|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Gorgias
Joined: 27 Aug 2005
|
 Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 9:11 am Post subject: |
 |
|
@Troll_Bait
Thank-you very much for taking the time to assemble those very interesting links on teratology (if that is a polite word for it). In university that subject facinated me, many a happy hour was whiled away reading and looking at "Atlas and Compendium of Human Teratology."
But-- The mind-boggling array of (uncommon) variations on human that nature can spew out do not really answer the question of whether or not the majority of homosexuals are "born gay" or if they/we grow up to be gay. Most likely there is not a definative answer to this complicated question at this time.
As an aside, and feel free to ignore this, what is your interest in this topic? You have spent a great deal of time creating very intricate posts. Just out of curiosity, why such interest in this topic? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Satori
Joined: 09 Dec 2005
Location: Above it all
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 9:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gorgias wrote: |
@Troll_Bait
Thank-you very much for taking the time to assemble those very interesting links on teratology (if that is a polite word for it). In university that subject facinated me, many a happy hour was whiled away reading and looking at "Atlas and Compendium of Human Teratology."
But-- The mind-boggling array of (uncommon) variations on human that nature can spew out do not really answer the question of whether or not the majority of homosexuals are "born gay" or if they/we grow up to be gay. Most likely there is not a definative answer to this complicated question at this time.
As an aside, and feel free to ignore this, what is your interest in this topic? You have spent a great deal of time creating very intricate posts. Just out of curiosity, why such interest in this topic? |
How determined to avoid the evidence do you have to be to be you?
Several posts in this thread have indeed shown that homosexuality is genetic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gorgias
Joined: 27 Aug 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 9:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
I am not convinced.
Sufficent understanding of both biology and psychology is lacking at this time.
The information cited by the Christian fundamentalists, although lacking in Popularly accepted Authority, is little less definative than the Scientific surveys. Studies many times find just what they are looking for, but more significantly: the facts of those studies do not necessarily shew what the publishers imagine they do, or conclude.
I personally could not care less if homosexuality is born or bred; but I am very sceptical of the prevalant mass acceptance of the view that homosexuals are born such. What is the function of this view? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
peemil
Joined: 09 Feb 2003
Location: Koowoompa
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 11:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Oh, come on, peemil's the most transparent troll on this board. |
Finally- The recognition I've craved. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Swiss James
Joined: 26 Nov 2003
Location: Shanghai
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 11:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
Actually Gorgias I think I see what you're getting at-
leaving aside what scientists say this week we've got these extreme viewpoints:
I) Gay people are born that way
II) Gay people choose to be that way
and also
a) "We're here we're queer get used to it"
b) "God hates fags"
Whilst it'd be hard for someone to rationally argue for both I) and b) (unless God has some serious issues), why do I) and a) have to come simultaneously?
Isn't saying that you think homosexuality is great because
"hey- they'd be straight, if they could, they just haven't got the genes!"
weird in a similar way to saying you could change someone's sexuality given time? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Satori
Joined: 09 Dec 2005
Location: Above it all
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 11:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gorgias wrote: |
| What is the function of this view? |
There is no function, it is what dispassionate scientists have discovered. The fact that you feel able to challenge the current scientific evidence as a layman because you're "unconvinced" speaks more about your delusions of grandeur than about the topic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gorgias
Joined: 27 Aug 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 10:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| There is no function |
The function of the prevalent scientific belief that homosexuality is genetic provides the masses with a Popular Authoritarian rationalization for accepting homosexuals morally. Homosexuals are able to work, consume and serve in the millitary, therefore their condemnation can not serve any purpose for capitalist-democracy.
It is somewhat significant as a moral justification that homosexuality be considered an inherent characteristic of a person. "The scientific basis for homosexuality" uses the same idea-vehicle of the 60s and 70s that made it impossible to hate a person on the basis of the color of their skin.
Belief in the Big Bang is the same kind of of idea. It provides a scientific metaphysical-house for the Christian-atheist masses egos to reside in safely.
Sexual orientation is a profoundly metaphysical issue as well. It is no coincidence that religion has a say on the subject.
The major perversions: homosexuality, pedophilia, incest, beastiality, necrophilia... are obviously despised based on instinctual revultion relating to reproduction. Beyond the level of the animal, none of these sexual orientations can, for any rational reason, be condemned.
