[Cap'n Tightpants]

Disturbing.



We're going to have entire segments of the population in therapy for the rest of their lives. Christians and LGTBQ nutters, just let your kids be kids and let them form their own connections to their sexuality, what you're doing is sick.

[Chongo]

CNN's Sally Kohn wrote an Op Ed on the same subject.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/0...n_6745188.html
There is a link to the original Op Ed, but it's behind the WAPO paywall

[Chongo]

In other news, the EU slapped Google with a $2,700,000,000 fine for slanted comparison shopping search results.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/google-r...titrust-rules/

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

This depends on context.

The thesis of the article is a white person who isn't into a given minority, can "conversion therapy" themselves into finding that minority hot. Is this torture? Can it not be effective?

Contrast this with a religion who persecutes homosexuals and then offers conversion therapy as a coping mechanism for the attendant self-loathing.

The latter is torture and ineffective. Is this inherent to conversion therapy or a result of the context under which it's employed.

That's a big caveat for such a broad statement:

Originally Posted by subego 

Well, let's call out the elephant in the room. The big reason gays rail against conversion therapy because it calls into question the supposed immutable sexuality we're born with.

As far as I can tell, you're ascribing gays reasons against conversion therapy in the context of a niche subject that I've never heard anyone discuss, let alone with gays. What am I missing here?

[Waragainstsleep]

I'm not sure if this is (still) relevant to the discussion.

I have a friend who is looking to find himself a man to settle down with and marry. He is African American and he tells me he has ruled out a number of ethnicities as viable candidates and settled on essentially getting a mail order husband from India or thereabouts.
There was a different reason for rejecting each ethnicity but none of the reasons were about physical attraction. I think commitment issues were cited for one group, I can't exactly remember the rest. The thing is, gay men have their own politics going on. Its not about physical attraction or preserving ones culture or marrying within ones religion. They are pretty big on classifications and labels and it seems like often they aspire to behave like a certain label is expected to rather than simply picking the label which most closely matches them but with some exceptions. Its like high school cliques on steroids, except the cliques mix because different guys have different types that they like.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

That's a big caveat for such a broad statement:


As far as I can tell, you're ascribing gays reasons against conversion therapy in the context of a niche subject that I've never heard anyone discuss, let alone with gays. What am I missing here?

I'm not 100% I understand, so I'm going to state my argument differently, and hopefully with more precision.

A question for the ages has been what is the mechanism which determines sexual orientation. Is it genetics or environment. Nature or nurture.

Allow me to make two meta-observations.

Firstly, arguments towards the nurture side of the spectrum can and will be used to persecute homosexuality, and by extension, homosexuals. If it turns out the actual answer to the question involves a significant enough nurture element, it would go off like a ****ing nuclear bomb.

Secondly, most homosexuals I've discussed the nature versus nurture question with get really, really pissy about arguments pointing towards the nurture side of the spectrum.

At the least, these two correlate. The nature argument serves the interests of homosexuals, and they behave to protect that interest.

As for whether one is causing the other, well... I don't even think I'm being particularly cynical when I say "behaving in one's self-interest" is going to be high on the list of reasons people do things.


Conversion therapy fits into this by "virtue" of being an exceptionally aggressive manifestation of the nurture argument.

[subego]

The forums started acting-up last night, so I hit post in the hope it wouldn't get eaten.

Looking at it now, the correlation paragraph could be written better, but is the idea clear?

I'm saying the behavior is consistent with the vested interest.

[Chongo]

The age old question: If it's nature, why is one identical twin gay and the other is not?

[andi*pandi]

Twins are not clones. One twin may like chocolate, one won't. One might be outgoing, one might be shy.

[subego]

Is liking chocolate genetic?

Phun Phact: the bananas at the grocery store actually are clones, yet they still display variance.

[Chongo]

Why are some things "an acquired taste?" Why do people lose the affection for chocolate as they get older.

[subego]

I don't really like chocolate. People think that's weird.

I also don't like cola.

[Chongo]

I don't like PBJ sandwiches, but will gobble up PB cookies.

[subego]

These are both in the "need to be made properly" category for me.

That said, one of them is pretty easy to make properly.

[The Final Dakar]

Are we equating sexual preference to food taste?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm not 100% I understand, so I'm going to state my argument differently, and hopefully with more precision.

A question for the ages has been what is the mechanism which determines sexual orientation. Is it genetics or environment. Nature or nurture.

Allow me to make two meta-observations.

Firstly, arguments towards the nurture side of the spectrum can and will be used to persecute homosexuality, and by extension, homosexuals. If it turns out the actual answer to the question involves a significant enough nurture element, it would go off like a ****ing nuclear bomb.

