Dark Moth Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 I can, and I will. Our species already has things with which we can compare what is normal and what's not. Once again, in case anyone is just reading this, I'm not trying to say abnormal=bad. What I am tring to say is that there are things that nature has already told us is normal that won't change. What is normal might vary from species to species, but we are human beings, and we have to live by our own standards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Musopticon? Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 As in being normal and not believing in all sorts of superhuman god crap? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Don't. Just don't. kirottu said: I was raised by polar bears. I had to fight against blood thirsty wolves and rabid penguins to get my food. Those who were too weak to survive were sent to Sweden. It has made me the man I am today. A man who craves furry hentai. So let us go and embrace the rustling smells of unseen worlds Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thepixiesrock Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 I can, and I will. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I never said you couldn't.I'm not going to continue debating this with you, because I think we have said all we need to say. Lou Gutman, P.I.- It's like I'm not even trying anymore!http://theatomicdanger.iforumer.com/index....theatomicdangerOne billion b-balls dribbling simultaneously throughout the galaxy. One trillion b-balls being slam dunked through a hoop throughout the galaxy. I can feel every single b-ball that has ever existed at my fingertips. I can feel their collective knowledge channeling through my viens. Every jumpshot, every rebound and three-pointer, every layup, dunk, and free throw. I am there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gfted1 Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 I can, and I will. I never said you couldn't.I'm not going to continue debating this with you, because I think we have said all we need to say. But youre wrong as Dark Moth has repeatadly deconstructed your semantical game. Im curious though, are you just trolling or can you not understand the concept of whats considered, by humans, to be a normal biological human? After all, Siamese twins exist so that must be normal? "I'm your biggest fan, Ill follow you until you love me, Papa" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanschu Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 I find the problem comes when people say it's not normal, and then try to cover it by saying "Hey, I don't think that abnormal is bad." Good luck actually conveying that though. Saying that someone isn't normal is going to be taken as an insult by most people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thepixiesrock Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 I understand what humans consider to be biological normal humans. Lou Gutman, P.I.- It's like I'm not even trying anymore!http://theatomicdanger.iforumer.com/index....theatomicdangerOne billion b-balls dribbling simultaneously throughout the galaxy. One trillion b-balls being slam dunked through a hoop throughout the galaxy. I can feel every single b-ball that has ever existed at my fingertips. I can feel their collective knowledge channeling through my viens. Every jumpshot, every rebound and three-pointer, every layup, dunk, and free throw. I am there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metadigital Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 It's not normal, because it's part of a human's genetic code to be born with only two arms. That's how we developed as a species. Any more or less is considered a mutation, a genetic abormality. If we were talking about some alien species on planet Gorfbnag that had three arms, then it'd be normal for them. If a wolf pack was comprised of purely homosexual wolves who had no interest whatsoever in the other sex, they'd die out. That's not normal. So if homosexuality is caused by a genetic defect, then how could one say it's normal? Also, don't forget that acceptable and normal are two different things. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You need to be careful, you are making a lot of swingeing generalisations from single incidents: a fallacy. The incidence of homosexuality has ALWAYS been (throughout human and other animals) approximately 10% of the population. Also, your three-arm example completely ignores evolution (one of your favourite concepts!). For example, look at your toes immediately adjacent to your big toes. If these toes are LONGER than the big toe, then you have a MUTATION. This is also a dominant genetic mutation, meaning that only one copy in the inherited pair needs to be a mutant for the person to express the gene (and carry it, obviously). Please note that I am not suggesting that homosexuality is an evolutionary mutation (you naughty pranksters!). This is just to assist you in your logical analysis of the genetic and/or environmental factors. (I won't touch on the barefaced silliness of your wolf-pack analogy.) OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
213374U Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 (edited) It's not normal, because it's part of a human's genetic code to be born with only two arms. That's how we developed as a species. Any more or less is considered a mutation, a genetic abormality. If we were talking about some alien species on planet Gorfbnag that had three arms, then it'd be normal for them. If a wolf pack was comprised of purely homosexual wolves who had no interest whatsoever in the other sex, they'd die out. That's not normal. So if homosexuality is caused by a genetic defect, then how could one say it's normal? Also, don't forget that acceptable and normal are two different things. Er, how exactly is homosexuality a defect? Mind you, some homosexuals marry and have children, so don't go that way. They might not really enjoy it, but then again, I hate working. I'm obviously defective as well. But I digress. Unfortunately, you fail to recognize that "normality" is a random state defined culturally as much as biologically, if not more. Also, trying to debate "normality" avoiding the connotations the term has is a difficult and somewhat pointless exercise, and I suspect it's also an attempt at appearing neutral when one really isn't. The connotations are there, precisely because of what "normality" implies, and how it's defined. In this case, homosexuality seems to be a trait prevalent in a percentage of mankind, which makes me wonder if it's comparable to, say, having red hair. Your reasoning considering one abnormal and the other not is a fine example of fallacious randomness, and it would be amusing were you not trying to pass it as some sort of obvious pseudo-scientific fact. Yeah, yeah. Opinions are opinions and all that jazz, but using pseudo-science to put down a lot of people as inferior (yes, inferior as being genetically sub-par) is not very nice. EDIT: Mets beat me to it. Edited August 30, 2006 by 213374U - When he is best, he is a little worse than a man, and when he is worst, he is little better than a beast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gfted1 Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 (edited) The incidence of homosexuality has ALWAYS been (throughout human and other animals) approximately 10% of the population. You keep throwing this out there quite a bit and you are wrong. This one is almost impossible to estimate with any reasonable degree of accuracy. The classification of people as being either "heterosexual" or "homosexual" is too dependent upon subjective criteria, and the answers of respondents to surveys about their sexual habits are too easily influenced by other social factors. The common figure of "10% of the population is homosexual" is often bandied about, but that number is derived from a misapplication of a Kinsey study which was not based upon a representative sample of the population. One can find estimates that place of the percentage of the population considered to be homosexual anywhere between 1-2% and 25%-35%, but a reasonable survey of the more controlled studies would put the figure in about the 2-3% range (for males, at least). So no, 2-3% of the population does not constitute a "norm". Edited August 30, 2006 by Gfted1 "I'm your biggest fan, Ill follow you until you love me, Papa" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metadigital Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 The exact percentage is irrelevant, though I thank you for this added piece of information. 