-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
This clown has destroyed every argument you have made. Lol
Choice is clearly a factor in determining sexuality
Posts
Total:
325
-->
@Vegasgiants
Sure you are pal. I'm sure you didn't stroll up make an assertion, appeal to ignorance twenty times, get mocked a bit and then decide you destroyed arguments.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I see you still have nothing. Lol
Dismissed
-->
@Vegasgiants
Saying things that incur a burden of proof reduces my free time, I subconsciously avoid it so I can roll around like Socrates.
So I don't need nothing but to point out you have nothing, which was my first post in this thread.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I see you have nothing further to add to the debate
Thanks
Thanks
-->
@Vegasgiants
You make an affirmative declaration that gay is not a choiceNo scientific agency agrees with you
Because that's not how science works. Science is not a thinking agent using reason and common sense to form a conclusion. It's a feild of discipline that makes no declarations other than the results of testable and repeatable experimentation that can be subjected to peer review.
Again, have you read any of my posts explaining why we can easily say it is not a choice? Would you like to challenge the validity of anything I've said?
Some people used to hate snickers and now love themAttractions change
Yes, they do. That still doesn't mean they changed by choice.
-->
@Double_R
Science agencies have numerous position papers.
The APA HAS a position paper on this issue
Are you kidding?
You have said nothing that supports sexuality is a choice with scientific evidence
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
as we use Occam's razor to determine what is most reasonable.in the absence of evidence...
No. Occam's razor is the position that the best explanation is the simplest one which explains all the available data (aka evidence).
Any absence of evidence cannot be used to form a conclusion, therefore you can only work with the evidence you have. The disagreement here is apparently that the say so of an expert cannot be used as evidence by any rationally thinking person and therefore should be a priori discarded. That's absurd for reasons I've gone into ad nauseum, and our entire criminal justice system which uses expert testimony all the time clearly disagrees.
fallacies are implied inference; and your useless link dumping implies support for a conclusion
It absolutely does imply support for the conclusion. If WebMD says sexuality is not a choice, that tells me as a rationally thinking person that a group of qualified experts weighed in on the subject and this is what they have found. That doesn't mean they're right, but it does mean that the claim is at the very least credible, and it means if the claim is wrong it goes against the lifetime of study these folks have engaged in.
So applying Occam's razor, the simpler explanation is that sexuality is not a choice, because all I have to assume is that their studies and experience have yeilded an accurate understanding of reality. Assuming sexuality is not a choice means that these folks are either lying, or do not understand the feilds they are working in, which now means we need to question how they got their licences, how they are practicing, etc.
The latter is clearly the more complex explanation.
-->
@Double_R
WebMD is not a recognized science agency. They do zero peer reviewed research and are a for profit web page
Just name the experts they cite
You can't. Lol
-->
@Vegasgiants
You have said nothing that supports sexuality is a choice with scientific evidence
Because my position is that sexuality is not a choice, which is a negative and therefore not subject to science on any practical level. I think you need to spend some time learning how science works cause you appear to not understand the basics.
I have however, given you multiple rational arguments which clearly demonstrate that sexuality is not a choice. Is there a reason you refuse to engage in rational argument?
-->
@Double_R
Green eyes at birth are innate. You can't find a scientist that disagrees with that
That's called strong evidence
I can find any scientific agency that says homosexuality is innate
That's due to weak evidence
Name an argument you have made that I haven't responded to
-->
@Double_R
Any absence of evidence cannot be used to form a conclusion
That fallacy is called appeal to ignorance. It's also more complicated than that when a finite list of hypotheses are the only explanation.
The disagreement here is apparently that the say so of an expert cannot be used as evidence by any rationally thinking person and therefore should be a priori discarded.
No, the disagreement is about when it is appropriate to use proxies like that.
In fact ad populum isn't a fallacy when making decisions with limited information in time critical situations. i.e. if everybody is running from something, it's not a fallacy to run the same way.
Poisoning the well isn't a fallacy when choosing who to trust.
They are part of a family of secondary (proxy) inductive pseudo-arguments that are fallacies in the context of debate.
It's like hearsay, if you have time to get to the original authority you don't multiply error by using a proxy.
If someone is an expert, they have a good argument. Trusting an expert is a proxy.
If people are running down the street they might have a good reason. Their action is a proxy for the good reason.
If someone is a pathological liar and sophist it's not a good idea to take them at their word, but if they are giving you an argument you don't need to take them at their word.
Now you may feel this forum qualifies as a situation described by "limited information in time critical situation" but you're on a debate site so it doesn't. Don't hide behind proxies. Choose between these options:
1.) Make an assertion of your own opinion without support
1.a) When challenged for support use a real argument
1.b) When challenged disclaim the assertion, ideally by retracting it but saying "you don't have time to figure it out" is better than nothing.
2.) Make an assertion and support it with a real argument
I also know you don't understand those aren't pseudo-arguments because you've tried to stand them up next to real arguments before.
fallacies are implied inference; and your useless link dumping implies support for a conclusionIt absolutely does imply support for the conclusion.
Hence I was correct to criticize you for using a fallacy.
That doesn't mean they're right, but it does mean that the claim is at the very least credible, and it means if the claim is wrong it goes against the lifetime of study these folks have engaged in.
Priests study for a lifetime, in fact Occam was clergy I believe. Is it the simpler explanation that all these people who study and debate constantly are wrong about god?
So applying Occam's razor, the simpler explanation is that sexuality is not a choice, because all I have to assume is that their studies and experience have yeilded an accurate understanding of reality.
