Medical ethics and queers

[Rudy Canoza]

So, the queers and their political sympathizers have been saying for a
long time now that being queer is genetic, not environmentally
determined. I've already commented on the great irony of this, given
that the left generally disputes any claim for a genetic basis for other
manifestations of human nature, most particularly intelligence; it is an
article of leftist faith that the environment is all-determining - well,
it was until they had to try to explain queers.

But, let's for a moment take as scientifically established that being
queer is caused by some genetic factor. It seems obvious that the vast
majority of heterosexual parents do not want their children to grow up
to be queers. So, if some pre-natal genetic test can be devised that
would determine if the fetus carries the queer gene, would the queers'
and their sympathizers' general support for "choice" extend to the
parents having the right to abort the fetus? I think consistency
requires that their support would necessarily have to extend to that -
not that they exhibit much intellectual consistency on anything else,
though.

Now, let's go a step further, and imagine that following the pre-natal
test for the queer gene, scientists also developed a gene therapy that
would fix this obvious genetic defect. Would this therapy be viewed as
ethical by the queers and their sympathizers? I mean, this kind of
therapy is routinely practiced with other genetic defects, so I don't
see why it wouldn't be ethical. However, I know that deaf people view
themselves as belonging to a distinctive "culture", and they strenuously
oppose surgery on children that would "cure" their deafness, invoking
the usual vocabulary of leftist extremism ("genocide", etc.) in
condemning the practice, and saying that parents have no right to
subject their deaf children to it. It isn't a stretch at all to imagine
that the queers would say the same thing about gene therapy that would
fix the gene defect that leads to people being queer.

[chibiabos]

In article <***@earthlink.com>, Rudy
Canoza <***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:

> So, the queers and their political sympathizers have been saying for a
> long time now that being queer is genetic, not environmentally
> determined. I've already commented on the great irony of this, given
> that the left generally disputes any claim for a genetic basis for other
> manifestations of human nature, most particularly intelligence; it is an
> article of leftist faith that the environment is all-determining - well,
> it was until they had to try to explain queers.
>
> But, let's for a moment take as scientifically established that being
> queer is caused by some genetic factor. It seems obvious that the vast
> majority of heterosexual parents do not want their children to grow up
> to be queers. So, if some pre-natal genetic test can be devised that
> would determine if the fetus carries the queer gene, would the queers'
> and their sympathizers' general support for "choice" extend to the
> parents having the right to abort the fetus? I think consistency
> requires that their support would necessarily have to extend to that -
> not that they exhibit much intellectual consistency on anything else,
> though.
>
> Now, let's go a step further, and imagine that following the pre-natal
> test for the queer gene, scientists also developed a gene therapy that
> would fix this obvious genetic defect. Would this therapy be viewed as
> ethical by the queers and their sympathizers? I mean, this kind of
> therapy is routinely practiced with other genetic defects, so I don't
> see why it wouldn't be ethical. However, I know that deaf people view
> themselves as belonging to a distinctive "culture", and they strenuously
> oppose surgery on children that would "cure" their deafness, invoking
> the usual vocabulary of leftist extremism ("genocide", etc.) in
> condemning the practice, and saying that parents have no right to
> subject their deaf children to it. It isn't a stretch at all to imagine
> that the queers would say the same thing about gene therapy that would
> fix the gene defect that leads to people being queer.

It's much more likely that this kind of "gene therapy" would be used to
control things like unbridled bigotry.

-chib

--
Member of SMASH
Sarcastic Middle-Aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor

[Rudy Canoza]

chibiabos wrote:
> In article <***@earthlink.com>, Rudy
> Canoza <***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>
>> So, the queers and their political sympathizers have been saying for a
>> long time now that being queer is genetic, not environmentally
>> determined. I've already commented on the great irony of this, given
>> that the left generally disputes any claim for a genetic basis for other
>> manifestations of human nature, most particularly intelligence; it is an
>> article of leftist faith that the environment is all-determining - well,
>> it was until they had to try to explain queers.
>>
>> But, let's for a moment take as scientifically established that being
>> queer is caused by some genetic factor. It seems obvious that the vast
>> majority of heterosexual parents do not want their children to grow up
>> to be queers. So, if some pre-natal genetic test can be devised that
>> would determine if the fetus carries the queer gene, would the queers'
>> and their sympathizers' general support for "choice" extend to the
>> parents having the right to abort the fetus? I think consistency
>> requires that their support would necessarily have to extend to that -
>> not that they exhibit much intellectual consistency on anything else,
>> though.
>>
>> Now, let's go a step further, and imagine that following the pre-natal
>> test for the queer gene, scientists also developed a gene therapy that
>> would fix this obvious genetic defect. Would this therapy be viewed as
>> ethical by the queers and their sympathizers? I mean, this kind of
>> therapy is routinely practiced with other genetic defects, so I don't
>> see why it wouldn't be ethical. However, I know that deaf people view
>> themselves as belonging to a distinctive "culture", and they strenuously
>> oppose surgery on children that would "cure" their deafness, invoking
>> the usual vocabulary of leftist extremism ("genocide", etc.) in
>> condemning the practice, and saying that parents have no right to
>> subject their deaf children to it. It isn't a stretch at all to imagine
>> that the queers would say the same thing about gene therapy that would
>> fix the gene defect that leads to people being queer.
>
> It's much more likely that this kind of "gene therapy" would be used to
> control things like unbridled bigotry.

So, you're saying the left believes that that, too, is genetic in
origin, and not determined by environmental factors? Then...what the
FUCK is the point of all this "multi-cultural" indoctrination going on
in the schools? Seems to be an utter waste of time, in your view.

[chibiabos]

In article <***@earthlink.com>, Rudy
Canoza <***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:

> chibiabos wrote:
> > In article <***@earthlink.com>, Rudy
> > Canoza <***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> >
> >> So, the queers and their political sympathizers have been saying for a
> >> long time now that being queer is genetic, not environmentally
> >> determined. I've already commented on the great irony of this, given
> >> that the left generally disputes any claim for a genetic basis for other
> >> manifestations of human nature, most particularly intelligence; it is an
> >> article of leftist faith that the environment is all-determining - well,
> >> it was until they had to try to explain queers.
> >>
> >> But, let's for a moment take as scientifically established that being
> >> queer is caused by some genetic factor. It seems obvious that the vast
> >> majority of heterosexual parents do not want their children to grow up
> >> to be queers. So, if some pre-natal genetic test can be devised that
> >> would determine if the fetus carries the queer gene, would the queers'
> >> and their sympathizers' general support for "choice" extend to the
> >> parents having the right to abort the fetus? I think consistency
> >> requires that their support would necessarily have to extend to that -
> >> not that they exhibit much intellectual consistency on anything else,
> >> though.
> >>
> >> Now, let's go a step further, and imagine that following the pre-natal
> >> test for the queer gene, scientists also developed a gene therapy that
> >> would fix this obvious genetic defect. Would this therapy be viewed as
> >> ethical by the queers and their sympathizers? I mean, this kind of
> >> therapy is routinely practiced with other genetic defects, so I don't
> >> see why it wouldn't be ethical. However, I know that deaf people view
> >> themselves as belonging to a distinctive "culture", and they strenuously
> >> oppose surgery on children that would "cure" their deafness, invoking
> >> the usual vocabulary of leftist extremism ("genocide", etc.) in
> >> condemning the practice, and saying that parents have no right to
> >> subject their deaf children to it. It isn't a stretch at all to imagine
> >> that the queers would say the same thing about gene therapy that would
> >> fix the gene defect that leads to people being queer.
> >
> > It's much more likely that this kind of "gene therapy" would be used to
> > control things like unbridled bigotry.
>
> So, you're saying the left believes that that, too, is genetic in
> origin, and not determined by environmental factors? Then...what the
> FUCK is the point of all this "multi-cultural" indoctrination going on
> in the schools? Seems to be an utter waste of time, in your view.

What "multi-cultural indoctrination" are you referring to? And, when
was the last time _you_ were in a school?

-chib

--
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
Sarcastic Middle-aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor

[Rudy Canoza]

chibiabos wrote:
> In article <***@earthlink.com>, Rudy
> Canoza <***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>
>> chibiabos wrote:
>>> In article <***@earthlink.com>, Rudy
>>> Canoza <***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>>>
>>>> So, the queers and their political sympathizers have been saying for a
>>>> long time now that being queer is genetic, not environmentally
>>>> determined. I've already commented on the great irony of this, given
>>>> that the left generally disputes any claim for a genetic basis for other
>>>> manifestations of human nature, most particularly intelligence; it is an
>>>> article of leftist faith that the environment is all-determining - well,
>>>> it was until they had to try to explain queers.
>>>>
>>>> But, let's for a moment take as scientifically established that being
>>>> queer is caused by some genetic factor. It seems obvious that the vast
>>>> majority of heterosexual parents do not want their children to grow up
>>>> to be queers. So, if some pre-natal genetic test can be devised that
>>>> would determine if the fetus carries the queer gene, would the queers'
>>>> and their sympathizers' general support for "choice" extend to the
>>>> parents having the right to abort the fetus? I think consistency
>>>> requires that their support would necessarily have to extend to that -
>>>> not that they exhibit much intellectual consistency on anything else,
>>>> though.
>>>>
>>>> Now, let's go a step further, and imagine that following the pre-natal
>>>> test for the queer gene, scientists also developed a gene therapy that
>>>> would fix this obvious genetic defect. Would this therapy be viewed as
>>>> ethical by the queers and their sympathizers? I mean, this kind of
>>>> therapy is routinely practiced with other genetic defects, so I don't
>>>> see why it wouldn't be ethical. However, I know that deaf people view
>>>> themselves as belonging to a distinctive "culture", and they strenuously
>>>> oppose surgery on children that would "cure" their deafness, invoking
>>>> the usual vocabulary of leftist extremism ("genocide", etc.) in
>>>> condemning the practice, and saying that parents have no right to
>>>> subject their deaf children to it. It isn't a stretch at all to imagine
>>>> that the queers would say the same thing about gene therapy that would
>>>> fix the gene defect that leads to people being queer.
>>> It's much more likely that this kind of "gene therapy" would be used to
>>> control things like unbridled bigotry.
>> So, you're saying the left believes that that, too, is genetic in
>> origin, and not determined by environmental factors? Then...what the
>> FUCK is the point of all this "multi-cultural" indoctrination going on
>> in the schools? Seems to be an utter waste of time, in your view.
>
> What "multi-cultural indoctrination" are you referring to?

Playing dumb won't help you. The L.A. school district has some fucking
thing called the "Multi-Cultural Learning Center" in Canoga Park. In
it, they recite this kind of multi-culti bullshit: "The authors
sincerely wish that the use of projects will contribute in a positive
way to the challenges faced by practitioners working within
multicultural/lingual settings, and that they invite teachers and their
students to celebrate diversity."
http://www.newhorizons.org/strategies/multicultural/mendelsohn.htm

The public schools practically drown pupils in that kind of bullshit
happy-talk about "celebrating diversity". THAT'S the indoctrination I'm
talking about, and that you already knew about but thought it cute to
play dumb over.

[chibiabos]

In article <***@earthlink.com>, Rudy
Canoza <***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:

> chibiabos wrote:
> > What "multi-cultural indoctrination" are you referring to?
>
> Playing dumb won't help you. The L.A. school district has some fucking
> thing called the "Multi-Cultural Learning Center" in Canoga Park. In
> it, they recite this kind of multi-culti bullshit: "The authors
> sincerely wish that the use of projects will contribute in a positive
> way to the challenges faced by practitioners working within
> multicultural/lingual settings, and that they invite teachers and their
> students to celebrate diversity."
> http://www.newhorizons.org/strategies/multicultural/mendelsohn.htm
>
> The public schools practically drown pupils in that kind of bullshit
> happy-talk about "celebrating diversity". THAT'S the indoctrination I'm
> talking about, and that you already knew about but thought it cute to
> play dumb over.

The Canoga Park MLC is one of 255 schools in LAUSD. It is a charter
school independent of the District, meaning it is not funded by the
District. It has 263 students in grades K-6, out of a total of 297,316
K-6 in 2008-09 for LAUSD. (Put another way, it's less than nine
hundredths of one percent of the student enrollment.)

Even if it promoted the "horrors" of cultural diversity in the ways you
suspect, it hardly amounts to widespread "indoctrination."

What you know about public education in California could fill a very
small book.

-chib

--
Member of SMASH
Sarcastic Middle-Aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor

[Rudy Canoza]

chibiabos wrote:
> In article <***@earthlink.com>, Rudy
> Canoza <***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>
>> chibiabos wrote:
>>> What "multi-cultural indoctrination" are you referring to?
>> Playing dumb won't help you. The L.A. school district has some fucking
>> thing called the "Multi-Cultural Learning Center" in Canoga Park. In
>> it, they recite this kind of multi-culti bullshit: "The authors
>> sincerely wish that the use of projects will contribute in a positive
>> way to the challenges faced by practitioners working within
>> multicultural/lingual settings, and that they invite teachers and their
>> students to celebrate diversity."
>> http://www.newhorizons.org/strategies/multicultural/mendelsohn.htm
>>
>> The public schools practically drown pupils in that kind of bullshit
>> happy-talk about "celebrating diversity". THAT'S the indoctrination I'm
>> talking about, and that you already knew about but thought it cute to
>> play dumb over.
>
> The Canoga Park MLC is one of 255 schools in LAUSD. It is a charter
> school independent of the District, meaning it is not funded by the
> District.

You are completely and irrevocably full of shit. The charter schools
*are* funded by the district, and they are under the district's
jurisdiction:

Currently, there are 104 charter schools under the jurisdiction of
the LAUSD, serving approximately 41,000 students in kindergarten
through 12th grade

http://notebook.lausd.net/portal/page?_pageid=33,205131&_dad=ptl&_schema=PTL_EP


> It has 263 students in grades K-6, out of a total of 297,316
> K-6 in 2008-09 for LAUSD. (Put another way, it's less than nine
> hundredths of one percent of the student enrollment.)

Irrelevant. You can find expressions of the nauseating sentiment
"celebrate diversity" *THROUGHOUT* the school district. It isn't just
in the curriculum material presented to pupils, but is also rammed down
the throats of teachers as part of *mandatory* political indoctrination
a la North Vietnamese-style "re-education camps":

Complete Equity/Diversity Homework contained in your Salary Point
Packet (received at seminar)
• Cover Sheet
• Action Plan
• Things to Think About
• Essential Elements of Culturally Proficient Teachers
http://acts.lausd.net/BTSA/Forms/BTSA%20Forms--2007-08/Portfolio/Standard%2017%20rev%202.pdf


You really have to be completely in denial, or a paid obfuscator, or
perhaps just a born knucklehead to try to pretend that multi-culti
indoctrination is not a deeply fouling contaminant in the public schools.

[chibiabos]

In article <***@earthlink.com>, Rudy
Canoza <***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:

> chibiabos wrote:
> > In article <***@earthlink.com>, Rudy
> > Canoza <***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> >
> >> chibiabos wrote:
> >>> What "multi-cultural indoctrination" are you referring to?
> >> Playing dumb won't help you. The L.A. school district has some fucking
> >> thing called the "Multi-Cultural Learning Center" in Canoga Park. In
> >> it, they recite this kind of multi-culti bullshit: "The authors
> >> sincerely wish that the use of projects will contribute in a positive
> >> way to the challenges faced by practitioners working within
> >> multicultural/lingual settings, and that they invite teachers and their
> >> students to celebrate diversity."
> >> http://www.newhorizons.org/strategies/multicultural/mendelsohn.htm
> >>
> >> The public schools practically drown pupils in that kind of bullshit
> >> happy-talk about "celebrating diversity". THAT'S the indoctrination I'm
> >> talking about, and that you already knew about but thought it cute to
> >> play dumb over.
> >
> > The Canoga Park MLC is one of 255 schools in LAUSD. It is a charter
> > school independent of the District, meaning it is not funded by the
> > District.
>
> You are completely and irrevocably full of shit. The charter schools
> *are* funded by the district, and they are under the district's
> jurisdiction:
>
> Currently, there are 104 charter schools under the jurisdiction of
> the LAUSD, serving approximately 41,000 students in kindergarten
> through 12th grade

There are two kinds of charter schools in California, dependent and
independent. Only the dependent charters receive District funding and
other things like facilities support. Independent charters receive
nothing from the District. Instead, they receive ADA money from the
State that would have gone to the District. They are on their own in
terms of providing ongoing facilities support (heating, lighting,
plumbing, landscaping), capital improvements, transportation, food
services, and so on. In return they receive much wider latitude about
what they can teach and who they can teach it to.

Independent charters are required by law to focus on one specialty. The
most common is language arts; total immersion English for
non-English-speaking students for example. But they can write their
charter for any other specialty that will bring in students.

Canoga Park MLC is an independent charter. It specializes in cultural
studies. It is the only charter school in LAUSD to do so.

> > It has 263 students in grades K-6, out of a total of 297,316
> > K-6 in 2008-09 for LAUSD. (Put another way, it's less than nine
> > hundredths of one percent of the student enrollment.)
>
> Irrelevant.

As I have just shown, it isn't.

> You can find expressions of the nauseating sentiment
> "celebrate diversity" *THROUGHOUT* the school district. It isn't just
> in the curriculum material presented to pupils, but is also rammed down
> the throats of teachers as part of *mandatory* political indoctrination
> a la North Vietnamese-style "re-education camps":
>
> Complete Equity/Diversity Homework contained in your Salary Point
> Packet (received at seminar)
> • Cover Sheet
> • Action Plan
> • Things to Think About
> • Essential Elements of Culturally Proficient Teachers
>
> http://acts.lausd.net/BTSA/Forms/BTSA%20Forms--2007-08/Portfolio/Standard%2017
> %20rev%202.pdf
>
>
> You really have to be completely in denial, or a paid obfuscator, or
> perhaps just a born knucklehead to try to pretend that multi-culti
> indoctrination is not a deeply fouling contaminant in the public schools.

Now you're being irrelevant. Whether you like it or not, a big part of
a well-rounded education is learning about other people. Those who fail
to do so end up like you, and very few parents and educators in
California want that.

-chib

--
Member of SMASH
Sarcastic Middle-Aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor

[Rudy Canoza]

chibiabos wrote:
> In article <***@earthlink.com>, Rudy
> Canoza <***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>
>> chibiabos wrote:
>>> In article <***@earthlink.com>, Rudy
>>> Canoza <***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>>>
>>>> chibiabos wrote:
>>>>> What "multi-cultural indoctrination" are you referring to?
>>>> Playing dumb won't help you. The L.A. school district has some fucking
>>>> thing called the "Multi-Cultural Learning Center" in Canoga Park. In
>>>> it, they recite this kind of multi-culti bullshit: "The authors
>>>> sincerely wish that the use of projects will contribute in a positive
>>>> way to the challenges faced by practitioners working within
>>>> multicultural/lingual settings, and that they invite teachers and their
>>>> students to celebrate diversity."
>>>> http://www.newhorizons.org/strategies/multicultural/mendelsohn.htm
>>>>
>>>> The public schools practically drown pupils in that kind of bullshit
>>>> happy-talk about "celebrating diversity". THAT'S the indoctrination I'm
>>>> talking about, and that you already knew about but thought it cute to
>>>> play dumb over.
>>> The Canoga Park MLC is one of 255 schools in LAUSD. It is a charter
>>> school independent of the District, meaning it is not funded by the
>>> District.
>> You are completely and irrevocably full of shit. The charter schools
>> *are* funded by the district, and they are under the district's
>> jurisdiction:
>>
>> Currently, there are 104 charter schools under the jurisdiction of
>> the LAUSD, serving approximately 41,000 students in kindergarten
>> through 12th grade
>
> There are two kinds of charter schools in California, dependent and
> independent. Only the dependent charters receive District funding and
> other things like facilities support. Independent charters receive
> nothing from the District. Instead, they receive ADA money from the
> State that would have gone to the District. They are on their own in
> terms of providing ongoing facilities support (heating, lighting,
> plumbing, landscaping), capital improvements, transportation, food
> services, and so on. In return they receive much wider latitude about
> what they can teach and who they can teach it to.
>
> Independent charters are required by law to focus on one specialty. The
> most common is language arts; total immersion English for
> non-English-speaking students for example. But they can write their
> charter for any other specialty that will bring in students.
>
> Canoga Park MLC is an independent charter. It specializes in cultural
> studies. It is the only charter school in LAUSD to do so.
>
>>> It has 263 students in grades K-6, out of a total of 297,316
>>> K-6 in 2008-09 for LAUSD. (Put another way, it's less than nine
>>> hundredths of one percent of the student enrollment.)
>> Irrelevant.
>
> As I have just shown, it isn't.
>
>> You can find expressions of the nauseating sentiment
>> "celebrate diversity" *THROUGHOUT* the school district. It isn't just
>> in the curriculum material presented to pupils, but is also rammed down
>> the throats of teachers as part of *mandatory* political indoctrination
>> a la North Vietnamese-style "re-education camps":
>>
>> Complete Equity/Diversity Homework contained in your Salary Point
>> Packet (received at seminar)
>> • Cover Sheet
>> • Action Plan
>> • Things to Think About
>> • Essential Elements of Culturally Proficient Teachers
>>
>> http://acts.lausd.net/BTSA/Forms/BTSA%20Forms--2007-08/Portfolio/Standard%2017
>> %20rev%202.pdf
>>
>>
>> You really have to be completely in denial, or a paid obfuscator, or
>> perhaps just a born knucklehead to try to pretend that multi-culti
>> indoctrination is not a deeply fouling contaminant in the public schools.
>
> Now you're being irrelevant.

Not at al.


> Whether you like it or not, a big part of
> a well-rounded education is learning about other people.

Says who? What the fuck does that even *mean*, anyway?

I have a pretty good idea of what you and the other multi-culti moral
relativists would like it to mean, and it in no way is part of a proper
"well-rounded" education.

[chibiabos]

In article <***@earthlink.com>, Rudy
Canoza <***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:

> chibiabos wrote:
> > Whether you like it or not, a big part of
> > a well-rounded education is learning about other people.
>
> Says who? What the fuck does that even *mean*, anyway?

It means the person next to you, or next door, or across town, or on
another continent is different from you, and you are different from him
or her. Learning about those differences reduces misunderstandings and
conflict, and reveals possibilities that might not have been perceived
before.

> I have a pretty good idea of what you and the other multi-culti moral
> relativists would like it to mean,

No, you do not. You've got the tunnel-vision about other people and
cultures that infects all bigots everywhere. You prefer to remain
ignorant about them because doing otherwise would cloud your unearned
sense of superiority.

> and it in no way is part of a proper
> "well-rounded" education.

If you're the result of a "proper" education, then I rest my case.

-chib

--
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
Sarcastic Middle-aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor

[Rudy Canoza]

chibiabos wrote:
> In article <***@earthlink.com>, Rudy
> Canoza <***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>
>> chibiabos wrote:
>>> Whether you like it or not, a big part of
>>> a well-rounded education is learning about other people.
>> Says who? What the fuck does that even *mean*, anyway?
>
> It means the person next to you, or next door, or across town, or on
> another continent is different from you, and you are different from him
> or her. [snip remaining PC gas]

It's crap. In any case, we're not talking about knowing anything about
nations and their peoples when we're discussing multi-culti
indoctrination in the U.S. What we're talking about is radical
anti-European sentiment.


