Kendarik: I did, and you responded with a series of personal attacks and personal assumptions about me.
...Reread the damn post. There was an argument there, you must have missed it, because you blinded out everything after the tone of the first sentence hurt your feelings.
All right, lemme reformulate my argument: "start using your brain as if you were a rational human being". I don't care about your "personal experience" any more than I care about your prejudices, your speculations, or your wild guesses; I care about the actual scientific data. And you should too - you might realize that you're perpetuating a meme that is seriously hurting other people.
More to the point, however, is the post I made after that:
Stagnant: Kendarik... How many gay people do you know? How many gay people do you personally know to a level where you could accurately judge their parenting? How many children do you know whose parents are gay? Because I have this slinking feeling that those numbers are, respectively, "not many" and "almost none". You think the data is Despite the multiple studies all pointing in the same way? Well fine then, what's your data?
My problem with you, Kendarik, is fairly simple: you hold a belief (based on nothing, as you yourself admitted) in the face of evidence, and when pressed about it, you turn around and say "Well, I'm going from my own personal experience". Fine, what's that experience? A large-scale analysis of the life and achievements of the children of gay couples? Work as a public school teacher where you come into contact with the odd child of a gay parent and you notice that, all other factors removed, they do worse than their straight-raised counterparts? Or "I know a gay person; their kid is kind of a mess"?
Kendarik: I did, and you responded with a series of personal attacks and personal assumptions about me.
...Reread the damn post. There was an argument there, you must have missed it, because you blinded out everything after the tone of the first sentence hurt your feelings.
All right, lemme reformulate my argument: "start using your brain as if you were a rational human being". I don't care about your "personal experience" any more than I care about your prejudices, your speculations, or your wild guesses; I care about the actual scientific data. And you should too - you might realize that you're perpetuating a meme that is seriously hurting other people.
More to the point, however, is the post I made after that:
Stagnant: Kendarik... How many gay people do you know? How many gay people do you personally know to a level where you could accurately judge their parenting? How many children do you know whose parents are gay? Because I have this slinking feeling that those numbers are, respectively, "not many" and "almost none". You think the data is Despite the multiple studies all pointing in the same way? Well fine then, what's your data?
My problem with you, Kendarik, is fairly simple: you hold a belief (based on nothing, as you yourself admitted) in the face of evidence, and when pressed about it, you turn around and say "Well, I'm going from my own personal experience". Fine, what's that experience? A large-scale analysis of the life and achievements of the children of gay couples? Work as a public school teacher where you come into contact with the odd child of a gay parent and you notice that, all other factors removed, they do worse than their straight-raised counterparts? Or "I know a gay person; their kid is kind of a mess"?
By your examples you clearly have ignored most of what I've said in this thread, and you are making up stuff I didn't say, so this is a pointless discussion.
By your examples you clearly have ignored most of what I've said in this thread, and you are making up stuff I didn't say, so this is a pointless discussion.
Wow, you're terrible at reading. Feel free to actually point out what I've ignored or what I'm making up.
Helmholtz Watson: Wait, you think that people will say that they think homosexuality is wrong based on nothing, and then they use their claim(which they admitted is based on nothing) as a justification for not liking homosexuality?
I can only respond to your hypothetical situation with the following....PHA+PGltZyBzcmM9Imh0dHA6Ly9uYXJ3aGFsZXIuY29tL2ltZy84dC9tL3dhaXQtd2hhdC10aGUtZnVjay1kaWQteW91LWp1c3Qtc2F5LXNwaWRlcm1hbi04VE1qM2ouanBnIiBhbHQ9ImltYWdlIi8+PC9wPg==
A justification for not liking homosexuality, a justification for voting against equal rights for homosexuals, a justification for all manner of nasty shit?
Yes. Yes, I do think that, because that's how such "baseless beliefs" tend to function in society.
Except I have never heard anybody say that their dislike for homosexuality is based on nothing, they always have some justification.
Wow, you're terrible at reading. Feel free to actually point out what I've ignored or what I'm making up.
Look, personal insults, AGAIN. Seems you really can't post without a personal attack.
Fine, lying about what I said, just in the last couple posts alone:
Kendarik: you hold a belief (based on nothing, as you yourself admitted)
I didn't say that, that's an invalid extrapolation you made.
and when pressed about it, you turn around and say "Well, I'm going from my own personal experience".
