Isn't it amazing that you know my own argument better than...well me.
Most would think it's not surprising at all.
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
That is my characterization of the Kerry cursing. The "intent" is entirely about image and cultivation of it.
As for Cheney and the reporting of what he said, there is no problem. I understood the context of it and just didn't care. It would be like a reporting writing that Kerry picked his nose or Bush wiped his own ass. We all know people do these things. That doesn't mean they sit there and make it the focus of an interview.
If Kerry or Cheney appeared on a Rolling Stone cover picking their nose, it isn't as if it isn't a natural thing that everyone has done in their lives. But it would probably provoke discussion about their intent with regard to image/public persona and what they are trying to convey. That is an entirely seperate issue from whether I would care about nose picking.
If you can't seperate the two, too bad for you.
Nick
Yeah, I'm not getting any point there, so I'm bowing out. I defer the balance of my time to pfflam.
(you'll note that I pretty much said the same with the Kerry faux pas)
I really don't care that Cheney swore, I do care that he doesn't seem to want further interactions at work with his fellow 'distinguished gentlemen' to have a more concerned and thoughtful approach.
If genes played a major part in homosexuality wouldn´t natural selection have abolished it long time ago?
Ssssshhh... some people get very upset if you claim homosexuality isn't genetic. Then that makes it a choice. Be careful Kirkland and a small mob with torches and rope will be along soon to string you up. They consider ideas and discussions like that to be hate speech.
As for Cheney and the reporting of what he said, there is no problem. I understood the context of it and just didn't care.
You can't admit that the context of the Cheney quote was inappropriate? The Senate might not have been in session, but surely you must agree that Cheney broke the spirit of that rule.
You can't admit that the context of the Cheney quote was inappropriate? The Senate might not have been in session, but surely you must agree that Cheney broke the spirit of that rule.
Nope can't admit it. You can't just admit that you are making an issue out of something you would never, ever care about in day to day matters from any member of your own party? From the reports I have read the context was as follows.
*Leahy spends week accusing Cheney of cronyism.
*Cheny and Leahy must both appear together in the Senate chamber because they had to have the Senate photo taken.
*Leahy goes to the Republican side of the Senate and attempts to make small talk after spending a lot of time calling Cheney a crony and a crook.
*Cheney tells him to fuck off and go away.
Seems just fine to me.
If someone suggested to me that Clinton, Gore, or anyone else told a Republican to fuck off as an aside when approached after say.. a week spent trying to impeach Clinton, I wouldn't be upset. In fact I would bet that this happened several dozen times.
But speaking of "spirit of law" I'm sure you will now condemn Moveon.org, and all the other slush funds that Democrats are using to funnel soft money back into political campaigns. Even if they haven't broken the law via proveable coordination, they obviously have broken the spirit of it. But I mean it is only money and politics there. Let's condemn a profanity. Probably the same profanity Michael Moore appealed when used several times in his movie that was rated "R" against his wishes.
*Cheny and Leahy must both appear together in the Senate chamber because they had to have the Senate photo taken.
*Leahy goes to the Republican side of the Senate and attempts to make small talk after spending a lot of time calling Cheney a crony and a crook.
*Cheney tells him to fuck off and go away.
You're full of crap or lying. Take your pick.
It doesn't matter what Leahy did, it's the response that is the potential problem. If you choose to ignore that it's inappropriate on the Senate floor, then come out and say that you don't give a crap if Cheney uses profanity on the Senate floor even if it's against the Senate rules.
I for one don't give a fuck what he says or where he says it. But I'm not going to lie and say it's welcome on the Senate floor. I use profanity here when I know it's not always welcome because I believe we should all use language to communicate.
Ssssshhh... some people get very upset if you claim homosexuality isn't genetic. Then that makes it a choice. Be careful Kirkland and a small mob with torches and rope will be along soon to string you up. They consider ideas and discussions like that to be hate speech.
Nick
Because it isn´t genetic it doesn´t have to be a choice.
It doesn't matter what Leahy did, it's the response that is the potential problem. If you choose to ignore that it's inappropriate on the Senate floor, then come out and say that you don't give a crap if Cheney uses profanity on the Senate floor even if it's against the Senate rules.
I for one don't give a fuck what he says or where he says it. But I'm not going to lie and say it's welcome on the Senate floor. I use profanity here when I know it's not always welcome because I believe we should all use language to communicate.
I choose you behaving in an entirely irrational and strange manner.
You have just ignored causality. The effect is not determined in any manner by the cause.
Claiming no relationship between cause and effect is very much full of crap and lying.
Of course Anders is right that, theoretically, it could be non-genetic and yet not a choice. I think the evidence is clear that male homosexuality is highly genetic, but at least theoretically, Anders is right.
And homosexuality is not at all inconsistent with evolution. No, homosexual sex doesn't lead to reproduction, but a lot of behavior doesn't lead to reproduction. If we were to say homosexuality should have been extinguished by natural selection, we'd have to say every single non-reproductive human behavior should be extinct.