Be that as it may, sexuality is a mode of power, and ego is the alocator of power, therefore ego is heavily dependant on sexual orientation for it's stability and identity. It would be equally dangerous for the ego of the homosexual to realize that his sexual orientation is a free choice as it would be for a man to realize his womanized sex-object is a person-- an animal-- a body!
Luther was all his life haunted by the fact of birth defects. Birth-defects rock our concept of what human is, so too unstable sexuality (, gender) and chaotic universe destroy ego.
The hippies did not even begin to understand the meaning, or dangerousness, of "free-love." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kermo
Joined: 01 Sep 2004
Location: Eating eggs, with a comb, out of a shoe.
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 11:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Satori wrote: |
| Gorgias wrote: |
| What is the function of this view? |
There is no function, it is what dispassionate scientists have discovered. The fact that you feel able to challenge the current scientific evidence as a layman because you're "unconvinced" speaks more about your delusions of grandeur than about the topic. |
Interesting in light of your recent comments on miracles, my friends, and our collective delusions.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Satori
Joined: 09 Dec 2005
Location: Above it all
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 12:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gorgias wrote: |
| Quote: |
| There is no function |
The function of the prevalent scientific belief that homosexuality is genetic provides the masses with a Popular Authoritarian rationalization for accepting homosexuals morally. Homosexuals are able to work, consume and serve in the millitary, therefore their condemnation can not serve any purpose for capitalist-democracy.
It is somewhat significant as a moral justification that homosexuality be considered an inherent characteristic of a person. "The scientific basis for homosexuality" uses the same idea-vehicle of the 60s and 70s that made it impossible to hate a person on the basis of the color of their skin. |
Scientists are not in the business of excusing/condoning or condemning anything. They are usually very disspassionate boffin types who are interested only in the physical reality of our universe. Why should we need a "rationalisation for accepting thier morality" when we know that homosexuality ocurrs in roughly 10% of the population. In the modern world, with the knowledge we have at hand, there should be no discussion of whether homosexuality is morally valid, to even have the discussion suggests it is a question. Otherwise we get into every 10% group that is in someway different from the majority having to justify themselves morally. Unless you're a christian that's a whole lot of uselss justifying when we could be getting on with things.
| Quote: |
Sexual orientation is a profoundly metaphysical issue as well. It is no coincidence that religion has a say on the subject. |
I don't know what you mean by a metaphysical issue, but I get the distinct feeling you're wrong. I know it's a physical/biological issue, and I know it's been made a moral issue, that's why the church gets involved.
| Quote: |
The major perversions: homosexuality, pedophilia, incest, beastiality, necrophilia... are obviously despised based on instinctual revultion relating to reproduction. Beyond the level of the animal, none of these sexual orientations can, for any rational reason, be condemned. |
Incorrect, pedophilia can be condemned because it damages the victims psychologically. You're views are extremist and very dangerous.
| Quote: |
Be that as it may, sexuality is a mode of power, and ego is the alocator of power, therefore ego is heavily dependant on sexual orientation for it's stability and identity. It would be equally dangerous for the ego of the homosexual to realize that his sexual orientation is a free choice as it would be for a man to realize his womanized sex-object is a person-- an animal-- a body!
|
Sexuality is not a mode of power. Sexuality is sexuality. You've read a book that told you everything is about power, and like a lot of overly earnest intellectual seekers, you find it much more stimulating to convince yourself that your model really is perfect, and that everything is indeed about power. It's more exciting that way, isn' t it? When you grow up, you'll realise that some things are all about power, some things have power as one of the dynamics amoung several, and some things are not about power at all. It's less mentally stimulating to accept that your model is not a one size fits all solution, but you'll get used to it.
We do not reach puberty and say "Hmmm let's see, do I want to be straight or gay?" which is what you're suggesting by saying it's a choice. Everything we know scientifically, and all the anecdotal evidence shows us that it's not a choice. And I don't think of this as a defence for homosexuality. Even if it was a choice it should stil be fine. I just find that so far everything points in the non choice direction. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Troll_Bait
Joined: 04 Jan 2006
Location: [T]eaching experience doesn't matter much. -Lee Young-chan (pictured)
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 8:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gorgias wrote: |
@Troll_Bait
Thank-you very much for taking the time to assemble those very interesting links on teratology (if that is a polite word for it). In university that subject facinated me, many a happy hour was whiled away reading and looking at "Atlas and Compendium of Human Teratology." ... |
No searches for that book came up with anything. It must be very obscure.