You used quotes there, but I never said that. Also "when pressed about it" must to you mean I said in my first statement "It is my personal and unscientific belief". Just currious, how did someone press me into that statement if it was the first statement in the conversation?
Ignoring what I say would be ignoring my repeated comments that we shouldn't discriminate against people based on sexual orientation, like:
Kendarik: I completely support anyone having full and equal access to IVF treatments. Let's stay away from eugenics please.
Also, for the record, "completely artificial means" are not required for a homosexual person to have a baby.
Or you might note that I put SAME SEX couples as above single parents, its not like I'm suggesting in any way they are bad parents or their kids will be automatically messed up somehow:
Kendarik: It is my personal and unscientific belief that kids do best in a family with: (in order, with all other things being equal)
1) A loving a male and female roll model 2) Two loving adult roll models of any gender 3) A single loving adult roll model of any gender 4) No parent 5) Abusive parent(s) of any gender(s)
And I dismissed the study this thread was about:
Even with that in mind, biased source is biased. Without even clicking on the study based on the name of the group the research can not be considered independant in any way.
I've avoided answering your repeated questions about my experience in the sexual diversity area because such questions are pretty meaningless and always come off as "oh, yeah, I know a [insert group here]" type statement. However, I will say this, as I have already said in this thread, I'm not straight. I've also worked in a sexual diversity office. Of my three best friends, one is a bi male, one is a gay male, and one is a bi female (whoes partner had a child through IVF during a 20 year relationship).
And none of this is about sexual orientation anyway. I believe each gender has something to teach the child in terms of relationships. I don't care if its a flaming gay man and a dyked out woman who just stay together because they are best buds and decided to have a kid by IVF together (or adopt together or whatever), that child will have an advantage over someone who had just a mom(s) or just a dad(s) in the area of intersex relationships.
Stop trying to make an enemy where there is none.
In case you didn't know, I'm one of the PRO gay rights advocates on this forum.
I think topics like this show just how badly misunderstood science is in the American community.
A finding doesn't become science just because a scientist says it's true. It doesn't matter who says it's true, what matters is that they arrived at the conclusion using robust experimentation and a peer-review process.
I see this a lot in conservative propaganda. For example, climate change. "Dr. Suchandsuch from the University of Semi-Prestigeous Name proclaimed today that man-made global warming is a myth. Therefore Obama is destroying our economy with cap & trade for no reason other than to facilitate a communist take-over."
you hold a belief (based on nothing, as you yourself admitted)
I didn't say that, that's an invalid extrapolation you made.
Correct. I mistook you for the other guy who said basically exactly the same thing. While this is my mistake, it does nothing to milden the point I am actually trying to make.
and when pressed about it, you turn around and say "Well, I'm going from my own personal experience".
You used quotes there, but I never said that. Also "when pressed about it" must to you mean I said in my first statement "It is my personal and unscientific belief". Just currious, how did someone press me into that statement if it was the first statement in the conversation?
Well, beyond the fact that such quotation marks can also denote paraphrasing, this is exactly the same as above: even if this is a mistake, it does nothing to milden the point I am actually trying to make.
Ignoring what I say would be ignoring my repeated comments that we shouldn't discriminate against people based on sexual orientation, like:
Kendarik: I completely support anyone having full and equal access to IVF treatments. Let's stay away from eugenics please.
Also, for the record, "completely artificial means" are not required for a homosexual person to have a baby.
And, again, it does nothing to milden my point. If I may make the comparison, it's like someone arguing for equal rights for black people, despite his firmly held belief that negroes are intellectually inferior to white people in every way. Yes, I get it - you don't think the law should discriminate against homosexuals. That doesn't mean that your belief isn't harmful and wrong.
I've avoided answering your repeated questions about my experience in the sexual diversity area because such questions are pretty meaningless and always come off as "oh, yeah, I know a [insert group here]" type statement. However, I will say this, as I have already said in this thread, I'm not straight. I've also worked in a sexual diversity office. Of my three best friends, one is a bi male, one is a gay male, and one is a bi female (whoes partner had a child through IVF during a 20 year relationship).
So... You've got a sample size of a few people? Maybe slightly more?
And none of this is about sexual orientation anyway. I believe each gender has something to teach the child in terms of relationships. I don't care if its a flaming gay man and a dyked out woman who just stay together because they are best buds and decided to have a kid by IVF together (or adopt together or whatever), that child will have an advantage over someone who had just a mom(s) or just a dad(s) in the area of intersex relationships.