One evolutionary theory of homosexuality is kin-selection, that homosexuals have aided the survival of members of their families (who carry many of the same genes). A kind of evolutionary queer-eye-for-the-straight-guy. A (better) variant of this theory is that cooperation between males promotes survival of the whole community or family, and due to normal human variation, sometimes this tendency toward male cooperation results in an even more, uh, exuberant form of male cooperation.
Another theory is that feminization of the male is adaptive for him, because it makes him attractive to females. Due again to normal variation, in specific individuals, this feminization is very high, and results in homosexuality.
I personally think that hormone release mediates the effect of genetics on sexual orientation, and therefore more or less testosterone or some other hormone is released in the body during pre-natal development, and this directly causes sexual orientation. Of course, varying pre-natal levels of this hormone release would be normal, and perhaps getting close to that homosexual level is adaptive, but normal human variation would cause the hormone levels to go over that cutoff point.
Also, the high prevalence of homosexual behavior among non-human species suggests that homosexuality is not unique to human culture.
But back on topic, yeah, Cheney should fuck Leahy! It's sociobiologically acceptable!
Of course Anders is right that, theoretically, it could be non-genetic and yet not a choice. I think the evidence is clear that male homosexuality is highly genetic, but at least theoretically, Anders is right.
Leave the other argument about natural selection aside (that was mainly a joke) what is the clear evidence?
Ssssshhh... some people get very upset if you claim homosexuality isn't genetic. Then that makes it a choice. Be careful Kirkland and a small mob with torches and rope will be along soon to string you up. They consider ideas and discussions like that to be hate speech.
Nick
Do you honestly believe that homosexuality is a choice?
Are there not other ways of conceiving of being determined with regards to genderization than complete genetic lines and/or choice?
Obviously there are . . . but any issue with more than a black/white, yes/no answer has been shown to be well beyond your grasp . .
Comments
Originally posted by trumptman
Isn't it amazing that you know my own argument better than...well me.
Most would think it's not surprising at all.
Originally posted by trumptman
That is my characterization of the Kerry cursing. The "intent" is entirely about image and cultivation of it.
As for Cheney and the reporting of what he said, there is no problem. I understood the context of it and just didn't care. It would be like a reporting writing that Kerry picked his nose or Bush wiped his own ass. We all know people do these things. That doesn't mean they sit there and make it the focus of an interview.
If Kerry or Cheney appeared on a Rolling Stone cover picking their nose, it isn't as if it isn't a natural thing that everyone has done in their lives. But it would probably provoke discussion about their intent with regard to image/public persona and what they are trying to convey. That is an entirely seperate issue from whether I would care about nose picking.
If you can't seperate the two, too bad for you.
Nick
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Most would think it's not surprising at all.
Well I'll have to wait until he sobers up.
Nick
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Most would think it's not surprising at all.
At least you bow out with a good one
Just to say again that I find swearing completely no-problem
unless:
1 - it is done in official public discourse without an attempt to find more diplomatic recourse, or remorse for lack there-of.
and,
2 - It is worn on the sleave as a badge after #1
(you'll note that I pretty much said the same with the Kerry faux pas)
I really don't care that Cheney swore, I do care that he doesn't seem to want further interactions at work with his fellow 'distinguished gentlemen' to have a more concerned and thoughtful approach.
Originally posted by Anders
Well of course it means "(I want to) fuck you", providing the final proof that Cheney is, in fact, gay.
His daughter is, so he could be proof of genetic origin.
Nick
Originally posted by Anders
If genes played a major part in homosexuality wouldn´t natural selection have abolished it long time ago?
Ssssshhh... some people get very upset if you claim homosexuality isn't genetic. Then that makes it a choice. Be careful Kirkland and a small mob with torches and rope will be along soon to string you up. They consider ideas and discussions like that to be hate speech.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
As for Cheney and the reporting of what he said, there is no problem. I understood the context of it and just didn't care.
You can't admit that the context of the Cheney quote was inappropriate? The Senate might not have been in session, but surely you must agree that Cheney broke the spirit of that rule.
Originally posted by bunge
You can't admit that the context of the Cheney quote was inappropriate? The Senate might not have been in session, but surely you must agree that Cheney broke the spirit of that rule.
Nope can't admit it. You can't just admit that you are making an issue out of something you would never, ever care about in day to day matters from any member of your own party? From the reports I have read the context was as follows.
*Leahy spends week accusing Cheney of cronyism.
*Cheny and Leahy must both appear together in the Senate chamber because they had to have the Senate photo taken.
*Leahy goes to the Republican side of the Senate and attempts to make small talk after spending a lot of time calling Cheney a crony and a crook.
*Cheney tells him to fuck off and go away.
Seems just fine to me.
If someone suggested to me that Clinton, Gore, or anyone else told a Republican to fuck off as an aside when approached after say.. a week spent trying to impeach Clinton, I wouldn't be upset. In fact I would bet that this happened several dozen times.