Secondly, most homosexuals I've discussed the nature versus nurture question with get really, really pissy about arguments pointing towards the nurture side of the spectrum.

At the least, these two correlate. The nature argument serves the interests of homosexuals, and they behave to protect that interest.

As for whether one is causing the other, well... I don't even think I'm being particularly cynical when I say "behaving in one's self-interest" is going to be high on the list of reasons people do things.


Conversion therapy fits into this by "virtue" of being an exceptionally aggressive manifestation of the nurture argument.

Ok let me rework and paraphrase the comments in question.

What you said: Gays hate conversion therapy because it undermines their claims.

What you should have said: Gays hate the concept of fluid sexuality because it contradicts their own feelings.

As you admit, I think, conversion therapy as it stands is torture and ineffective. I apologize for the semantic argument but what you said was oddly specific and not supported by anything I've ever seen and basically accused gays of lying , i.e. Of having a gay agenda

That's my read here

[andi*pandi]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Are we equating sexual preference to food taste?

It was a simple example of ways people, even twins, are different. My daughter has hated mint from the day she was born. She was not taught to hate mint. Her father and I both like mint, as does her brother. I'm not sure how it's possible to hate mint. Mint plus chocolate especially. But, it is what it is, and I support her in her wishes.

Point: Twins have different personalities and thoughts, and yes, desires.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

"Maine tried to raise its minimum wage. Restaurant workers didn’t want it."

http://www.foxnews.com/food-drink/20...imum-wage.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.94bb4d782380

It seems some people are finally starting to figure it out.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Are we equating sexual preference to food taste?

See? Andi started it!

[subego]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

My daughter has hated mint from the day she was born.

In this particular context, I have to get all hyper-literal.

The actual day she was born?

[andi*pandi]

You know what I mean.

[BadKosh]

In DC we are remembering the derecho that hammered us 5 years ago today. From Iowa to the east coast the storm went, knocking out power and blowing down trees. I was counting over 60 flashes of lightning per minute for the few minutes I counted. I didn't have power from that Friday night until Tuesday mid-morning. I charged my cell phone with the car charger as I drove around looking for somewhere with power.

[The Final Dakar]

Alright subego, I get it. That uneasy feeling in my stomach must be how gun owners feel about a national database.
Trump’s voter-fraud commission wants to know voting history, party ID and address of every voter in the U.S.

The chair of President Trump's Election Integrity Commission has penned a letter to all 50 states requesting their full voter-role data, including the name, address, date of birth, party affiliation, last four Social Security number digits and voting history back to 2006 of potentially every voter in the state.

Earlier this month, a federal judge fined Kobach $1,000 for “presenting misleading arguments in a voting-related lawsuit,” according to Politico.

This guy is a proven liar. I shudder to think what this info might be used to do. Looking forward to articles clarifying how innocuous or dangerous this request is.

[subego]

IIUC, in Illinois, that's all public except for the last 4 of the SSN, and I guess party affiliation, which isn't recorded by the state, though what primaries you've voted in since registration is public.

[subego]

Also, not letting your analysis of my "gay agenda" comment go unnoticed, just been busier than usual.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Alright subego, I get it. That uneasy feeling in my stomach must be how gun owners feel about a national database.
Trump’s voter-fraud commission wants to know voting history, party ID and address of every voter in the U.S.





This guy is a proven liar. I shudder to think what this info might be used to do. Looking forward to articles clarifying how innocuous or dangerous this request is.

The irony here is I'm more or less fine with it because the horse has been out of this barn since at least when I started voting in 1990. I worked as an election judge that year, and had the pleasure of party officials trying to enlist us as data scrapers. It's way too late to start complaining now.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

I saw this posted by a Democratic analyst on Twitter, it's very insightful.

Things Dems can do to win again:

1) Stop being c*nts
2) Stop being c*nts
3) See 1 & 2
4) Stop talking identity politics
5) See 1 & 2 again
6) Leave the Bill of Rights alone

Do that and we'll take the House, Senate, and Presidency by 2020.

I think they're right.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

IIUC, in Illinois, that's all public except for the last 4 of the SSN, and I guess party affiliation, which isn't recorded by the state, though what primaries you've voted in since registration is public.

That's why I need some analysis. I strongly suspect this is fear rooted in nothing. But if this info is publicly available then I would think the Feds can scrape it without the states help.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Also, not letting your analysis of my "gay agenda" comment go unnoticed, just been busier than usual.

I was wondering but I figured I owed you some more time before asking.