And you know what? This simply has been shown to be untrue. And that's the problem here - your beliefs simply do not mesh with reality. It doesn't matter how many times you can point out me misquoting you, it doesn't matter how many "but I like gay people! honest!" points you can bring up, my problem remains that your belief has been shown to be false, and people holding this belief are doing a lot of damage.
Stop trying to make an enemy where there is none.
Stop being wrong about an important political issue.
In case you didn't know, I'm one of the PRO gay rights advocates on this forum.
You're also furthering a seriously anti-gay parole; an argument brought up time and time again by opponents of gay marriage which has no grounding in reality..
Correct. I mistook you for the other guy who said basically exactly the same thing. While this is my mistake, it does nothing to milden the point I am actually trying to make.
Well, beyond the fact that such quotation marks can also denote paraphrasing, this is exactly the same as above: even if this is a mistake, it does nothing to milden the point I am actually trying to make.
And, again, it does nothing to milden my point. If I may make the comparison, it's like someone arguing for equal rights for black people, despite his firmly held belief that negroes are intellectually inferior to white people in every way. Yes, I get it - you don't think the law should discriminate against homosexuals. That doesn't mean that your belief isn't harmful and wrong.
I stopped reading the third time in 3 paragraphs where you said you were wrong, but it didn't matter.
Kendarik: I stopped reading the third time in 3 paragraphs where you said you were wrong, but it didn't matter.
We're done.
...
Can you believe this guy? I'm wrong but it doesn't matter. Yeah, no shit. I also explained exactly WHY it doesn't matter. We're not in this debate to score point or show the other person up as dumb. The underlying point is in no way refuted or even weakened by my errors.
Kendarik: I stopped reading the third time in 3 paragraphs where you said you were wrong, but it didn't matter.
We're done.
...
Can you believe this guy? I'm wrong but it doesn't matter. Yeah, no shit. I also explained exactly WHY it doesn't matter. We're not in this debate to score point or show the other person up as dumb. The underlying point is in no way refuted or even weakened by my errors.
I'm pretty sure she is a woman.
Your explanations were stupid, and your replies rude. I can see now why you started a thread trying to justify your rudeness. You got it wrong and repeated insulted her because you wouldn't admit you were strawmaning her. You complained she stated as fact things that were not true, and then you spewed false statements and opinions yourself. You closed any door to meaningful discussion and turned things into personal attacks on someone who disagreed with you. If the mods were reasonable, you'd have a warning for this thread.
On her general comment, from my own NON SCIENTIFIC experience, I agree with her, at least to some degree. While no parental upbringing guarentees any type of behavior, I agree with her that your experience as a child is formative. In my UNSCIENTIFIC SMALL SAMPLE SIZE, I have seen predispositions to certain relational behavior which seem to corrolate to parents. The corrolation is overwhelming and the sample size was about 50. It is an area that probably never was the focus of a study and thus not disproven or proven, but if I'm wrong I'd love you to point me at a study on this specific subject.
Up until I married a decade ago, I dated younger girls exclusively. The "legal" age for consent for sex with someone of any age was 14 at the time and I dated girls 14-25 (once again, that was LEGAL and I violated NO laws). I did this for over a decade, and at 50, I'm probably being conservative in my count.
So, what did I find that makes me agree with Kendark? While girls from all parental relationship types talked to me on phone chats and internet chats, when it came to girls who were interested into taking it to real life, 2 came from homes with abusive parents, 2 came from hetro parents that were still together. The other 90+% came from homes with no male parent in the house. I think there were two or three that came from lesbian parents, but I don't think that's a factor at all, I think its the absence of a male parent that creates a gap that I filled in.
In a much smaller sample size, I have a very close friend who had their mother die when they were 11. Her dad did his best, she had relationship problem because she didn't really know what to expect in one (which would have been solved if he had a bf/gf) and she also never learned things like fashion, makeup, and in general she says she feels like she never learned what it was to be a woman.
This is just logical to me. Men and woman, reguardless of orientation, are different. Each imparts something to their offspring. You can be totally perfectly adjusted in all ways even with a set of abusive parents of any gender/orientation combo, and you can be completely messed up with two "ideal" (whatever that means) parents in the traditional hetro configuration. I do however believe that you are more likely to have certain problems if you are deprived of certain relationships and experiences growing up.