>
>> I have a pretty good idea of what you and the other multi-culti moral
>> relativists would like it to mean,
>
> No, you do not.

I do, and it's bullshit.


>> and it in no way is part of a proper
>> "well-rounded" education.

[chibiabos]

In article <***@earthlink.com>, Rudy
Canoza <***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:

> chibiabos wrote:
> > In article <***@earthlink.com>, Rudy
> > Canoza <***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> >
> >> chibiabos wrote:
> >>> Whether you like it or not, a big part of
> >>> a well-rounded education is learning about other people.
> >> Says who? What the fuck does that even *mean*, anyway?
> >
> > It means the person next to you, or next door, or across town, or on
> > another continent is different from you, and you are different from him
> > or her. [snip remaining PC gas]
>
> It's crap. In any case, we're not talking about knowing anything about
> nations and their peoples when we're discussing multi-culti
> indoctrination in the U.S. What we're talking about is radical
> anti-European sentiment.

How so?

-chib

--
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
Sarcastic Middle-aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor

[Rudy Canoza]

chibiabos wrote:
> In article <***@earthlink.com>, Rudy
> Canoza <***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>
>> chibiabos wrote:
>>> In article <***@earthlink.com>, Rudy
>>> Canoza <***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>>>
>>>> chibiabos wrote:
>>>>> Whether you like it or not, a big part of
>>>>> a well-rounded education is learning about other people.
>>>> Says who? What the fuck does that even *mean*, anyway?
>>> It means the person next to you, or next door, or across town, or on
>>> another continent is different from you, and you are different from him
>>> or her. [snip remaining PC gas]
>> It's crap. In any case, we're not talking about knowing anything about
>> nations and their peoples when we're discussing multi-culti
>> indoctrination in the U.S. What we're talking about is radical
>> anti-European sentiment.
>
> How so?

Go get your own exposure to academic political correctness. It's not my
job to instruct you for free.

[Jack]

Rudy Canoza wrote:
> chibiabos wrote:
>> In article
>> <***@earthlink.com>, Rudy
>> Canoza <***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>>> chibiabos wrote:
>>>> In article
>>>> <***@earthlink.com>, Rudy
>>>> Canoza <***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>>>>> chibiabos wrote:
>>>>>> Whether you like it or not, a big part of
>>>>>> a well-rounded education is learning about other
>>>>>> people.
>>>>> Says who? What the fuck does that even *mean*,
>>>>> anyway?
>>>> It means the person next to you, or next door, or
>>>> across town, or on another continent is different from
>>>> you, and you are different from him or her. [snip
>>>> remaining PC gas]
>>> It's crap. In any case, we're not talking about
>>> knowing anything about nations and their peoples when
>>> we're discussing multi-culti indoctrination in the U.S.
>>> What we're talking about is radical anti-European
>>> sentiment.
>>
>> How so?
>
> Go get your own exposure to academic political
> correctness. It's not my job to instruct you for free.

You can't think of anything.

[Rudy Canoza]

Jack wrote:
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> chibiabos wrote:
>>> In article
>>> <***@earthlink.com>, Rudy
>>> Canoza <***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>>>> chibiabos wrote:
>>>>> In article
>>>>> <***@earthlink.com>, Rudy
>>>>> Canoza <***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>>>>>> chibiabos wrote:
>>>>>>> Whether you like it or not, a big part of
>>>>>>> a well-rounded education is learning about other
>>>>>>> people.
>>>>>> Says who? What the fuck does that even *mean*,
>>>>>> anyway?
>>>>> It means the person next to you, or next door, or
>>>>> across town, or on another continent is different from
>>>>> you, and you are different from him or her. [snip
>>>>> remaining PC gas]
>>>> It's crap. In any case, we're not talking about
>>>> knowing anything about nations and their peoples when
>>>> we're discussing multi-culti indoctrination in the U.S.
>>>> What we're talking about is radical anti-European
>>>> sentiment.
>>> How so?
>> Go get your own exposure to academic political
>> correctness. It's not my job to instruct you for free.
>
> You can't think of anything.

Come on: do your own search on terms like "DWEM" (Dead White European
Male), "people of color", "eurocentrism/eurocentric".

Look, I gave you a freebie: "Beyond Eurocentrism - Chinese-American
woman activist critique of European bias about notions of freedom"
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1132/is_n9_v41/ai_8555763/pg_3

Here's another, a snippet from a book called "Unthinking Eurocentrism";
snippet is on GoogleBooks:
http://books.google.com/books?id=GjF69kp8PVAC&pg=PA322&lpg=PA322&dq=%22people+of+color%22+eurocentrism&source=bl&ots=dyPwSMwhcD&sig=_vrBkYXfyG4nICNfoPeww8mbxpk&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result

[Jack]

Rudy Canoza wrote:
> Jack wrote:
>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>> chibiabos wrote:
>>>> In article
>>>> <***@earthlink.com>, Rudy
>>>> Canoza <***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>>>>> chibiabos wrote:
>>>>>> In article
>>>>>> <***@earthlink.com>,
>>>>>> Rudy Canoza <***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>>>>>>> chibiabos wrote:
>>>>>>>> Whether you like it or not, a big part of
>>>>>>>> a well-rounded education is learning about other
>>>>>>>> people.
>>>>>>> Says who? What the fuck does that even *mean*,
>>>>>>> anyway?
>>>>>> It means the person next to you, or next door, or
>>>>>> across town, or on another continent is different
>>>>>> from you, and you are different from him or her.
>>>>>> [snip remaining PC gas]
>>>>> It's crap. In any case, we're not talking about
>>>>> knowing anything about nations and their peoples when
>>>>> we're discussing multi-culti indoctrination in the
>>>>> U.S. What we're talking about is radical anti-European
>>>>> sentiment.
>>>> How so?
>>> Go get your own exposure to academic political
>>> correctness. It's not my job to instruct you for free.
>>
>> You can't think of anything.
>
> Come on: do your own search on terms like "DWEM" (Dead
> White European Male), "people of color",
> "eurocentrism/eurocentric".
> Look, I gave you a freebie: "Beyond Eurocentrism -
> Chinese-American woman activist critique of European bias
> about notions of freedom"
> http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1132/is_n9_v41/ai_8555763/pg_3
>
> Here's another, a snippet from a book called "Unthinking
> Eurocentrism"; snippet is on GoogleBooks:
> http://books.google.com/books?id=GjF69kp8PVAC&pg=PA322&lpg=PA322&dq=%22people+of+color%22+eurocentrism&source=bl&ots=dyPwSMwhcD&sig=_vrBkYXfyG4nICNfoPeww8mbxpk&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result

Ok I'll check it out.

[chibiabos]

In article <***@posted.echolabs>, Jack
<***@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Rudy Canoza wrote:
> > Jack wrote:
> >> Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >>> chibiabos wrote:
> >>>> In article
> >>>> <***@earthlink.com>, Rudy
> >>>> Canoza <***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> >>>>> chibiabos wrote:
> >>>>>> In article
> >>>>>> <***@earthlink.com>,
> >>>>>> Rudy Canoza <***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> >>>>>>> chibiabos wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Whether you like it or not, a big part of
> >>>>>>>> a well-rounded education is learning about other
> >>>>>>>> people.
> >>>>>>> Says who? What the fuck does that even *mean*,
> >>>>>>> anyway?
> >>>>>> It means the person next to you, or next door, or
> >>>>>> across town, or on another continent is different
> >>>>>> from you, and you are different from him or her.
> >>>>>> [snip remaining PC gas]
> >>>>> It's crap. In any case, we're not talking about
> >>>>> knowing anything about nations and their peoples when
> >>>>> we're discussing multi-culti indoctrination in the
> >>>>> U.S. What we're talking about is radical anti-European
> >>>>> sentiment.
> >>>> How so?
> >>> Go get your own exposure to academic political
> >>> correctness. It's not my job to instruct you for free.
> >>
> >> You can't think of anything.
> >
> > Come on: do your own search on terms like "DWEM" (Dead
> > White European Male), "people of color",
> > "eurocentrism/eurocentric".
> > Look, I gave you a freebie: "Beyond Eurocentrism -
> > Chinese-American woman activist critique of European bias
> > about notions of freedom"
> > http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1132/is_n9_v41/ai_8555763/pg_3
> >
> > Here's another, a snippet from a book called "Unthinking
> > Eurocentrism"; snippet is on GoogleBooks:
> >
> > http://books.google.com/books?id=GjF69kp8PVAC&pg=PA322&lpg=PA322&dq=%22peopl
> > e+of+color%22+eurocentrism&source=bl&ots=dyPwSMwhcD&sig=_vrBkYXfyG4nICNfoPeww8mbxpk&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result
>
> Ok I'll check it out.
>
>

No need. Rudy thinks if it didn't happen to or by white people, it
doesn't matter.

-chib

--
Member of SMASH
Sarcastic Middle-Aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor

[Rudy Canoza]

chibiabos wrote:
> In article <***@posted.echolabs>, Jack
> <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>> Jack wrote:
>>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>> chibiabos wrote:
>>>>>> In article
>>>>>> <***@earthlink.com>, Rudy
>>>>>> Canoza <***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>>>>>>> chibiabos wrote:
>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>> <***@earthlink.com>,
>>>>>>>> Rudy Canoza <***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> chibiabos wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Whether you like it or not, a big part of
>>>>>>>>>> a well-rounded education is learning about other
>>>>>>>>>> people.
>>>>>>>>> Says who? What the fuck does that even *mean*,
>>>>>>>>> anyway?
>>>>>>>> It means the person next to you, or next door, or
>>>>>>>> across town, or on another continent is different
>>>>>>>> from you, and you are different from him or her.
>>>>>>>> [snip remaining PC gas]
>>>>>>> It's crap. In any case, we're not talking about
>>>>>>> knowing anything about nations and their peoples when
>>>>>>> we're discussing multi-culti indoctrination in the
>>>>>>> U.S. What we're talking about is radical anti-European
>>>>>>> sentiment.
>>>>>> How so?
>>>>> Go get your own exposure to academic political
>>>>> correctness. It's not my job to instruct you for free.
>>>> You can't think of anything.
>>> Come on: do your own search on terms like "DWEM" (Dead
>>> White European Male), "people of color",
>>> "eurocentrism/eurocentric".
>>> Look, I gave you a freebie: "Beyond Eurocentrism -
>>> Chinese-American woman activist critique of European bias
>>> about notions of freedom"
>>> http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1132/is_n9_v41/ai_8555763/pg_3
>>>
>>> Here's another, a snippet from a book called "Unthinking
>>> Eurocentrism"; snippet is on GoogleBooks:
>>>
>>> http://books.google.com/books?id=GjF69kp8PVAC&pg=PA322&lpg=PA322&dq=%22peopl
>>> e+of+color%22+eurocentrism&source=bl&ots=dyPwSMwhcD&sig=_vrBkYXfyG4nICNfoPeww8mbxpk&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result
>> Ok I'll check it out.
>>
>>
>
> No need. Rudy thinks if it didn't happen to or by white people, it
> doesn't matter.

No, that's completely false and groundless. What I believe is that the
race, sex (not <barf> "gender"), religion, or "sexual orientation" of a
person is completely irrelevant in evaluating what the person did,
*UNLESS* it can be shown that it is an integral part of what they did.
So, Martin Luther's religion (but not his "sexual orientation"), Martin
Luther King's race (but not his religion), Germaine Greer's sex (but not
her race) all have to be discussed, because they are integrally
connected to what they did. In discussing Alan Turing's role in
computer science, and his derivative role in British code-breaking, the
fact that he was queer has no place at all. If you're in a class
talking about the legal and social status of queers, it's relevant.
Context is everything.

[Ray Fischer]

Rudy Canoza <***@frankreich.fr> wrote:
>chibiabos wrote:
>> What "multi-cultural indoctrination" are you referring to?
>
>Playing dumb won't help you. The L.A. school district has some fucking
>thing called the "Multi-Cultural Learning Center" in Canoga Park. In
>it, they recite this kind of multi-culti bullshit: "The authors
>sincerely wish that the use of projects will contribute in a positive
>way to the challenges faced by practitioners working within
>multicultural/lingual settings, and that they invite teachers and their
>students to celebrate diversity."
>http://www.newhorizons.org/strategies/multicultural/mendelsohn.htm

You're just a neo-nazi skinhead, aren't you?

--
Ray Fischer
***@sonic.net

[Rudy Canoza]

Ray Fischer wrote:
> Rudy Canoza <***@frankreich.fr> wrote:
>> chibiabos wrote:
>>> What "multi-cultural indoctrination" are you referring to?
>> Playing dumb won't help you. The L.A. school district has some fucking
>> thing called the "Multi-Cultural Learning Center" in Canoga Park. In
>> it, they recite this kind of multi-culti bullshit: "The authors
>> sincerely wish that the use of projects will contribute in a positive
>> way to the challenges faced by practitioners working within
>> multicultural/lingual settings, and that they invite teachers and their
>> students to celebrate diversity."
>> http://www.newhorizons.org/strategies/multicultural/mendelsohn.htm
>
> You're just a neo-nazi skinhead

No.

[chibiabos]

In article <49480dbc$0$1647$***@news.sonic.net>, Ray Fischer
<***@sonic.net> wrote:

> Rudy Canoza <***@frankreich.fr> wrote:
> >chibiabos wrote:
> >> What "multi-cultural indoctrination" are you referring to?
> >
> >Playing dumb won't help you. The L.A. school district has some fucking
> >thing called the "Multi-Cultural Learning Center" in Canoga Park. In
> >it, they recite this kind of multi-culti bullshit: "The authors
> >sincerely wish that the use of projects will contribute in a positive
> >way to the challenges faced by practitioners working within
> >multicultural/lingual settings, and that they invite teachers and their
> >students to celebrate diversity."
> >http://www.newhorizons.org/strategies/multicultural/mendelsohn.htm
>
> You're just a neo-nazi skinhead, aren't you?

For a laugh, google "rudy canoza" (without the quotes). Click the "I'm
feeling lucky" button.

-chib

--
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
Sarcastic Middle-aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor

[Mitchell Holman]

Rudy Canoza <***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote in
news:***@earthlink.com:

> So, the queers and their political sympathizers have been saying for a
> long time now that being queer is genetic, not environmentally
> determined. I've already commented on the great irony of this, given
> that the left generally disputes any claim for a genetic basis for other
> manifestations of human nature, most particularly intelligence; it is an
> article of leftist faith that the environment is all-determining - well,
> it was until they had to try to explain queers.


Rudy got run out of the immigration group for being
an manifest bigot about immigrants and now he wants to
get run out of this group for being a homophobe.

Odds are Rudy...er...."Branson"... will have to find
yet another handle to hide behind shortly.






From: Rudy Canoza <***@thedismalscience.not>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.18 (Windows/20081105)
MIME-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.167.1.64


From: Branson Hunter <***@lifelong.renters-R-us.donothings>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.18 (Windows/20081105)
MIME-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.167.1.64

[Rudy Canoza]

Mitchell Holman wrote:
> Rudy Canoza <***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote in
> news:***@earthlink.com:
>
>> So, the queers and their political sympathizers have been saying for a
>> long time now that being queer is genetic, not environmentally
>> determined. I've already commented on the great irony of this, given
>> that the left generally disputes any claim for a genetic basis for other
>> manifestations of human nature, most particularly intelligence; it is an
>> article of leftist faith that the environment is all-determining - well,
>> it was until they had to try to explain queers.
>
>
> Rudy got run out of the immigration group

No, I participate there all the time.

You lied.

[Rudy Canoza]

Mitchell Holman wrote:

> [illogical and evasive guff]

No one has been able to address the key issue. If it is ever
established that there is a gene - a defective gene - that causes a
person to be queer, and if a gene therapy is subsequently developed that
allows the defective gene to be repaired, will queers and their
sycophantic allies clamor to have the therapy declared "unethical"?

This question is neither absurd nor trivial. There already is a
precedent for it, concerning deaf people. The Atlantic Monthly ran an
article in 1993, "Deafness as Culture", that explores the issue.
Cochlear implants can provide or restore hearing for some people. Deaf
people and /their/ sycophantic allies decry the technology as an
unethical "attack" on "deaf culture". See also "Deaf Culture, Cochlear
Implants, and Elective Disability",
http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=JLhGW912p4hnnNJKL5VT9VRKcgMTWrjJVCM1P1tY6Ckd7yVbxn1L!-1095741514?docId=5002297027

and "A Threat to Deaf Culture: A Thematic Analysis of Current Medical
Discourse on Cochlear Implants"
http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/2/5/8/2/7/pages258276/p258276-3.php

This last one gives the full nauseating flavor of academic language used
to glorify victimhood and HAMs' sense of it:

Introduction Though cochlear implants have been approved by the FDA
to be used in ‘curing’ the deaf, the use of this device has already
weakened Deaf culture and some say it will eventually eliminate
Deaf culture. Historically, the deaf community has been in opposition
to measures that promise to ‘cure’ their deafness (Edwards, 2005).
In the case of cochlear implants, Deaf culture members oppose the
invasiveness of the surgery and fear that by restoring one’s hearing,
technology is eliminating Deaf culture (Tucker, 1998). Though the
cochlear implants are opposed by the Deaf community, not all
technology is. The typewriter, Internet and closed caption are
accepted because the purpose of these technologies is not to ‘cure’
deafness but to make deaf life easier (Edwards, 2005). Due to the
opposition of cochlear implants by the Deaf community, there is a
heated debate among the medical and Deaf community over its use. In
the following paper, I will explore deafness and cochlear implants
from a culture and communication aspect. I will explore and discuss
the definition of Deaf culture, and the role American Sign Language
(ASL) plays within the cultural group. I will also discuss cochlear
implants and how they affect Deaf culture survival and argue that
early detection of deafness and FDA approval of cochlear implants
will eventually eliminate Deaf culture. And finally, I will
illustrate how current medical discussions through a thematic
analysis are muting the voice of Deaf culture by framing their
discussions in terms of ‘abilities’ thereby silencing the views of
the Deaf.

For those of you who haven't encountered this revolting terminology
before, "the deaf" refers only to people who can't hear, but "the Deaf"
refers to people who fancy themselves belonging to "deaf culture".

So, we're still left with the unanswered question: will "the Queer" see
gene therapy to repair the gene defect that leads to being queer as an
unethical attack on their "culture"?

[Ray Fischer]

Rudy Canoza <***@frankreich.fr> wrote:
>Mitchell Holman wrote:
>
>> [illogical and evasive guff]
>
>No one has been able to address the key issue. If it is ever
>established that there is a gene - a defective gene - that causes a
>person to be queer, and if a gene therapy is subsequently developed that
>allows the defective gene to be repaired, will queers and their
>sycophantic allies clamor to have the therapy declared "unethical"?

The nazi agenda! "Fix" people with "defective" genes!

Have you already proposed eugenics to "fix" the problem?

--
Ray Fischer
***@sonic.net

[Rudy Canoza]

Ray Fischer wrote:
> Rudy Canoza <***@frankreich.fr> wrote:
>> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>
>>> [illogical and evasive guff]
>> No one has been able to address the key issue. If it is ever
>> established that there is a gene - a defective gene - that causes a
>> person to be queer, and if a gene therapy is subsequently developed that
>> allows the defective gene to be repaired, will queers and their
>> sycophantic allies clamor to have the therapy declared "unethical"?
>
> [Godwin's law invoked]

You just can't address the issue, can you, fuckwit?

[Jack]

> it is an article of leftist faith that the
> environment is all-determining

I've never heard a "leftist" deny that, say, Downs syndrome was anything but
congenital.

> But, let's for a moment take as scientifically
> established that being queer is caused by some genetic
> factor. It seems obvious that the vast majority of
> heterosexual parents do not want their children to grow
> up to be queers. So, if some pre-natal genetic test can
> be devised that would determine if the fetus carries the
> queer gene, would the queers' and their sympathizers'
> general support for "choice" extend to the parents having
> the right to abort the fetus? I think consistency
> requires that their support would necessarily have to
> extend to that - not that they exhibit much intellectual
> consistency on anything else, though.

The hobgoblin of little minds.

[Rudy Canoza]

Jack wrote:
>> it is an article of leftist faith that the
>> environment is all-determining
>
> I've never heard a "leftist" deny that, say, Downs syndrome was anything but
> congenital.
>
>> But, let's for a moment take as scientifically
>> established that being queer is caused by some genetic
>> factor. It seems obvious that the vast majority of
>> heterosexual parents do not want their children to grow
>> up to be queers. So, if some pre-natal genetic test can
>> be devised that would determine if the fetus carries the
>> queer gene, would the queers' and their sympathizers'
>> general support for "choice" extend to the parents having
>> the right to abort the fetus? I think consistency
>> requires that their support would necessarily have to
>> extend to that - not that they exhibit much intellectual
>> consistency on anything else, though.
>
> The hobgoblin of little minds.

You exhibit your shoddy education as if you're proud of it; how odd.
What Emerson said is that a *foolish* consistency is the hobgoblin of
little minds. It seems to me that deviating from one's Weltanschauung
merely because some unpleasant implication of it gets one in trouble
with a politically favored group is a symptom of utter lack of
principle, not intellectual flexibility.

[Jack]

Rudy Canoza wrote:
> Jack wrote:
>>> it is an article of leftist faith that the
>>> environment is all-determining
>>
>> I've never heard a "leftist" deny that, say, Downs
>> syndrome was anything but congenital.
>>
>>> But, let's for a moment take as scientifically
>>> established that being queer is caused by some genetic
>>> factor. It seems obvious that the vast majority of
>>> heterosexual parents do not want their children to grow
>>> up to be queers. So, if some pre-natal genetic test can
>>> be devised that would determine if the fetus carries the
>>> queer gene, would the queers' and their sympathizers'
>>> general support for "choice" extend to the parents
>>> having the right to abort the fetus? I think
>>> consistency requires that their support would
>>> necessarily have to extend to that - not that they
>>> exhibit much intellectual consistency on anything else,
>>> though.
>>
>> The hobgoblin of little minds.
>
> You exhibit your shoddy education as if you're proud of
> it; how odd. What Emerson said is that a *foolish*
> consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.

Yes, foolish--exactly the kind of consistency you're suggesting in this
post.

> It seems
> to me that deviating from one's Weltanschauung merely
> because some unpleasant implication of it gets one in
> trouble with a politically favored group is a symptom of
> utter lack of principle, not intellectual flexibility.

You make these sweeping generalizations putting every crackpot radical
leftist in the same pot and say--Oh look, they're not consistent. Well,
duh.

[Rudy Canoza]

Jack wrote:
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> Jack wrote:
>>>> it is an article of leftist faith that the
>>>> environment is all-determining
>>> I've never heard a "leftist" deny that, say, Downs
>>> syndrome was anything but congenital.
>>>
>>>> But, let's for a moment take as scientifically
>>>> established that being queer is caused by some genetic
>>>> factor. It seems obvious that the vast majority of
>>>> heterosexual parents do not want their children to grow
>>>> up to be queers. So, if some pre-natal genetic test can
>>>> be devised that would determine if the fetus carries the
>>>> queer gene, would the queers' and their sympathizers'
>>>> general support for "choice" extend to the parents
>>>> having the right to abort the fetus? I think
>>>> consistency requires that their support would
>>>> necessarily have to extend to that - not that they
>>>> exhibit much intellectual consistency on anything else,
>>>> though.
>>> The hobgoblin of little minds.
>> You exhibit your shoddy education as if you're proud of
>> it; how odd. What Emerson said is that a *foolish*
>> consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.
>
> Yes, foolish--exactly the kind of consistency you're suggesting in this
> post.