[The Final Dakar]

Ok that Joe and Mika story just took a really weird turn

[andi*pandi]

weird-er than claiming someone went around in public bleeding from plastic surgery?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

weird-er than claiming someone went around in public bleeding from plastic surgery?

There are claims of black mail that Trump has seemingly confirmed.

To cut to the chase, though, if Scarborough has the receipts he should publish them immediately. Not doing so is a disservice to the people who should know. If he doesn't make them public I'm left to assume he was bluffing like Trump with Comey or he's trying to protect Trump still.

Best comment so far is Joe saying this is not the Trump he knows. ****ing imbeciles.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

What's weird about that? People often bleed a little from plastic surgery, esp face-lifts.

[andi*pandi]

You are being deliberately obtuse. She was neither bleeding, nor recovering from plastic surgery. I've seen the New years pic. Trump is delusional, throwing out 3rd grade insults that are not only insulting, but blatantly inaccurate.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

There are claims of black mail that Trump has seemingly confirmed.

To cut to the chase, though, if Scarborough has the receipts he should publish them immediately. Not doing so is a disservice to the people who should know. If he doesn't make them public I'm left to assume he was bluffing like Trump with Comey or he's trying to protect Trump still.

Best comment so far is Joe saying this is not the Trump he knows. ****ing imbeciles.

Yup MSNBC says they're withholding the memos. What a load of crap.

[The Final Dakar]

A third of states already saying they won hand over info to election commission.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Ok let me rework and paraphrase the comments in question.

What you said: Gays hate conversion therapy because it undermines their claims.

What you should have said: Gays hate the concept of fluid sexuality because it contradicts their own feelings.

As you admit, I think, conversion therapy as it stands is torture and ineffective. I apologize for the semantic argument but what you said was oddly specific and not supported by anything I've ever seen and basically accused gays of lying , i.e. Of having a gay agenda

That's my read here

I agree 100% due to the baggage with conversion therapy, this wasn't the best example with which to make my point. Likewise, I skipped over a bunch of steps and jumped straight to the conclusion.

I am outright accusing the homosexual community of having an agenda, that of desiring the nature argument to be correct.

I posit the homosexual community are affected more or less the way most people are affected when they really want their argument to be correct but a conclusive answer doesn't exist.

An example would be the intensely strong lure to focus on the batshit fringe. They're flesh and blood straw men, or in the case of the nastiest examples of conversion therapy, people for whom it's pretty safe to launch directly into ad homs, thus sidestepping the broader questions entirely.

I would not call this lying, nor would I call it disinterested pursuit of truth.

So, precisely, the attack on the nature argument isn't what gets the homosexual community all riled about conversion therapy, it's how nasty it is... but getting riled just so happens tarnish by association a bunch of conclusions they disfavor without having to actually argue them.

It's an attractive proposition.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

A third of states already saying they won hand over info to election commission.

Kris Kobach can't fulfill his own request as Kansas SoS. This might be over before it started

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

You are being deliberately obtuse. She was neither bleeding, nor recovering from plastic surgery. I've seen the New years pic. Trump is delusional, throwing out 3rd grade insults that are not only insulting, but blatantly inaccurate.

Going by what they've called Trump over the last year, they had it coming. Also, you can cover a lot w/ makeup, you know that. Stop being deliberately obtuse.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I agree 100% due to the baggage with conversion therapy, this wasn't the best example with which to make my point. Likewise, I skipped over a bunch of steps and jumped straight to the conclusion.

I am outright accusing the homosexual community of having an agenda, that of desiring the nature argument to be correct.

I posit the homosexual community are affected more or less the way most people are affected when they really want their argument to be correct but a conclusive answer doesn't exist.

An example would be the intensely strong lure to focus on the batshit fringe. They're flesh and blood straw men, or in the case of the nastiest examples of conversion therapy, people for whom it's pretty safe to launch directly into ad homs, thus sidestepping the broader questions entirely.

I would not call this lying, nor would I call it disinterested pursuit of truth.

So, precisely, the attack on the nature argument isn't what gets the homosexual community all riled about conversion therapy, it's how nasty it is... but getting riled just so happens tarnish by association a bunch of conclusions they disfavor without having to actually argue them.

It's an attractive proposition.

Actually, I'll give you this: There is hostility in the gay community to bisexuals as they're seen as either in denial (half straight looks better than full gay) or diminishing the perception of the gay community (sexual fluidity). While I think this particular attitude is poor form on their part (and hypocritical), I'm sympathetic that they're sensitive to an argument that will be seized on by those who look down upon them to delegitimize their existence.

I guess my question is, what happens if it turns out to be like having a dominant hand? Just because you can train yourself to use your non-dominant hand doesn't change reality.

[subego]

That would essentially be victory of the nature argument, no?

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by subego 

That would essentially be victory of the nature argument, no?

I'm of the opinion this will not be an argument in a generation because no one will care. I don't hear anyone having this argument any more in the UK or around Europe, I assume because society has determined that sexuality doesn't matter so there is no reason to worry about it's origin.

There is a whole 'marriage equality' debate going on the the UK right now because of the election (look it up, Torries, DUP, NI, £1b - the details aren't important), but in all of the debates I've heard on the subject, no one has mentioned nature vs. nurture, because society here has accepted that gay people just exist and it doesn't matter why.

It's refreshing.

[subego]

This sounds like there's an unresolvable tension between homosexuals "just existing" and the pursuit of knowledge.

If the future is a place where we stop caring about why things are, I'm glad I'll be dead.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by subego 

This sounds like there's an unresolvable tension between homosexuals "just existing" and the pursuit of knowledge.

If the future is a place where we stop caring about why things are, I'm glad I'll be dead.

So you think nature vs. nurture as a moral debate is good for society? Interesting.

I've got no issue with studying anything scientifically, but debating why someone loves or attracted to another consenting adult as a moral issue is pointless. I'm sure there are plenty of scientific studies on why someone is a leg man or a butt woman, but the answers to those studies should matter exactly zero when it comes to morality and public policy.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

That would essentially be victory of the nature argument, no?

What I'm saying is 'conversion therapy' works on handedness but that doesn't make it any less inborn.

[subego]

I understand the question to be "what would happen if we found out it was like handedness?"

I'm ultimately not sure with regards to what you're asking. It's a big question.

However, before popping that can of worms I wanted to make sure we're in agreement what being like handedness means. Hence the question do you consider this equivalent to a victory for the nature argument.

Handedness is nature not nurture, therefore if orientation is similar, it is also nature not nurture, correct?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

So you think nature vs. nurture as a moral debate is good for society? Interesting.

I've got no issue with studying anything scientifically, but debating why someone loves or attracted to another consenting adult as a moral issue is pointless. I'm sure there are plenty of scientific studies on why someone is a leg man or a butt woman, but the answers to those studies should matter exactly zero when it comes to morality and public policy.

I'm not sure nature vs. nurture can be a moral debate.

Assuming there aren't any quantum effects we need to account for, there's an objectively correct answer to where orientation lies on the spectrum. Morality won't change it, so it doesn't really enter into the discussion.

Now what the answer is has moral implications, and until we know that answer, so do all the plausible alternative answers.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm not sure nature vs. nurture can be a moral debate.

Assuming there aren't any quantum effects we need to account for, there's an objectively correct answer to where orientation lies on the spectrum. Morality won't change it, so it doesn't really enter into the discussion.

Now what the answer is has moral implications, and until we know that answer, so do all the plausible alternative answers.

The answer only has moral connotations if society choses to make it so. I don't care why someone is gay. I think this is true for most everyone at this point. There are those that will never accept homosexuality no matter the root cause, and many, many more that don't give a rat's ass what the cause it and just accept that homosexuals do exist and deserve equal rights to heterosexuals. If it was scientific consensus tomorrow that homosexuality was definitively genetically based, do you really think Chongo would support same-sex marriage? Of course not.

We have a corollary here with climate change. The fact that there is an overwhelming scientific consensus that climate change is real and is man-made has not swayed vast numbers of Americans. The nature vs. nurture is an interesting question, but as far as society is concerned, it's also irrelevant. Homosexuals will continue to exists. How we treat them will depend entirely on social norms- science is irrelevant.

I again posit that this is a good thing. If one of my children ends up in a homosexual relationship, I would love them and hope society accepts them as they are- regardless of how they got there.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I understand the question to be "what would happen if we found out it was like handedness?"

I'm ultimately not sure with regards to what you're asking. It's a big question.

However, before popping that can of worms I wanted to make sure we're in agreement what being like handedness means. Hence the question do you consider this equivalent to a victory for the nature argument.

Handedness is nature not nurture, therefore if orientation is similar, it is also nature not nurture, correct?

I very much appreciate you trying to be clear here. Yes, that is what I meant by 'inborn'. You pop out left or right handed (and sometimes ambidextrous). Don't hold me to this, but the weird thing is, some people's dominant limbs don't always agree (hand, foot)

[The Final Dakar]

Here's the crazy part, though. What if sexual orientation is innate, but nature also created some humans that are sexually fluid? Seems like the obvious conclusion here.