The OP asked if this was something to consider since it came from doctors. The answer? No. No it is not. There are still "Doctors" claiming vaccines cause autism and that sexual reorientation treatment works. I'm willing to bet money that this group didn't do proper testing and polling and simply mined for results that suited their own bias.
The only part to this that would have any validity is how the kid itself is treated because of the gay parents. Our culture doesn't accept gay people so the kid would probably feel a bit awkward to say the least. Of course any negative from this is made up for by the higher income gay parents normally have. Overall the effect is probably pretty negligible.
dmase: The only part to this that would have any validity is how the kid itself is treated because of the gay parents. Our culture doesn't accept gay people so the kid would probably feel a bit awkward to say the least. Of course any negative from this is made up for by the higher income gay parents normally have. Overall the effect is probably pretty negligible.
They don't have a higher income. For those not on disability, they do however tend to have a higher DISPOSABLE income, but that is actually from the lack of kids. Once they have kids, they are in the same financial boat as straight people.
The most meaningless buzzphrase in common parlance today. (I agree with the rest of your post, just the idea of "traditional marriage" is hilarious when you look at how marriages used to traditionally work).
Well, It think the term has taken on a meaning of its very own by now, as in "Idealization of Christian heterosexual marriage, as well as condemnation of any other form, particularly the same-sex variety".
In other words, they're inventing a particular definition for it based on what they want rather than based on what it actually means, even according to their own religious texts. That's reassuring.
Your explanations were stupid, and your replies rude. I can see now why you started a thread trying to justify your rudeness. You got it wrong and repeated insulted her because you wouldn't admit you were strawmaning her.
Hey buddy? The least you could do is not lie about me. Thanks. ^_^ I admitted that I had misrepresented her in two minor occasions, because that's all I did. I never refused to admit it.
You complained she stated as fact things that were not true, and then you spewed false statements and opinions yourself. You closed any door to meaningful discussion and turned things into personal attacks on someone who disagreed with you. If the mods were reasonable, you'd have a warning for this thread.
Do you understand the difference between making mistakes and then correcting them, and continuing to state something as though it were correct after being proven wrong? I admitted my errors, and then proceeded to point out why they were completely irrelevant to the point. She, on the other hand, made an egregious factual error, and refused to correct it after being presented with fairly convincing evidence to the contrary!
...
...Please don't tell me you're about to make the sa-
On her general comment, from my own NON SCIENTIFIC experience, I agree with her, at least to some degree.
OH GOD DAMMIT.
While no parental upbringing guarentees any type of behavior, I agree with her that your experience as a child is formative. In my UNSCIENTIFIC SMALL SAMPLE SIZE, I have seen predispositions to certain relational behavior which seem to corrolate to parents. The corrolation is overwhelming and the sample size was about 50. It is an area that probably never was the focus of a study and thus not disproven or proven, but if I'm wrong I'd love you to point me at a study on this specific subject.
Pretty sure Amne linked to one earlier; that said, most of the articles are in journals like Pediatrics that are Pay-Per-View. The APA, however, is pretty clear on their stance. What I will do is ask them for their sources.
Up until I married a decade ago, I dated younger girls exclusively. The "legal" age for consent for sex with someone of any age was 14 at the time and I dated girls 14-25 (once again, that was LEGAL and I violated NO laws). I did this for over a decade, and at 50, I'm probably being conservative in my count.
So, what did I find that makes me agree with Kendark? While girls from all parental relationship types talked to me on phone chats and internet chats, when it came to girls who were interested into taking it to real life, 2 came from homes with abusive parents, 2 came from hetro parents that were still together. The other 90+% came from homes with no male parent in the house. I think there were two or three that came from lesbian parents, but I don't think that's a factor at all, I think its the absence of a male parent that creates a gap that I filled in.
Hey, here's a great idea - let's compare a two-parent household to a one-parent household as if they were equivalent! And let's draw shaky conclusions from the available data! I mean, seriously, that is how you want to draw a conclusion on all gay and lesbian parenting? OUCH!
Now feel free to insult me, I don't care.
You're wrong and continuing to spout a meme which does not correspond with the majority stance of sociologists and pediatricians nor the majority stance of the peer reviewed research in the applicable fields, a meme which people use to attack gay rights.
They have the word "family" in their name, their credibility is lost.
My evidence? Every single time you find an organisation that has the word "family" in the title involved in the gay anything debate, they start at the conclusion and find "evidence".