It's always the simpler choice for those content in ignorance to trust. You do not belong here with that attitude.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
No scientific agency says homosexuality is not a choice."Experts agree that sexual orientation isn’t a choice and can’t be changed. Some people who are homosexual or bisexual may hide their sexual orientation to avoid prejudice from others or shame they may have been taught to feel about their sexuality."I haven't read into much of the homosexual literature, but I don't understand how a self-deleting genetic expression (i.e. homosexual sex engage procreate) would be so prevalent amongst humans. In an evolutionary sense, it should be selected against because homosexual sex can't procreate, thus the genes won't be passed on.Unless it's epigenetic and thus activates in certain conditions, how is biological deterministic homosexuality so prevalent?1.) Read the selfish gene by Richard Dawkins, a gene isn't self-deleting if it can help reproduce itself. It doesn't need to do that using the exact organism of expression. For example drone hymenopterans don't reproduce, but they help reproduce the genes that created them.
I don't see how homosexuality helps with reproduction at all.
2.) I am not convinced this hypothesis is correct for human sexual deviancy even if it is theoretically possible, and even if it was true the sexual deviancy would be a secondary trait; not the one selected for.
Which hypothesis are you referring to?
3.) oromagi has formed conclusions about this matter, however I found it nearly impossible to confirm anything related to genetics due to paywalls (I really hate the idea of paywalls protecting scientific literature)
If you're able to get the DOI for the paper, you can bypass paywalls by putting the DOI into SciHub.
-->
@Double_R
I haven't read into much of the homosexual literature, but I don't understand how a self-deleting genetic expression (i.e. homosexual sex engage procreate) would be so prevalent amongst humans. In an evolutionary sense, it should be selected against because homosexual sex can't procreate, thus the genes won't be passed on.There is no evidence that homosexuality stems from a gene that can be passed on, or at the least that it's not something carried only in certain groups which could be selected against like height or skin color. Personally, I just don't see it as any different from asking why one person likes cars while another likes motorcycles. Pretty sure no one would suggest there's a gene for that.
If homosexuality isn't a choice and can't be change, but it's also not genetic, what then determines it?
I suspect that, at least in part, car/motorcycle preference can be explained by genetics. In particular, there will be psychological traits (e.g. need for safety = car; preference for freedom = motorcycle) which map onto a stereotypical car/motorcycle preference. But that's just a suspicion. We already know that things like political beliefs are heritable.
-->
@Vegasgiants
They do zero peer reviewed research and are a for profit web page
The status of being "peer reviewed" is virtually worthless. The person who knows the most about the topic studied is the person who conducted the study, and the peer review process doesn't pick up many basic errors.
-->
@Kaitlyn
Thank God every respected scientific agency disagrees with you. Lol
-->
@Vegasgiants
WebMD is not a recognized science agency. They do zero peer reviewed research and are a for profit web page
So... What's your point?
Just name the experts they cite
-->
@Kaitlyn
Unless it's epigenetic and thus activates in certain conditions, how is biological deterministic homosexuality so prevalent?
It was my understanding that epigenetics plays a role, but don't quote me on that - I'm no expert and my info is old.
That being said, I think we do have to consider sexuality seems to exist on a spectrum, and a same-sex attraction doesn't disallow attraction to the opposite sex or opportunities for genes to be passed on.
-->
@Double_R
Dude you are citing a for profit blog.....not a respected medical agency
Come on man
This is an example of a respected scientific agency position paper
There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation.
-->
@Vegasgiants
Name an argument you have made that I haven't responded to
I have argued multiple times that sexuality is about arousal, which is purely a physiological reaction to external stimuli, that's not a choice. I have asked multiple times for anyone here to provide a single example of where a person can choose to make themselves aroused, not one person has touched that challenge.
-->
@Double_R
Yet arousal changes for people throughout their lifetime. I have said that repeatedly
There are millions of cases of this
-->
@Double_R
I have asked multiple times for anyone here to provide a single example of where a person can choose to make themselves aroused
Being aroused is a feeling, like happiness, pain or hunger. Choosing what to feel is impossible, otherwise I would choose to be happy all the time and to not feel any pain. I dont know why people insist that attraction is a choice, other than to try to put blame on a person for being gay. I mean, imagine trying to change your attraction. How would you even do that?
-->
@Best.Korea
Yet millions of peopke change their attractions throughout their lifetime
-->
@Vegasgiants
Yet millions of peopke change their attractions throughout their lifetime
I think 'changed' is a doing a LOT of work for you. I would agree that peoples attractions can change, but I question why you deem this a choice. Would you not agree change can happen without choice playing a role?
As for the OP, if sexuality is a choice - choose a new sexuality. Let me know how choosing to be attracted to unappealing sexual partners works out for you.
-->
@SkepticalOne
Is it possible that people change sexuality based on something other than choice? Sure...maybe it's a virus. Who knows?
Is it possible it's also just a choice? Sure who knows?
My complaint is with the people who are CERTAIN it's not a choice
And millions HAVE made the choice to change their sexuality
-->
@Vegasgiants
Is it possible that people change sexuality based on something other than choice?
That wasn't my question.
And millions HAVE made the choice to change their sexuality
Have they? I'm not sure to what you're referring, but I can't help but think you've overlooked bi-sexuality and the spectrum of sexuality.
-->
@SkepticalOne
It's not for you to decide if someone says they truly changed from straight to gay
-->
@Vegasgiants
It's not for you to decide if someone says they truly changed from straight to gay
Oh, you think 'coming out of the closet' is changing sexuality?
Lol- ok.
-->
@SkepticalOne
If a person says they changed their sexuality by choice who are you to tell them they are wrong?