No, not in the least. When so-called "pro-choice" - actually,
pro-abortion - people start blabbering about it, they all seem to say
that it's the woman's choice, no matter *what* the reason. SO, if the
reason were that she didn't want to have a child who would grow up to be
a queer, I can't see that the queers and their sycophantic supporters,
who are also almost unanimously pro-abortion, would have any sound
reason to complain. A /sensible/ consistency would seem to demand that
they respect the pregnant woman's wishes.


>> It seems
>> to me that deviating from one's Weltanschauung merely
>> because some unpleasant implication of it gets one in
>> trouble with a politically favored group is a symptom of
>> utter lack of principle, not intellectual flexibility.

[Jack]

Rudy Canoza wrote:
> Jack wrote:
>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>> Jack wrote:
>>>>> it is an article of leftist faith that the
>>>>> environment is all-determining
>>>> I've never heard a "leftist" deny that, say, Downs
>>>> syndrome was anything but congenital.
>>>>
>>>>> But, let's for a moment take as scientifically
>>>>> established that being queer is caused by some genetic
>>>>> factor. It seems obvious that the vast majority of
>>>>> heterosexual parents do not want their children to
>>>>> grow up to be queers. So, if some pre-natal genetic
>>>>> test can be devised that would determine if the fetus
>>>>> carries the queer gene, would the queers' and their
>>>>> sympathizers' general support for "choice" extend to
>>>>> the parents having the right to abort the fetus? I
>>>>> think consistency requires that their support would
>>>>> necessarily have to extend to that - not that they
>>>>> exhibit much intellectual consistency on anything
>>>>> else, though.
>>>> The hobgoblin of little minds.
>>> You exhibit your shoddy education as if you're proud of
>>> it; how odd. What Emerson said is that a *foolish*
>>> consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.
>>
>> Yes, foolish--exactly the kind of consistency you're
>> suggesting in this post.
>
> No, not in the least. When so-called "pro-choice" -
> actually, pro-abortion - people start blabbering about
> it, they all seem to say that it's the woman's choice, no
> matter *what* the reason. SO, if the reason were that
> she didn't want to have a child who would grow up to be a
> queer, I can't see that the queers and their sycophantic
> supporters, who are also almost unanimously pro-abortion,
> would have any sound reason to complain. A /sensible/
> consistency would seem to demand that they respect the
> pregnant woman's wishes.

We already have an example of this sort of thing regarding sex of the fetus.

[Rudy Canoza]

Jack wrote:
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> Jack wrote:
>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>> Jack wrote:
>>>>>> it is an article of leftist faith that the
>>>>>> environment is all-determining
>>>>> I've never heard a "leftist" deny that, say, Downs
>>>>> syndrome was anything but congenital.
>>>>>
>>>>>> But, let's for a moment take as scientifically
>>>>>> established that being queer is caused by some genetic
>>>>>> factor. It seems obvious that the vast majority of
>>>>>> heterosexual parents do not want their children to
>>>>>> grow up to be queers. So, if some pre-natal genetic
>>>>>> test can be devised that would determine if the fetus
>>>>>> carries the queer gene, would the queers' and their
>>>>>> sympathizers' general support for "choice" extend to
>>>>>> the parents having the right to abort the fetus? I
>>>>>> think consistency requires that their support would
>>>>>> necessarily have to extend to that - not that they
>>>>>> exhibit much intellectual consistency on anything
>>>>>> else, though.
>>>>> The hobgoblin of little minds.
>>>> You exhibit your shoddy education as if you're proud of
>>>> it; how odd. What Emerson said is that a *foolish*
>>>> consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.
>>> Yes, foolish--exactly the kind of consistency you're
>>> suggesting in this post.
>> No, not in the least. When so-called "pro-choice" -
>> actually, pro-abortion - people start blabbering about
>> it, they all seem to say that it's the woman's choice, no
>> matter *what* the reason. SO, if the reason were that
>> she didn't want to have a child who would grow up to be a
>> queer, I can't see that the queers and their sycophantic
>> supporters, who are also almost unanimously pro-abortion,
>> would have any sound reason to complain. A /sensible/
>> consistency would seem to demand that they respect the
>> pregnant woman's wishes.
>
> We already have an example of this sort of thing regarding sex of the fetus.

I'm just trying to clarify the position of queers and their sycophantic
supporters if the fetus is going to be aborted because it carries the
queer gene.

[Jack]

Rudy Canoza wrote:
> Jack wrote:
>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>> Jack wrote:
>>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>> Jack wrote:
>>>>>>> it is an article of leftist faith that the
>>>>>>> environment is all-determining
>>>>>> I've never heard a "leftist" deny that, say, Downs
>>>>>> syndrome was anything but congenital.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But, let's for a moment take as scientifically
>>>>>>> established that being queer is caused by some
>>>>>>> genetic factor. It seems obvious that the vast
>>>>>>> majority of heterosexual parents do not want their
>>>>>>> children to grow up to be queers. So, if some
>>>>>>> pre-natal genetic test can be devised that would
>>>>>>> determine if the fetus carries the queer gene,
>>>>>>> would the queers' and their sympathizers' general
>>>>>>> support for "choice" extend to the parents having
>>>>>>> the right to abort the fetus? I think consistency
>>>>>>> requires that their support would necessarily have
>>>>>>> to extend to that - not that they exhibit much
>>>>>>> intellectual consistency on anything else, though.
>>>>>> The hobgoblin of little minds.
>>>>> You exhibit your shoddy education as if you're proud
>>>>> of it; how odd. What Emerson said is that a *foolish*
>>>>> consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.
>>>> Yes, foolish--exactly the kind of consistency you're
>>>> suggesting in this post.
>>> No, not in the least. When so-called "pro-choice" -
>>> actually, pro-abortion - people start blabbering about
>>> it, they all seem to say that it's the woman's choice,
>>> no matter *what* the reason. SO, if the reason were
>>> that she didn't want to have a child who would grow up
>>> to be a queer, I can't see that the queers and their
>>> sycophantic supporters, who are also almost unanimously
>>> pro-abortion, would have any sound reason to complain. A /sensible/
>>> consistency would seem to demand that they
>>> respect the pregnant woman's wishes.
>>
>> We already have an example of this sort of thing
>> regarding sex of the fetus.
>
> I'm just trying to clarify the position of queers and
> their sycophantic supporters if the fetus is going to be
> aborted because it carries the queer gene.

There actually is a sex chromosome, but it's not used to target abortions
(in this country.) Why not?

[Rudy Canoza]

Jack wrote:
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> Jack wrote:
>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>> Jack wrote:
>>>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>> Jack wrote:
>>>>>>>> it is an article of leftist faith that the
>>>>>>>> environment is all-determining
>>>>>>> I've never heard a "leftist" deny that, say, Downs
>>>>>>> syndrome was anything but congenital.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But, let's for a moment take as scientifically
>>>>>>>> established that being queer is caused by some
>>>>>>>> genetic factor. It seems obvious that the vast
>>>>>>>> majority of heterosexual parents do not want their
>>>>>>>> children to grow up to be queers. So, if some
>>>>>>>> pre-natal genetic test can be devised that would
>>>>>>>> determine if the fetus carries the queer gene,
>>>>>>>> would the queers' and their sympathizers' general
>>>>>>>> support for "choice" extend to the parents having
>>>>>>>> the right to abort the fetus? I think consistency
>>>>>>>> requires that their support would necessarily have
>>>>>>>> to extend to that - not that they exhibit much
>>>>>>>> intellectual consistency on anything else, though.
>>>>>>> The hobgoblin of little minds.
>>>>>> You exhibit your shoddy education as if you're proud
>>>>>> of it; how odd. What Emerson said is that a *foolish*
>>>>>> consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.
>>>>> Yes, foolish--exactly the kind of consistency you're
>>>>> suggesting in this post.
>>>> No, not in the least. When so-called "pro-choice" -
>>>> actually, pro-abortion - people start blabbering about
>>>> it, they all seem to say that it's the woman's choice,
>>>> no matter *what* the reason. SO, if the reason were
>>>> that she didn't want to have a child who would grow up
>>>> to be a queer, I can't see that the queers and their
>>>> sycophantic supporters, who are also almost unanimously
>>>> pro-abortion, would have any sound reason to complain. A /sensible/
>>>> consistency would seem to demand that they
>>>> respect the pregnant woman's wishes.
>>> We already have an example of this sort of thing
>>> regarding sex of the fetus.
>> I'm just trying to clarify the position of queers and
>> their sycophantic supporters if the fetus is going to be
>> aborted because it carries the queer gene.
>
> There actually is a sex chromosome, but it's not used to target abortions
> (in this country.) Why not?

Because westerners are largely indifferent as to the sex of their
children. But they're not indifferent regarding the sexual orientation.
If you ask heterosexual parents, both actual and potential, if they
are indifferent about the possibility of their children, conceived in a
normal heterosexual union, growing up to be queer, the vast majority
will reply that they are *not* indifferent - they don't want their
children to be queers.

[Jack]

Rudy Canoza wrote:
> Jack wrote:
>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>> Jack wrote:
>>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>> Jack wrote:
>>>>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>> Jack wrote:
>>>>>>>>> it is an article of leftist faith that the
>>>>>>>>> environment is all-determining
>>>>>>>> I've never heard a "leftist" deny that, say, Downs
>>>>>>>> syndrome was anything but congenital.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But, let's for a moment take as scientifically
>>>>>>>>> established that being queer is caused by some
>>>>>>>>> genetic factor. It seems obvious that the vast
>>>>>>>>> majority of heterosexual parents do not want their
>>>>>>>>> children to grow up to be queers. So, if some
>>>>>>>>> pre-natal genetic test can be devised that would
>>>>>>>>> determine if the fetus carries the queer gene,
>>>>>>>>> would the queers' and their sympathizers' general
>>>>>>>>> support for "choice" extend to the parents having
>>>>>>>>> the right to abort the fetus? I think consistency
>>>>>>>>> requires that their support would necessarily have
>>>>>>>>> to extend to that - not that they exhibit much
>>>>>>>>> intellectual consistency on anything else, though.
>>>>>>>> The hobgoblin of little minds.
>>>>>>> You exhibit your shoddy education as if you're proud
>>>>>>> of it; how odd. What Emerson said is that a
>>>>>>> *foolish* consistency is the hobgoblin of little
>>>>>>> minds.
>>>>>> Yes, foolish--exactly the kind of consistency you're
>>>>>> suggesting in this post.
>>>>> No, not in the least. When so-called "pro-choice" -
>>>>> actually, pro-abortion - people start blabbering about
>>>>> it, they all seem to say that it's the woman's choice,
>>>>> no matter *what* the reason. SO, if the reason were
>>>>> that she didn't want to have a child who would grow up
>>>>> to be a queer, I can't see that the queers and their
>>>>> sycophantic supporters, who are also almost
>>>>> unanimously pro-abortion, would have any sound reason
>>>>> to complain. A /sensible/ consistency would seem to
>>>>> demand that they respect the pregnant woman's wishes.
>>>> We already have an example of this sort of thing
>>>> regarding sex of the fetus.
>>> I'm just trying to clarify the position of queers and
>>> their sycophantic supporters if the fetus is going to be
>>> aborted because it carries the queer gene.
>>
>> There actually is a sex chromosome, but it's not used to
>> target abortions (in this country.) Why not?
>
> Because westerners are largely indifferent as to the sex
> of their children.

Take a family that has three girls, wife gets pregnant again, pretty good
chance they're not indifferent to the sex of this one. Yet parents in this
situation don't abort the pregnancy to get the son they want. I wonder why.

> But they're not indifferent regarding
> the sexual orientation. If you ask heterosexual parents,
> both actual and potential, if they are indifferent about the possibility
> of their children,
> conceived in a normal heterosexual union, growing up to
> be queer, the vast majority will reply that they are
> *not* indifferent - they don't want their children to be
> queers.

True enough.

[Rudy Canoza]

Jack wrote:
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> Jack wrote:
>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>> Jack wrote:
>>>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>> Jack wrote:
>>>>>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>>> Jack wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> it is an article of leftist faith that the
>>>>>>>>>> environment is all-determining
>>>>>>>>> I've never heard a "leftist" deny that, say, Downs
>>>>>>>>> syndrome was anything but congenital.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But, let's for a moment take as scientifically
>>>>>>>>>> established that being queer is caused by some
>>>>>>>>>> genetic factor. It seems obvious that the vast
>>>>>>>>>> majority of heterosexual parents do not want their
>>>>>>>>>> children to grow up to be queers. So, if some
>>>>>>>>>> pre-natal genetic test can be devised that would
>>>>>>>>>> determine if the fetus carries the queer gene,
>>>>>>>>>> would the queers' and their sympathizers' general
>>>>>>>>>> support for "choice" extend to the parents having
>>>>>>>>>> the right to abort the fetus? I think consistency
>>>>>>>>>> requires that their support would necessarily have
>>>>>>>>>> to extend to that - not that they exhibit much
>>>>>>>>>> intellectual consistency on anything else, though.
>>>>>>>>> The hobgoblin of little minds.
>>>>>>>> You exhibit your shoddy education as if you're proud
>>>>>>>> of it; how odd. What Emerson said is that a
>>>>>>>> *foolish* consistency is the hobgoblin of little
>>>>>>>> minds.
>>>>>>> Yes, foolish--exactly the kind of consistency you're
>>>>>>> suggesting in this post.
>>>>>> No, not in the least. When so-called "pro-choice" -
>>>>>> actually, pro-abortion - people start blabbering about
>>>>>> it, they all seem to say that it's the woman's choice,
>>>>>> no matter *what* the reason. SO, if the reason were
>>>>>> that she didn't want to have a child who would grow up
>>>>>> to be a queer, I can't see that the queers and their
>>>>>> sycophantic supporters, who are also almost
>>>>>> unanimously pro-abortion, would have any sound reason
>>>>>> to complain. A /sensible/ consistency would seem to
>>>>>> demand that they respect the pregnant woman's wishes.
>>>>> We already have an example of this sort of thing
>>>>> regarding sex of the fetus.
>>>> I'm just trying to clarify the position of queers and
>>>> their sycophantic supporters if the fetus is going to be
>>>> aborted because it carries the queer gene.
>>> There actually is a sex chromosome, but it's not used to
>>> target abortions (in this country.) Why not?
>> Because westerners are largely indifferent as to the sex
>> of their children.
>
> Take a family that has three girls, wife gets pregnant again, pretty good
> chance they're not indifferent to the sex of this one. Yet parents in this
> situation don't abort the pregnancy to get the son they want. I wonder why.

I just told you above. In fact, they *are* largely indifferent. BTW,
as a widely (albeit not universally) held social and moral value, that
makes us superior to those cultures in which the sex of the child is of
great importance to the parents. Yes, it's true: not all cultures are
"equal".


>> But they're not indifferent regarding
>> the sexual orientation. If you ask heterosexual parents,
>> both actual and potential, if they are indifferent about the possibility
>> of their children,
>> conceived in a normal heterosexual union, growing up to
>> be queer, the vast majority will reply that they are
>> *not* indifferent - they don't want their children to be
>> queers.
>
> True enough.
>
>

[Jack]

Rudy Canoza wrote:
> Jack wrote:
>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>> Jack wrote:
>>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>> Jack wrote:
>>>>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>> Jack wrote:
>>>>>>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Jack wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> it is an article of leftist faith that the
>>>>>>>>>>> environment is all-determining
>>>>>>>>>> I've never heard a "leftist" deny that, say,
>>>>>>>>>> Downs syndrome was anything but congenital.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But, let's for a moment take as scientifically
>>>>>>>>>>> established that being queer is caused by some
>>>>>>>>>>> genetic factor. It seems obvious that the vast
>>>>>>>>>>> majority of heterosexual parents do not want
>>>>>>>>>>> their children to grow up to be queers. So, if
>>>>>>>>>>> some pre-natal genetic test can be devised that
>>>>>>>>>>> would determine if the fetus carries the queer
>>>>>>>>>>> gene, would the queers' and their sympathizers'
>>>>>>>>>>> general support for "choice" extend to the
>>>>>>>>>>> parents having the right to abort the fetus? I
>>>>>>>>>>> think consistency requires that their support
>>>>>>>>>>> would necessarily have to extend to that - not
>>>>>>>>>>> that they exhibit much intellectual consistency
>>>>>>>>>>> on anything else, though.
>>>>>>>>>> The hobgoblin of little minds.
>>>>>>>>> You exhibit your shoddy education as if you're
>>>>>>>>> proud of it; how odd. What Emerson said is that a
>>>>>>>>> *foolish* consistency is the hobgoblin of little
>>>>>>>>> minds.
>>>>>>>> Yes, foolish--exactly the kind of consistency
>>>>>>>> you're suggesting in this post.
>>>>>>> No, not in the least. When so-called "pro-choice" -
>>>>>>> actually, pro-abortion - people start blabbering
>>>>>>> about it, they all seem to say that it's the
>>>>>>> woman's choice, no matter *what* the reason. SO,
>>>>>>> if the reason were that she didn't want to have a
>>>>>>> child who would grow up to be a queer, I can't see
>>>>>>> that the queers and their sycophantic supporters,
>>>>>>> who are also almost unanimously pro-abortion, would
>>>>>>> have any sound reason to complain. A /sensible/
>>>>>>> consistency would seem to demand that they respect
>>>>>>> the pregnant woman's wishes.
>>>>>> We already have an example of this sort of thing
>>>>>> regarding sex of the fetus.
>>>>> I'm just trying to clarify the position of queers and
>>>>> their sycophantic supporters if the fetus is going to
>>>>> be aborted because it carries the queer gene.
>>>> There actually is a sex chromosome, but it's not used
>>>> to target abortions (in this country.) Why not?
>>> Because westerners are largely indifferent as to the sex
>>> of their children.
>>
>> Take a family that has three girls, wife gets pregnant
>> again, pretty good chance they're not indifferent to the
>> sex of this one. Yet parents in this situation don't
>> abort the pregnancy to get the son they want. I wonder
>> why.
>
> I just told you above. In fact, they *are* largely
> indifferent.

What, you've never heard someone say "We're trying for a girl" or "We hope
this one is a boy."?

> BTW, as a widely (albeit not universally)
> held social and moral value, that makes us superior to
> those cultures in which the sex of the child is of great
> importance to the parents. Yes, it's true: not all
> cultures are "equal".

[Rudy Canoza]

Jack wrote:
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> Jack wrote:
>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>> Jack wrote:
>>>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>> Jack wrote:
>>>>>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>>> Jack wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Jack wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> it is an article of leftist faith that the
>>>>>>>>>>>> environment is all-determining
>>>>>>>>>>> I've never heard a "leftist" deny that, say,
>>>>>>>>>>> Downs syndrome was anything but congenital.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> But, let's for a moment take as scientifically
>>>>>>>>>>>> established that being queer is caused by some
>>>>>>>>>>>> genetic factor. It seems obvious that the vast
>>>>>>>>>>>> majority of heterosexual parents do not want
>>>>>>>>>>>> their children to grow up to be queers. So, if
>>>>>>>>>>>> some pre-natal genetic test can be devised that
>>>>>>>>>>>> would determine if the fetus carries the queer
>>>>>>>>>>>> gene, would the queers' and their sympathizers'
>>>>>>>>>>>> general support for "choice" extend to the
>>>>>>>>>>>> parents having the right to abort the fetus? I
>>>>>>>>>>>> think consistency requires that their support
>>>>>>>>>>>> would necessarily have to extend to that - not
>>>>>>>>>>>> that they exhibit much intellectual consistency
>>>>>>>>>>>> on anything else, though.
>>>>>>>>>>> The hobgoblin of little minds.
>>>>>>>>>> You exhibit your shoddy education as if you're
>>>>>>>>>> proud of it; how odd. What Emerson said is that a
>>>>>>>>>> *foolish* consistency is the hobgoblin of little
>>>>>>>>>> minds.
>>>>>>>>> Yes, foolish--exactly the kind of consistency
>>>>>>>>> you're suggesting in this post.
>>>>>>>> No, not in the least. When so-called "pro-choice" -
>>>>>>>> actually, pro-abortion - people start blabbering
>>>>>>>> about it, they all seem to say that it's the
>>>>>>>> woman's choice, no matter *what* the reason. SO,
>>>>>>>> if the reason were that she didn't want to have a
>>>>>>>> child who would grow up to be a queer, I can't see
>>>>>>>> that the queers and their sycophantic supporters,
>>>>>>>> who are also almost unanimously pro-abortion, would
>>>>>>>> have any sound reason to complain. A /sensible/
>>>>>>>> consistency would seem to demand that they respect
>>>>>>>> the pregnant woman's wishes.
>>>>>>> We already have an example of this sort of thing
>>>>>>> regarding sex of the fetus.
>>>>>> I'm just trying to clarify the position of queers and
>>>>>> their sycophantic supporters if the fetus is going to
>>>>>> be aborted because it carries the queer gene.
>>>>> There actually is a sex chromosome, but it's not used
>>>>> to target abortions (in this country.) Why not?
>>>> Because westerners are largely indifferent as to the sex
>>>> of their children.
>>> Take a family that has three girls, wife gets pregnant
>>> again, pretty good chance they're not indifferent to the
>>> sex of this one. Yet parents in this situation don't
>>> abort the pregnancy to get the son they want. I wonder
>>> why.
>> I just told you above. In fact, they *are* largely
>> indifferent.
>
> What, you've never heard someone say "We're trying for a girl" or "We hope
> this one is a boy."?

Sure, but western Europeans and North Americans generally don't feel all
that strongly about it. They're /hoping/ for a particular sex, but
they're not terribly disappointed if their hopes aren't met - not
sufficiently disappointed, usually, to abort the fetus.


>> BTW, as a widely (albeit not universally)
>> held social and moral value, that makes us superior to
>> those cultures in which the sex of the child is of great
>> importance to the parents. Yes, it's true: not all
>> cultures are "equal".
>
>

[Jack]

Rudy Canoza wrote:
> Jack wrote:
>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>> Jack wrote:
>>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>> Jack wrote:
>>>>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>> Jack wrote:
>>>>>>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Jack wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Jack wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is an article of leftist faith that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> environment is all-determining
>>>>>>>>>>>> I've never heard a "leftist" deny that, say,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Downs syndrome was anything but congenital.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, let's for a moment take as scientifically
>>>>>>>>>>>>> established that being queer is caused by some
>>>>>>>>>>>>> genetic factor. It seems obvious that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> vast majority of heterosexual parents do not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> want their children to grow up to be queers. So, if some
>>>>>>>>>>>>> pre-natal genetic test can be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> devised that would determine if the fetus
>>>>>>>>>>>>> carries the queer gene, would the queers' and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> their sympathizers' general support for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "choice" extend to the parents having the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> right to abort the fetus? I think
>>>>>>>>>>>>> consistency requires that their support would
>>>>>>>>>>>>> necessarily have to extend to that - not that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> they exhibit much intellectual consistency on
>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything else, though.
>>>>>>>>>>>> The hobgoblin of little minds.
>>>>>>>>>>> You exhibit your shoddy education as if you're
>>>>>>>>>>> proud of it; how odd. What Emerson said is that
>>>>>>>>>>> a *foolish* consistency is the hobgoblin of
>>>>>>>>>>> little minds.
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, foolish--exactly the kind of consistency
>>>>>>>>>> you're suggesting in this post.
>>>>>>>>> No, not in the least. When so-called
>>>>>>>>> "pro-choice" - actually, pro-abortion - people
>>>>>>>>> start blabbering about it, they all seem to say
>>>>>>>>> that it's the woman's choice, no matter *what*
>>>>>>>>> the reason. SO, if the reason were that she
>>>>>>>>> didn't want to have a child who would grow up to
>>>>>>>>> be a queer, I can't see that the queers and their
>>>>>>>>> sycophantic supporters, who are also almost
>>>>>>>>> unanimously pro-abortion, would have any sound
>>>>>>>>> reason to complain. A /sensible/ consistency
>>>>>>>>> would seem to demand that they respect the
>>>>>>>>> pregnant woman's wishes.
>>>>>>>> We already have an example of this sort of thing
>>>>>>>> regarding sex of the fetus.
>>>>>>> I'm just trying to clarify the position of queers
>>>>>>> and their sycophantic supporters if the fetus is
>>>>>>> going to be aborted because it carries the queer
>>>>>>> gene.
>>>>>> There actually is a sex chromosome, but it's not used
>>>>>> to target abortions (in this country.) Why not?
>>>>> Because westerners are largely indifferent as to the
>>>>> sex of their children.
>>>> Take a family that has three girls, wife gets pregnant
>>>> again, pretty good chance they're not indifferent to
>>>> the sex of this one. Yet parents in this situation
>>>> don't abort the pregnancy to get the son they want. I
>>>> wonder why.
>>> I just told you above. In fact, they *are* largely
>>> indifferent.
>>
>> What, you've never heard someone say "We're trying for a
>> girl" or "We hope this one is a boy."?
>
> Sure, but western Europeans and North Americans generally
> don't feel all that strongly about it. They're /hoping/
> for a particular sex, but they're not terribly
> disappointed if their hopes aren't met - not sufficiently
> disappointed, usually, to abort the fetus.

Yeah, probably so.

[Ruud66]

"Rudy Canoza" <***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote in message
news:***@earthlink.com...
> So, the queers and their political sympathizers have been saying for a
> long time now that being queer is genetic, not environmentally determined.
> I've already commented on the great irony of this, given that the left
> generally disputes any claim for a genetic basis for other manifestations
> of human nature, most particularly intelligence; it is an article of
> leftist faith that the environment is all-determining - well, it was until
> they had to try to explain queers.

If you want to be a homophobe just say so. It also means you're most likely
to be a closet gay. (See journal of Abnormal psychology) or
http://www.oogachaga.com/downloads/homophobia_and_homosexual_arousal.pdf
Re homosexualty , you have to recognize that at least there is a
survival-trait in the human species as some of this is described biblically.

R

[Patriot Games]

On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 21:31:56 +0100, "Ruud66" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>If you want to be a homophobe just say so. It also means you're most likely
>to be a closet gay. (See journal of Abnormal psychology) or
>http://www.oogachaga.com/downloads/homophobia_and_homosexual_arousal.pdf
>Re homosexualty , you have to recognize that at least there is a
>survival-trait in the human species as some of this is described biblically.

That was debunked years ago.....

Homophobia and physical aggression toward homosexual and heterosexual
individuals.
Bernat, Jeffrey A.; Calhoun, Karen S.; Adams, Henry E.; Zeichner, Amos
Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 2001 Feb Vol 110(1) 179-187
http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=search.displayRecord&uid=2001-17627-019

This study examined the relationship between homophobia (defined as
self-reported negative affect, avoidance, and aggression toward
homosexuals) and homosexual aggression. Self-identified heterosexual
college men were assigned to homophobic (n = 26) and nonhomophobic (n
= 26) groups on the basis of their scores on the Homophobia Scale (HS;
L. W. Wright, H. E. Adams, & J. A. Bernat, 1999). Physical aggression
was examined by having participants administer shocks to a fictitious
opponent during a competitive reaction time (RT) task under the
impression that the study was examining the relationship between
sexually explicit material and RT. Participants were exposed to a male
homosexual erotic videotape, their affective reactions were assessed,
and they then competed in the RT task against either a heterosexual or
a homosexual opponent. The homophobic group reported significantly
more negative affect, anxiety, and anger-hostility after watching the
homosexual erotic videotape than did the nonhomophobic group.
Additionally, the homophobic group was significantly more aggressive
toward the homosexual opponent, but the groups did not differ in
aggression toward the heterosexual opponent.

------------------------------------------

Sissies and Tomboys: Gender Role Behaviors and Homophobia
Robert D. Schope PhD, Assistant Professor of Social Work, University
of Iowa
Michele J. Eliason PhD, Associate Professor of Nursing, University of
Iowa

Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services:
. . . Issues in Practice, Policy, and Research
The official journal of the Caucus of the LGBT Faculty & Students in
Social Work
Volume: 16 Issue: 2
ISSN: 1053-8720 Pub Date: 12/16/2003

This paper examines whether prejudice by heterosexuals against
homosexuals is associated with violations of socially determined
gender role behaviors. Respondents were given questionnaires which
included either gay-acting or straight-acting vignettes and asked to
indicate their attitudes and behaviors in specific situations. While
gender role characteristics were found to be an important aspect of
negative attitudes and behaviors toward gay men and lesbians, the most
important predictor of homophobia is the mere fact that an individual
is known to be homosexual.

------------------------------------------

Journal of Applied Social Psychology
Volume 38 Issue 3 Page 647-683, March 2008
Amelia E. Talley, B. Ann Bettencourt (2008)
Evaluations and Aggression Directed at a Gay Male Target: The Role of
Threat and Antigay Prejudice

This research was designed to understand heterosexual men's
interpersonal reactions toward a gay male individual and to examine
how threat and pre-existing antigay prejudice impact these encounters.
In one experiment, we manipulated the ostensible sexual orientation of
an assigned work partner and assessed participants' perceptions of
threat indirectly, using a measure of psychological distancing.
Results revealed that, regardless of antigay prejudice, participants
psychologically distanced more from the gay male than from the
heterosexual male. In the second experiment, we manipulated threat and
the sexual orientation of the work partner to examine aggressive
responding toward the work partner. Participants exposed to a threat
to their masculinity behaved more aggressively toward the gay work
partner, regardless of their level of antigay prejudice.

[Jack]

Patriot Games wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 21:31:56 +0100, "Ruud66"
> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>> If you want to be a homophobe just say so. It also means
>> you're most likely to be a closet gay. (See journal of
>> Abnormal psychology) or
>> http://www.oogachaga.com/downloads/homophobia_and_homosexual_arousal.pdf
>> Re homosexualty , you have to recognize that at least
>> there is a survival-trait in the human species as some
>> of this is described biblically.
>
> That was debunked years ago.....
>

Doesn't take much to "debunk" something in your mind.


> Homophobia and physical aggression toward homosexual and
> heterosexual individuals.
> Bernat, Jeffrey A.; Calhoun, Karen S.; Adams, Henry E.;
> Zeichner, Amos Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 2001 Feb
> Vol 110(1) 179-187
> http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=search.displayRecord&uid=2001-17627-019
>
> This study examined the relationship between homophobia
> (defined as self-reported negative affect, avoidance, and
> aggression toward homosexuals) and homosexual aggression.
> Self-identified heterosexual college men were assigned to
> homophobic (n = 26) and nonhomophobic (n = 26) groups on
> the basis of their scores on the Homophobia Scale (HS; L.
> W. Wright, H. E. Adams, & J. A. Bernat, 1999). Physical
> aggression was examined by having participants administer
> shocks to a fictitious opponent during a competitive
> reaction time (RT) task under the impression that the
> study was examining the relationship between sexually
> explicit material and RT. Participants were exposed to a
> male homosexual erotic videotape, their affective
> reactions were assessed, and they then competed in the RT
> task against either a heterosexual or a homosexual
> opponent. The homophobic group reported significantly
> more negative affect, anxiety, and anger-hostility after
> watching the homosexual erotic videotape than did the
> nonhomophobic group. Additionally, the homophobic group
> was significantly more aggressive toward the homosexual
> opponent, but the groups did not differ in aggression
> toward the heterosexual opponent.
>
> ------------------------------------------
>
> Sissies and Tomboys: Gender Role Behaviors and Homophobia
> Robert D. Schope PhD, Assistant Professor of Social Work,
> University of Iowa
> Michele J. Eliason PhD, Associate Professor of Nursing,
> University of Iowa
>
> Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services:
> . . . Issues in Practice, Policy, and Research
> The official journal of the Caucus of the LGBT Faculty &
> Students in Social Work
> Volume: 16 Issue: 2
> ISSN: 1053-8720 Pub Date: 12/16/2003
>
> This paper examines whether prejudice by heterosexuals
> against homosexuals is associated with violations of
> socially determined gender role behaviors. Respondents
> were given questionnaires which included either
> gay-acting or straight-acting vignettes and asked to
> indicate their attitudes and behaviors in specific
> situations. While gender role characteristics were found
> to be an important aspect of negative attitudes and
> behaviors toward gay men and lesbians, the most important
> predictor of homophobia is the mere fact that an
> individual is known to be homosexual.
>
> ------------------------------------------
>
> Journal of Applied Social Psychology
> Volume 38 Issue 3 Page 647-683, March 2008
> Amelia E. Talley, B. Ann Bettencourt (2008)
> Evaluations and Aggression Directed at a Gay Male Target:
> The Role of Threat and Antigay Prejudice
>
> This research was designed to understand heterosexual
> men's interpersonal reactions toward a gay male
> individual and to examine how threat and pre-existing
> antigay prejudice impact these encounters. In one
> experiment, we manipulated the ostensible sexual
> orientation of an assigned work partner and assessed
> participants' perceptions of threat indirectly, using a
> measure of psychological distancing. Results revealed
> that, regardless of antigay prejudice, participants
> psychologically distanced more from the gay male than
> from the heterosexual male. In the second experiment, we
> manipulated threat and the sexual orientation of the work
> partner to examine aggressive responding toward the work
> partner. Participants exposed to a threat to their
> masculinity behaved more aggressively toward the gay work
> partner, regardless of their level of antigay prejudice.

[Patriot Games]

On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 17:48:21 -0500, "Jack" <***@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>Patriot Games wrote:
>> On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 21:31:56 +0100, "Ruud66"
>> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> If you want to be a homophobe just say so. It also means
>>> you're most likely to be a closet gay. (See journal of
>>> Abnormal psychology) or
>>> http://www.oogachaga.com/downloads/homophobia_and_homosexual_arousal.pdf
>>> Re homosexualty , you have to recognize that at least
>>> there is a survival-trait in the human species as some
>>> of this is described biblically.
>> That was debunked years ago.....
>Doesn't take much to "debunk" something in your mind.

There wasn't much there to be debunked.

The original researchers of the ONLY ONE EVER study themselves never
repeated the study.....

In scientific circles one NEVER does a study just once. You do it two
or three times before you even talk about THEN you get two or three
others to repeat it before you ever think about writing about it...

Oh well.....

>> Homophobia and physical aggression toward homosexual and
>> heterosexual individuals.
>> Bernat, Jeffrey A.; Calhoun, Karen S.; Adams, Henry E.;
>> Zeichner, Amos Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 2001 Feb
>> Vol 110(1) 179-187
>> http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=search.displayRecord&uid=2001-17627-019
>>
>> This study examined the relationship between homophobia
>> (defined as self-reported negative affect, avoidance, and
>> aggression toward homosexuals) and homosexual aggression.
>> Self-identified heterosexual college men were assigned to
>> homophobic (n = 26) and nonhomophobic (n = 26) groups on
>> the basis of their scores on the Homophobia Scale (HS; L.
>> W. Wright, H. E. Adams, & J. A. Bernat, 1999). Physical
>> aggression was examined by having participants administer
>> shocks to a fictitious opponent during a competitive
>> reaction time (RT) task under the impression that the
>> study was examining the relationship between sexually
>> explicit material and RT. Participants were exposed to a
>> male homosexual erotic videotape, their affective
>> reactions were assessed, and they then competed in the RT
>> task against either a heterosexual or a homosexual
>> opponent. The homophobic group reported significantly
>> more negative affect, anxiety, and anger-hostility after
>> watching the homosexual erotic videotape than did the
>> nonhomophobic group. Additionally, the homophobic group
>> was significantly more aggressive toward the homosexual
>> opponent, but the groups did not differ in aggression
>> toward the heterosexual opponent.
>>
>> ------------------------------------------
>>
>> Sissies and Tomboys: Gender Role Behaviors and Homophobia
>> Robert D. Schope PhD, Assistant Professor of Social Work,
>> University of Iowa
>> Michele J. Eliason PhD, Associate Professor of Nursing,
>> University of Iowa
>>
>> Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services:
>> . . . Issues in Practice, Policy, and Research
>> The official journal of the Caucus of the LGBT Faculty &
>> Students in Social Work
>> Volume: 16 Issue: 2
>> ISSN: 1053-8720 Pub Date: 12/16/2003
>>
>> This paper examines whether prejudice by heterosexuals
>> against homosexuals is associated with violations of
>> socially determined gender role behaviors. Respondents
>> were given questionnaires which included either
>> gay-acting or straight-acting vignettes and asked to
>> indicate their attitudes and behaviors in specific
>> situations. While gender role characteristics were found
>> to be an important aspect of negative attitudes and
>> behaviors toward gay men and lesbians, the most important
>> predictor of homophobia is the mere fact that an
>> individual is known to be homosexual.
>>
>> ------------------------------------------
>>
>> Journal of Applied Social Psychology
>> Volume 38 Issue 3 Page 647-683, March 2008
>> Amelia E. Talley, B. Ann Bettencourt (2008)
>> Evaluations and Aggression Directed at a Gay Male Target:
>> The Role of Threat and Antigay Prejudice
>>
>> This research was designed to understand heterosexual
>> men's interpersonal reactions toward a gay male
>> individual and to examine how threat and pre-existing
>> antigay prejudice impact these encounters. In one
>> experiment, we manipulated the ostensible sexual
>> orientation of an assigned work partner and assessed
>> participants' perceptions of threat indirectly, using a
>> measure of psychological distancing. Results revealed
>> that, regardless of antigay prejudice, participants
>> psychologically distanced more from the gay male than
>> from the heterosexual male. In the second experiment, we
>> manipulated threat and the sexual orientation of the work
>> partner to examine aggressive responding toward the work
>> partner. Participants exposed to a threat to their
>> masculinity behaved more aggressively toward the gay work
>> partner, regardless of their level of antigay prejudice.
>

[Jack]

Patriot Games wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 17:48:21 -0500, "Jack"
> <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Patriot Games wrote:
>>> On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 21:31:56 +0100, "Ruud66"
>>> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> If you want to be a homophobe just say so. It also
>>>> means you're most likely to be a closet gay. (See
>>>> journal of Abnormal psychology) or
>>>> http://www.oogachaga.com/downloads/homophobia_and_homosexual_arousal.pdf
>>>> Re homosexualty , you have to recognize that at least
>>>> there is a survival-trait in the human species as some
>>>> of this is described biblically.
>>> That was debunked years ago.....
>> Doesn't take much to "debunk" something in your mind.
>
> There wasn't much there to be debunked.
>
> The original researchers of the ONLY ONE EVER study
> themselves never repeated the study.....
>
> In scientific circles one NEVER does a study just once.
> You do it two or three times before you even talk about
> THEN you get two or three others to repeat it before you
> ever think about writing about it...
>
> Oh well.....

Exactly. And there was a very small number of participants in each group.
Just 26 per. Which is not enough to perform any meaningful statistical
analysis on, especially for a subject so prone to bias as sexual preference
is.

>
>>> Homophobia and physical aggression toward homosexual and
>>> heterosexual individuals.
>>> Bernat, Jeffrey A.; Calhoun, Karen S.; Adams, Henry E.;
>>> Zeichner, Amos Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 2001 Feb
>>> Vol 110(1) 179-187
>>> http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=search.displayRecord&uid=2001-17627-019
>>>
>>> This study examined the relationship between homophobia
>>> (defined as self-reported negative affect, avoidance,
>>> and aggression toward homosexuals) and homosexual
>>> aggression. Self-identified heterosexual college men
>>> were assigned to homophobic (n = 26) and nonhomophobic
>>> (n = 26) groups on the basis of their scores on the
>>> Homophobia Scale (HS; L. W. Wright, H. E. Adams, & J.
>>> A. Bernat, 1999). Physical aggression was examined by
>>> having participants administer shocks to a fictitious
>>> opponent during a competitive reaction time (RT) task
>>> under the impression that the study was examining the
>>> relationship between sexually explicit material and RT.
>>> Participants were exposed to a male homosexual erotic
>>> videotape, their affective reactions were assessed, and
>>> they then competed in the RT task against either a
>>> heterosexual or a homosexual opponent. The homophobic
>>> group reported significantly more negative affect,
>>> anxiety, and anger-hostility after watching the
>>> homosexual erotic videotape than did the nonhomophobic
>>> group. Additionally, the homophobic group was
>>> significantly more aggressive toward the homosexual
>>> opponent, but the groups did not differ in aggression
>>> toward the heterosexual opponent.
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Sissies and Tomboys: Gender Role Behaviors and
>>> Homophobia Robert D. Schope PhD, Assistant Professor of
>>> Social Work, University of Iowa
>>> Michele J. Eliason PhD, Associate Professor of Nursing,
>>> University of Iowa
>>>
>>> Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services:
>>> . . . Issues in Practice, Policy, and Research
>>> The official journal of the Caucus of the LGBT Faculty &
>>> Students in Social Work
>>> Volume: 16 Issue: 2
>>> ISSN: 1053-8720 Pub Date: 12/16/2003
>>>
>>> This paper examines whether prejudice by heterosexuals
>>> against homosexuals is associated with violations of
>>> socially determined gender role behaviors. Respondents
>>> were given questionnaires which included either
>>> gay-acting or straight-acting vignettes and asked to
>>> indicate their attitudes and behaviors in specific
>>> situations. While gender role characteristics were found
>>> to be an important aspect of negative attitudes and
>>> behaviors toward gay men and lesbians, the most
>>> important predictor of homophobia is the mere fact that
>>> an individual is known to be homosexual.
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Journal of Applied Social Psychology
>>> Volume 38 Issue 3 Page 647-683, March 2008
>>> Amelia E. Talley, B. Ann Bettencourt (2008)
>>> Evaluations and Aggression Directed at a Gay Male
>>> Target: The Role of Threat and Antigay Prejudice
>>>
>>> This research was designed to understand heterosexual
>>> men's interpersonal reactions toward a gay male
>>> individual and to examine how threat and pre-existing
>>> antigay prejudice impact these encounters. In one
>>> experiment, we manipulated the ostensible sexual
>>> orientation of an assigned work partner and assessed
>>> participants' perceptions of threat indirectly, using a
>>> measure of psychological distancing. Results revealed
>>> that, regardless of antigay prejudice, participants
>>> psychologically distanced more from the gay male than
>>> from the heterosexual male. In the second experiment, we
>>> manipulated threat and the sexual orientation of the
>>> work partner to examine aggressive responding toward
>>> the work partner. Participants exposed to a threat to
>>> their masculinity behaved more aggressively toward the
>>> gay work partner, regardless of their level of antigay
>>> prejudice.

[Rudy Canoza]

Jack wrote:
> Patriot Games wrote:
>> On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 21:31:56 +0100, "Ruud66"
>> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> If you want to be a homophobe just say so. It also means
>>> you're most likely to be a closet gay. (See journal of
>>> Abnormal psychology) or
>>> http://www.oogachaga.com/downloads/homophobia_and_homosexual_arousal.pdf
>>> Re homosexualty , you have to recognize that at least
>>> there is a survival-trait in the human species as some
>>> of this is described biblically.
>> That was debunked years ago.....
>>
>
> Doesn't take much to "debunk" something in your mind.

The original "study" claiming that people who criticize queers are
themselves queer was bullshit in the first place.

[Jack]

Rudy Canoza wrote:
> Jack wrote:
>> Patriot Games wrote:
>>> On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 21:31:56 +0100, "Ruud66"
>>> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> If you want to be a homophobe just say so. It also
>>>> means you're most likely to be a closet gay. (See
>>>> journal of Abnormal psychology) or
>>>> http://www.oogachaga.com/downloads/homophobia_and_homosexual_arousal.pdf
>>>> Re homosexualty , you have to recognize that at least
>>>> there is a survival-trait in the human species as some
>>>> of this is described biblically.
>>> That was debunked years ago.....
>>>
>>
>> Doesn't take much to "debunk" something in your mind.
>
> The original "study" claiming that people who criticize
> queers are themselves queer was bullshit in the first
> place.

Most things we believe, we believe without consulting a study. From my
observations over the years it's not always bullshit.

[Rudy Canoza]

Jack wrote:
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> Jack wrote:
>>> Patriot Games wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 21:31:56 +0100, "Ruud66"
>>>> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> If you want to be a homophobe just say so. It also
>>>>> means you're most likely to be a closet gay. (See
>>>>> journal of Abnormal psychology) or
>>>>> http://www.oogachaga.com/downloads/homophobia_and_homosexual_arousal.pdf
>>>>> Re homosexualty , you have to recognize that at least
>>>>> there is a survival-trait in the human species as some
>>>>> of this is described biblically.
>>>> That was debunked years ago.....
>>>>
>>> Doesn't take much to "debunk" something in your mind.
>> The original "study" claiming that people who criticize
>> queers are themselves queer was bullshit in the first
>> place.
>
> Most things we believe, we believe without consulting a study. From my
> observations over the years it's not always bullshit.

The "observation" that people who criticize queers are themselves queer
is not an observation at all; it is, rather, an article of ideological
faith, something that is believed by the self-styled Great Defenders of
Queers only due to the Scheisskopf Effect, from the character Lt.
Scheisskopf in _Catch-22_. It illustrates STUPID people's tendency to
believe things merely because they're aware that other people already
believe them. It all becomes self-fullfilling and self-reinforcing.

The scene is the "action board" hearing of Air Cadet Clevinger, who has
been hauled up on charges of "breaking ranks while in formation,
felonious assault, indiscriminate behavior, mopery, high treason,
provoking, being a smart guy, listening to classical music, and so on."
The members of the action board are the bloated colonel, the toady
Major Metcalf, and Lt. Scheisskopf. Scheisskopf is also the prosecutor. He
is also Cadet Clevinger's defense counsel.

The bloated colonel: "Metcalf, you stinking son of a bitch. Didn't I
tell you to keep your stinking, cowardly, stupid mouth shut?"

Major Metcalf: "Yes, sir. I'm sorry, sir."

The colonel: "Then suppose you do it."

Metcalf: "I was only trying to learn, sir. The only way a person can
learn is by trying."

The colonel: "Who says so?"

Metcalf: "Everybody says so, sir. Even Lieutenant Scheisskopf says so."

The colonel: "Do you say so?"

"Yes, sir," said Lieutenant Scheisskopf. "But everybody says so."

[Rudy Canoza]

Jack wrote:
> Patriot Games wrote:
>> On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 21:31:56 +0100, "Ruud66"
>> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> If you want to be a homophobe just say so. It also means
>>> you're most likely to be a closet gay. (See journal of
>>> Abnormal psychology) or
>>> http://www.oogachaga.com/downloads/homophobia_and_homosexual_arousal.pdf
>>> Re homosexualty , you have to recognize that at least
>>> there is a survival-trait in the human species as some
>>> of this is described biblically.
>> That was debunked years ago.....
>>
>
> Doesn't take much to "debunk" something in your mind.

Doesn't take much politically motivated pseudo-science to establish
something as "fact" in your mind, does it?

[Ruud66]

"Rudy Canoza" <***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote in message
news:eOadnS-PgISP-***@earthlink.com...
> Jack wrote:
>> Patriot Games wrote:
>>> On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 21:31:56 +0100, "Ruud66"
>>> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> If you want to be a homophobe just say so. It also means
>>>> you're most likely to be a closet gay. (See journal of
>>>> Abnormal psychology) or
>>>> http://www.oogachaga.com/downloads/homophobia_and_homosexual_arousal.pdf
>>>> Re homosexualty , you have to recognize that at least
>>>> there is a survival-trait in the human species as some
>>>> of this is described biblically.
>>> That was debunked years ago.....
>>>
>>
>> Doesn't take much to "debunk" something in your mind.
>
> Doesn't take much politically motivated pseudo-science to establish
> something as "fact" in your mind, does it?

Pseudoscience in the journal of abnormal psychology? Do tell. Are you a
reviewer for them? The biblical matter can also be found back in early
Pharaonian and Babylonian writings. The mechanism by which homosexuality is
passed on is flawed and requires research.

R

[Bob Officer]

On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 11:49:11 +0100, in alt.abortion, "Ruud66"
<***@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>"Rudy Canoza" <***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote in message
>news:eOadnS-PgISP-***@earthlink.com...
>> Jack wrote:
>>> Patriot Games wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 21:31:56 +0100, "Ruud66"
>>>> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> If you want to be a homophobe just say so. It also means
>>>>> you're most likely to be a closet gay. (See journal of
>>>>> Abnormal psychology) or
>>>>> http://www.oogachaga.com/downloads/homophobia_and_homosexual_arousal.pdf
>>>>> Re homosexualty , you have to recognize that at least
>>>>> there is a survival-trait in the human species as some
>>>>> of this is described biblically.
>>>> That was debunked years ago.....
>>>>
>>>
>>> Doesn't take much to "debunk" something in your mind.
>>
>> Doesn't take much politically motivated pseudo-science to establish
>> something as "fact" in your mind, does it?
>
>Pseudoscience in the journal of abnormal psychology? Do tell. Are you a
>reviewer for them? The biblical matter can also be found back in early
>Pharaonian and Babylonian writings. The mechanism by which homosexuality is
>passed on is flawed and requires research.
>
>R

Rudy you seem to the person to root out the so-called problem.

You spend a few years at that and get back to us, ok.


--
Ak'toh'di

[Rudy Canoza]

Ruud66 wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza" <***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote in message
> news:eOadnS-PgISP-***@earthlink.com...
>> Jack wrote:
>>> Patriot Games wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 21:31:56 +0100, "Ruud66"
>>>> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> If you want to be a homophobe just say so. It also means
>>>>> you're most likely to be a closet gay. (See journal of
>>>>> Abnormal psychology) or
>>>>> http://www.oogachaga.com/downloads/homophobia_and_homosexual_arousal.pdf
>>>>> Re homosexualty , you have to recognize that at least
>>>>> there is a survival-trait in the human species as some
>>>>> of this is described biblically.
>>>> That was debunked years ago.....
>>>>
>>> Doesn't take much to "debunk" something in your mind.
>> Doesn't take much politically motivated pseudo-science to establish
>> something as "fact" in your mind, does it?
>
> Pseudoscience in the journal of abnormal psychology? Do tell.

Yes. Due to the overall lack of rigor in the entire field, just about
*everything* published in a "journal" of psychology is pseudo-science.
As another poster noted to you, no one has ever tried to replicate the
results, which is what happens in real science. Also, being published
in a peer-reviewed journal doesn't mean it's right - the paper claiming
to document "table-top" fusion also was published in peer reviewed
journals, but it was bullshit nonetheless.

[Patriot Games]

On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 11:49:11 +0100, "Ruud66" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>The mechanism by which homosexuality is passed on is flawed...

You mean our understanding of the "mechanism" is flawed.

Yes, we know that.

>and requires research.

We know that too. People are working on it...

Its not as simple as pointing to a gene and saying "Ah-Ha! YOU are the
cause of fags!"

There is a genetically-based predisposition, just about everybody
agrees on that. If you weren't born with that genetic predisposition
then you aren't gonna be a genuine Fag.

However, like the genetic predisposition to alcoholism, there are
other NON-genetic factors involved.

Nobody knows exactly what they are, how many there are, or how they
work exactly. The leading factor (meaning the theoretical factor not
shitcanned by most researchers, so far) suggests that the massive
hormone explosion of puberty activates the genetic predisposition.

[Rudy Canoza]

Ruud66 wrote:

> The mechanism by which homosexuality is
> passed on is flawed and requires research.

It is not at all established that being queer is genetically based, so
it is incorrect to talk, at this stage, about queerness being "passed
on". As I earlier noted, the left generally believes that virtually
everything else about human nature is environmentally determined,
particularly those things that manifest themselves as behaviors, which
being queer definitely is. But the queers and their sycophantic
sympathizers can't go along with that in this case, because it leaves
the door open to the possibility that developing into a queer could be
prevented by the right environmental controls - or even that being queer
could be cured by therapy. So, they have latched onto the belief that
it is "hardwired", even though there is no reliable scientific evidence
for that.

[Jack]

Rudy Canoza wrote:
> Ruud66 wrote:
>
>> The mechanism by which homosexuality is
>> passed on is flawed and requires research.
>
> It is not at all established that being queer is
> genetically based,

Since our entire body and brain is "genetically based" I think it's a safe
assumption.

> so it is incorrect to talk, at this
> stage, about queerness being "passed on". As I earlier
> noted, the left generally believes that virtually
> everything else about human nature is environmentally
> determined, particularly those things that manifest
> themselves as behaviors, which being queer definitely is.
> But the queers and their sycophantic sympathizers can't
> go along with that in this case, because it leaves the
> door open to the possibility that developing into a queer
> could be prevented by the right environmental controls -
> or even that being queer could be cured by therapy. So,
> they have latched onto the belief that it is "hardwired",
> even though there is no reliable scientific evidence for
> that.

[Rudy Canoza]

Jack wrote:
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> Ruud66 wrote:
>>
>>> The mechanism by which homosexuality is
>>> passed on is flawed and requires research.
>> It is not at all established that being queer is
>> genetically based,
>
> Since our entire body and brain is "genetically based" I think it's a safe
> assumption.

Not really. The "nature vs. nurture" argument may not be raging as
hotly as it did a couple of decades ago - mostly, because the "nature"
side largely won - but it still goes on, and leftists generally side
with "nurture", because that's crucial to their view of the role of the
state. Leftists tend to be behavioralists going back to Skinner and
Dewey, and they believe most behaviors are the result of environmental
factors, not "hard-wired" - i.e., not genetic. But for ideological
reasons, they have carved out a bizarre exception for being queer.


>> so it is incorrect to talk, at this
>> stage, about queerness being "passed on". As I earlier
>> noted, the left generally believes that virtually
>> everything else about human nature is environmentally
>> determined, particularly those things that manifest
>> themselves as behaviors, which being queer definitely is.
>> But the queers and their sycophantic sympathizers can't
>> go along with that in this case, because it leaves the
>> door open to the possibility that developing into a queer
>> could be prevented by the right environmental controls -
>> or even that being queer could be cured by therapy. So,
>> they have latched onto the belief that it is "hardwired",
>> even though there is no reliable scientific evidence for
>> that.
>
>

[Jack]

Rudy Canoza wrote:
> Jack wrote:
>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>> Ruud66 wrote:
>>>
>>>> The mechanism by which homosexuality is
>>>> passed on is flawed and requires research.
>>> It is not at all established that being queer is
>>> genetically based,
>>
>> Since our entire body and brain is "genetically based" I
>> think it's a safe assumption.
>
> Not really. The "nature vs. nurture" argument may not be
> raging as hotly as it did a couple of decades ago -
> mostly, because the "nature" side largely won - but it
> still goes on, and leftists generally side with
> "nurture", because that's crucial to their view of the
> role of the state. Leftists tend to be behavioralists
> going back to Skinner and Dewey, and they believe most
> behaviors are the result of environmental factors, not
> "hard-wired" - i.e., not genetic. But for ideological
> reasons, they have carved out a bizarre exception for
> being queer.

There are a few identical twins in existence that were separated at a very
young age and were raised independently of each other. Makes for some
interesting reading.

[Rudy Canoza]

Jack wrote:
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> Jack wrote:
>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>> Ruud66 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The mechanism by which homosexuality is
>>>>> passed on is flawed and requires research.
>>>> It is not at all established that being queer is
>>>> genetically based,
>>> Since our entire body and brain is "genetically based" I
>>> think it's a safe assumption.
>> Not really. The "nature vs. nurture" argument may not be
>> raging as hotly as it did a couple of decades ago -
>> mostly, because the "nature" side largely won - but it
>> still goes on, and leftists generally side with
>> "nurture", because that's crucial to their view of the
>> role of the state. Leftists tend to be behavioralists
>> going back to Skinner and Dewey, and they believe most
>> behaviors are the result of environmental factors, not
>> "hard-wired" - i.e., not genetic. But for ideological
>> reasons, they have carved out a bizarre exception for
>> being queer.
>
> There are a few identical twins in existence that were separated at a very
> young age and were raised independently of each other. Makes for some
> interesting reading.

Yes, but hardly conclusive.

[Jack]

Rudy Canoza wrote:
> Jack wrote:
>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>> Jack wrote:
>>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>> Ruud66 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The mechanism by which homosexuality is
>>>>>> passed on is flawed and requires research.
>>>>> It is not at all established that being queer is
>>>>> genetically based,
>>>> Since our entire body and brain is "genetically based"
>>>> I think it's a safe assumption.
>>> Not really. The "nature vs. nurture" argument may not
>>> be raging as hotly as it did a couple of decades ago -
>>> mostly, because the "nature" side largely won - but it
>>> still goes on, and leftists generally side with
>>> "nurture", because that's crucial to their view of the
>>> role of the state. Leftists tend to be behavioralists
>>> going back to Skinner and Dewey, and they believe most
>>> behaviors are the result of environmental factors, not
>>> "hard-wired" - i.e., not genetic. But for ideological
>>> reasons, they have carved out a bizarre exception for
>>> being queer.
>>
>> There are a few identical twins in existence that were
>> separated at a very young age and were raised
>> independently of each other. Makes for some interesting
>> reading.
>
> Yes, but hardly conclusive.

Oh you might be surprised at some of the details. I'll try to dig some up
and post them if I get a chance.

[Rudy Canoza]

Patriot Games wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 21:31:56 +0100, "Ruud66" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>> If you want to be a homophobe just say so. It also means you're most likely
>> to be a closet gay. (See journal of Abnormal psychology) or
>> http://www.oogachaga.com/downloads/homophobia_and_homosexual_arousal.pdf
>> Re homosexualty , you have to recognize that at least there is a
>> survival-trait in the human species as some of this is described biblically.
>
> That was debunked years ago.....

I have no doubt. It's funny as hell to watch all the self-styled Great
Defenders of Queers automatically react to some critical comment about
queers by trying to start a round of The Queer Game: the silly, useless
game in which they reflexively call any critic of queers a closet queer.
They *all* cite the same debunked "study", too. They must all have it
bookmarked or something.


>
> Homophobia and physical aggression toward homosexual and heterosexual
> individuals.
> Bernat, Jeffrey A.; Calhoun, Karen S.; Adams, Henry E.; Zeichner, Amos
> Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 2001 Feb Vol 110(1) 179-187
> http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=search.displayRecord&uid=2001-17627-019
>
> This study examined the relationship between homophobia (defined as
> self-reported negative affect, avoidance, and aggression toward
> homosexuals) and homosexual aggression. Self-identified heterosexual
> college men were assigned to homophobic (n = 26) and nonhomophobic (n
> = 26) groups on the basis of their scores on the Homophobia Scale (HS;
> L. W. Wright, H. E. Adams, & J. A. Bernat, 1999). Physical aggression
> was examined by having participants administer shocks to a fictitious
> opponent during a competitive reaction time (RT) task under the
> impression that the study was examining the relationship between
> sexually explicit material and RT. Participants were exposed to a male
> homosexual erotic videotape, their affective reactions were assessed,
> and they then competed in the RT task against either a heterosexual or
> a homosexual opponent. The homophobic group reported significantly
> more negative affect, anxiety, and anger-hostility after watching the
> homosexual erotic videotape than did the nonhomophobic group.
> Additionally, the homophobic group was significantly more aggressive
> toward the homosexual opponent, but the groups did not differ in
> aggression toward the heterosexual opponent.
>
> ------------------------------------------
>
> Sissies and Tomboys: Gender Role Behaviors and Homophobia
> Robert D. Schope PhD, Assistant Professor of Social Work, University
> of Iowa
> Michele J. Eliason PhD, Associate Professor of Nursing, University of
> Iowa
>
> Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services:
> . . . Issues in Practice, Policy, and Research
> The official journal of the Caucus of the LGBT Faculty & Students in
> Social Work
> Volume: 16 Issue: 2
> ISSN: 1053-8720 Pub Date: 12/16/2003
>
> This paper examines whether prejudice by heterosexuals against
> homosexuals is associated with violations of socially determined
> gender role behaviors. Respondents were given questionnaires which
> included either gay-acting or straight-acting vignettes and asked to
> indicate their attitudes and behaviors in specific situations. While
> gender role characteristics were found to be an important aspect of
> negative attitudes and behaviors toward gay men and lesbians, the most
> important predictor of homophobia is the mere fact that an individual
> is known to be homosexual.
>
> ------------------------------------------
>
> Journal of Applied Social Psychology
> Volume 38 Issue 3 Page 647-683, March 2008
> Amelia E. Talley, B. Ann Bettencourt (2008)
> Evaluations and Aggression Directed at a Gay Male Target: The Role of
> Threat and Antigay Prejudice
>
> This research was designed to understand heterosexual men's
> interpersonal reactions toward a gay male individual and to examine
> how threat and pre-existing antigay prejudice impact these encounters.
> In one experiment, we manipulated the ostensible sexual orientation of
> an assigned work partner and assessed participants' perceptions of
> threat indirectly, using a measure of psychological distancing.
> Results revealed that, regardless of antigay prejudice, participants
> psychologically distanced more from the gay male than from the
> heterosexual male. In the second experiment, we manipulated threat and
> the sexual orientation of the work partner to examine aggressive
> responding toward the work partner. Participants exposed to a threat
> to their masculinity behaved more aggressively toward the gay work
> partner, regardless of their level of antigay prejudice.
>
>

[Cary Kittrell]

Patriot Games <***@America.Com>
>
> On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 21:31:56 +0100, "Ruud66" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> >If you want to be a homophobe just say so. It also means you're most likely
> >to be a closet gay. (See journal of Abnormal psychology) or
> >http://www.oogachaga.com/downloads/homophobia_and_homosexual_arousal.pdf
> >Re homosexualty , you have to recognize that at least there is a
> >survival-trait in the human species as some of this is described biblically.
>
> That was debunked years ago.....
>
> Homophobia and physical aggression toward homosexual and heterosexual
> individuals.
> Bernat, Jeffrey A.; Calhoun, Karen S.; Adams, Henry E.; Zeichner, Amos
> Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 2001 Feb Vol 110(1) 179-187
> http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=search.displayRecord&uid=2001-17627-019
>
> This study examined the relationship between homophobia (defined as
> self-reported negative affect, avoidance, and aggression toward
> homosexuals) and homosexual aggression. Self-identified heterosexual
> college men were assigned to homophobic (n = 26) and nonhomophobic (n
> = 26) groups on the basis of their scores on the Homophobia Scale (HS;
> L. W. Wright, H. E. Adams, & J. A. Bernat, 1999). Physical aggression
> was examined by having participants administer shocks to a fictitious
> opponent during a competitive reaction time (RT) task under the
> impression that the study was examining the relationship between
> sexually explicit material and RT. Participants were exposed to a male
> homosexual erotic videotape, their affective reactions were assessed,
> and they then competed in the RT task against either a heterosexual or
> a homosexual opponent. The homophobic group reported significantly
> more negative affect, anxiety, and anger-hostility after watching the
> homosexual erotic videotape than did the nonhomophobic group.
> Additionally, the homophobic group was significantly more aggressive
> toward the homosexual opponent, but the groups did not differ in
> aggression toward the heterosexual opponent.
>
> ------------------------------------------
>
> Sissies and Tomboys: Gender Role Behaviors and Homophobia
> Robert D. Schope PhD, Assistant Professor of Social Work, University
> of Iowa
> Michele J. Eliason PhD, Associate Professor of Nursing, University of
> Iowa
>
> Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services:
> . . . Issues in Practice, Policy, and Research
> The official journal of the Caucus of the LGBT Faculty & Students in
> Social Work
> Volume: 16 Issue: 2
> ISSN: 1053-8720 Pub Date: 12/16/2003
>
> This paper examines whether prejudice by heterosexuals against
> homosexuals is associated with violations of socially determined
> gender role behaviors. Respondents were given questionnaires which
> included either gay-acting or straight-acting vignettes and asked to
> indicate their attitudes and behaviors in specific situations. While
> gender role characteristics were found to be an important aspect of
> negative attitudes and behaviors toward gay men and lesbians, the most
> important predictor of homophobia is the mere fact that an individual
> is known to be homosexual.
>
> ------------------------------------------
>
> Journal of Applied Social Psychology
> Volume 38 Issue 3 Page 647-683, March 2008
> Amelia E. Talley, B. Ann Bettencourt (2008)
> Evaluations and Aggression Directed at a Gay Male Target: The Role of
> Threat and Antigay Prejudice
>
> This research was designed to understand heterosexual men's
> interpersonal reactions toward a gay male individual and to examine
> how threat and pre-existing antigay prejudice impact these encounters.
> In one experiment, we manipulated the ostensible sexual orientation of
> an assigned work partner and assessed participants' perceptions of
> threat indirectly, using a measure of psychological distancing.
> Results revealed that, regardless of antigay prejudice, participants
> psychologically distanced more from the gay male than from the
> heterosexual male. In the second experiment, we manipulated threat and
> the sexual orientation of the work partner to examine aggressive
> responding toward the work partner. Participants exposed to a threat
> to their masculinity behaved more aggressively toward the gay work
> partner, regardless of their level of antigay prejudice.
>
>

And any one of these three "debunk" the finding that homophobic men
evidenced more arousal, as determined by plestyomography, on
being shown gay porn than did straights or lesbians...how, exactly?
Particularly as that cadre was selected precisely on the basis
of admitted antipathy towards gays, nicely in line with the
studies you quote.


-- cary

[Patriot Games]

On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 00:35:44 +0000 (UTC), ***@afone.as.arizona.edu
(Cary Kittrell) wrote:
>Patriot Games <***@America.Com>
>> On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 21:31:56 +0100, "Ruud66" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >If you want to be a homophobe just say so. It also means you're most likely
>> >to be a closet gay. (See journal of Abnormal psychology) or
>> >http://www.oogachaga.com/downloads/homophobia_and_homosexual_arousal.pdf
>> >Re homosexualty , you have to recognize that at least there is a
>> >survival-trait in the human species as some of this is described biblically.
>> That was debunked years ago.....
>> Homophobia and physical aggression toward homosexual and heterosexual
>> individuals.
>> Bernat, Jeffrey A.; Calhoun, Karen S.; Adams, Henry E.; Zeichner, Amos
>> Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 2001 Feb Vol 110(1) 179-187
>> http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=search.displayRecord&uid=2001-17627-019
>> This study examined the relationship between homophobia (defined as
>> self-reported negative affect, avoidance, and aggression toward
>> homosexuals) and homosexual aggression. Self-identified heterosexual
>> college men were assigned to homophobic (n = 26) and nonhomophobic (n
>> = 26) groups on the basis of their scores on the Homophobia Scale (HS;
>> L. W. Wright, H. E. Adams, & J. A. Bernat, 1999). Physical aggression
>> was examined by having participants administer shocks to a fictitious
>> opponent during a competitive reaction time (RT) task under the
>> impression that the study was examining the relationship between
>> sexually explicit material and RT. Participants were exposed to a male
>> homosexual erotic videotape, their affective reactions were assessed,
>> and they then competed in the RT task against either a heterosexual or
>> a homosexual opponent. The homophobic group reported significantly
>> more negative affect, anxiety, and anger-hostility after watching the
>> homosexual erotic videotape than did the nonhomophobic group.
>> Additionally, the homophobic group was significantly more aggressive
>> toward the homosexual opponent, but the groups did not differ in
>> aggression toward the heterosexual opponent.
>> ------------------------------------------
>> Sissies and Tomboys: Gender Role Behaviors and Homophobia
>> Robert D. Schope PhD, Assistant Professor of Social Work, University
>> of Iowa
>> Michele J. Eliason PhD, Associate Professor of Nursing, University of
>> Iowa
>> Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services:
>> . . . Issues in Practice, Policy, and Research
>> The official journal of the Caucus of the LGBT Faculty & Students in
>> Social Work
>> Volume: 16 Issue: 2
>> ISSN: 1053-8720 Pub Date: 12/16/2003
>> This paper examines whether prejudice by heterosexuals against
>> homosexuals is associated with violations of socially determined
>> gender role behaviors. Respondents were given questionnaires which
>> included either gay-acting or straight-acting vignettes and asked to
>> indicate their attitudes and behaviors in specific situations. While
>> gender role characteristics were found to be an important aspect of
>> negative attitudes and behaviors toward gay men and lesbians, the most
>> important predictor of homophobia is the mere fact that an individual
>> is known to be homosexual.
>> ------------------------------------------
>> Journal of Applied Social Psychology
>> Volume 38 Issue 3 Page 647-683, March 2008
>> Amelia E. Talley, B. Ann Bettencourt (2008)
>> Evaluations and Aggression Directed at a Gay Male Target: The Role of
>> Threat and Antigay Prejudice
>> This research was designed to understand heterosexual men's
>> interpersonal reactions toward a gay male individual and to examine
>> how threat and pre-existing antigay prejudice impact these encounters.
>> In one experiment, we manipulated the ostensible sexual orientation of
>> an assigned work partner and assessed participants' perceptions of
>> threat indirectly, using a measure of psychological distancing.
>> Results revealed that, regardless of antigay prejudice, participants
>> psychologically distanced more from the gay male than from the
>> heterosexual male. In the second experiment, we manipulated threat and
>> the sexual orientation of the work partner to examine aggressive
>> responding toward the work partner. Participants exposed to a threat
>> to their masculinity behaved more aggressively toward the gay work
>> partner, regardless of their level of antigay prejudice.
>And any one of these three "debunk" the finding that homophobic men
>evidenced more arousal, as determined by plestyomography, on
>being shown gay porn than did straights or lesbians...how, exactly?

Good luck working it out.

>Particularly as that cadre was selected precisely on the basis
>of admitted antipathy towards gays, nicely in line with the
>studies you quote.

Here's you best bet. Go ask the authors of the original bogus study
why they never repeated it.

[Cary Kittrell]

In article <***@4ax.com> ***@America.Com writes:
> On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 00:35:44 +0000 (UTC), ***@afone.as.arizona.edu
> (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
> >Patriot Games <***@America.Com>
> >> On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 21:31:56 +0100, "Ruud66" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >If you want to be a homophobe just say so. It also means you're most likely
> >> >to be a closet gay. (See journal of Abnormal psychology) or
> >> >http://www.oogachaga.com/downloads/homophobia_and_homosexual_arousal.pdf
> >> >Re homosexualty , you have to recognize that at least there is a
> >> >survival-trait in the human species as some of this is described biblically.
> >> That was debunked years ago.....
> >> Homophobia and physical aggression toward homosexual and heterosexual
> >> individuals.
> >> Bernat, Jeffrey A.; Calhoun, Karen S.; Adams, Henry E.; Zeichner, Amos
> >> Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 2001 Feb Vol 110(1) 179-187
> >> http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=search.displayRecord&uid=2001-17627-019
> >> This study examined the relationship between homophobia (defined as
> >> self-reported negative affect, avoidance, and aggression toward
> >> homosexuals) and homosexual aggression. Self-identified heterosexual
> >> college men were assigned to homophobic (n = 26) and nonhomophobic (n
> >> = 26) groups on the basis of their scores on the Homophobia Scale (HS;
> >> L. W. Wright, H. E. Adams, & J. A. Bernat, 1999). Physical aggression
> >> was examined by having participants administer shocks to a fictitious
> >> opponent during a competitive reaction time (RT) task under the
> >> impression that the study was examining the relationship between
> >> sexually explicit material and RT. Participants were exposed to a male
> >> homosexual erotic videotape, their affective reactions were assessed,
> >> and they then competed in the RT task against either a heterosexual or
> >> a homosexual opponent. The homophobic group reported significantly
> >> more negative affect, anxiety, and anger-hostility after watching the
> >> homosexual erotic videotape than did the nonhomophobic group.
> >> Additionally, the homophobic group was significantly more aggressive
> >> toward the homosexual opponent, but the groups did not differ in
> >> aggression toward the heterosexual opponent.
> >> ------------------------------------------
> >> Sissies and Tomboys: Gender Role Behaviors and Homophobia
> >> Robert D. Schope PhD, Assistant Professor of Social Work, University
> >> of Iowa
> >> Michele J. Eliason PhD, Associate Professor of Nursing, University of
> >> Iowa
> >> Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services:
> >> . . . Issues in Practice, Policy, and Research
> >> The official journal of the Caucus of the LGBT Faculty & Students in
> >> Social Work
> >> Volume: 16 Issue: 2
> >> ISSN: 1053-8720 Pub Date: 12/16/2003
> >> This paper examines whether prejudice by heterosexuals against
> >> homosexuals is associated with violations of socially determined
> >> gender role behaviors. Respondents were given questionnaires which
> >> included either gay-acting or straight-acting vignettes and asked to
> >> indicate their attitudes and behaviors in specific situations. While
> >> gender role characteristics were found to be an important aspect of
> >> negative attitudes and behaviors toward gay men and lesbians, the most
> >> important predictor of homophobia is the mere fact that an individual
> >> is known to be homosexual.
> >> ------------------------------------------
> >> Journal of Applied Social Psychology
> >> Volume 38 Issue 3 Page 647-683, March 2008
> >> Amelia E. Talley, B. Ann Bettencourt (2008)
> >> Evaluations and Aggression Directed at a Gay Male Target: The Role of
> >> Threat and Antigay Prejudice
> >> This research was designed to understand heterosexual men's
> >> interpersonal reactions toward a gay male individual and to examine
> >> how threat and pre-existing antigay prejudice impact these encounters.
> >> In one experiment, we manipulated the ostensible sexual orientation of
> >> an assigned work partner and assessed participants' perceptions of
> >> threat indirectly, using a measure of psychological distancing.
> >> Results revealed that, regardless of antigay prejudice, participants
> >> psychologically distanced more from the gay male than from the
> >> heterosexual male. In the second experiment, we manipulated threat and
> >> the sexual orientation of the work partner to examine aggressive
> >> responding toward the work partner. Participants exposed to a threat
> >> to their masculinity behaved more aggressively toward the gay work
> >> partner, regardless of their level of antigay prejudice.


> >And any one of these three "debunk" the finding that homophobic men
> >evidenced more arousal, as determined by plestyomography, on
> >being shown gay porn than did straights or lesbians...how, exactly?
>
> Good luck working it out.

No, I don't waste time on fool's errands.


-- cary

>
> >Particularly as that cadre was selected precisely on the basis
> >of admitted antipathy towards gays, nicely in line with the
> >studies you quote.
>
> Here's you best bet. Go ask the authors of the original bogus study
> why they never repeated it.
>

[Rudy Canoza]

Ruud66 wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza" <***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote in message
> news:***@earthlink.com...
>> So, the queers and their political sympathizers have been saying for a
>> long time now that being queer is genetic, not environmentally determined.
>> I've already commented on the great irony of this, given that the left
>> generally disputes any claim for a genetic basis for other manifestations
>> of human nature, most particularly intelligence; it is an article of
>> leftist faith that the environment is all-determining - well, it was until
>> they had to try to explain queers.
>
> If you want to be a homophobe just say so.

No, has nothing to do with that at all; entirely inapplicable.


> It also means you're most likely
> to be a closet gay.

Just another doofus playing The Queer Game, I see...


> (See journal of Abnormal psychology) or
> http://www.oogachaga.com/downloads/homophobia_and_homosexual_arousal.pdf

LONG discredited; total buncombe.

[Jerry Kraus]

On Dec 15, 1:20 pm, Rudy Canoza <***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> So, the queers and their political sympathizers have been saying for a
> long time now that being queer is genetic, not environmentally
> determined.  I've already commented on the great irony of this, given
> that the left generally disputes any claim for a genetic basis for other
> manifestations of human nature, most particularly intelligence; it is an
> article of leftist faith that the environment is all-determining - well,
> it was until they had to try to explain queers.
>
> But, let's for a moment take as scientifically established that being
> queer is caused by some genetic factor.  It seems obvious that the vast
> majority of heterosexual parents do not want their children to grow up
> to be queers.  So, if some pre-natal genetic test can be devised that
> would determine if the fetus carries the queer gene, would the queers'
> and their sympathizers' general support for "choice" extend to the
> parents having the right to abort the fetus?  I think consistency
> requires that their support would necessarily have to extend to that -
> not that they exhibit much intellectual consistency on anything else,
> though.
>
> Now, let's go a step further, and imagine that following the pre-natal
> test for the queer gene, scientists also developed a gene therapy that
> would fix this obvious genetic defect.  Would this therapy be viewed as
> ethical by the queers and their sympathizers?  I mean, this kind of
> therapy is routinely practiced with other genetic defects, so I don't
> see why it wouldn't be ethical.  However, I know that deaf people view
> themselves as belonging to a distinctive "culture", and they strenuously
> oppose surgery on children that would "cure" their deafness, invoking
> the usual vocabulary of leftist extremism ("genocide", etc.) in
> condemning the practice, and saying that parents have no right to
> subject their deaf children to it.  It isn't a stretch at all to imagine
> that the queers would say the same thing about gene therapy that would
> fix the gene defect that leads to people being queer.

People like to oversimplify. The notion that people are controlled
entirely by their genes is of considerable appeal to many people, for
this reason. Personally, I haven't the slightest idea to what extent
homosexuality is genetically determined, and to what extent it is
environmentally determined. I also don't really care, because it
doesn't seem to be a very important issue to me. Why do you care?

[Jack]

Jerry Kraus wrote:
> On Dec 15, 1:20 pm, Rudy Canoza
> <***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>> So, the queers and their political sympathizers have
>> been saying for a long time now that being queer is
>> genetic, not environmentally determined. I've already
>> commented on the great irony of this, given that the
>> left generally disputes any claim for a genetic basis
>> for other manifestations of human nature, most
>> particularly intelligence; it is an article of leftist
>> faith that the environment is all-determining - well, it
>> was until they had to try to explain queers.
>>
>> But, let's for a moment take as scientifically
>> established that being queer is caused by some genetic
>> factor. It seems obvious that the vast majority of
>> heterosexual parents do not want their children to grow
>> up to be queers. So, if some pre-natal genetic test can
>> be devised that would determine if the fetus carries the
>> queer gene, would the queers' and their sympathizers'
>> general support for "choice" extend to the parents
>> having the right to abort the fetus? I think consistency
>> requires that their support would necessarily have to
>> extend to that - not that they exhibit much intellectual
>> consistency on anything else, though.
>>
>> Now, let's go a step further, and imagine that following
>> the pre-natal test for the queer gene, scientists also
>> developed a gene therapy that would fix this obvious
>> genetic defect. Would this therapy be viewed as ethical
>> by the queers and their sympathizers? I mean, this kind
>> of therapy is routinely practiced with other genetic
>> defects, so I don't see why it wouldn't be ethical.
>> However, I know that deaf people view themselves as
>> belonging to a distinctive "culture", and they
>> strenuously oppose surgery on children that would "cure"
>> their deafness, invoking the usual vocabulary of leftist
>> extremism ("genocide", etc.) in condemning the practice,
>> and saying that parents have no right to subject their
>> deaf children to it. It isn't a stretch at all to
>> imagine that the queers would say the same thing about
>> gene therapy that would fix the gene defect that leads
>> to people being queer.
>
> People like to oversimplify.

Not all of them.

> The notion that people are
> controlled entirely by their genes is of considerable
> appeal to many people, for this reason. Personally, I
> haven't the slightest idea to what extent homosexuality
> is genetically determined, and to what extent it is
> environmentally determined. I also don't really care,
> because it doesn't seem to be a very important issue to
> me. Why do you care?

[The Chief Instigator]

On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 12:20:07 -0800 (PST), Jerry Kraus <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 15, 1:20 pm, Rudy Canoza <***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>> So, the queers and their political sympathizers have been saying for a
>> long time now that being queer is genetic, not environmentally
>> determined.  I've already commented on the great irony of this, given
>> that the left generally disputes any claim for a genetic basis for other
>> manifestations of human nature, most particularly intelligence; it is an
>> article of leftist faith that the environment is all-determining - well,
>> it was until they had to try to explain queers.
>>
>> But, let's for a moment take as scientifically established that being
>> queer is caused by some genetic factor.  It seems obvious that the vast
>> majority of heterosexual parents do not want their children to grow up
>> to be queers.  So, if some pre-natal genetic test can be devised that
>> would determine if the fetus carries the queer gene, would the queers'
>> and their sympathizers' general support for "choice" extend to the
>> parents having the right to abort the fetus?  I think consistency
>> requires that their support would necessarily have to extend to that -
>> not that they exhibit much intellectual consistency on anything else,
>> though.
>>
>> Now, let's go a step further, and imagine that following the pre-natal
>> test for the queer gene, scientists also developed a gene therapy that
>> would fix this obvious genetic defect.  Would this therapy be viewed as
>> ethical by the queers and their sympathizers?  I mean, this kind of
>> therapy is routinely practiced with other genetic defects, so I don't
>> see why it wouldn't be ethical.  However, I know that deaf people view
>> themselves as belonging to a distinctive "culture", and they strenuously
>> oppose surgery on children that would "cure" their deafness, invoking
>> the usual vocabulary of leftist extremism ("genocide", etc.) in
>> condemning the practice, and saying that parents have no right to
>> subject their deaf children to it.  It isn't a stretch at all to imagine
>> that the queers would say the same thing about gene therapy that would
>> fix the gene defect that leads to people being queer.
>
> People like to oversimplify. The notion that people are controlled
> entirely by their genes is of considerable appeal to many people, for
> this reason. Personally, I haven't the slightest idea to what extent
> homosexuality is genetically determined, and to what extent it is
> environmentally determined. I also don't really care, because it
> doesn't seem to be a very important issue to me. Why do you care?

I don't care about it all that much, either, and as one of the directors of
a non-profit organization (501 (c)(3)), I have two homosexuals as fellow
officers, and that has caused precisely no problems for the other ~90
members of said organization.

--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (***@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.io.com/~patrick/aeros.php (TCI's 2008-09 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: Houston 6, Hershey 1 (December 13)
NEXT GAME: Wednesday, December 17 at Milwaukee, 7:05

[Patriot Games]

On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 11:20:00 -0800, Rudy Canoza
<***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>So, the queers and their political sympathizers have been saying for a
>long time now that being queer is genetic, not environmentally
>determined. I've already commented on the great irony of this, given
>that the left generally disputes any claim for a genetic basis for other
>manifestations of human nature, most particularly intelligence; it is an
>article of leftist faith that the environment is all-determining - well,
>it was until they had to try to explain queers.

And you also have a faction of the Christian community that supports
the environmental cause for Fags...

>But, let's for a moment take as scientifically established that being
>queer is caused by some genetic factor. It seems obvious that the vast
>majority of heterosexual parents do not want their children to grow up
>to be queers. So, if some pre-natal genetic test can be devised that
>would determine if the fetus carries the queer gene, would the queers'
>and their sympathizers' general support for "choice" extend to the
>parents having the right to abort the fetus? I think consistency
>requires that their support would necessarily have to extend to that -
>not that they exhibit much intellectual consistency on anything else,
>though.

We're not even a decade from detecting Homos in the womb.

Of course most parents will opt for an abortion.

And that will mean the virtual extinction of fags in just a few
decades.

>Now, let's go a step further, and imagine that following the pre-natal
>test for the queer gene, scientists also developed a gene therapy that
>would fix this obvious genetic defect. Would this therapy be viewed as
>ethical by the queers and their sympathizers? I mean, this kind of
>therapy is routinely practiced with other genetic defects, so I don't
>see why it wouldn't be ethical. However, I know that deaf people view
>themselves as belonging to a distinctive "culture", and they strenuously
>oppose surgery on children that would "cure" their deafness, invoking
>the usual vocabulary of leftist extremism ("genocide", etc.) in
>condemning the practice, and saying that parents have no right to
>subject their deaf children to it. It isn't a stretch at all to imagine
>that the queers would say the same thing about gene therapy that would
>fix the gene defect that leads to people being queer.

Fags are 4% of the population and that 4% represents 50% of all AIDS
cases in America so we would necessarily have to make it MANDATORY to
correct the Fag genetic mutation or abort them....

[Rudy Canoza]

Patriot Games wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 11:20:00 -0800, Rudy Canoza
> <***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>> So, the queers and their political sympathizers have been saying for a
>> long time now that being queer is genetic, not environmentally
>> determined. I've already commented on the great irony of this, given
>> that the left generally disputes any claim for a genetic basis for other
>> manifestations of human nature, most particularly intelligence; it is an
>> article of leftist faith that the environment is all-determining - well,
>> it was until they had to try to explain queers.
>
> And you also have a faction of the Christian community that supports
> the environmental cause for Fags...
>
>> But, let's for a moment take as scientifically established that being
>> queer is caused by some genetic factor. It seems obvious that the vast
>> majority of heterosexual parents do not want their children to grow up
>> to be queers. So, if some pre-natal genetic test can be devised that
>> would determine if the fetus carries the queer gene, would the queers'
>> and their sympathizers' general support for "choice" extend to the
>> parents having the right to abort the fetus? I think consistency
>> requires that their support would necessarily have to extend to that -
>> not that they exhibit much intellectual consistency on anything else,
>> though.
>
> We're not even a decade from detecting Homos in the womb.
>
> Of course most parents will opt for an abortion.

If the test to detect the queer gene in the fetus appears, the gene
therapy to repair the defect won't be long behind it, so abortion might
not be necessary.


> And that will mean the virtual extinction of fags in just a few
> decades.

Well, queers - fruit rabbits and carpet munchers - can breed themselves
thanks to modern medicine, so if being queer is genetic, I think some
queers will beget queers. But if it is genetic, and if people begin
aborting queer fetuses or having the defective gene repaired before
birth, then the numbers probably would drop dramatically. As I said,
virtually no heterosexual parent is indifferent to producing a child who
will grow up to be queer. Given the opportunity, the overwhelming
majority would choose not to have their children grow up to be queers.
While many would accept that outcome rather than abort, many of those
would opt for the gene therapy when it becomes available. That is, if
being queer is genetic, which has by no means been scientifically
established.


>
>> Now, let's go a step further, and imagine that following the pre-natal
>> test for the queer gene, scientists also developed a gene therapy that
>> would fix this obvious genetic defect. Would this therapy be viewed as
>> ethical by the queers and their sympathizers? I mean, this kind of
>> therapy is routinely practiced with other genetic defects, so I don't
>> see why it wouldn't be ethical. However, I know that deaf people view
>> themselves as belonging to a distinctive "culture", and they strenuously
>> oppose surgery on children that would "cure" their deafness, invoking
>> the usual vocabulary of leftist extremism ("genocide", etc.) in
>> condemning the practice, and saying that parents have no right to
>> subject their deaf children to it. It isn't a stretch at all to imagine
>> that the queers would say the same thing about gene therapy that would
>> fix the gene defect that leads to people being queer.
>
> Fags are 4% of the population and that 4% represents 50% of all AIDS
> cases in America so we would necessarily have to make it MANDATORY to
> correct the Fag genetic mutation or abort them....
>
>

[Patriot Games]

On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 22:35:01 -0800, Rudy Canoza
<***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>Patriot Games wrote:
>> On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 11:20:00 -0800, Rudy Canoza
>> <***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>>> So, the queers and their political sympathizers have been saying for a
>>> long time now that being queer is genetic, not environmentally
>>> determined. I've already commented on the great irony of this, given
>>> that the left generally disputes any claim for a genetic basis for other
>>> manifestations of human nature, most particularly intelligence; it is an
>>> article of leftist faith that the environment is all-determining - well,
>>> it was until they had to try to explain queers.
>> And you also have a faction of the Christian community that supports
>> the environmental cause for Fags...
>>> But, let's for a moment take as scientifically established that being
>>> queer is caused by some genetic factor. It seems obvious that the vast
>>> majority of heterosexual parents do not want their children to grow up
>>> to be queers. So, if some pre-natal genetic test can be devised that
>>> would determine if the fetus carries the queer gene, would the queers'
>>> and their sympathizers' general support for "choice" extend to the
>>> parents having the right to abort the fetus? I think consistency
>>> requires that their support would necessarily have to extend to that -
>>> not that they exhibit much intellectual consistency on anything else,
>>> though.
>> We're not even a decade from detecting Homos in the womb.
>> Of course most parents will opt for an abortion.
>If the test to detect the queer gene in the fetus appears, the gene
>therapy to repair the defect won't be long behind it, so abortion might
>not be necessary.

That's one way it could go.

>> And that will mean the virtual extinction of fags in just a few
>> decades.
>Well, queers - fruit rabbits and carpet munchers - can breed themselves
>thanks to modern medicine, so if being queer is genetic, I think some
>queers will beget queers. But if it is genetic, and if people begin
>aborting queer fetuses or having the defective gene repaired before
>birth, then the numbers probably would drop dramatically.

Very, very dramatically.

Which, interestingly, brings up another problem. HOW would Fags go
about ENSURING that through artificial insemination they were bringing
another Fag into the world?

[Rudy Canoza]

Patriot Games wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 22:35:01 -0800, Rudy Canoza
> <***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>> Patriot Games wrote:
>>> On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 11:20:00 -0800, Rudy Canoza
>>> <***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>>>> So, the queers and their political sympathizers have been saying for a
>>>> long time now that being queer is genetic, not environmentally
>>>> determined. I've already commented on the great irony of this, given
>>>> that the left generally disputes any claim for a genetic basis for other
>>>> manifestations of human nature, most particularly intelligence; it is an
>>>> article of leftist faith that the environment is all-determining - well,
>>>> it was until they had to try to explain queers.
>>> And you also have a faction of the Christian community that supports
>>> the environmental cause for Fags...
>>>> But, let's for a moment take as scientifically established that being
>>>> queer is caused by some genetic factor. It seems obvious that the vast
>>>> majority of heterosexual parents do not want their children to grow up
>>>> to be queers. So, if some pre-natal genetic test can be devised that
>>>> would determine if the fetus carries the queer gene, would the queers'
>>>> and their sympathizers' general support for "choice" extend to the
>>>> parents having the right to abort the fetus? I think consistency
>>>> requires that their support would necessarily have to extend to that -
>>>> not that they exhibit much intellectual consistency on anything else,
>>>> though.
>>> We're not even a decade from detecting Homos in the womb.
>>> Of course most parents will opt for an abortion.
>> If the test to detect the queer gene in the fetus appears, the gene
>> therapy to repair the defect won't be long behind it, so abortion might
>> not be necessary.
>
> That's one way it could go.
>
>>> And that will mean the virtual extinction of fags in just a few
>>> decades.
>> Well, queers - fruit rabbits and carpet munchers - can breed themselves
>> thanks to modern medicine, so if being queer is genetic, I think some
>> queers will beget queers. But if it is genetic, and if people begin
>> aborting queer fetuses or having the defective gene repaired before
>> birth, then the numbers probably would drop dramatically.
>
> Very, very dramatically.
>
> Which, interestingly, brings up another problem. HOW would Fags go
> about ENSURING that through artificial insemination they were bringing
> another Fag into the world?

That would be an issue. Consider two queer guys. They suck each other
off, and manage to get a female to get impregnated with it and give
birth to a child. Well, the female might not have the queer gene, and
if it is a genetic defect, it may not show up in every sperm of the two
queers. There's a good chance a pre-natal genetic test would reveal
that the fetus isn't going to be queer. So, what to do? Could the two
queers force the woman to abort the non-queer fetus? What if she says
she wants to keep the baby for herself? Since pregnancy is always held
to be subject to the pregnant woman's control, I think the two queers
would be out in the cold.

In the case of two carpet munchers, it would be different, at least as
long as one of the two was carrying the fetus. If they chose to abort,
they probably could. But if gene therapy emerges that allows doctors to
repair the gene defect that causes queerness, they probably could
*provoke* the defect as well. Would it be ethical for a doctor to do
that? Who knows?

[Patriot Games]

On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 13:30:34 -0800, Rudy Canoza
<***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>Patriot Games wrote:
>> On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 22:35:01 -0800, Rudy Canoza
>> <***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>>> Patriot Games wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 11:20:00 -0800, Rudy Canoza
>>>> <***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>>>>> So, the queers and their political sympathizers have been saying for a
>>>>> long time now that being queer is genetic, not environmentally
>>>>> determined. I've already commented on the great irony of this, given
>>>>> that the left generally disputes any claim for a genetic basis for other
>>>>> manifestations of human nature, most particularly intelligence; it is an
>>>>> article of leftist faith that the environment is all-determining - well,
>>>>> it was until they had to try to explain queers.
>>>> And you also have a faction of the Christian community that supports
>>>> the environmental cause for Fags...
>>>>> But, let's for a moment take as scientifically established that being
>>>>> queer is caused by some genetic factor. It seems obvious that the vast
>>>>> majority of heterosexual parents do not want their children to grow up
>>>>> to be queers. So, if some pre-natal genetic test can be devised that
>>>>> would determine if the fetus carries the queer gene, would the queers'
>>>>> and their sympathizers' general support for "choice" extend to the
>>>>> parents having the right to abort the fetus? I think consistency
>>>>> requires that their support would necessarily have to extend to that -
>>>>> not that they exhibit much intellectual consistency on anything else,
>>>>> though.
>>>> We're not even a decade from detecting Homos in the womb.
>>>> Of course most parents will opt for an abortion.
>>> If the test to detect the queer gene in the fetus appears, the gene
>>> therapy to repair the defect won't be long behind it, so abortion might
>>> not be necessary.
>> That's one way it could go.
>>>> And that will mean the virtual extinction of fags in just a few
>>>> decades.
>>> Well, queers - fruit rabbits and carpet munchers - can breed themselves
>>> thanks to modern medicine, so if being queer is genetic, I think some
>>> queers will beget queers. But if it is genetic, and if people begin
>>> aborting queer fetuses or having the defective gene repaired before
>>> birth, then the numbers probably would drop dramatically.
>> Very, very dramatically.
>> Which, interestingly, brings up another problem. HOW would Fags go
>> about ENSURING that through artificial insemination they were bringing
>> another Fag into the world?
>That would be an issue. Consider two queer guys. They suck each other
>off, and manage to get a female to get impregnated with it and give
>birth to a child. Well, the female might not have the queer gene, and
>if it is a genetic defect, it may not show up in every sperm of the two
>queers. There's a good chance a pre-natal genetic test would reveal
>that the fetus isn't going to be queer. So, what to do? Could the two
>queers force the woman to abort the non-queer fetus?

If she signed a contract which included a stipulation that she get an
abortion IF a test showed it was not a Fag..............

>What if she says she wants to keep the baby for herself?
>Since pregnancy is always held
>to be subject to the pregnant woman's control, I think the two queers
>would be out in the cold.

Could be a strange court case!

>In the case of two carpet munchers, it would be different, at least as
>long as one of the two was carrying the fetus. If they chose to abort,
>they probably could. But if gene therapy emerges that allows doctors to
>repair the gene defect that causes queerness, they probably could
>*provoke* the defect as well. Would it be ethical for a doctor to do
>that? Who knows?

Uh-oh, they could create an Army of Fags, maybe in Amsterdam or
somewhere!

[Rudy Canoza]

Patriot Games wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 13:30:34 -0800, Rudy Canoza
> <***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>> Patriot Games wrote:
>>> On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 22:35:01 -0800, Rudy Canoza
>>> <***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>>>> Patriot Games wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 11:20:00 -0800, Rudy Canoza
>>>>> <***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>>>>>> So, the queers and their political sympathizers have been saying for a
>>>>>> long time now that being queer is genetic, not environmentally
>>>>>> determined. I've already commented on the great irony of this, given
>>>>>> that the left generally disputes any claim for a genetic basis for other
>>>>>> manifestations of human nature, most particularly intelligence; it is an
>>>>>> article of leftist faith that the environment is all-determining - well,
>>>>>> it was until they had to try to explain queers.
>>>>> And you also have a faction of the Christian community that supports
>>>>> the environmental cause for Fags...
>>>>>> But, let's for a moment take as scientifically established that being
>>>>>> queer is caused by some genetic factor. It seems obvious that the vast
>>>>>> majority of heterosexual parents do not want their children to grow up
>>>>>> to be queers. So, if some pre-natal genetic test can be devised that
>>>>>> would determine if the fetus carries the queer gene, would the queers'
>>>>>> and their sympathizers' general support for "choice" extend to the
>>>>>> parents having the right to abort the fetus? I think consistency
>>>>>> requires that their support would necessarily have to extend to that -
>>>>>> not that they exhibit much intellectual consistency on anything else,
>>>>>> though.
>>>>> We're not even a decade from detecting Homos in the womb.
>>>>> Of course most parents will opt for an abortion.
>>>> If the test to detect the queer gene in the fetus appears, the gene
>>>> therapy to repair the defect won't be long behind it, so abortion might
>>>> not be necessary.
>>> That's one way it could go.
>>>>> And that will mean the virtual extinction of fags in just a few
>>>>> decades.
>>>> Well, queers - fruit rabbits and carpet munchers - can breed themselves
>>>> thanks to modern medicine, so if being queer is genetic, I think some
>>>> queers will beget queers. But if it is genetic, and if people begin
>>>> aborting queer fetuses or having the defective gene repaired before
>>>> birth, then the numbers probably would drop dramatically.
>>> Very, very dramatically.
>>> Which, interestingly, brings up another problem. HOW would Fags go
>>> about ENSURING that through artificial insemination they were bringing
>>> another Fag into the world?
>> That would be an issue. Consider two queer guys. They suck each other
>> off, and manage to get a female to get impregnated with it and give
>> birth to a child. Well, the female might not have the queer gene, and
>> if it is a genetic defect, it may not show up in every sperm of the two
>> queers. There's a good chance a pre-natal genetic test would reveal
>> that the fetus isn't going to be queer. So, what to do? Could the two
>> queers force the woman to abort the non-queer fetus?
>
> If she signed a contract which included a stipulation that she get an
> abortion IF a test showed it was not a Fag..............

No court in the country would uphold that provision.


>> What if she says she wants to keep the baby for herself?
>> Since pregnancy is always held
>> to be subject to the pregnant woman's control, I think the two queers
>> would be out in the cold.
>
> Could be a strange court case!
>
>> In the case of two carpet munchers, it would be different, at least as
>> long as one of the two was carrying the fetus. If they chose to abort,
>> they probably could. But if gene therapy emerges that allows doctors to
>> repair the gene defect that causes queerness, they probably could
>> *provoke* the defect as well. Would it be ethical for a doctor to do
>> that? Who knows?
>
> Uh-oh, they could create an Army of Fags, maybe in Amsterdam or
> somewhere!

I'd expect to see that kind of Franken-science there or in Denmark or
maybe Switzerland sooner than anyplace else.

[Ray Fischer]

Rudy Canoza <***@frankreich.fr> wrote:
>That would be an issue. Consider two queer guys. They suck each other
>off, and manage to get a female to get impregnated with it and give

LOL! You just cannot stop obsessing over gay sex.

--
Ray Fischer
***@sonic.net

[Rudy Canoza]

Ray Fischer wrote:
> Rudy Canoza <***@frankreich.fr> wrote:
>> That would be an issue. Consider two queer guys. They suck each other
>> off, and manage to get a female to get impregnated with it and give
>
> LOL! You just cannot stop obsessing over gay sex.

No obsession.

[Cary Kittrell]

In article <***@4ax.com> ***@America.Com writes:
> On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 11:20:00 -0800, Rudy Canoza
> <***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
> >So, the queers and their political sympathizers have been saying for a
> >long time now that being queer is genetic, not environmentally
> >determined. I've already commented on the great irony of this, given
> >that the left generally disputes any claim for a genetic basis for other
> >manifestations of human nature, most particularly intelligence; it is an
> >article of leftist faith that the environment is all-determining - well,
> >it was until they had to try to explain queers.
>
> And you also have a faction of the Christian community that supports
> the environmental cause for Fags...
>
> >But, let's for a moment take as scientifically established that being
> >queer is caused by some genetic factor. It seems obvious that the vast
> >majority of heterosexual parents do not want their children to grow up
> >to be queers. So, if some pre-natal genetic test can be devised that
> >would determine if the fetus carries the queer gene, would the queers'
> >and their sympathizers' general support for "choice" extend to the
> >parents having the right to abort the fetus? I think consistency
> >requires that their support would necessarily have to extend to that -
> >not that they exhibit much intellectual consistency on anything else,
> >though.
>
> We're not even a decade from detecting Homos in the womb.
>
> Of course most parents will opt for an abortion.
>
> And that will mean the virtual extinction of fags in just a few
> decades.

Pretty much the same way as you never see a young person
with Down's any more, you mean?


-- cary

>
> >Now, let's go a step further, and imagine that following the pre-natal
> >test for the queer gene, scientists also developed a gene therapy that
> >would fix this obvious genetic defect. Would this therapy be viewed as
> >ethical by the queers and their sympathizers? I mean, this kind of
> >therapy is routinely practiced with other genetic defects, so I don't
> >see why it wouldn't be ethical. However, I know that deaf people view
> >themselves as belonging to a distinctive "culture", and they strenuously
> >oppose surgery on children that would "cure" their deafness, invoking
> >the usual vocabulary of leftist extremism ("genocide", etc.) in
> >condemning the practice, and saying that parents have no right to
> >subject their deaf children to it. It isn't a stretch at all to imagine
> >that the queers would say the same thing about gene therapy that would
> >fix the gene defect that leads to people being queer.
>
> Fags are 4% of the population and that 4% represents 50% of all AIDS
> cases in America so we would necessarily have to make it MANDATORY to
> correct the Fag genetic mutation or abort them....
>
>

[Patriot Games]

On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 00:26:45 +0000 (UTC), ***@afone.as.arizona.edu
(Cary Kittrell) wrote:

>> We're not even a decade from detecting Homos in the womb.
>> Of course most parents will opt for an abortion.
>> And that will mean the virtual extinction of fags in just a few
>> decades.
>Pretty much the same way as you never see a young person
>with Down's any more, you mean?

Its not my fault your genetic mutation makes you stupid and crave
cocks.

About 0.002% of the US population (5,429) represent new cases per
year.

A 2002 literature review of elective abortion rates found that 91–93%
of pregnancies in the United States with a diagnosis of Down syndrome
were terminated.
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/65500197/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

Data from the National Down Syndrome Cytogenetic Register in the
United Kingdom indicates that 1989 to 2006 the proportion of women
choosing to terminate a pregnancy following prenatal diagnosis of
Down's Syndrome has remained constant at around 92%.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7746747.stm

Questions?

[Cary Kittrell]

In article <***@4ax.com> ***@America.Com writes:
> On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 00:26:45 +0000 (UTC), ***@afone.as.arizona.edu
> (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
>
> >> We're not even a decade from detecting Homos in the womb.
> >> Of course most parents will opt for an abortion.
> >> And that will mean the virtual extinction of fags in just a few
> >> decades.
> >Pretty much the same way as you never see a young person
> >with Down's any more, you mean?
>
> Its not my fault your genetic mutation makes you stupid and crave
> cocks.

And its[sic] not my fault that you leap to unwarranted and
erroneous conclusions.

>
> About 0.002% of the US population (5,429) represent new cases per
> year.
>
> A 2002 literature review of elective abortion rates found that 91–93%
> of pregnancies in the United States with a diagnosis of Down syndrome
> were terminated.

I was fully aware of that, via Wikipedia.

As I am equally aware that the remaining 9 percent give the lie to
your claim of the "virtual extinction of fags[sic] in just a few
decades".


-- cary


> http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/65500197/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
>
> Data from the National Down Syndrome Cytogenetic Register in the
> United Kingdom indicates that 1989 to 2006 the proportion of women
> choosing to terminate a pregnancy following prenatal diagnosis of
> Down's Syndrome has remained constant at around 92%.
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7746747.stm
>
> Questions?

[Patriot Games]

On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 19:29:45 +0000 (UTC), ***@afone.as.arizona.edu
(Cary Kittrell) wrote:
>In article <***@4ax.com> ***@America.Com writes:
>> On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 00:26:45 +0000 (UTC), ***@afone.as.arizona.edu
>> (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
>> >> We're not even a decade from detecting Homos in the womb.
>> >> Of course most parents will opt for an abortion.
>> >> And that will mean the virtual extinction of fags in just a few
>> >> decades.
>> >Pretty much the same way as you never see a young person
>> >with Down's any more, you mean?
>> Its not my fault your genetic mutation makes you stupid and crave
>> cocks.
>And its[sic] not my fault that you leap to unwarranted and
>erroneous conclusions.

Admit you're a Fag, everybody else already knows it anyway...

>> About 0.002% of the US population (5,429) represent new cases per
>> year.
>> A 2002 literature review of elective abortion rates found that 91–93%
>> of pregnancies in the United States with a diagnosis of Down syndrome
>> were terminated.
>I was fully aware of that, via Wikipedia.

Sure you were.

>As I am equally aware that the remaining 9 percent give the lie to
>your claim of the "virtual extinction of fags[sic] in just a few
>decades".

No, it CLEARLY indicates that given a choice parents WILL ABORT
potential Fags AND it CLEARLY indicates that when potential Fags are
aborted ROUTINELY their numbers DROP DRAMATICALLY.

[Cary Kittrell]

Patriot Games <***@America.Com>
>
> On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 19:29:45 +0000 (UTC), ***@afone.as.arizona.edu
> (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
> >In article <***@4ax.com> ***@America.Com writes:
> >> On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 00:26:45 +0000 (UTC), ***@afone.as.arizona.edu
> >> (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
> >> >> We're not even a decade from detecting Homos in the womb.
> >> >> Of course most parents will opt for an abortion.
> >> >> And that will mean the virtual extinction of fags in just a few
> >> >> decades.
> >> >Pretty much the same way as you never see a young person
> >> >with Down's any more, you mean?
> >> Its not my fault your genetic mutation makes you stupid and crave
> >> cocks.
> >And its[sic] not my fault that you leap to unwarranted and
> >erroneous conclusions.
>
> Admit you're a Fag, everybody else already knows it anyway...
>
> >> About 0.002% of the US population (5,429) represent new cases per
> >> year.
> >> A 2002 literature review of elective abortion rates found that 91–93%
> >> of pregnancies in the United States with a diagnosis of Down syndrome
> >> were terminated.
> >I was fully aware of that, via Wikipedia.
>
> Sure you were.

Quite true, in fact. Unlike you, I do not fee free to invent
realities at my convenience.

>
> >As I am equally aware that the remaining 9 percent give the lie to
> >your claim of the "virtual extinction of fags[sic] in just a few
> >decades".
>
> No, it CLEARLY indicates that given a choice parents WILL ABORT
> potential Fags AND it CLEARLY indicates that when potential Fags are
> aborted ROUTINELY their numbers DROP DRAMATICALLY.
>

Oh. I didn't realize you had capital letters on your side.
This changes everything.

I also didn't realize that "drop dra"...excuse me, "DROP DRAMATICALLY"
and "virtual extinction" were interchangable.

Nor, for that matter, that the phrase "virtual extinction" makes
any sense to begin with.



-- cary

[Patriot Games]

On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 17:45:18 +0000 (UTC), ***@afone.as.arizona.edu
(Cary Kittrell) wrote:
>Patriot Games <***@America.Com>
>> On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 19:29:45 +0000 (UTC), ***@afone.as.arizona.edu
>> (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
>> >In article <***@4ax.com> ***@America.Com writes:
>> >> On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 00:26:45 +0000 (UTC), ***@afone.as.arizona.edu
>> >> (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
>> >> >> We're not even a decade from detecting Homos in the womb.
>> >> >> Of course most parents will opt for an abortion.
>> >> >> And that will mean the virtual extinction of fags in just a few
>> >> >> decades.
>> >> >Pretty much the same way as you never see a young person
>> >> >with Down's any more, you mean?
>> >> Its not my fault your genetic mutation makes you stupid and crave
>> >> cocks.
>> >And its[sic] not my fault that you leap to unwarranted and
>> >erroneous conclusions.
>> Admit you're a Fag, everybody else already knows it anyway...
>> >> About 0.002% of the US population (5,429) represent new cases per
>> >> year.
>> >> A 2002 literature review of elective abortion rates found that 91–93%
>> >> of pregnancies in the United States with a diagnosis of Down syndrome
>> >> were terminated.
>> >I was fully aware of that, via Wikipedia.
>> Sure you were.
>Quite true, in fact. Unlike you, I do not fee free to invent
>realities at my convenience.
>> >As I am equally aware that the remaining 9 percent give the lie to
>> >your claim of the "virtual extinction of fags[sic] in just a few
>> >decades".
>> No, it CLEARLY indicates that given a choice parents WILL ABORT
>> potential Fags AND it CLEARLY indicates that when potential Fags are
>> aborted ROUTINELY their numbers DROP DRAMATICALLY.
>Oh. I didn't realize you had capital letters on your side.
>This changes everything.
>I also didn't realize that "drop dra"...excuse me, "DROP DRAMATICALLY"
>and "virtual extinction" were interchangable.
>Nor, for that matter, that the phrase "virtual extinction" makes
>any sense to begin with.

virtual - Definition [vûr´choo-?l]
(adj.) Existing or resulting in essence or effect though not in actual
fact.

Try to take your embarrassing and humiliating public spanking like an
adult.

Given that the current percent of the population with Down's Syndrome
to be about 0.002% which is based on aggressive (90%+) aborting of
such fetuses, we should CLEARLY EXPECT that the US percent of the
population that are Fags (4% to 6%) to decrease similarly with
aggressive (90%+) aborting of such fetuses.

In case the math escapes you the DRAMATIC DROP (representing Virtual
Extinction) from 4% to 6% to 0.002% is -99.95% to -99.96% respectively
AND NOBODY WITH BRAIN thinks a change of -99.95% to -99.96% is
ANYTHING other than DRAMATIC.

Try to take your embarrassing and humiliating public spanking like an
adult.

[Cary Kittrell]

In article <***@4ax.com> ***@America.Com writes:
> a.edu>
> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 4.2/32.1118
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
> Lines: 61
> NNTP-Posting-Host: c39cb7f3.newsrazor.net
> X-Trace: DXC=0_NX>fX>k4VI2?Bho^akPXgS>aDTWDD0S9WX^2GNQ<***@VS6OR]?je741\^Zd4:Wco]<UH[`fLf\^jAS:9KY>m8SJER
> X-Complaints-To: ***@newsrazor.net
> Xref: news.arizona.edu alt.abortion:584728 alt.atheism:2084276 alt.california:421276 alt.politics.homosexuality:432744 ba.politics:15801
>
> On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 17:45:18 +0000 (UTC), ***@afone.as.arizona.edu
> (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
> >Patriot Games <***@America.Com>
> >> On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 19:29:45 +0000 (UTC), ***@afone.as.arizona.edu
> >> (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
> >> >In article <***@4ax.com> ***@America.Com writes:
> >> >> On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 00:26:45 +0000 (UTC), ***@afone.as.arizona.edu
> >> >> (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
> >> >> >> We're not even a decade from detecting Homos in the womb.
> >> >> >> Of course most parents will opt for an abortion.
> >> >> >> And that will mean the virtual extinction of fags in just a few
> >> >> >> decades.
> >> >> >Pretty much the same way as you never see a young person
> >> >> >with Down's any more, you mean?
> >> >> Its not my fault your genetic mutation makes you stupid and crave
> >> >> cocks.
> >> >And its[sic] not my fault that you leap to unwarranted and
> >> >erroneous conclusions.
> >> Admit you're a Fag, everybody else already knows it anyway...
> >> >> About 0.002% of the US population (5,429) represent new cases per
> >> >> year.
> >> >> A 2002 literature review of elective abortion rates found that 91–93%
> >> >> of pregnancies in the United States with a diagnosis of Down syndrome
> >> >> were terminated.
> >> >I was fully aware of that, via Wikipedia.
> >> Sure you were.
> >Quite true, in fact. Unlike you, I do not fee free to invent
> >realities at my convenience.
> >> >As I am equally aware that the remaining 9 percent give the lie to
> >> >your claim of the "virtual extinction of fags[sic] in just a few
> >> >decades".
> >> No, it CLEARLY indicates that given a choice parents WILL ABORT
> >> potential Fags AND it CLEARLY indicates that when potential Fags are
> >> aborted ROUTINELY their numbers DROP DRAMATICALLY.
> >Oh. I didn't realize you had capital letters on your side.
> >This changes everything.
> >I also didn't realize that "drop dra"...excuse me, "DROP DRAMATICALLY"
> >and "virtual extinction" were interchangable.
> >Nor, for that matter, that the phrase "virtual extinction" makes
> >any sense to begin with.
>
> virtual - Definition [vûrŽchoo-?l]
> (adj.) Existing or resulting in essence or effect though not in actual
> fact.
>
> Try to take your embarrassing and humiliating public spanking like an
> adult.
>
> Given that the current percent of the population with Down's Syndrome
> to be about 0.002% which is based on aggressive (90%+) aborting of
> such fetuses, we should CLEARLY EXPECT that the US percent of the
> population that are Fags (4% to 6%) to decrease similarly with
> aggressive (90%+) aborting of such fetuses.
>
> In case the math escapes you the DRAMATIC DROP (representing Virtual
> Extinction) from 4% to 6% to 0.002% is -99.95% to -99.96% respectively
> AND NOBODY WITH BRAIN thinks a change of -99.95% to -99.96% is
> ANYTHING other than DRAMATIC.
>
> Try to take your embarrassing and humiliating public spanking like an
> adult.

I'm sorry, could you shriek a bit louder?


-- cary

[Patriot Games]

On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 20:59:49 +0000 (UTC), ***@afone.as.arizona.edu
(Cary Kittrell) wrote:
>In article <***@4ax.com> ***@America.Com writes:
>> a.edu>
>> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 4.2/32.1118
>> MIME-Version: 1.0
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>> Lines: 61
>> NNTP-Posting-Host: c39cb7f3.newsrazor.net
>> X-Trace: DXC=0_NX>fX>k4VI2?Bho^akPXgS>aDTWDD0S9WX^2GNQ<***@VS6OR]?je741\^Zd4:Wco]<UH[`fLf\^jAS:9KY>m8SJER
>> X-Complaints-To: ***@newsrazor.net
>> Xref: news.arizona.edu alt.abortion:584728 alt.atheism:2084276 alt.california:421276 alt.politics.homosexuality:432744 ba.politics:15801
>> On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 17:45:18 +0000 (UTC), ***@afone.as.arizona.edu
>> (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
>> >Patriot Games <***@America.Com>
>> >> On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 19:29:45 +0000 (UTC), ***@afone.as.arizona.edu
>> >> (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
>> >> >In article <***@4ax.com> ***@America.Com writes:
>> >> >> On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 00:26:45 +0000 (UTC), ***@afone.as.arizona.edu
>> >> >> (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
>> >> >> >> We're not even a decade from detecting Homos in the womb.
>> >> >> >> Of course most parents will opt for an abortion.
>> >> >> >> And that will mean the virtual extinction of fags in just a few
>> >> >> >> decades.
>> >> >> >Pretty much the same way as you never see a young person
>> >> >> >with Down's any more, you mean?
>> >> >> Its not my fault your genetic mutation makes you stupid and crave
>> >> >> cocks.
>> >> >And its[sic] not my fault that you leap to unwarranted and
>> >> >erroneous conclusions.
>> >> Admit you're a Fag, everybody else already knows it anyway...
>> >> >> About 0.002% of the US population (5,429) represent new cases per
>> >> >> year.
>> >> >> A 2002 literature review of elective abortion rates found that 91–93%
>> >> >> of pregnancies in the United States with a diagnosis of Down syndrome
>> >> >> were terminated.
>> >> >I was fully aware of that, via Wikipedia.
>> >> Sure you were.
>> >Quite true, in fact. Unlike you, I do not fee free to invent
>> >realities at my convenience.
>> >> >As I am equally aware that the remaining 9 percent give the lie to
>> >> >your claim of the "virtual extinction of fags[sic] in just a few
>> >> >decades".
>> >> No, it CLEARLY indicates that given a choice parents WILL ABORT
>> >> potential Fags AND it CLEARLY indicates that when potential Fags are
>> >> aborted ROUTINELY their numbers DROP DRAMATICALLY.
>> >Oh. I didn't realize you had capital letters on your side.
>> >This changes everything.
>> >I also didn't realize that "drop dra"...excuse me, "DROP DRAMATICALLY"
>> >and "virtual extinction" were interchangable.
>> >Nor, for that matter, that the phrase "virtual extinction" makes
>> >any sense to begin with.
>> virtual - Definition [vûr´choo-?l]
>> (adj.) Existing or resulting in essence or effect though not in actual
>> fact.
>> Try to take your embarrassing and humiliating public spanking like an
>> adult.
>> Given that the current percent of the population with Down's Syndrome
>> to be about 0.002% which is based on aggressive (90%+) aborting of
>> such fetuses, we should CLEARLY EXPECT that the US percent of the
>> population that are Fags (4% to 6%) to decrease similarly with
>> aggressive (90%+) aborting of such fetuses.
>> In case the math escapes you the DRAMATIC DROP (representing Virtual
>> Extinction) from 4% to 6% to 0.002% is -99.95% to -99.96% respectively
>> AND NOBODY WITH BRAIN thinks a change of -99.95% to -99.96% is
>> ANYTHING other than DRAMATIC.
>> Try to take your embarrassing and humiliating public spanking like an
>> adult.
>I'm sorry, could you shriek a bit louder?

Since you can usually be found with your face buried in another man's
crotch I thought I'd provide some emphasis to compensate for the loud
slurping sounds.....

Everybody here hopes you learned something.

Nobody here thinks you did...

[David Johnston]

On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 11:20:00 -0800, Rudy Canoza
<***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:

>So, the queers and their political sympathizers have been saying for a
>long time now that being queer is genetic, not environmentally
>determined. I've already commented on the great irony of this, given
>that the left generally disputes any claim for a genetic basis for other
>manifestations of human nature, most particularly intelligence;

Lie.

[Rudy Canoza]

David Johnston wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 11:20:00 -0800, Rudy Canoza
> <***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>
>> So, the queers and their political sympathizers have been saying for a
>> long time now that being queer is genetic, not environmentally
>> determined. I've already commented on the great irony of this, given
>> that the left generally disputes any claim for a genetic basis for other
>> manifestations of human nature, most particularly intelligence;
>
> Lie.

No, not a lie.

[David Johnston]

On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 11:42:02 -0800, Rudy Canoza
<***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:

>David Johnston wrote:
>> On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 11:20:00 -0800, Rudy Canoza
>> <***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>>
>>> So, the queers and their political sympathizers have been saying for a
>>> long time now that being queer is genetic, not environmentally
>>> determined. I've already commented on the great irony of this, given
>>> that the left generally disputes any claim for a genetic basis for other
>>> manifestations of human nature, most particularly intelligence;
>>
>> Lie.
>
>No, not a lie.

Of course it is. That there is a genetic component intelligence is
not something disputed by many leftists at all.

[Rudy Canoza]

David Johnston wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 11:42:02 -0800, Rudy Canoza
> <***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>
>> David Johnston wrote:
>>> On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 11:20:00 -0800, Rudy Canoza
>>> <***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>>>
>>>> So, the queers and their political sympathizers have been saying for a
>>>> long time now that being queer is genetic, not environmentally
>>>> determined. I've already commented on the great irony of this, given
>>>> that the left generally disputes any claim for a genetic basis for other
>>>> manifestations of human nature, most particularly intelligence;
>>> Lie.
>> No, not a lie.
>
> Of course it is.

No, it is not a lie.

[David Johnston]

On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 12:24:54 -0800, Rudy Canoza
<***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:

>David Johnston wrote:
>> On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 11:42:02 -0800, Rudy Canoza
>> <***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>>
>>> David Johnston wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 11:20:00 -0800, Rudy Canoza
>>>> <***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> So, the queers and their political sympathizers have been saying for a
>>>>> long time now that being queer is genetic, not environmentally
>>>>> determined. I've already commented on the great irony of this, given
>>>>> that the left generally disputes any claim for a genetic basis for other
>>>>> manifestations of human nature, most particularly intelligence;
>>>> Lie.
>>> No, not a lie.
>>
>> Of course it is.
>
>No, it is not a lie.

There you go, lying again.

[Rudy Canoza]

David Johnston wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 12:24:54 -0800, Rudy Canoza
> <***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>
>> David Johnston wrote:
>>> On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 11:42:02 -0800, Rudy Canoza
>>> <***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>>>
>>>> David Johnston wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 11:20:00 -0800, Rudy Canoza
>>>>> <***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> So, the queers and their political sympathizers have been saying for a
>>>>>> long time now that being queer is genetic, not environmentally
>>>>>> determined. I've already commented on the great irony of this, given
>>>>>> that the left generally disputes any claim for a genetic basis for other
>>>>>> manifestations of human nature, most particularly intelligence;
>>>>> Lie.
>>>> No, not a lie.
>>> Of course it is.
>> No, it is not a lie.
>
> There you go, lying again.

No lying. "Liberals", who are of course illiberal, believe that
intelligence is more determined by environment than by heredity.

[David Johnston]

On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 08:34:19 -0800, Rudy Canoza
<***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:

>David Johnston wrote:
>> On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 12:24:54 -0800, Rudy Canoza
>> <***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>>
>>> David Johnston wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 11:42:02 -0800, Rudy Canoza
>>>> <***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> David Johnston wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 11:20:00 -0800, Rudy Canoza
>>>>>> <***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, the queers and their political sympathizers have been saying for a
>>>>>>> long time now that being queer is genetic, not environmentally
>>>>>>> determined. I've already commented on the great irony of this, given
>>>>>>> that the left generally disputes any claim for a genetic basis for other
>>>>>>> manifestations of human nature, most particularly intelligence;
>>>>>> Lie.
>>>>> No, not a lie.
>>>> Of course it is.
>>> No, it is not a lie.
>>
>> There you go, lying again.
>
>No lying. "Liberals", who are of course illiberal, believe that
>intelligence is more determined by environment than by heredity.

That is not the same thing as saying that intelligence has no genetic
basis. Raise a child without human contact and it doesn't matter what
their genes are, they'll be little more than animal in their cognitive
faculties. It's been done. On the other hand if you somehow give a
group of unrelated children identical homelives and education, some
will have the genetic basis to excel under those conditions while
others will fail. A few will excel even when their homelives and
education are obviously inferior those of other, less gifted children.
But even they will still be mentally handicapped by our standard if
they are, for example raised from childhood by animals.

[Rudy Canoza]

David Johnston wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 08:34:19 -0800, Rudy Canoza
> <***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>
>> David Johnston wrote:
>>> On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 12:24:54 -0800, Rudy Canoza
>>> <***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>>>
>>>> David Johnston wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 11:42:02 -0800, Rudy Canoza
>>>>> <***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> David Johnston wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 11:20:00 -0800, Rudy Canoza
>>>>>>> <***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, the queers and their political sympathizers have been saying for a
>>>>>>>> long time now that being queer is genetic, not environmentally
>>>>>>>> determined. I've already commented on the great irony of this, given
>>>>>>>> that the left generally disputes any claim for a genetic basis for other
>>>>>>>> manifestations of human nature, most particularly intelligence;
>>>>>>> Lie.
>>>>>> No, not a lie.
>>>>> Of course it is.
>>>> No, it is not a lie.
>>> There you go, lying again.
>> No lying. "Liberals", who are of course illiberal, believe that
>> intelligence is more determined by environment than by heredity.
>
> That is not the same thing as saying that intelligence has no genetic
> basis. Raise a child without human contact and it doesn't matter what
> their genes are, they'll be little more than animal in their cognitive
> faculties. It's been done.

"Liberals" /would/ do that.

[Ray Fischer]

Rudy Canoza <***@frankreich.fr> wrote:
>David Johnston wrote:
>> On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 08:34:19 -0800, Rudy Canoza
>> <***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>>
>>> David Johnston wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 12:24:54 -0800, Rudy Canoza
>>>> <***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> David Johnston wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 11:42:02 -0800, Rudy Canoza
>>>>>> <***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> David Johnston wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 11:20:00 -0800, Rudy Canoza
>>>>>>>> <***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So, the queers and their political sympathizers have been saying for a
>>>>>>>>> long time now that being queer is genetic, not environmentally
>>>>>>>>> determined. I've already commented on the great irony of this, given
>>>>>>>>> that the left generally disputes any claim for a genetic basis for other
>>>>>>>>> manifestations of human nature, most particularly intelligence;
>>>>>>>> Lie.
>>>>>>> No, not a lie.
>>>>>> Of course it is.
>>>>> No, it is not a lie.
>>>> There you go, lying again.
>>> No lying. "Liberals", who are of course illiberal, believe that
>>> intelligence is more determined by environment than by heredity.
>>
>> That is not the same thing as saying that intelligence has no genetic
>> basis. Raise a child without human contact and it doesn't matter what
>> their genes are, they'll be little more than animal in their cognitive
>> faculties. It's been done.
>
>"Liberals" /would/ do that.

Liberals like Jesus.

--
Ray Fischer
***@sonic.net

[Rudy Canoza]

Ray Fischer wrote:
> Rudy Canoza <***@frankreich.fr> wrote:
>> David Johnston wrote:
>>> On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 08:34:19 -0800, Rudy Canoza
>>> <***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>>>
>>>> David Johnston wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 12:24:54 -0800, Rudy Canoza
>>>>> <***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> David Johnston wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 11:42:02 -0800, Rudy Canoza
>>>>>>> <***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> David Johnston wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 11:20:00 -0800, Rudy Canoza
>>>>>>>>> <***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So, the queers and their political sympathizers have been saying for a
>>>>>>>>>> long time now that being queer is genetic, not environmentally
>>>>>>>>>> determined. I've already commented on the great irony of this, given
>>>>>>>>>> that the left generally disputes any claim for a genetic basis for other
>>>>>>>>>> manifestations of human nature, most particularly intelligence;
>>>>>>>>> Lie.
>>>>>>>> No, not a lie.
>>>>>>> Of course it is.
>>>>>> No, it is not a lie.
>>>>> There you go, lying again.
>>>> No lying. "Liberals", who are of course illiberal, believe that
>>>> intelligence is more determined by environment than by heredity.
>>> That is not the same thing as saying that intelligence has no genetic
>>> basis. Raise a child without human contact and it doesn't matter what
>>> their genes are, they'll be little more than animal in their cognitive
>>> faculties. It's been done.
>> "Liberals" /would/ do that.
>
> Liberals like Jesus.

No, "liberals" do not like Jesus.

[Ray Fischer]

Rudy Canoza <***@frankreich.fr> wrote:
>Ray Fischer wrote:
>> Rudy Canoza <***@frankreich.fr> wrote:
>>> David Johnston wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 08:34:19 -0800, Rudy Canoza
>>>> <***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> David Johnston wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 12:24:54 -0800, Rudy Canoza
>>>>>> <***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> David Johnston wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 11:42:02 -0800, Rudy Canoza
>>>>>>>> <***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> David Johnston wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 11:20:00 -0800, Rudy Canoza
>>>>>>>>>> <***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So, the queers and their political sympathizers have been saying for a
>>>>>>>>>>> long time now that being queer is genetic, not environmentally
>>>>>>>>>>> determined. I've already commented on the great irony of this, given
>>>>>>>>>>> that the left generally disputes any claim for a genetic basis for other
>>>>>>>>>>> manifestations of human nature, most particularly intelligence;
>>>>>>>>>> Lie.
>>>>>>>>> No, not a lie.
>>>>>>>> Of course it is.
>>>>>>> No, it is not a lie.
>>>>>> There you go, lying again.
>>>>> No lying. "Liberals", who are of course illiberal, believe that
>>>>> intelligence is more determined by environment than by heredity.
>>>> That is not the same thing as saying that intelligence has no genetic
>>>> basis. Raise a child without human contact and it doesn't matter what
>>>> their genes are, they'll be little more than animal in their cognitive
>>>> faculties. It's been done.
>>> "Liberals" /would/ do that.
>>
>> Liberals like Jesus.
>
>No, "liberals" do not like Jesus.

Jesus was a liberal, bigot.

--
Ray Fischer
***@sonic.net

[Rudy Canoza]

Ray Fischer wrote:
> Rudy Canoza <***@frankreich.fr> wrote:
>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>>> Rudy Canoza <***@frankreich.fr> wrote:
>>>> David Johnston wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 08:34:19 -0800, Rudy Canoza
>>>>> <***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> David Johnston wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 12:24:54 -0800, Rudy Canoza
>>>>>>> <***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> David Johnston wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 11:42:02 -0800, Rudy Canoza
>>>>>>>>> <***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> David Johnston wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 11:20:00 -0800, Rudy Canoza
>>>>>>>>>>> <***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So, the queers and their political sympathizers have been saying for a
>>>>>>>>>>>> long time now that being queer is genetic, not environmentally
>>>>>>>>>>>> determined. I've already commented on the great irony of this, given
>>>>>>>>>>>> that the left generally disputes any claim for a genetic basis for other
>>>>>>>>>>>> manifestations of human nature, most particularly intelligence;
>>>>>>>>>>> Lie.
>>>>>>>>>> No, not a lie.
>>>>>>>>> Of course it is.
>>>>>>>> No, it is not a lie.
>>>>>>> There you go, lying again.
>>>>>> No lying. "Liberals", who are of course illiberal, believe that
>>>>>> intelligence is more determined by environment than by heredity.
>>>>> That is not the same thing as saying that intelligence has no genetic
>>>>> basis. Raise a child without human contact and it doesn't matter what
>>>>> their genes are, they'll be little more than animal in their cognitive
>>>>> faculties. It's been done.
>>>> "Liberals" /would/ do that.
>>> Liberals like Jesus.
>> No, "liberals" do not like Jesus.
>
> Jesus was a liberal

No, he was not.

[Bob Officer]

On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 13:23:23 -0800, in alt.abortion, Rudy Canoza
<***@thedismalscience.not> wrote:

>Ray Fischer wrote:
>> Rudy Canoza <***@frankreich.fr> wrote:
>>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>> Rudy Canoza <***@frankreich.fr> wrote:
>>>>> David Johnston wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 08:34:19 -0800, Rudy Canoza
>>>>>> <***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> David Johnston wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 12:24:54 -0800, Rudy Canoza
>>>>>>>> <***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> David Johnston wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 11:42:02 -0800, Rudy Canoza
>>>>>>>>>> <***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> David Johnston wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 11:20:00 -0800, Rudy Canoza
>>>>>>>>>>>> <***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, the queers and their political sympathizers have been saying for a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> long time now that being queer is genetic, not environmentally
>>>>>>>>>>>>> determined. I've already commented on the great irony of this, given
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the left generally disputes any claim for a genetic basis for other
>>>>>>>>>>>>> manifestations of human nature, most particularly intelligence;
>>>>>>>>>>>> Lie.
>>>>>>>>>>> No, not a lie.
>>>>>>>>>> Of course it is.
>>>>>>>>> No, it is not a lie.
>>>>>>>> There you go, lying again.
>>>>>>> No lying. "Liberals", who are of course illiberal, believe that
>>>>>>> intelligence is more determined by environment than by heredity.
>>>>>> That is not the same thing as saying that intelligence has no genetic
>>>>>> basis. Raise a child without human contact and it doesn't matter what
>>>>>> their genes are, they'll be little more than animal in their cognitive
>>>>>> faculties. It's been done.
>>>>> "Liberals" /would/ do that.
>>>> Liberals like Jesus.
>>> No, "liberals" do not like Jesus.
>>
>> Jesus was a liberal
>
>No, he was not.

He was a radical liberal.


--
Ak'toh'di

[Rudy Canoza]

Bob Officer wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 13:23:23 -0800, in alt.abortion, Rudy Canoza
> <***@thedismalscience.not> wrote:
>
>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>>> Rudy Canoza <***@frankreich.fr> wrote:
>>>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>>> Rudy Canoza <***@frankreich.fr> wrote:
>>>>>> David Johnston wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 08:34:19 -0800, Rudy Canoza
>>>>>>> <***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> David Johnston wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 12:24:54 -0800, Rudy Canoza
>>>>>>>>> <***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> David Johnston wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 11:42:02 -0800, Rudy Canoza
>>>>>>>>>>> <***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> David Johnston wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 11:20:00 -0800, Rudy Canoza
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, the queers and their political sympathizers have been saying for a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> long time now that being queer is genetic, not environmentally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determined. I've already commented on the great irony of this, given
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the left generally disputes any claim for a genetic basis for other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> manifestations of human nature, most particularly intelligence;
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lie.
>>>>>>>>>>>> No, not a lie.
>>>>>>>>>>> Of course it is.
>>>>>>>>>> No, it is not a lie.
>>>>>>>>> There you go, lying again.
>>>>>>>> No lying. "Liberals", who are of course illiberal, believe that
>>>>>>>> intelligence is more determined by environment than by heredity.
>>>>>>> That is not the same thing as saying that intelligence has no genetic
>>>>>>> basis. Raise a child without human contact and it doesn't matter what
>>>>>>> their genes are, they'll be little more than animal in their cognitive
>>>>>>> faculties. It's been done.
>>>>>> "Liberals" /would/ do that.
>>>>> Liberals like Jesus.
>>>> No, "liberals" do not like Jesus.
>>> Jesus was a liberal
>> No, he was not.
>
> He was a radical liberal.

He was an irrational totalitarian.

[David Johnston]

On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 12:18:49 -0800, Rudy Canoza
<***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:

>David Johnston wrote:
>> On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 08:34:19 -0800, Rudy Canoza
>> <***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>>
>>> David Johnston wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 12:24:54 -0800, Rudy Canoza
>>>> <***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> David Johnston wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 11:42:02 -0800, Rudy Canoza
>>>>>> <***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> David Johnston wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 11:20:00 -0800, Rudy Canoza
>>>>>>>> <***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So, the queers and their political sympathizers have been saying for a
>>>>>>>>> long time now that being queer is genetic, not environmentally
>>>>>>>>> determined. I've already commented on the great irony of this, given
>>>>>>>>> that the left generally disputes any claim for a genetic basis for other
>>>>>>>>> manifestations of human nature, most particularly intelligence;
>>>>>>>> Lie.
>>>>>>> No, not a lie.
>>>>>> Of course it is.
>>>>> No, it is not a lie.
>>>> There you go, lying again.
>>> No lying. "Liberals", who are of course illiberal, believe that
>>> intelligence is more determined by environment than by heredity.
>>
>> That is not the same thing as saying that intelligence has no genetic
>> basis. Raise a child without human contact and it doesn't matter what
>> their genes are, they'll be little more than animal in their cognitive
>> faculties. It's been done.
>
>"Liberals" /would/ do that.

If you can't win on the facts, stick with random abuse.

[Rudy Canoza]

David Johnston wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 12:18:49 -0800, Rudy Canoza
> <***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>
>> David Johnston wrote:
>>> On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 08:34:19 -0800, Rudy Canoza
>>> <***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>>>
>>>> David Johnston wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 12:24:54 -0800, Rudy Canoza
>>>>> <***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> David Johnston wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 11:42:02 -0800, Rudy Canoza
>>>>>>> <***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> David Johnston wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 11:20:00 -0800, Rudy Canoza
>>>>>>>>> <***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So, the queers and their political sympathizers have been saying for a
>>>>>>>>>> long time now that being queer is genetic, not environmentally
>>>>>>>>>> determined. I've already commented on the great irony of this, given
>>>>>>>>>> that the left generally disputes any claim for a genetic basis for other
>>>>>>>>>> manifestations of human nature, most particularly intelligence;
>>>>>>>>> Lie.
>>>>>>>> No, not a lie.
>>>>>>> Of course it is.
>>>>>> No, it is not a lie.
>>>>> There you go, lying again.
>>>> No lying. "Liberals", who are of course illiberal, believe that
>>>> intelligence is more determined by environment than by heredity.
>>> That is not the same thing as saying that intelligence has no genetic
>>> basis. Raise a child without human contact and it doesn't matter what
>>> their genes are, they'll be little more than animal in their cognitive
>>> faculties. It's been done.
>> "Liberals" /would/ do that.
>
> If you can't win on the facts

I already have.

[David Johnston]

On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 18:35:21 -0800, Rudy Canoza
<***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:

>David Johnston wrote:
>> On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 12:18:49 -0800, Rudy Canoza
>> <***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>>
>>> David Johnston wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 08:34:19 -0800, Rudy Canoza
>>>> <***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> David Johnston wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 12:24:54 -0800, Rudy Canoza
>>>>>> <***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> David Johnston wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 11:42:02 -0800, Rudy Canoza
>>>>>>>> <***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> David Johnston wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 11:20:00 -0800, Rudy Canoza
>>>>>>>>>> <***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So, the queers and their political sympathizers have been saying for a
>>>>>>>>>>> long time now that being queer is genetic, not environmentally
>>>>>>>>>>> determined. I've already commented on the great irony of this, given
>>>>>>>>>>> that the left generally disputes any claim for a genetic basis for other
>>>>>>>>>>> manifestations of human nature, most particularly intelligence;
>>>>>>>>>> Lie.
>>>>>>>>> No, not a lie.
>>>>>>>> Of course it is.
>>>>>>> No, it is not a lie.
>>>>>> There you go, lying again.
>>>>> No lying. "Liberals", who are of course illiberal, believe that
>>>>> intelligence is more determined by environment than by heredity.
>>>> That is not the same thing as saying that intelligence has no genetic
>>>> basis. Raise a child without human contact and it doesn't matter what
>>>> their genes are, they'll be little more than animal in their cognitive
>>>> faculties. It's been done.
>>> "Liberals" /would/ do that.
>>
>> If you can't win on the facts
>
>I already have.

If that was true, you wouldn't have resorted to random insults.

[Rudy Canoza]

David Johnston wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 18:35:21 -0800, Rudy Canoza
> <***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>
>> David Johnston wrote:
>>> On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 12:18:49 -0800, Rudy Canoza
>>> <***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>>>
>>>> David Johnston wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 08:34:19 -0800, Rudy Canoza
>>>>> <***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> David Johnston wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 12:24:54 -0800, Rudy Canoza
>>>>>>> <***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> David Johnston wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 11:42:02 -0800, Rudy Canoza
>>>>>>>>> <***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> David Johnston wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 11:20:00 -0800, Rudy Canoza
>>>>>>>>>>> <***@thedismalscience.noot> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So, the queers and their political sympathizers have been saying for a
>>>>>>>>>>>> long time now that being queer is genetic, not environmentally
>>>>>>>>>>>> determined. I've already commented on the great irony of this, given
>>>>>>>>>>>> that the left generally disputes any claim for a genetic basis for other
>>>>>>>>>>>> manifestations of human nature, most particularly intelligence;
>>>>>>>>>>> Lie.
>>>>>>>>>> No, not a lie.
>>>>>>>>> Of course it is.
>>>>>>>> No, it is not a lie.
>>>>>>> There you go, lying again.
>>>>>> No lying. "Liberals", who are of course illiberal, believe that
>>>>>> intelligence is more determined by environment than by heredity.
>>>>> That is not the same thing as saying that intelligence has no genetic
>>>>> basis. Raise a child without human contact and it doesn't matter what
>>>>> their genes are, they'll be little more than animal in their cognitive
>>>>> faculties. It's been done.
>>>> "Liberals" /would/ do that.
>>> If you can't win on the facts
>> I already have.
>
> If that was true

It is true.

You should have used the subjunctive "were" instead of "was".