Wolverine18: Up until I married a decade ago, I dated younger girls exclusively. The "legal" age for consent for sex with someone of any age was 14 at the time and I dated girls 14-25 (once again, that was LEGAL and I violated NO laws). I did this for over a decade, and at 50, I'm probably being conservative in my count. So, what did I find that makes me agree with Kendark? While girls from all parental relationship types talked to me on phone chats and internet chats, when it came to girls who were interested into taking it to real life, 2 came from homes with abusive parents, 2 came from hetro parents that were still together. The other 90+% came from homes with no male parent in the house. I think there were two or three that came from lesbian parents, but I don't think that's a factor at all, I think its the absence of a male parent that creates a gap that I filled in.
I wouldn't consider an msn chat grooming a 14 year old hoping to exploit them for sex, to be a relationship. Neither would I mention it as an authority-argument really, because I'm pretty sure my account would unconciously get stamped with the pedobear seal of approval, and people wouldn't take me seriously anymore. I like to be quite carefull with constructing why an anecdote is relevant to the discussion, so it actually means anything. But hey, that's just my opinion.
Why I do that, well, for instance your anecdotes are marred by the fact that women are kept dependant on men, especially in the generation before ours (say born 1945-1965), they were only taught 'womanly' things. My parent's classes at the time for instance were separated by gender for some lessons, and the boys got biology and sex education, and in the meantime the girls were taught knitting. As a result of that, single mother families tend to have less money and less independancy on institutions and others available to them. Society was constructed around the concept that men owned all the resources, and pretty much, also owned the women. This pattern is still present in most western countries to some degree, and that permanently ruins any conclusions to be drawn from what you wrote.
Also, those single mother families you find so problematic are a direct consequence of 'the traditional family', so if we were to draw a conclusion from that, it would be that homosexual couples are better parents on average, because they don't break and don't have bad relationships because of religious taboos.
Hey, here's a great idea - let's compare a two-parent household to a one-parent household as if they were equivalent! And let's draw shaky conclusions from the available data! I mean, seriously, that is how you want to draw a conclusion on all gay and lesbian parenting? OUCH!
You're wrong and continuing to spout a meme which does not correspond with the majority stance of sociologists and pediatricians nor the majority stance of the peer reviewed research in the applicable fields, a meme which people use to attack gay rights.
What is interesting about your reply is it shows you didn't really pay attention to what I was saying. I even said that I didn't think orientation mattered. You aren't discussing, you are trying to bash people over the head without listening.
Another thing I said was show me the data specific to this sub area of adjustment. You repeated your previous assertations, added opinion, but didn't provide any links to data in this area.
Wolverine18: Up until I married a decade ago, I dated younger girls exclusively. The "legal" age for consent for sex with someone of any age was 14 at the time and I dated girls 14-25 (once again, that was LEGAL and I violated NO laws). I did this for over a decade, and at 50, I'm probably being conservative in my count. So, what did I find that makes me agree with Kendark? While girls from all parental relationship types talked to me on phone chats and internet chats, when it came to girls who were interested into taking it to real life, 2 came from homes with abusive parents, 2 came from hetro parents that were still together. The other 90+% came from homes with no male parent in the house. I think there were two or three that came from lesbian parents, but I don't think that's a factor at all, I think its the absence of a male parent that creates a gap that I filled in.
I wouldn't consider an msn chat grooming a 14 year old hoping to exploit them for sex, to be a relationship. Neither would I mention it as an authority-argument really, because I'm pretty sure my account would unconciously get stamped with the pedobear seal of approval, and people wouldn't take me seriously anymore. I like to be quite carefull with constructing why an anecdote is relevant to the discussion, so it actually means anything. But hey, that's just my opinion.
Why would I be banned for doing something that was 100% legal? Grooming is also a funny term and an assumption on your part. I hate to tell you this, but the girls are the ones who were looking most of the time. Also, technically speaking that's too old to be pedophilia but that's off topic.
I didn't actually call those "relationships" either btw, read it again. I used relationship to refer to their home situations.
Why I do that, well, for instance your anecdotes are marred by the fact that women are kept dependant on men, especially in the generation before ours (say born 1945-1965), they were only taught 'womanly' things.
Actually that's my generation. Most of the girls I'm talking about had parents that would have been from your generation.
Society was constructed around the concept that men owned all the resources, and pretty much, also owned the women
I can tell you that wealth had nothing to do with what I found. If anything, richer mothers were overrepresented, probably because the internet was new & only rich kids had computers and the net at the time, and only rich kids had a cell phone or their own private phone line so they could call chat lines.
