Choice is clearly a factor in determining sexuality

Author: Vegasgiants

Posts

Total: 325
#181
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,396
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
Now imagine if that wasn't true and we were to try and debate without being experts?

That's right, we'd be wasting our time.
Do you even know what the word expert means? You really think you're an expert because you used Google?

So exactly how many subjects do you consider yourself to be an expert on BTW, because according to you that would apparently be every topic you've ever engaged in.
lol, I'm mocking you. I don't call myself an expert in anything except maybe software architecture and even then I wouldn't dare to imply that no one else could debate it. An expert is someone with a relatively high completeness of domain knowledge. If the knowledge is true they also know the best arguments to attain that knowledge.


They would say they study god, and they agree with each other so maybe you should trust the experts.
They study a book claiming there is a God. That is an objective fact.
Which is simpler, to believe in your conspiracy theory about all the priests lying or to simply accept that they know what they're talking about after decades of study and contemplation?


How do you know that priests do not conduct scientific experimentation?
Because if they did they would show it.
ah, to show is more than to assert it seems.
#182
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual…
False. Any self-respecting and honest scientist let alone layman knows full well that heterosexuality is normal as it is in the “nature” of humanity to not only procreate for its survival, but also in relationship and the civilization dynamics in order for that survival to be realized. 

#183
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@Bella3sp
The burden of proof and basic responsibility tk put forth a cogent argument, position, comment is on YOU - and NOT the reader - in deciphering your word salads. 
#184
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,396
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@TWS1405_2
Even normal things have causes....
#185
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Even normal things have causes....
Huh? Try being less vague. 

Topic's author
#186
Vegasgiants
Vegasgiants's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 1,327
3
3
2
Vegasgiants's avatar
Vegasgiants
3
3
2
-->
@Bella3sp
OK bye
Topic's author
#187
Vegasgiants
Vegasgiants's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 1,327
3
3
2
Vegasgiants's avatar
Vegasgiants
3
3
2
-->
@Double_R
I'm not gay.  That's not my choice either
#188
Bella3sp
Bella3sp's avatar
Debates: 54
Posts: 214
1
4
9
Bella3sp's avatar
Bella3sp
1
4
9
-->
@TWS1405_2
Okay, then I won't respond? Simple as that I guess. Should've done that awhile ago. Thanks!
#189
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@Bella3sp
Then by all means, just go away if you can’t hold up your end of the discussion with cogent arguments, statements, or replies on point. 
#190
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,661
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TWS1405_2
The pillow is a tool, not a focus of sexual attraction. 
It is your contention that sexuality is a choice. If that's the case, then that means you can choose to feel sexual attraction towards men or women.

Sexual attraction is the result of what you are aroused by, so if you can choose your sexual attraction then you can choose which gender arouses you.

Plenty of people are aroused by both men and women, some are aroused by neither. So it's not mutually exclusive.

Therefore, arousal can according to you, simply be switched on or off towards either sex.

If you can turn your arousal on or off towards a given gender, then you are in control of your arousal.

If you are in control of your arousal, then you can choose to be aroused by your pillow.

So go on. Make that choice and enjoy your evening.
Topic's author
#191
Vegasgiants
Vegasgiants's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 1,327
3
3
2
Vegasgiants's avatar
Vegasgiants
3
3
2
-->
@Bella3sp
But....never mind.  I'll cut this short
Topic's author
#192
Vegasgiants
Vegasgiants's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 1,327
3
3
2
Vegasgiants's avatar
Vegasgiants
3
3
2
-->
@Double_R
Lots of people seem to do it
#193
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,661
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I don't call myself an expert in anything except maybe software architecture and even then I wouldn't dare to imply that no one else could debate it.
I've never implied that only experts could debate a subject, so we're in agreement.

If the knowledge is true they also know the best arguments to attain that knowledge.
Argumentation is a skill separate from the expertise of any given field, so that's not necessarily true.

Which is simpler, to believe in your conspiracy theory about all the priests lying or to simply accept that they know what they're talking about after decades of study and contemplation?
lol at the king of conspiracy theories trying to hurl it out as a pajoritive.

No one here is claiming all priests are lying. You love knocking down arguments you entirely made up.

