe in God? Try putting your emotion aside for a second, which I know is virtually impossible for you zealots. Think of how stupid that sounds. Do you ever contemplate how ridiculous that sounds? Honestly. People build great temples for child abuse. There is no connection. The poor built the great Churches, not the rich. They wanted the great Churches for their posterity, not rich controlling monsters. Sadly it's the loss of the aesthetic you lack and you don't realize how those great Churches feed the spiritual lives of people for over a thousand years. I'm sorry, I lost my "Potatohead to English" dictionary. Can anyone come close to explaing WTF that jumble of crap means? And that game is what? You are the clueless non sequitur extraordinare and you care to expose someone else while making no logical distinctions or connections. And that ignorance would be? Oh that's right, you are busy preparing your next reply with empty statements and no proof. I'll be waiting. Using big words doesn't make you smart. That paragraph reminds me of the old skits on "In Living Color". The only proof you've ever offered up is regurgitated mumbo jumbo that was no more true the first time it was uttered - at the dawn of recorded history. As far as it being empty, zealotry has a gigantic problem with introspection. Always has. It's hard for you to believe that people do try isn't it? Let me ask this to you what have you done to stamp out teachers abuse on children that is never exposed? You seem really interested to stamp and root out evils. What have you done in your life? Who knows you're complaints and your attempts that can be verified other than complain here? It seems you don't care except when it fits your agenda. Here's the thing, Mike. I don't care about your judgement and feel zero need to explain what or how I do things away from this message board (as if this is the "be all, end all" of my existance). Once again, you zealots just can't help but attempt to trumpet your superiority based on your own ignorance. It'd be super funny, but for some reason no one wants to do cool religious parodies anymore. I have a track record of trying, call up the Holy Office or write to them in the Vatican if you want confirmation. My name is Michael Solimanto so use my name as a reference. When you are finished actually determining supposed hypocrisy you might realize part of the problem is your own lethargy in doing anything to actually help people. 847478[/snapback] See the previous paragraph about your superiority. I'm sure you've prayed long and hard and done the other things you've mentioned. Good for you, man. Doesn't change the fact that you're an ignoramous with the common sense of a cardboard box. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted November 25, 2006 Share Posted November 25, 2006 Well than don't be crass enough to tell me I'm changing the meaning of a word that was usurped, and can be still be found in Oxford dictionaries in the context I'm using it. That's revisionism and lack of intellectual vigor. It is relevant, but you want to undue it's relevance by forcing me to use your definition that defies it's own etymology. Brilliant! That's why it should be classified as experimental science vs. science alone. It's more exacting, which is the function of words last time I checked, namely, the communication of ideas. 847469[/snapback] Oh no, I'm "forcing" you to use the current accepted, academic definition. OH THE HORROR OF IT ALL! We should all use words without the commonly used definition so no one knows what each other is talking about. But no, you're not trying to redefine it from what is commonly accepted in English today, you're merely choosing to use a different, older definition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Posted November 25, 2006 Share Posted November 25, 2006 Right. But either way if it was DNA, Chromosomes, or whatever the results should be around atleast 90%, with the 10% being from those who *chose* not to be gay. 847471[/snapback] You're assuming that it has to be just one thing and that we ahve the knowledge to explore all avenues to discover what that one thing is. Personally I don't think it is just one thing. But when you like at the abnormally high instances of homosexualtiy being tied to genetics, that certainly points toward prenatal formation playing a significant role. Other factors such as physical brain characteristics or even pathogens could be catalysts as well. But at this point there's just so much we don't know and so many thngs we're currently incapable of investigating or even recognizing that I think only a fool or a programmed zealot would subscribe to the idea that people can choose or choose not to be gay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daquixers_is_back Posted November 26, 2006 Share Posted November 26, 2006 You're assuming that it has to be just one thing and that we ahve the knowledge to explore all avenues to discover what that one thing is.Personally I don't think it is just one thing. But when you like at the abnormally high instances of homosexualtiy being tied to genetics, that certainly points toward prenatal formation playing a significant role. Other factors such as physical brain characteristics or even pathogens