Also, those single mother families you find so problematic are a direct consequence of 'the traditional family', so if we were to draw a conclusion from that, it would be that homosexual couples are better parents on average, because they don't break and don't have bad relationships because of religious taboos.
Where'd the religious taboos come from in this discussion and who breaks up a marriage over them? I'm not religious, but that's a stupid comment.
As for the first part, divorces, deaths, and seperations happen in same sex couples too you know so it has nothing to do with "traditional famiies" causing what I saw. I never once ran into (not that it couldn't happen) a girl from a single father or a gay couple during that time.
This isn't about sexuality, its about gender. Are you really trying to claim that there are no differences between the genders? Not even ones put in place by society? If you are, you're missing reality.
To be clear, I'm for same sex marriage, and I'm for the right to divorce. I'm not saying anything should be done to limit same sex families or single parents. I'm not even saying that "traditional" familes will result in a better kid on average, its entirely possible same sex and single parents add skillsets to the child that don't happen in a M/F couple and its even possible they are better off in some ways in those non traditional families. What I am saying is that we should recognize the reality that both genders have something to contribute and be aware of that in raising the children so as to minimize the impact of our choices on the kids.
I have a good gay male friend who is "uncle" to his childhood friend's daughter (female same sex couple). He even lives in the same condo building as them. He has been at their condo almost every day since she was born. She sees him and treats him as a father. That's a perfect relationship, although not traditional. That child is getting everything she needs from 3 homosexual people, and I'm sure with the extra attention and skillsets of 3 "parents" she will be one of the stronger kids out there.
You know what this argument reminds me of? A number of years back a deputy policy chief compliled stats on crime by race focussed on the asian community. He was fired for this by the police board. Why did he do this? Well as an asian man, he was concerned with a crime problem he perceived in certain parts of the asian community, and when he asked for money council said "prove it" so he did, with stats (stats that backed him up btw). He wasn't trying to show "asians are bad", but "we may have a problem here folks". Let's not burry our heads in the sand on the alter of political correctness, let's be open to social change but keep an eye on that change so we can adapt to the impact of that change as needed.
Wolverine18: Why would I be banned for doing something that was 100% legal?
Soliciting fourteen year old girls for sex? Yeah, that's not legal.
Wolverine18: What I am saying is that we should recognize the reality that both genders have something to contribute and be aware of that in raising the children so as to minimize the impact of our choices on the kids.
In the US there is no state with the age of consent below sixteen. In Europe it's feasible, at least from my knowledge Germany, Spain and most Eastern European countries have it pretty low. Still, I wouldn't say it's normal for a man in his twenties/thirties to solicit sex from minors.
In the US there is no state with the age of consent below sixteen. In Europe it's feasible, at least from my knowledge Germany, Spain and most Eastern European countries have it pretty low. Still, I wouldn't say it's normal for a man in his twenties/thirties to solicit sex from minors.
I'm not saying it's a good idea - just I'm not sure where the user in question is from, but age of consent varies from place to place. In addition, there may have been different legislation when he was younger.
Up until I married a decade ago, I dated younger girls exclusively. The "legal" age for consent for sex with someone of any age was 14 at the time and I dated girls 14-25 (once again, that was LEGAL and I violated NO laws). I did this for over a decade, and at 50, I'm probably being conservative in my count.
So, what did I find that makes me agree with Kendark? While girls from all parental relationship types talked to me on phone chats and internet chats, when it came to girls who were interested into taking it to real life, 2 came from homes with abusive parents, 2 came from hetro parents that were still together. The other 90+% came from homes with no male parent in the house. I think there were two or three that came from lesbian parents, but I don't think that's a factor at all, I think its the absence of a male parent that creates a gap that I filled in.
In a much smaller sample size, I have a very close friend who had their mother die when they were 11. Her dad did his best, she had relationship problem because she didn't really know what to expect in one (which would have been solved if he had a bf/gf) and she also never learned things like fashion, makeup, and in general she says she feels like she never learned what it was to be a woman.
This is just logical to me. Men and woman, reguardless of orientation, are different. Each imparts something to their offspring. You can be totally perfectly adjusted in all ways even with a set of abusive parents of any gender/orientation combo, and you can be completely messed up with two "ideal" (whatever that means) parents in the traditional hetro configuration. I do however believe that you are more likely to have certain problems if you are deprived of certain relationships and experiences growing up.