I accept entirely that priests know what they're talking about when it comes to the book they've been studying their whole lives. I've made this clear repeatedly, you pretend I haven't because it's inconvenient for you.

to show is more than to assert it seems.
Correct, no one here has claimed anything else.
#194
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,661
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Vegasgiants
I'm not gay.  That's not my choice either
Are you mispeaking, or are you thoroughly confused?

If not being gay was not your choice, then sexuality is not a choice. Yet you have been arguing that it is. This is the second time you've said the opposite of what you previously argued, please keep your story straight.

Lots of people seem to do it
It's much easier to have a dialog when you quote the post you are responding to.

I assume the "it" you are referring to in this statement is people changing their sexuality. The fact that people change their sexuality does not mean it was a choice. You can be aroused by one thing today and not feel that arousal for the same thing later. This is no different than when people's taste buds change and they find themselves enjoying eating things they used to hate.

You don't choose what you like, you discover it. And our likes change in many different ways all throughout our lives. There's no reason to think sex is excluded from this.
#195
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 3,321
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@Vegasgiants
Yes I chose.  Around age 11.  And I kept that choice
On what basis did you decide?

But some people choose and then later chose differently 
How often do you think of going back?

When you see a man you think is really hot, do you regret your decision?

When you are with a woman, do you ever fantasize it's a man?
Topic's author
#196
Vegasgiants
Vegasgiants's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 1,327
3
3
2
Vegasgiants's avatar
Vegasgiants
3
3
2
-->
@Double_R
I meant I did not choose gay

It's a choice 

I decided I liked girls.  I decided I liked football too.   Also a choice

I made the right choice
#197
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 3,321
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@Vegasgiants
I'm not gay.  That's not my choice either
That's debatable,  you said it could have gone either way, you were attracted to both, but you chose women, said no straight man ever.

Maybe it's time to come out of the closet and admit you are gay.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Topic's author
#198
Vegasgiants
Vegasgiants's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 1,327
3
3
2
Vegasgiants's avatar
Vegasgiants
3
3
2
-->
@Sidewalker
I accept your concession 
#199
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,661
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Vegasgiants
It's a choice 

I decided I liked girls
You didn't decide, you discovered it.

If I'm wrong, tell us more about this choice you made. Please take us through the time when you woke up unattracted to girls, then thought about which sex you thought would be beneficial to start liking, and then made your decision. How close did you come to choosing boys? What was the determining factor?
Topic's author
#200
Vegasgiants
Vegasgiants's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 1,327
3
3
2
Vegasgiants's avatar
Vegasgiants
3
3
2
-->
@Double_R
You don't speak for me

I thought girls were icky....then I decided they weren't 


Why do you hate gay people?
#201
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 3,321
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@Vegasgiants
I accept your concession 
Is that some kind of coded come on?

Are you hitting on me?

I'm sorry man, it's OK if you are ready to choose differently, but not with me you don't.

Try TWS, he's really confused, maybe you and him on the downlow would work.
Topic's author
#202
Vegasgiants
Vegasgiants's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 1,327
3
3
2
Vegasgiants's avatar
Vegasgiants
3
3
2
-->
@Sidewalker
Man you really hate gay people 
#203
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 3,321
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@Vegasgiants
Man you really hate gay people 
I hate gay people because I don't wnt to bump uglies with you.

I don't think so Pumpkin.
Topic's author
#204
Vegasgiants
Vegasgiants's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 1,327
3
3
2
Vegasgiants's avatar
Vegasgiants
3
3
2
-->
@Sidewalker
Have you always hated gay people?
#205
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 3,321
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@Vegasgiants
Have you always hated gay people?
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

Don't worry Pumpkin, people will not hate you for coming out of the closet.


Topic's author
#206
Vegasgiants
Vegasgiants's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 1,327
3
3
2
Vegasgiants's avatar
Vegasgiants
3
3
2
-->
@Sidewalker
Did you grow up hating gay people?


It's great that I get to speak for you.  Lol
#207
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,396
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
I don't call myself an expert in anything except maybe software architecture and even then I wouldn't dare to imply that no one else could debate it.
I've never implied that only experts could debate a subject, so we're in agreement.
That is the only option if you think you can appeal to authority as a non-authority/non-expert and drop the mic.


If the knowledge is true they also know the best arguments to attain that knowledge.
Argumentation is a skill separate from the expertise of any given field, so that's not necessarily true.
Fine, but if they're incapable of communicating the rationale there is no way to know if they're an expert, because (for the 400th time) the only proof of expertise is having the best argument.


Which is simpler, to believe in your conspiracy theory about all the priests lying or to simply accept that they know what they're talking about after decades of study and contemplation?
lol at the king of conspiracy theories trying to hurl it out as a pajoritive.

No one here is claiming all priests are lying. You love knocking down arguments you entirely made up.

I accept entirely that priests know what they're talking about when it comes to the book they've been studying their whole lives. I've made this clear repeatedly, you pretend I haven't because it's inconvenient for you.
"The king of conspiracy theorists", and I'm the one with the strawmen?

No, every time you appeal to authority and I ask for a real argument you accuse me of being a conspiracy theorists because in your mind I need to doubt "every qualified expert in the world" in order to doubt your appeal to authority.

You called it a conspiracy theory to suggest that reporters would run a story about corruption because an ambassador started talking about corruption. That's your idea of a conspiracy theory.

So I'm not letting you slink away on this:

No one here is claiming all priests are lying.
Then how can you deny their conclusions?




#208
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,661
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Vegasgiants
I thought girls were icky....then I decided they weren't 
So again, why if you thought girls were icky did you decide to change your mind? What was the calculus there? What was the benefit that you thought of which made you decide you were going to start liking them?
#209
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,661
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I've never implied that only experts could debate a subject, so we're in agreement.
That is the only option if you think you can appeal to authority as a non-authority/non-expert and drop the mic.
Deciding that an individual is not worth the effort to engage in further conversation, and the idea that only experts can debate have absolutely nothing to do with each other, so one certainly doesn't follow from the other.

Fine, but if they're incapable of communicating the rationale there is no way to know if they're an expert, because (for the 400th time) the only proof of expertise is having the best argument.
If argumentation is a skill separate from one's expertise in a particular field, then no, the best argument is not proof of expertise.

An expert can be a poor communicator, that's not relevant to whether they have the knowledge and experience to effectively and efficiently accomplish a given task well above the capabilities of the average person.

A non expert can spend an hour on Google and come away sounding like they know what they're talking about. Without the relevant expertise they could very easily misunderstand important aspects or be completely unaware of a crucial element that would entirely change the approach they are claiming one should take. And without expertise for the person judging said argument, they would not have the tools to know what is missing or wrong about the argument. All they can know is that it sounded good.

What proves one's expertise is not argumentation, it's a proven track record of results.

every time you appeal to authority and I ask for a real argument you...
You don't come in asking for a real argument, you come in pretending that my statement is an appeal to authority fallacy, which is an entirely different conversation from the topic I was discussing.

You called it a conspiracy theory to suggest that reporters would run a story about corruption because an ambassador started talking about corruption
I called it a conspiracy theory to argue that multiple outlets reporting on multiple leading figures, entities, and populations all asking for the same thing is not evidence that said leading figures, entities and populations wanted that thing.

No one here is claiming all priests are lying.
Then how can you deny their conclusions?
Via logic 101.

Words in a book cannot prove that there exists a spaceless timeless all powerful being.

Lying and being irrational are not the same thing.
#210
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,396
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
What proves one's expertise is not argumentation, it's a proven track record of solid results.
and how many times have you verified a track record of solid results?

You don't, you assume someone would have told you if there was a track record of failure; but you're wrong because the clergy doesn't admit to failure.

The APA for example branded homosexuality a mental disorder for years until it became politically expedient to change their tune.


You called it a conspiracy theory to suggest that reporters would run a story about corruption because an ambassador started talking about corruption
I called it a conspiracy theory to argue that multiple outlets reporting on multiple leading figures, entities, and populations all asking for the same thing is not evidence that said leading figures, entities and populations wanted that thing.
Well yes, you did construct a strawman before calling it a conspiracy theory but that was my point.


No one here is claiming all priests are lying.
Then how can you deny their conclusions?
Via logic 101.

Words in a book cannot prove that there exists a spaceless timeless all powerful being.

Lying and being irrational are not the same thing.
So you have now suggested three different ways a body of purported 'experts' (but who certainly agree with each other and spend significant time thinking about it) can be wrong:

1.) They're lying it's all one vast conspiracy
2.) They aren't employing science, if they were employing science they would show us (but we can't understand such lofty things and don't even try)
3.) They are irrational, apparently together

Apparently conspiracy isn't the only reason to doubt :)