could be catalysts as well. But at this point there's just so much we don't know and so many thngs we're currently incapable of investigating or even recognizing that I think only a fool or a programmed zealot would subscribe to the idea that people can choose or choose not to be gay. 847544[/snapback] Fair enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted November 26, 2006 Share Posted November 26, 2006 But at this point there's just so much we don't know and so many thngs we're currently incapable of investigating or even recognizing that I think only a fool or a programmed zealot would subscribe to the idea that people can choose or choose not to be gay. 847544[/snapback] Every gay person I have ever met has told me they had no choice in the matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 27, 2006 Share Posted November 27, 2006 Every gay person I have ever met has told me they had no choice in the matter. 847721[/snapback] What the hell would they know? The answer is in the Bible, dummy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted November 27, 2006 Share Posted November 27, 2006 What the hell would they know? The answer is in the Bible, dummy. 848874[/snapback] Logically people are choosing to be persecuted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bartshan-83 Posted November 27, 2006 Share Posted November 27, 2006 We've been at this before when I exposed your hypocrisy with another screen name before I lost my email address for lack of use. 847226[/snapback] What was your old screen name? I'm guessing people would remember you... That exactly what you do when you point the finger at Catholics who fight against homosexuality and sexual predators. 847226[/snapback] Keep fighting the good fight! Because not only are those two things obviously related, fighting against them is probably a great use of time and resource for members of a "charitable" institution like the Catholic Church. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daquixers_is_back Posted November 27, 2006 Share Posted November 27, 2006 What the hell would they know? The answer is in the Bible, dummy. 848874[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted November 27, 2006 Share Posted November 27, 2006 849160[/snapback] So, you know whether homosexuals have a choice better then homosexuals do? How is that exactly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daquixers_is_back Posted November 27, 2006 Share Posted November 27, 2006 So, you know whether homosexuals have a choice better then homosexuals do? How is that exactly? 849173[/snapback] No not at all ... faith obviously plays a large part in it for some people. I just find it humerous that people attack The Bible and Christianity as a whole whenever they seem to get the chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IBTG81 Posted November 27, 2006 Share Posted November 27, 2006 No not at all ... faith obviously plays a large part in it for some people. I just find it humerous that people attack The Bible and Christianity as a whole whenever they seem to get the chance. 849226[/snapback] It's not entirely Christianity. I pick on all religions, because it's a bunch of crap. When religious folks stop telling people to live their lives, and mind their own business, is when some of the "backlash" against your religion will stop. Until then, keep on bombing those abortion clinics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daquixers_is_back Posted November 27, 2006 Share Posted November 27, 2006 It's not entirely Christianity. I pick on all religions, because it's a bunch of crap.When religious folks stop telling people to live their lives, and mind their own business, is when some of the "backlash" against your religion will stop. Until then, keep on bombing those abortion clinics. 849276[/snapback] Thats a fallacy and you know it. 98% of Christians would not bomb an abortion clinic. That would be like you saying "once black people stop acting like thugs..." its a sterotype that is wrong because not all of a certain type of people act a certain way. Personally I dont see how telling someone not to kill their baby is telling them how to run their lives? Yet when we make laws to tell people to not smoke marijuana or to not drive drunk .. etc its not telling people how to run their lives? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted November 27, 2006 Share Posted November 27, 2006 Thats a fallacy and you know it. 98% of Christians would not bomb an abortion clinic. 849898[/snapback] 2% want to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IBTG81 Posted November 27, 2006 Share Posted November 27, 2006 2% want to. 849910[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted November 27, 2006 Share Posted November 27, 2006 2% want to. 849910[/snapback] Come on, 42 million's just a handful. We all know what he meant, but 98% is kind of a funny choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted November 27, 2006 Share Posted November 27, 2006 Come on, 42 million's just a handful. We all know what he meant, but 98% is kind of a funny choice. 850070[/snapback] For a few years Oscar Meyers was putting -95% fat-free- stickers on their bologna. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts