Gay Fascism On HGTV |
||
|
Gay Fascism on HGTV
Segaia said: » Cerberus.Pleebo said: » Maybe you and your cousin can learn about genetics together. I'm sure my cousin would be glad to educate you further. It seems like cherry picking articles while blindfolded didn't get many people far. As long as he has his morning snack.
[+]
I hope he and his cousin are not in the continental US. 1:48 AM CST is way past an eight-year-old's bed time. EGADS! And on a school night! Tisk tisk.
[+]
What are they putting in those juiceboxes....
Reminds me of that scene in Men in Black (the first one) during Will's training session.
little 6 year old suzie is holding a book on advanced thermonuclear dynamics, or w/e.
[+]
[+]
People are entitled to their views, but this is a private network. It is a business and they made a business decision not to employ these guys. No one is saying they can't be homophobic on tv. This one station is saying they won't have the show on their private network.
This isn't a freedom of speech issue. Bismarck.Bloodrose said: » Yes, because an 8 year old who recently began reciting his ABC's and 123's can accurately understand things that continually elude even those who have been studying in that particular field. As long as he has his morning snack. The largest study featured around 500 gay people in sample size. From those 500 people the study explicitly states that samples have been taken from "gay brothers and other members of their families" decreasing a representative sample size and promoting wrong data due to the possibility of genetic defects unrelated to the questionable "goal" of this study. The study also states that the damaged gene might or might not have an effect and that if it might have... it would not be on this gene alone but a combination of defected genes (which defeats the whole of saying "gay gene" when at best it is a "gay chromosome"). It is also not even verified that the part that supposedly was damaged is indeed affecting sexual orientation. It is a wild guess. It was also stated that even if there was a damaged combination of genes on said part it would only "increase the tendency" towards becoming gay and it is hinted that society and environmental conditions may play the bigger part. So we have: Around 500 people within the same biome, same lineages, which "part of" happen to have the same damaged gene which might or not might change sexual orientation in an area of a chromosome that has not been verified to change sexual orientation and considering the "best-case"-scenario all this might be overshadowed by the effect of society and immediate environment. And now you please apply common sense to all that. You have 3 tries and no - the answer is not "potatoe". Segaia said: » Bismarck.Bloodrose said: » Yes, because an 8 year old who recently began reciting his ABC's and 123's can accurately understand things that continually elude even those who have been studying in that particular field. As long as he has his morning snack. The largest study featured around 500 gay people in sample size. From those 500 people the study explicitly states that samples have been taken from "gay brothers and other members of their families" decreasing a representative sample size and promoting wrong data due to the possibility of genetic defects unrelated to the questionable "goal" of this study. The study also states that the damaged gene might or might not have an effect and that if it might have... it would not be on this gene alone but a combination of defected genes (which defeats the whole of saying "gay gene" when at best it is a "gay chromosome"). It is also not even verified that the part that supposedly was damaged is indeed affecting sexual orientation. It is a wild guess. It was also stated that even if there was a damaged combination of genes on said part it would only "increase the tendency" towards becoming gay and it is hinted that society and environmental conditions may play the bigger part. So we have: Around 500 people within the same biome, same lineages, which "part of" happen to have the same damaged gene which might or not might change sexual orientation in an area of a chromosome that has not been verified to change sexual orientation and considering the "best-case"-scenario all this might be overshadowed by the effect of society and immediate environment. And now you please apply common sense to all that. You have 3 tries and no - the answer is not "potatoe". News of study (Link Fixed) Here is the study you posted. It was 1,588 people and it's 6 years old....... Looks like this was his findings. Results (Link Fixed) According to that study, "no evidence that male sexual orientation is transmitted predominantly through the maternal line." This would back but not be conclusive to This study of epigenetics which also states that "According to the study, published online today in The Quarterly Review of Biology, sex-specific epi-marks, which are "erased" and thus normally do not pass between generations, can lead to homosexuality when they escape erasure and are transmitted from father to daughter or mother to son." Fumiku said: » Segaia said: » Bismarck.Bloodrose said: » Yes, because an 8 year old who recently began reciting his ABC's and 123's can accurately understand things that continually elude even those who have been studying in that particular field. As long as he has his morning snack. The largest study featured around 500 gay people in sample size. From those 500 people the study explicitly states that samples have been taken from "gay brothers and other members of their families" decreasing a representative sample size and promoting wrong data due to the possibility of genetic defects unrelated to the questionable "goal" of this study. The study also states that the damaged gene might or might not have an effect and that if it might have... it would not be on this gene alone but a combination of defected genes (which defeats the whole of saying "gay gene" when at best it is a "gay chromosome"). It is also not even verified that the part that supposedly was damaged is indeed affecting sexual orientation. It is a wild guess. It was also stated that even if there was a damaged combination of genes on said part it would only "increase the tendency" towards becoming gay and it is hinted that society and environmental conditions may play the bigger part. So we have: Around 500 people within the same biome, same lineages, which "part of" happen to have the same damaged gene which might or not might change sexual orientation in an