3% of the population are not "normal" heights (both too short or too tall). Are these people not "normal"? Who is deciding what is "normal"? Why isn't 2-3% a norm? Is there an oppression by the majority? How many different ways can we categorise people? I'm sure if we carry on long enough, we'll come across some metric whereby you (or me and any/everyone) aren't "normal". It's a pointless distinction to make in this argument, and is logical fallacy appealing to probability. The whole "normal" argument is fallacious: argumentum ad consequentiam (e.g. the gay wolf-pack, vide supra[<{POST_SNAPBACK}>]), with argumentum ad populum overtones. OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucius Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 (edited) As in being normal and not believing in all sorts of superhuman god crap? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Don't. Just don't. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> If zealot can compare my 'kind' to child molesters and three armed mutants, I can call his belief superhuman crap, thanks. Edited August 30, 2006 by Lucius DENMARK! It appears that I have not yet found a sig to replace the one about me not being banned... interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gfted1 Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 If zealot can compare my 'kind' to child molesters and three armed mutants, I can call his belief superhuman crap, thanks. If you dont mind my asking, but I think I once read a post from you regarding the fact that youre homosexual. When did you first know you were homosexual? "I'm your biggest fan, Ill follow you until you love me, Papa" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kumquatq3 Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 ::looks at ten foot pole:: ::looks at 20 foot pole:: ::runs:: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gfted1 Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 ^Why? Was that question out of line? "I'm your biggest fan, Ill follow you until you love me, Papa" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucius Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 (edited) Hehe, It's no secret on this forum, but it is to my RL world Anyway, when I was 14 I knew I liked both sexes at least, although I didn't quite understand what it was back then I think. Today I'm only interested in one sex Oh and don't mind Kumq, he's got Alias in his nick. Edited August 30, 2006 by Lucius DENMARK! It appears that I have not yet found a sig to replace the one about me not being banned... interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Judge Hades Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 I think that a person's sexuality should not determine what rights he or she has. A person should have the right to marry to his oer her significant other regardless of their gender. Sexual orientation should not be used to discriminate against others. Discrimination should not be acceptable, period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
213374U Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 I think that a person's sexuality should not determine what rights he or she has. A person should have the right to marry to his oer her significant other regardless of their gender. Sexual orientation should not be used to discriminate against others. Discrimination should not be acceptable, period.Nope. Marriage is an institution created by the Church (be it this or that), and it's defined as the union between man and woman. Anything else simply is not marriage, and forcing same sex marriages on the Church is overstepping the State's bounds. Civil same-sex unions enjoying the same social conditions/benefits of marriage though, are just fine. - When he is best, he is a little worse than a man, and when he is worst, he is little better than a beast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Judge Hades Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 (edited) Well, yeah. I agree with that. Marriages should be a church only affair anyway. Church and State, gotta keep them separated. Edited August 30, 2006 by Judge Hades Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucius Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 Marriage just reeks of christianity and church, I can't see why gays are so interested in getting into an institution that fears them so. I wouldn't want to get married on my life, not ever. DENMARK! It appears that I have not yet found a sig to replace the one about me not being banned... interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Moth Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 As in being normal and not believing in all sorts of superhuman god crap? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Once again, whenever you aren't capable of arguing your point, you resort to personal attacks. This is why I didn't respond to your last plea for attention in a thread like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Judge Hades Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 Especially when the norm for human society and civilization is to have belief and/or faith in a higher being. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucius Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 Got your attention didn't I? I wonder why you've never bothered to show your face here, just because you might be a mutant doesn't mean I'm one. DENMARK! It appears that I have not yet found a sig to replace the one about me not being banned... interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kumquatq3 Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 Oh and don't mind Kumq, he's got Alias in his nick. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The most hateful thing said yet. Gfted1: Don't know if it was out of line, not my call, I meant the thread in general. This is a face to face topic, imo. To easy to get words out of context and too sensitive an issue, from several view points, to talk about over the internets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kumquatq3 Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 Especially when the norm for human society and civilization is to have belief and/or faith in a higher being. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> oooooooooooo, I want to comment so bad another topic Hades, another topic..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucius Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 Oh and don't mind Kumq, he's got Alias in his nick. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The most hateful thing said yet. I didn't mean it, you're too hot to hate. DENMARK! It appears that I have not yet found a sig to replace the one about me not being banned... interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts