GENIUS FORUMS

Eli-belle - Tomas, the thing about life is that people just keep on living it - you know?

-tomas-
Thank you for that :-)


.

Thank you for pointing out Carl's point, Dan. Since the point wasn't even on the map of the discussion, it did deserve to be pointed at.

explanation to Carl - The use of the term "pointed at" rather than "pointed to" insinuates insulting the point itself.

*addendum to note to self - and sometimes Dan gets distracted by attempts at making things subtle, thinks such attempts are points in themselves rather than modes of communication, and gets stuck on those thoughts enough to not even notice that this was already clarified.*

Oh, by the way Dan, maybe I should elucidate: even though it is true that helping people is not a selfless activity (even if you are enlightened, because when you are enlightened, you see that by truly helping others, since others are a part of you anyway, you are indeed helping yourself), it was the concept of centering on the individual self that I was trying to launch Carl out of. But perhaps I should leave it to you "men" to decide if you would prefer to live in a self-centered universe (and be treated like self-centered people by others) or if you would prefer to be a part of the Whole.

I'll get back to you when I've parsed all that.

I make a philosophical point, and Dan the man dodges and redirects to grammar.

No, I seriously have to consider the content of your last paragraph to tell if it contains anything worth replying to. It read like a muddle of a half valid argument and a cheap shot.

I hadn't realized the size of the chip on Elizabeth's shoulder until she had tried to clobber me personally with it. So, regardless of the main subject of the thread, or the secondary ones, this is a revelation.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:People are really, actually, different from each other. Until you grasp that fact, you will not have a chance of actually understanding anyone but yourself.

Yeah, they really are - sometimes enough to make you wonder if communication is even truly possible.

brokenhead wrote:And any thoughts on what causes homosexuality? Is it genetic, socialized, or psychological, or a combination?

I am not well versed enough in biology, psychology, sociology, etc., to have a strong opinion, but I think that homosexuality should not be viewed in a vacuum, but part of the broad spectrum of human sexuality.

It's probably a mistake to assume that homosexuality is homogeneous - always arising from the same causes everywhere. It's possible, for instance, that the circumstances that give rise to a "top" are very different from those that give rise to a "bottom." It might arise the same way as fetishes arise, or there could be something different going on. (Is anyone "born with" a shoe fetish?)

The Kinsey studies also suggest that there relatively few "pure" homosexuals; it is largely a matter of degree, with most people having some (smaller or larger, open or repressed) degree of attraction to the same sex as well as the opposite.

My instincts tell me it may be something as simple as a genetic abnormality,

I don't think something so widespread can be reasonably called an "abnormality". And contrary it seems to the popular cartoon view of homosexuals, homosexuals can and do reproduce if they want to.

DHodges wrote:I don't think something so widespread can be reasonably called an "abnormality". And contrary it seems to the popular cartoon view of homosexuals, homosexuals can and do reproduce if they want to.

abnormal - adjective: not normal; not typical or usual or regular or conforming to a norm

Eh, semantics...

With a conservative estimate of 5% homosexual incidence, that means they number 333 million worldwide. That's a 10% bigger population than that of the US. So could we refer the the entire US population as abnormal?

That's rhetorical btw.

Dave Toast wrote:With a conservative estimate of 5% homosexual incidence, that means they number 333 million worldwide. That's a 10% bigger population than that of the US. So could we refer the the entire US population as abnormal?

Why bundle it that way? That's like saying all the world's oxen equals the population of dogs and cats in England, and could we consider England an agrarian country.

That's rhetorical btw.

Yah, and it's also fucking meaningless.

Dave Toast wrote:With a conservative estimate of 5% homosexual incidence, that means they number 333 million worldwide. That's a 10% bigger population than that of the US. So could we refer the the entire US population as abnormal?

That's rhetorical btw.

That extra 10% can move to Canada. Canada has about 33 million. 66 million abnormals above the 48th parallel?


Tomas

Lighten up Carl.

You don't seriously think I'd be making that point seriously?

Some still-in-the-closet possibilities, from TV:
Myth Busters
Rob & Big
Two Guy Garage

anyone know if these guys are queers? American tv.
They look queer to me!

spelnxpert wrote:anyone know if these guys are queers? American tv.
They look queer to me!

Ask them out for a date :-/



Tomas

anyone know if these guys are queers? American tv.
They look queer to me!

Well, now I am sorry I posted this thread. At least I should have worded the subject as: "The QRS view of gays and lesbians."

brokenhead wrote:

anyone know if these guys are queers? American tv.
They look queer to me!

Well, now I am sorry I posted this thread. At least I should have worded the subject as: "The QRS view of gays and lesbians."

For your information :)

Because you ARE the author of this thread:

You can edit (and change) the subject line to your fancy...


Tomas

.

Really? How do I do that?

Go to the first post of your thread and find the edit button. Then change the subject line.

.

Gomer Pyle-
brokenhead - Really?

-tomas-
Wellll... gollie gee whiz




-Goober Pyle-
How do I do that?

-tomas-
You put the lime in the coconut - drink 'em both up!

ps - i'll git DFBatosee ta hep ya figger et owt.



Tomas


.

Okay, excellent, thanks. I didn't even think of that - I was looking for a way to have it changed everywhere, but that's okay. It sounded confrontational before - that was unintended.