area of a chromosome that has not been verified to change sexual orientation and considering the "best-case"-scenario all this might be overshadowed by the effect of society and immediate environment. And now you please apply common sense to all that. You have 3 tries and no - the answer is not "potatoe". News of Study Here is the study you posted. It was 1,588 people and it's 6 years old....... Looks like this was his findings. Results According to that study, "no evidence that male sexual orientation is transmitted predominantly through the maternal line." This would back but not be conclusive to This study of epigenetics which also states that "According to the study, published online today in The Quarterly Review of Biology, sex-specific epi-marks, which are "erased" and thus normally do not pass between generations, can lead to homosexuality when they escape erasure and are transmitted from father to daughter or mother to son." The links you provided are a bit messed up somehow. I didn't refer to this study because it is not acknowledged. Kendler (original man in charge for this study) made even worse mistakes as the studies before him. To be blunt: he took twins and samples of yet the same lineages again and also genders of homosexuals (lesbians and gays). To make it even worse he mixed in bisexuals which further corrupted his data (to give it to him at the time of execution of his study it was hard to find samples so he took what he got). The overall sample size is bigger, yes, yet not representative given the methods used that literally bombard your results. Ingeneral: refering to theese kind of studies that have been made 5+ years ago are questionable. We did not have the knowledge and methods that we have now. In order to not discuss this to death and throw out estimations a new study would be needed with an appropriate sample size. Until that the "gay-gene" or "gay-chromosome" is a wild guess. Quote: The links you provided are a bit messed up somehow. I didn't refer to this study because it is not acknowledged. Kendler (original man in charge for this study) made even worse mistakes as the studies before him. To be blunt: he took twins and samples of yet the same lineages again and also genders of homosexuals (lesbians and gays). To make it even worse he mixed in bisexuals which further corrupted his data (to give it to him at the time of execution of his study it was hard to find samples so he took what he got). The overall sample size is bigger, yes, yet not representative given the methods used that literally bombard your results. Ingeneral: refering to theese kind of studies that have been made 5+ years ago are questionable. We did not have the knowledge and methods that we have now. In order to not discuss this to death and throw out estimations a new study would be needed with an appropriate sample size. Until that the "gay-gene" or "gay-chromosome" is a wild guess. Wait... what? You referred to a study that you didn't want to reference because you openly admit to it not being acknowledged and you openly admit he makes mistakes in his own research? You are correct about the gay gene being a wild guess,they haven't found it(doesn't mean it does or does not exist) that is why scientist are suggesting that homosexuality comes from epimarkers. Epimarkers are supported by a study called Epigenetics. That is the best and most conclusive evidence that our technology can provide for us. Teach the eight year old about that. Not about referencing source material that you yourself referenced but didn't source and on top of that you don't even trust the study! (Being redundant I know...) Also you still haven't enlightened us on why homosexuality's source isn't genetics...... Explain this one science:
Quote: Five-year-old Romeo Clarke has been banned from a church-run after school club - because he insists on wearing princess dresses. The youngster has a collection of 100 dresses and eight pairs of girls' high heels which he likes to wear every day. But he was booted out of an after school club at his local church after organisers accused him of 'confusing' the other children with his choice of clothes. Valefor.Sehachan said: » It's funny and a bit sad when christians think they're persecuted. That's far worse than "I wish gays couldn't marry and blacks couldn't drink from the same water fountain as me." No where in that statement am I trying to downplay the terrible, terrible acts of bigotry and hatred that have been committed against both said parties; as I know people have died and been tortured merely for the color or their skin of their sexual preference, it was more to validate that Christianity on a worldly scale is just as much persecuted as any other difference among humans. I have nothing of value to add in regards to the OP, as it's been stated. The network canceled them in terms of business practice...which they are fully entitled to do. The brother is fully entitled to his opinions, so as long as his opinions do not infringe upon the liberties of others, but that doesn't mean his show is protected. A&E did similar when the Duck Dynasty crew had expressed their anti-gay beliefs, thinking it would hurt their ratings and therefore revenues. However, it had the opposite effect and the show continued on, with all members of the cast. Purely a business decision, not a Bill of Rights issue.
[+]
Leviathan.Chaosx said: » We've already made 1984 come true, can we not make Brave New World come true as well? We don't have the test tube babies, but we do have a ruling class that is trying to dumb down those below them so they won't challenge their power (see anybody who votes for a candidate that supports programs against their own interests)
[+]
*Wants to post something that supports Christianity*
 So where in the West will you be persecuted for being Christian again? We aren't talking about the Muslim world because the sectarian *** has reached such levels in certain regions that you could be devoutly Muslim and still end up getting decapitated for looking the wrong way while praising Allah.
You're much safer on the global stage as a Christian than Jewish, LBGT, Atheist or any of the other religions that apparently don't count. Combine any of the aforementioned categories and you're pretty much screwed. Toss in being a racial minority for a point multiplier. Female, Black, Gay, Atheist, Jew? You've won the hate lottery.
[+]
Hate is one of the few things consistent about society, hell even the different sects of Christianity despise each other. Catholics, Protestants, etc.
[+]
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: » So where in the West will you be persecuted for being Christian again? We aren't talking about the Muslim world because the sectarian *** has reached such levels in certain regions that you could be devoutly Muslim and still end up getting decapitated for looking the wrong way while praising Allah. You're much safer on the global stage as a Christian than Jewish, LBGT, Atheist or any of the other religions that apparently don't count. Combine any of the aforementioned categories and you're pretty much screwed. Toss in being a racial minority for a point multiplier. Female, Black, Gay, Atheist, Jew? You've won the hate lottery. Eh tbh, every side has had their fair share of hatred throughout human history, just in the west, the people who have been persecuted are now able to more freely express themselves without fear of it. Not really a bad thing tbh, but the sad fact is that at one point, everyone was persecuted, hell if you were a Christian you were still persecuted in Nazi Germany. Homosexuals? Jewish? Yeah they were all there as well, and tbh the only reason the Holocaust overshadowed the 10+ million Joseph Stalin killed during his regime, was because he was on the Allied side during WWII. It's not just LGBT, Jewish people, and women who've been persecuted,really sad though that there has to be a source of hate. Can't we all just get along? Nazi Germany was run by Christians, so how about nope.
So... are we expecting a revolution within our life-time? I have been thinking... most revolutions of some sort will start out with the poor and the miserable going around with 'fight or die' mentality. All they would ever need would be a tipping point and proper organization.
Or maybe the NSA got them all locked up somewhere with their spying. Jetackuu said: » Nazi Germany was run by Christians, so how about nope. Hitler's Third Reich was also a personality cult and should be seen firstly as such. Yeah, the Catholics (alongside other Christians) were willing to stomach it to get rid of Jews (longstanding anti-Semitism due to religion) but moreso than anything else Hitler wanted followers and used the flaws of Christianity (and gullible people) to get that. It also isn't really hard when people are suffering after a war that decimated their country and humiliated them before the Allies. Even reasonable people could buy into a guy that seemed on the surface like he wanted to bring the German people back to glory. You know, until the mass murders.
[+]
All was fine until he invaded Poland, he'd have crushed it if he had just stuck with his economic polices...
But oh well. Luckily for us all Hitler was profoundly incompetent and made numerous bad decisions that led to the defeat of his regime. For all his oratory genius and desire to conquer Europe the man was a terrible military leader.
[+]
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: » Luckily for us all Hitler was profoundly incompetent and made numerous bad decisions that led to the defeat of his regime. For all his oratory genius and desire to conquer Europe the man was a terrible military leader. Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: » Luckily for us all Hitler was profoundly incompetent and made numerous bad decisions that led to the defeat of his regime. For all his oratory genius and desire to conquer Europe the man was a terrible military leader. I'd argue the contrary- Hitler was remarkably brilliant. I am not condoning/supporting the actions that took place in that period whatsoever, however, Hitler was anything but incompetent. His propaganda and media is studied extensively in many university classes. If Hitler had access to television and the internet, things might have turned out differently. EDIT: I was actually having this discussion with someone on FFXIAH a week or so ago. Nazi Germany is also covered extensively in bioethics. Many revelations in science and medicine came out of the facilities his administration operated. Wtf?! Gay Fascism to Hitler?! lol
[+]
Hitler was indeed a brilliant politican, however, as Sparth pointed out, as a military leader, he was woefully inept, and made several executive decisions that directly led to his defeat.
[+]
Rule 235 of the Internet: When you are referencing Hitler the circle of life is complete.
YouTube Video Placeholder Blah.....
fonewear said: » Rule 235 of the Internet: When you are referencing Hitler the circle of life is complete. YouTube Video Placeholder
[+]
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: » Luckily for us all Hitler was profoundly incompetent and made numerous bad decisions that led to the defeat of his regime. For all his oratory genius and desire to conquer Europe the man was a terrible military leader. The main mistake with Hitler, was that he attacked Russia during the winter. If he would have fought Russia in the summer and not had that nasty winter act as the monkey wrench thrown into his war machine, history might have been very different, because the German's were actually pushing Russia back all the way until Stalingrad, which the Russians managed to turn the tide thanks to the winter stalling the Germans' tanks. there were a lot of historical monkey wrenches that Hitler had failed to take into consideration.
Some of the largest Allied armies couldn't even put a dent into the clockwork advancement until a considerably smaller Canadian unit put a halt into Vimy Ridge. The Russian winters, as Tatsiki pointed out, being one of the single most crushing blows to soldier morale, as well as the overwhelming numbers of Russian soldiers. Many of which were given broom sticks due to the lack of weaponry, and the instructions to pick up enemy and ally weapons of the fallen. What Adolf Hitler did for the economic recovery effort of Germany was something only a brilliant economist could do. He was Socially adept and very knowledgeable in many regards. Unfortunately, he wasn't very well versed in strategic military combat, and often went against his general's advices, until they were simply following orders, or were treated as traitors for standing against his decisions. |
||
|
All FFXI content and images © 2002-2024 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD. FINAL
FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.
|
||