But speaking of "spirit of law" I'm sure you will now condemn Moveon.org, and all the other slush funds that Democrats are using to funnel soft money back into political campaigns. Even if they haven't broken the law via proveable coordination, they obviously have broken the spirit of it. But I mean it is only money and politics there. Let's condemn a profanity. Probably the same profanity Michael Moore appealed when used several times in his movie that was rated "R" against his wishes.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
*Leahy spends week accusing Cheney of cronyism.
*Cheny and Leahy must both appear together in the Senate chamber because they had to have the Senate photo taken.
*Leahy goes to the Republican side of the Senate and attempts to make small talk after spending a lot of time calling Cheney a crony and a crook.
*Cheney tells him to fuck off and go away.
You're full of crap or lying. Take your pick.
It doesn't matter what Leahy did, it's the response that is the potential problem. If you choose to ignore that it's inappropriate on the Senate floor, then come out and say that you don't give a crap if Cheney uses profanity on the Senate floor even if it's against the Senate rules.
I for one don't give a fuck what he says or where he says it. But I'm not going to lie and say it's welcome on the Senate floor. I use profanity here when I know it's not always welcome because I believe we should all use language to communicate.
Originally posted by trumptman
Ssssshhh... some people get very upset if you claim homosexuality isn't genetic. Then that makes it a choice. Be careful Kirkland and a small mob with torches and rope will be along soon to string you up. They consider ideas and discussions like that to be hate speech.
Nick
Because it isn´t genetic it doesn´t have to be a choice.
Originally posted by bunge
You're full of crap or lying. Take your pick.
It doesn't matter what Leahy did, it's the response that is the potential problem. If you choose to ignore that it's inappropriate on the Senate floor, then come out and say that you don't give a crap if Cheney uses profanity on the Senate floor even if it's against the Senate rules.
I for one don't give a fuck what he says or where he says it. But I'm not going to lie and say it's welcome on the Senate floor. I use profanity here when I know it's not always welcome because I believe we should all use language to communicate.
I choose you behaving in an entirely irrational and strange manner.
You have just ignored causality. The effect is not determined in any manner by the cause.
Claiming no relationship between cause and effect is very much full of crap and lying.
So enjoy.
Nick
Originally posted by Anders
Because it isn´t genetic it doesn´t have to be a choice.
Present what you believe it to be then. If you don't think it is genetic or a choice, what do you believe it to be?
Nick
If genes played a major part in homosexuality wouldn´t natural selection have abolished it long time ago?
No.
That logic doesn't even stand up to a half-second logical reconsideration.
Originally posted by groverat
No.
That logic doesn't even stand up to a half-second logical reconsideration.
Hmm. I have always been slow on these things. Please explain it to me
Originally posted by trumptman
Present what you believe it to be then. If you don't think it is genetic or a choice, what do you believe it to be?
Nick
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...l&pagenumber=5
And homosexuality is not at all inconsistent with evolution. No, homosexual sex doesn't lead to reproduction, but a lot of behavior doesn't lead to reproduction. If we were to say homosexuality should have been extinguished by natural selection, we'd have to say every single non-reproductive human behavior should be extinct.
One evolutionary theory of homosexuality is kin-selection, that homosexuals have aided the survival of members of their families (who carry many of the same genes). A kind of evolutionary queer-eye-for-the-straight-guy. A (better) variant of this theory is that cooperation between males promotes survival of the whole community or family, and due to normal human variation, sometimes this tendency toward male cooperation results in an even more, uh, exuberant form of male cooperation.
Another theory is that feminization of the male is adaptive for him, because it makes him attractive to females. Due again to normal variation, in specific individuals, this feminization is very high, and results in homosexuality.
I personally think that hormone release mediates the effect of genetics on sexual orientation, and therefore more or less testosterone or some other hormone is released in the body during pre-natal development, and this directly causes sexual orientation. Of course, varying pre-natal levels of this hormone release would be normal, and perhaps getting close to that homosexual level is adaptive, but normal human variation would cause the hormone levels to go over that cutoff point.
Also, the high prevalence of homosexual behavior among non-human species suggests that homosexuality is not unique to human culture.
But back on topic, yeah, Cheney should fuck Leahy! It's sociobiologically acceptable!
Originally posted by BRussell
Of course Anders is right that, theoretically, it could be non-genetic and yet not a choice. I think the evidence is clear that male homosexuality is highly genetic, but at least theoretically, Anders is right.
Leave the other argument about natural selection aside (that was mainly a joke) what is the clear evidence?
Originally posted by trumptman
Ssssshhh... some people get very upset if you claim homosexuality isn't genetic. Then that makes it a choice. Be careful Kirkland and a small mob with torches and rope will be along soon to string you up. They consider ideas and discussions like that to be hate speech.
Nick
Do you honestly believe that homosexuality is a choice?
Are there not other ways of conceiving of being determined with regards to genderization than complete genetic lines and/or choice?
Obviously there are . . . but any issue with more than a black/white, yes/no answer has been shown to be well beyond your grasp . .