The Homosexual Agenda, The aclu, And Your Children...

[Doug]

Shogun: I suspect you don't know much about academia, and academic politics, and the enormous power of Political Correctness within American academia today, which is made up at its senior levels from the generation of the 60s -- despite that professorial girlfriend.

I can give you many examples of it, if you wish, or better I can direct you to some good books: check out Mary Lefkowitz' experiences with an Afro-centric charlatan spouting utter nonsense at a talk on her campus, and how all of the professors there (save her), who knew better, were afraid to challenge him.

For one thing, the so-called social "sciences," including psychology, are not sciences at all. I give far more credence to consensus views among real scientists -- physicists and chemists for example -- than I do to the so-called social sciences.

The latter are collections of empirical facts, established with varying levels of reliability, some of which are interesting; case studies; some theories which are generally at such a high level of abstraction, on the one hand; or so very low-level, on the other, as to be of little real value in understanding human behavior. Get your girl friend to lend you C.Wright Mills' [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Sociological-Imagination-C-Wright-Mills/dp/0195133730/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-9655811-7155832?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1192309269&sr=8-1]The Sociological Imagination[/ame] for some hilarious exposes of the hollowness of sociology in particular. It was written about fifty years ago but still retains its force.

Which does not mean that people working in these fields do not do useful studies. They do, or some of them do. It's just that you should not naively take what some group (often a very small group) acting as their professional association pronounces on a controversial subject as "scientific opinion".

To be honest, I have not followed the nature-of-homosexuality argument in this thread closely enough to even have an opinion on the APA's judgement.

As for the "innateness" or whatever of homosexuality. A minute's thought should show anyone that it is not a choice, and therefore has deep roots which compel people to react independently of their volition. A gay man may wish he were not homosexual. But he cannot choose not to be a homosexual.

Now, as for the genetics, etc. As I said in the post above, the verdict is not yet in. We are making tremendous progress in this area, and I suspect that within a generation or two, the question will be closed.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I’ve been called a liberal. I can’t speak for all liberals, but I think that in general, liberals would condemn the criminals because – they murdered someone.

And you would be wrong, I can think of several well know BLACK men that murdered cops in cold blood and are the darlings of the left.

I think that they would hold the same condemnation even if the rapist were Black or White or Hispanic or European or American.

You would be wrong, they can and do make excuses for the "right" people.

Sure, in some cases by some people of the extreme left.



I almost fell out of my chair when I read these. Please give me a clear precise specific example of there the “left of center” admired and supported a Black rapist who was clearly guilty of his crime.

Is murder good enough for you? That guy in Pennsylvania that murdered a cop for no other reason then he pulled over his brother for a traffic stop. The left has championed his cause for YEARS now, insisting he be let go cause he a) somehow didn't do it OR B) is a changed man now and was forced by circumstance to kill the cop. Even though the trial was cut and dry and it is obvious he murdered the cop for no reason at all.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Well, see Doug, when your rebuttal amounts to "I wouldn't pay much attention to what the APA or any other so-called "professonal" association says. Their views are heavily conditioned by the political atmosphere of the day." and "liberal this, liberal that" then you don't really have much to debate against beyond your OPINION. Obviously, that means more to you than the entire Psychological consensus so there really is no point to take you seriously.

It's just like how Jillian bitchslapped Allie with the very same study Allie name dropped. What's the point?

Like I said, I posted evidence. You post rhetorical opinions and blame anything that doesn't fall within your cookie cutter schema on liberals..


Sorry if that's just enough to illicit a major effort on my part.

Yet you do not mind when certain Liberals on this board post nothing but personal opinion and play games with words and their meanings. Selective indeed.

 

[mattskramer]

Is murder good enough for you? That guy in Pennsylvania that murdered a cop for no other reason then he pulled over his brother for a traffic stop. The left has championed his cause for YEARS now, insisting he be let go cause he a) somehow didn't do it OR B) is a changed man now and was forced by circumstance to kill the cop. Even though the trial was cut and dry and it is obvious he murdered the cop for no reason at all.

Where is your main line Democrat cheering the murder of a cop? Nope. I’m right. Except for a few people on the far loony left, people understand that murder is wrong – no matter the race, sex, or nationality of the murderer.

 

[Doug]

Liberals don't exactly cheer the murder of cops. But a lot of them do cover up for their murderers.

 

[Doug]

I guess I should document that claim.

 

[Shogun]

Yet you do not mind when certain Liberals on this board post nothing but personal opinion and play games with words and their meanings. Selective indeed.

Is this another accusation that I'll be calling you out on? I've pounced on more liberals from my side than Ive seen you pounce on conservatives.

Ask mainman and jilian and roomy or Donnie how quiet I am with those on my team.

OR, toss out another easily disproved accusation instead....

Hell, the LAST time you tried to call me out in this thread i came right back at you with more evidence than "rhetorical" Doug and "Cheerleader" Allie has posted this entire fucking thread. Do i see YOU busing their balls for making fallacious claims about name dropped studies or insisting on the opinion of the scientific community?

NO?

If you can't handle Larkin then ask for help. It's not my responsibility to help you keep pace with him. But to suggest that I sit back silent for the sake of a team jersey is BEYOND retarded.

 

[Shogun]

Liberals don't exactly cheer the murder of cops. But a lot of them do cover up for their murderers.

Doug, it's silly shit like this that deflates your credibility when pointing fingers at my posts.

 

[Shogun]

Shogun: I suspect you don't know much about academia, and academic politics, and the enormous power of Political Correctness within American academia today, which is made up at its senior levels from the generation of the 60s -- despite that professorial girlfriend.

I can give you many examples of it, if you wish, or better I can direct you to some good books: check out Mary Lefkowitz' experiences with an Afro-centric charlatan spouting utter nonsense at a talk on her campus, and how all of the professors there (save her), who knew better, were afraid to challenge him.

For one thing, the so-called social "sciences," including psychology, are not sciences at all. I give far more credence to consensus views among real scientists -- physicists and chemists for example -- than I do to the so-called social sciences.

The latter are collections of empirical facts, established with varying levels of reliability, some of which are interesting; case studies; some theories which are generally at such a high level of abstraction, on the one hand; or so very low-level, on the other, as to be of little real value in understanding human behavior. Get your girl friend to lend you C.Wright Mills' The Sociological Imagination for some hilarious exposes of the hollowness of sociology in particular. It was written about fifty years ago but still retains its force.

Which does not mean that people working in these fields do not do useful studies. They do, or some of them do. It's just that you should not naively take what some group (often a very small group) acting as their professional association pronounces on a controversial subject as "scientific opinion".

To be honest, I have not followed the nature-of-homosexuality argument in this thread closely enough to even have an opinion on the APA's judgement.

As for the "innateness" or whatever of homosexuality. A minute's thought should show anyone that it is not a choice, and therefore has deep roots which compel people to react independently of their volition. A gay man may wish he were not homosexual. But he cannot choose not to be a homosexual.

Now, as for the genetics, etc. As I said in the post above, the verdict is not yet in. We are making tremendous progress in this area, and I suspect that within a generation or two, the question will be closed.

I fully understand the difference between the hard and soft sciences. However, accusing the APA standard of being a liberal conspiracy is a joke. Not only that, but I posted that EVIDENCE to counter Allie's claim about scientific consensus. You know.. EVIDENCE.. the cornerstone of SCIENCE? You might as well write off all modern medicine if you are going to look at the history of the practice. Do you avoid doctors also because, at one time, medicine believed in leaches and four humours of the body? This is a simple matter of tossing up a strawman just because you don't like what the evidence clearly conveys. Dont like what you hear on the news? well, THEY MUST BE A BUNCH OF LIBERALS! Dont like that the scientific community is not ready to throng and pitchfork gays back into their closet? IT MUST BE A LIBERAL CONSPIRACY!

Indeed, perhaps it will be easier to take you seriously if you put more effort in citing your courses rather than hoping that some hypothetical will prove your point.. Hypotheticals that I'm not already busy unraveling, that is.


But. i'm glad you are finally around to admitting that:

As for the "innateness" or whatever of homosexuality. A minute's thought should show anyone that it is not a choice, and therefore has deep roots which compel people to react independently of their volition. A gay man may wish he were not homosexual. But he cannot choose not to be a homosexual.



Innateness or whatever? Is that academic jargon?

 

[jillian]

Well, since the liberals here refuse to discuss my example, let me try another tack.

Let's think operationally.

A pretty young woman is dressed in provocative clothing -- Jillian's description will do.

It is close to midnight.

She is at your apartment, where you,as a good liberal, have been instructing her on her rights. (No sarcasm here -- you really have.)

She decides to go home. She has no car, no money for a taxi, nor do you.

She says, "Hey, no problem. I'll hitchhike. As you just said, I have a right to dress as I please and go anywhere I want in public, at any time."

Your response?

My response is that you're adding something which makes your analogy false. The act of hitchhiking, or walking through gang territory, or climbing a mountain is dangerous FOR EVERYONE.... whether it's you, me, or the president of the united states.

A gay man flirting, a woman wearing a revealing dress, is not, in and of itself dangerous behavior.... nor should it be something which elicits a violent response. There is no assumption of the risk, as it were. Adding the dangerous behavior to it, is simply a way of obfuscating the fact that the victim who is beaten because he or she is gay or the woman who gets raped or the woman who got her husband's dinner late to table DID NOTHING WRONG.

 

[AllieBaba]

Way to wiggle out from under the standard of the APA with a whole fistful of generalized shit talk, guys!


BRAVO!





Doug, you can lambaste "the left" as some spooky boogeyman while Allie cheer leads from the sidelines but, last I heard, abstract rhetoric and generalized shit talking doesn't trump evidence.

Well you seem to think it does.

 

[AllieBaba]

Where is your main line Democrat cheering the murder of a cop? Nope. I’m right. Except for a few people on the far loony left, people understand that murder is wrong – no matter the race, sex, or nationality of the murderer.

Then please explain the justification the left keeps coming up with for terrorists killing us, so long as it's in a country other than our own. Based upon the theory that we shouldn't be there (and there are a variety of "theres") and therefore deserve it.

 

[AllieBaba]

My response is that you're adding something which makes your analogy false. The act of hitchhiking, or walking through gang territory, or climbing a mountain is dangerous FOR EVERYONE.... whether it's you, me, or the president of the united states.

A gay man flirting, a woman wearing a revealing dress, is not, in and of itself dangerous behavior.... nor should it be something which elicits a violent response. There is no assumption of the risk, as it were. Adding the dangerous behavior to it, is simply a way of obfuscating the fact that the victim who is beaten because he or she is gay or the woman who gets raped or the woman who got her husband's dinner late to table DID NOTHING WRONG.

I believe I tried, repeatedly, to point out I was stating everyone makes bad choices, and hanging out in a rough bar is a bad choice for anyone.
Thanks for your support.

 

[Larkinn]

And you would be wrong, I can think of several well know BLACK men that murdered cops in cold blood and are the darlings of the left.

Murderers are not "darlings of the left". Those that the left support they do so because they think that the accused are NOT murderers or that they have been treated unfairly. I know...its crazy to think that just because someone commits a crime they should retain some civil liberties, but some of us think that.

You would be wrong, they can and do make excuses for the "right" people.

Because we all know how good of a judge you are about people on the left, right?

Yet you do not mind when certain Liberals on this board post nothing but personal opinion and play games with words and their meanings. Selective indeed.

Not everyone plays the "word games" card all the time. Some people have the ability to comprehend and make decent counter-arguments.

 

[Larkinn]

Then please explain the justification the left keeps coming up with for terrorists killing us, so long as it's in a country other than our own. Based upon the theory that we shouldn't be there (and there are a variety of "theres") and therefore deserve it.

The left does NOT say that the US deserves terrorist attacks. That is just an outright lie.

 

[Shogun]

Well you seem to think it does.

go dig up some evidence to post, crackbaby.


You know... Like the APA evidence I posted that pretty much calls you on your ignorant bald faced lie about the consensus of the scientific community.


Don't let m evidence from the APA stop you from posting your own evidence though. I can't wait to see what Bob Jones University has to say about homosexuality!

 

[Doug]

Jillian: You have, characteristically, putyour finger on the critical point of my analogy.

Hitchhiking through a dangerous area at night is indeed ... dangerous. It is, I promise you -- but I know you know this -- more dangerous for a pretty young woman than it would be for an ugly old man. (So you take my car, and I'll hitchhike.)

But the world is not divided into situations which are, on the one hand, dangerous, and where you must use your common sense in exercising your "rights", and situations which are not, on the other hand, and where you may exercise them freely and if anything happens to you, it is just bad luck.

There is a spectrum. On one end, my hitchhiking territory at night. On the other, the Harvard campus during daytime. Somewhere in the middle -- for a gay man, especially -- are lowlife bars where the trailer trash are drinking and snorting (or shooting or whatever you do with it) crystal meths.

On the Harvard campus, you can pretty much do as you please. As you move away from it, on my spectrum, you had better increasingly add some common sense and caution to the mental module that governs your behavior.

There is climbing Everest without oxygen, and there is taking a walk in your local park, and there are an infinite number of situations in between.

In fact, I am sure that everyone taking part in this thread would have given young Matt the same advice: don't go to that bar and come on to the men there.

What we are really arguing about is how we feel about the reaction of the men in that bar. While their violent reaction is condemned by everyone here (I hope!), the liberals want us to feel that a man making a sexual advance to another man is perfectly normal -- what's to get angry or disgusted about? The conservatives don't feel that way. There is really nothing to argue here.

So let me turn the situation around and raise this point: when women are subject to unwanted sexual overtures by strange men in public, are they justified in getting angry or feeling disgusted?

If a man went into a bar and came up to a woman he didn't know, and invited her to an act of sexual congress, and she punched him in the nose -- how would we react?

I'm afraid I would say, "Didn't see nuthin', Officer -- I think he fell over and broke his nose on the floor."

 

[Doug]

Shogun: I don't recognize anything that I have argued in your characterizations of my positions, so there is nothing I can say in reply.

However, I would like to make you a bit more skeptical about people with credentials in general, and academics in particular.

So perhaps later I will post some interesting information on Margaret Mead and academic anthropologists; and also something on Freudianism, a load of nonsense which was taken very seriously by many so-called professionals, and still is by some.

 

[Shogun]

I don't subscribe to freud and many behaviourists in the psych field don't either.


Allie stated that the general consensus sys that homosexuality is a choice.


I posted otherwise.

Hell, YOU AGREED WITH THE APA about homosexuality NOT being a choice! I'm sure that ruffled Allie's feathers but, hey, evidence and scientific standards go a long way...


I'm well aware of the phrenology in my disciplines background. Im just not trying to toss out the baby with the bathwater when it chaffes my political ideology. Again, consider the history of Medicine in general and remind me how people once insisted that tree bark was witch craft.

If you want I can dig up your quote about how the APA is just a liberal organization...

 

[jillian]

Jillian: You have, characteristically, putyour finger on the critical point of my analogy.

Hitchhiking through a dangerous area at night is indeed ... dangerous. It is, I promise you -- but I know you know this -- more dangerous for a pretty young woman than it would be for an ugly old man. (So you take my car, and I'll hitchhike.)

But the world is not divided into situations which are, on the one hand, dangerous, and where you must use your common sense in exercising your "rights", and situations which are not, on the other hand, and where you may exercise them freely and if anything happens to you, it is just bad luck.

There is a spectrum. On one end, my hitchhiking territory at night. On the other, the Harvard campus during daytime. Somewhere in the middle -- for a gay man, especially -- are lowlife bars where the trailer trash are drinking and snorting (or shooting or whatever you do with it) crystal meths.

On the Harvard campus, you can pretty much do as you please. As you move away from it, on my spectrum, you had better increasingly add some common sense and caution to the mental module that governs your behavior.

There is climbing Everest without oxygen, and there is taking a walk in your local park, and there are an infinite number of situations in between.

In fact, I am sure that everyone taking part in this thread would have given young Matt the same advice: don't go to that bar and come on to the men there.

What we are really arguing about is how we feel about the reaction of the men in that bar. While their violent reaction is condemned by everyone here (I hope!), the liberals want us to feel that a man making a sexual advance to another man is perfectly normal -- what's to get angry or disgusted about? The conservatives don't feel that way. There is really nothing to argue here.

So let me turn the situation around and raise this point: when women are subject to unwanted sexual overtures by strange men in public, are they justified in getting angry or feeling disgusted?

If a man went into a bar and came up to a woman he didn't know, and invited her to an act of sexual congress, and she punched him in the nose -- how would we react?

I'm afraid I would say, "Didn't see nuthin', Officer -- I think he fell over and broke his nose on the floor."

If a man makes an unwanted overture toward me, I would say "no thank you" or make a joke about it and find someone else to talk to. I wouldn't blow his head off or get my husband to beat the bejeesus out of him. Hence, the reaction to an advance, wanted or not, is fully within the control of the advancee.

You can't justify it by saying, "well, he was gay, so that was more offensive". My brother was once hit on at a club by Malcolm Forbes... so what? He made it clear he wasn't interested, finished his drink, had an interesting conversation with one of the richest men in the world and went his own way. He didn't beat him until he was dead.