Could you reference it with author(s), date of publication, edition, etc.? Thanks.
After all, you whiled hours and hours away reading it because it was a fascinating subject for you in university.
Surely such an enjoyable and informative book cannot have been so easily forgotten.
So, details about this enthralling tome would be greatly appreciated.
I'm sorry to say that at that point I stopped reading your post, so great was my disappointment.
Neither did I read any of your other posts. My apologies. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gorgias
Joined: 27 Aug 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 9:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
@Satori, my friend,
As we have had so many close discussions on this forum as of late, I thought I should take the opportunity to get to know and understand you better, so that I could better appreciate your angle on this topic.
Firstly, here is a very rough biography, feel free to add to it, or correct any mistakes I have made:
| Quote: |
-Male.
-Early 30s?
-Joined this forum towards the end of 2005.
-New Zealand national.
-Pro-Clarke (female labour party PM).
-Education: "BA English Lit, a Dip Ed High School English, Music, and Drama"
-Has been in Korea several years, possibly now holds a university position?
-Engaged to marry a Canadian?
-Sports fan.
-Anti-nationalist, anti-Muslim, anti-Christian; atheist?
-Considers racism to be a learned behavior.
-Likes Charles D1ckens, especially "Great Expectations."
-Favorite albums:
""Reachin'" Digable Planets
"Thee Feet High and Rising" De La Soul
"Doggy Style" Snoop Dog
"Jazzmatazz Vol 2" Guru
"Illmatic" Nas""
-Liked these movies: "Sling Blade, Fire Walk With Me..." and "The Recruit and Training Day"
-Likes the actor Denzel Washington.
-Minor feminist. |
I too liked Charles D1ckens. I read Great Expectations too young not to be bored by it, but I did like Bleak House and Hard Times.
But where I see us differing is in that you are a fairly main-stream person. You actual wrote as if you liked the movies Training Day etc; your choices of music are very standard and you listed Fire Walk With Me as a favorite off-color movie, when in fact Twin Peaks is very germain. You seem to like pro-sports which doesn't make me think you are the most sophisticated of persons. Your anti-religion attitude and anti-Christian remarks are typical of the herd. Many of your views strike me as being very typically left-leaning bleeding heart, yet your feminism is contradicted by some of your crude remarks about women; and your anti-colonialist anti-nationalism is contradicted by your Pro-Japanese remarks to the effect that Korea is inferior to Japan for not Westernizing. Personally I hated Japan for it's orderliness and cleanliness which I think you probably go in for.
At first I was a little surprised at your personal attacks, but when reading through your posts, I found all these-- in just the last month!
| Quote: |
"You are deranged. You're unstable. You're not well."
You are the most hate filled bigot I've ever read.
Your ignorance is deep and profound, your hatred is bilious and dangerous. to Is this guy for real or what? Please, for the sake of humanity, don't have children...
What a fruitcake...
You haven't the faintest idea what "truth" even is.
Pure and utter rubbish from you, again.
You hate yourself. And frankly I don't blame you. I suggest serious professional psychiatric help is your only option now.
I don't feel xians have the right to shove thier idiocy in my face either. |
I have not quoted any of the many identical attacks you have made on me. You call several posters including myself dangerous; but this is primarily because your own ideas are so dull and far from cutting edge. You have several times advised posters to seek proffesional mental help or called them mentally ill, this may be fair, as Prufrocks like yourself will most certainly never know any sort of mental extremes.
Despite being a Literature major, you preach the standard scientific cliches:
| Quote: |
| When a particular thought or emotion occurs a chemical reaction causes one synapse to "fire" thus sending a current from one synapse to the next. This causes the two synapses to be connected by thin "tendrils". All thoughts and emotions are correspondant to various patterns of synapses firing and creating connections with adjacent synapese. |
And you have the vanity to tell me I'm vain for questioning science, when you just repeat the same things you say you learnt "15 years ago."
Here is a quote from your first post on this forum:
| Quote: |
| But I can tell you why I do like one behaviour more than the other. I feel it's actually good for everyone, because it's more efficient. |
Welcome to the machine Satori. Oh wait, I guess you've been there a long time.
I don't expect you to understand my posts in this tread, or in any other thread on this forum. I admit my ideas and obnoxious opinions are not genius, but they are mine, and I feel about them.
I hope this crude sketch and critique helps you understand why I know there is no further point replying to your banal and narrow-minded criticisms. You could not have re-hashed the scientific and contemporary mass opinions otherwise than you have. I also know, that as a poster here, you will take these remarks in stride: "other people know more about us in five minutes, than we will ever know about ourselves in our lifetimes"-- unless we use this forum, and we have had our personality defects flamed and quoted back at us one hundred times.
I understand and do by in large agree with your position on this topic, and I hope that you will at least try to understand my angle too.
Good luck in your future marriage.
Your friend,
Gorgias
Last edited by Gorgias on Fri Feb 17, 2006 9:47 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gorgias
Joined: 27 Aug 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 9:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
@Troll_Bait, I have read all your posts too, so very reluctantly, I will provide you with this detailed information. Maybe you can post forty or so links about it, and dissect it.
Bergsma, Daniel
Birth defects: atlas and compendium. Editor: Daniel Bergsma.
Imprint Baltimore : Published for the National Foundation-March of Dimes, by the Williams and Wilkins Co., [1972, c1973]
Descript liv, 1006 p. : illus. (part col.) ; 29 cm.
Bibliog. Includes bibliographies.
Subject Medical genetics
Abnormalities, Human
ISBN 0683063669 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Satori
Joined: 09 Dec 2005
Location: Above it all
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 1:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Gorgias, sorry I hurt your feelings, but you act like a hardened message board user so I figured you could take it. It would have taken a while to gather that little bio on me, so I presume I have annoyed you, yes? You've got to admit your philosophies are obnoxious and a bit repetitive though, everythings about freedom and power, eh? You want the freedom to drive drunk, think paedophiles are over demonised, how are we supposed to respond? Honestly I still can't work out whether you really believe what you write, or whether you just enjoy playing with ideas and playing devils advocate. I certainly hope the latter. But I will apologise for over-reacting. I'll probably manage to be civil towards you until you post your next opinion. 
Well done on some good guesses about me, though not always correct. I won't go into which is which, except to say engaged to a Korean not Canadian.
There is plenty in your post for huge discussion, even a civil one perhaps, but it's not on topic, so I won't got there right now. I will however bring up this...
| Quote: |
| You seem to like pro-sports which doesn't make me think you are the most sophisticated of persons. |
Obviously you are intelligent and well read, though in my opinion misguided and somewhat unwholesome. So this came as a real shock. A sports fan cannot be sophisticated? Where is the bias coming from here? Quite bizarre my friend, nothing logical in that little assumption. I'll go on to say I don't see myself as sophisticated anyway, it's not a value I have, though you seem to assume that being called unsophisticated would be an insult to me. Neither am I big sports fan. I'd rather do than watch. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Satori
Joined: 09 Dec 2005
Location: Above it all
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 1:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oops, I said I would leave your bio of me alone, but I'm going to grab one more thing...
Reasonably anti really. And I don't think any self respecting man would call himself a "feminist". Equality under the law, respect, fairness, of course. That's as far as it goes. The basic stated goals of feminism obviously are reasonable and necessary. But when a woman identifies herself as "a feminist", it means a lot more about her. I usually don't get on with them. Hopefully I have a few more surprises and contradictions for you in the future. Maybe in the end you'll find I'm not so square... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Troll_Bait
Joined: 04 Jan 2006
Location: [T]eaching experience doesn't matter much. -Lee Young-chan (pictured)
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 7:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gorgias wrote: |
OK.
Also, here is some information on fallacies for your perusal...
Quote:
Appeal to Ridicule is a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an "argument."
Ad Hominem Abusive.
A personal attack is committed when a person substitutes abusive remarks for evidence when attacking another person's claim or claims.
This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because the attack is directed at the person making the claim and not the claim itself.
|
http://www.eslcafe.com/forums/korea/viewtopic.php?t=52179
| Gorgias wrote: |
@Satori, my friend,
As we have had so many close discussions on this forum as of late, I thought I should take the opportunity to get to know and understand you better, so that
I could better appreciate your angle on this topic.
Firstly, here is a very rough biography, feel free to add to it, or correct any mistakes I have made:
| Quote: |
-Male.
-Early 30s?
-Joined this forum towards the end of 2005.
-New Zealand national.
-Pro-Clarke (female labour party PM).
-Education: "BA English Lit, a Dip Ed High School English, Music, and Drama"
-Has been in Korea several years, possibly now holds a university position?
-Engaged to marry a Canadian?
-Sports fan.
-Anti-nationalist, anti-Muslim, anti-Christian; atheist?
-Considers racism to be a learned behavior.
-Likes Charles D1ckens, especially "Great Expectations."
-Favorite albums:
""Reachin'" Digable Planets
"Thee Feet High and Rising" De La Soul
"Doggy Style" Snoop Dog
"Jazzmatazz Vol 2" Guru
"Illmatic" Nas""
-Liked these movies: "Sling Blade, Fire Walk With Me..." and "The Recruit and Training Day"
-Likes the actor Denzel Washington.
-Minor feminist.
|
I too liked Charles D1ckens. I read Great Expectations too young not to be bored by it, but I did like Bleak House and Hard Times.
But where I see us differing is in that you are a fairly main-stream person. You actual wrote as if you liked the movies Training Day etc; your choices of
music are very standard and you listed Fire Walk With Me as a favorite off-color movie, when in fact Twin Peaks is very germain. You seem to like pro-sports
which doesn't make me think you are the most sophisticated of persons. Your anti-religion attitude and anti-Christian remarks are typical of the herd. Many
of your views strike me as being very typically left-leaning bleeding heart, yet your feminism is contradicted by some of your crude remarks about women; and
your anti-colonialist anti-nationalism is contradicted by your Pro-Japanese remarks to the effect that Korea is inferior to Japan for not Westernizing.
Personally I hated Japan for it's orderliness and cleanliness which I think you probably go in for.
At first I was a little surprised at your personal attacks, but when reading through your posts, I found all these-- in just the last month!
| Quote: |
"You are deranged. You're unstable. You're not well."
You are the most hate filled bigot I've ever read.
Your ignorance is deep and profound, your hatred is bilious and dangerous. to Is this guy for real or what? Please, for the sake of humanity, don't have
children...
What a fruitcake...
You haven't the faintest idea what "truth" even is.
Pure and utter rubbish from you, again.
You hate yourself. And frankly I don't blame you. I suggest serious professional psychiatric help is your only option now.
I don't feel xians have the right to shove thier idiocy in my face either.
|
I have not quoted any of the many identical attacks you have made on me. You call several posters including myself dangerous; but this is primarily because
your own ideas are so dull and far from cutting edge. You have several times advised posters to seek proffesional mental help or called them mentally ill,
this may be fair, as Prufrocks like yourself will most certainly never know any sort of mental extremes.
Despite being a Literature major, you preach the standard scientific cliches:
| Quote: |
When a particular thought or emotion occurs a chemical reaction causes one synapse to "fire" thus sending a current from one synapse to the next. This causes
the two synapses to be connected by thin "tendrils". All thoughts and emotions are correspondant to various patterns of synapses firing and creating
connections with adjacent synapese.
And you have the vanity to tell me I'm vain for questioning science, when you just repeat the same things you say you learnt "15 years ago."
Here is a quote from your first post on this forum:
| Quote: |
But I can tell you why I do like one behaviour more than the other. I feel it's actually good for everyone, because it's more efficient.
|
Welcome to the machine Satori. Oh wait, I guess you've been there a long time.
I don't expect you to understand my posts in this tread, or in any other thread on this forum. I admit my ideas and obnoxious opinions are not genius, but
they are mine, and I feel about them.
I hope this crude sketch and critique helps you understand why I know there is no further point replying to your banal and narrow-minded criticisms. You
could not have re-hashed the scientific and contemporary mass opinions otherwise than you have. I also know, that as a poster here, you will take these
remarks in stride: "other people know more about us in five minutes, than we will ever know about ourselves in our lifetimes"-- unless we use this forum, and
we have had our personality defects flamed and quoted back at us one hundred times.
I understand and do by in large agree with your position on this topic, and I hope that you will at least try to understand my angle too.
Good luck in your future marriage.
Your friend,
Gorgias
|
|
So, does creating a profile of your opponent, and throwing it in his face, count as an "Ad Hominem"?
| Gorgias wrote: |
@Troll_Bait, I have read all your posts too ...
|
Are you stalking me, as well?
| Gorgias wrote: |
@Troll_Bait
Thank-you very much for taking the time to assemble those very interesting links on teratology (if that is a polite word for it).
In university that subject facinated me, many a happy hour was whiled away reading and looking at "Atlas and Compendium of Human Teratology."
|
So, does this count as an "Appeal to Ridicule"?
Forgive me, but it does come across as mockery of my previous posts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