Now feel free to insult me, I don't care.
Apart from you incredibly odd cultural veiws to young 'women' (I'm guessing Spain or somewhere on east Africa.....)...
Kudos to you sir. For showing logic and not relying on falsified research to base your argument! If only Blablahb had the same skillset.
I'm not saying it's a good idea - just I'm not sure where the user in question is from, but age of consent varies from place to place. In addition, there may have been different legislation when he was younger.
That doesn't necessarily make what he did right. If you murdered someone before murder was made illegal, should you not be punished?
I'm not saying it's a good idea - just I'm not sure where the user in question is from, but age of consent varies from place to place. In addition, there may have been different legislation when he was younger.
That doesn't necessarily make what he did right. If you murdered someone before murder was made illegal, should you not be punished?
*sigh*
I didn't say it was right. You initially claimed it was definitely illegal, which is a separate matter. I said it's not necessarily illegal depending on the time and place, but probably not a good idea nonetheless.
Magichead: ... Sorry, I can't let bullshit like this go. Scientists did not politicise climate change(use the proper term, the one scientists have been using in the literature for decades, global warming was a description of one effect of climate change that has been distorted by sensationalist media twats), they have studied the evidence and adopted a consistent position which is in complete congruence with the available data. That they continue to hold this position in the face of slanderous lies, innuendo, insinuations about their character, and the well-funded propaganda of the fossil fuel industries which HAVE been trying to politicise the subject is a fucking testament to their academic integrity.
The only "fixed political agenda" that has been endorsed by climate scientists is "we should really do something about this", and considering that they are CORRECT, that's a pretty fucking unassailable sentiment.
And before you even think about replying, go to YouTube, search for "potholer54", and watch his video series which carefully and painstakingly explains why your position is a load of nonsense, including full lists of citations.
When did "we should really do something about this" become a scientific position that can be objectively right or wrong?
I don't question that the climate is slowly changing, nor even that it's probably to no small extent caused by humans. But I do question that climate scientists are the right ones to prioritize and weigh it against other concerns that also demand attention and funding from out limited pool of resources, such as the economy, risk of pandemics, overpopulation, nuclear disarmament, and all kinds of other risks that might get us all at some point.
That's what democratically elected politicians are for, who can then base their decisions on what to weigh and pursue on the scientists' findings and prognosis (in this and the other fields). Once the scientists actively start lobbying for certain political actions to be taken though, then they are pushing an agenda, rather than acting in any scientific capacity, as politically neutral seekers and communicators of measurable facts and nothing more (unless asked to formulate a strategy).
In short, they might be correct, but the concerns they're raising aren't our only ones - certainly not our most immediate ones - and whether they're to be given the attention and resources the climate change advocates would like them to is a political question. They get involved in that subsequent debate, they are pushing a political agenda.
No, they are exercising their fucking rights as citizens of democratic nations. Being a scientist doesn't mean you're never, ever, ever allowed to hold or state an opinion ever again, and the idea that it does is YET ANOTHER bullshit misconception being peddled by the anti-ACC lobby to discredit scientists. The data is clear, anthropogenic climate change is real and is happening now, on the basis of that FACT many scientists, and other people, have adopted the OPINION that we should do something about it.
If you honestly think that holding that opinions discredits the hundreds of thousands of diligent man-hours of work that went into establishing the facts on which it was based, you're daft.
Magichead: ... No, they are exercising their fucking rights as citizens of democratic nations. Being a scientist doesn't mean you're never, ever, ever allowed to hold or state an opinion ever again, and the idea that it does is YET ANOTHER bullshit misconception being peddled by the anti-ACC lobby to discredit scientists. The data is clear, anthropogenic climate change is real and is happening now, on the basis of that FACT many scientists, and other people, have adopted the OPINION that we should do something about it.
If you honestly think that holding that opinions discredits the hundreds of thousands of diligent man-hours of work that went into establishing the facts on which it was based, you're daft.
They can hold whatever opinion on whatever political subject they like. If they consider environmentalism an ethical imperative though, or their access to funding relies on the threat of climate change being immediate and significant enough, then I for one am rather sceptical that these parameters have no significance whatsoever in how they present their results (or silently sit by and allow them to be presented by those with greater talent for sensationalism). Just like I'd be rather sceptical towards a report saying that climate change isn't of any concern, if it was from a university with shares in the oil industry.
As stated, I don't doubt that climate change is real enough, and that it is to no small degree caused by mankind's prosperity in other areas. I do question the idea that it should be the most important thing to deal with at this point in time though, and that these climate change scientists are more capable of determining this than is anyone else (since many other problems and concerns are outside their expertise, as well as due to their naturally enlarged focus on this one particular issue).
We'll be rather sorry if we derail the economy to save the climate, only to discover that the resulting poverty ultimately present an even greater danger to global stability. How would a climate change scientist be qualified to tell us whether or not that'll be the case?
They are not experts on what should be done. They're experts on a single issue amongst thousands upon thousands that must be constantly weighed against each other when determining what should be done. So their qualifications don't really carry over to the opinion on how to weigh the matters, because they don't know anything in particular on the countless subjects their subject is weighed against. Hence they are simply ordinary citizens pushing a political agenda.
Kendarik: I stopped reading the third time in 3 paragraphs where you said you were wrong, but it didn't matter.
We're done.
...
Can you believe this guy? I'm wrong but it doesn't matter. Yeah, no shit. I also explained exactly WHY it doesn't matter. We're not in this debate to score point or show the other person up as dumb. The underlying point is in no way refuted or even weakened by my errors.
I'm pretty sure she is a woman.
Your explanations were stupid, and your replies rude. I can see now why you started a thread trying to justify your rudeness. You got it wrong and repeated insulted her because you wouldn't admit you were strawmaning her. You complained she stated as fact things that were not true, and then you spewed false statements and opinions yourself. You closed any door to meaningful discussion and turned things into personal attacks on someone who disagreed with you. If the mods were reasonable, you'd have a warning for this thread.
On her general comment, from my own NON SCIENTIFIC experience, I agree with her, at least to some degree. While no parental upbringing guarentees any type of behavior, I agree with her that your experience as a child is formative. In my UNSCIENTIFIC SMALL SAMPLE SIZE, I have seen predispositions to certain relational behavior which seem to corrolate to parents. The corrolation is overwhelming and the sample size was about 50. It is an area that probably never was the focus of a study and thus not disproven or proven, but if I'm wrong I'd love you to point me at a study on this specific subject.
Up until I married a decade ago, I dated younger girls exclusively. The "legal" age for consent for sex with someone of any age was 14 at the time and I dated girls 14-25 (once again, that was LEGAL and I violated NO laws). I did this for over a decade, and at 50, I'm probably being conservative in my count.
So, what did I find that makes me agree with Kendark? While girls from all parental relationship types talked to me on phone chats and internet chats, when it came to girls who were interested into taking it to real life, 2 came from homes with abusive parents, 2 came from hetro parents that were still together. The other 90+% came from homes with no male parent in the house. I think there were two or three that came from lesbian parents, but I don't think that's a factor at all, I think its the absence of a male parent that creates a gap that I filled in.
In a much smaller sample size, I have a very close friend who had their mother die when they were 11. Her dad did his best, she had relationship problem because she didn't really know what to expect in one (which would have been solved if he had a bf/gf) and she also never learned things like fashion, makeup, and in general she says she feels like she never learned what it was to be a woman.
This is just logical to me. Men and woman, reguardless of orientation, are different. Each imparts something to their offspring. You can be totally perfectly adjusted in all ways even with a set of abusive parents of any gender/orientation combo, and you can be completely messed up with two "ideal" (whatever that means) parents in the traditional hetro configuration. I do however believe that you are more likely to have certain problems if you are deprived of certain relationships and experiences growing up.
Now feel free to insult me, I don't care.
That's pretty interesting, a 50 person sample size isn't completely invalidated by individual factors, so if 46 out of 50 girls who were game for a... well, lets go with less traditional kind of relationship, were lacking experience with relationships from their everyday family life, that could offer some sort of indication that it's harder to establish one. Though given that single providers would generally also be poorer and maybe not have as much time to be with the children and such, whether it was due to lacking experience with heterosexual coupling, or just being in poorer socio-economic straits altogether is really impossible to know.
Fraser Greenfield: Kudos to you sir. For showing logic and not relying on falsified research to base your argument! If only Blablahb had the same skillset.
...Wow. Just wow. Does anything else really need to be said about this? "Falsified research"? You mean like all of the citations in the American Psychological Association (specifically page 7, where it lists an exhaustive grouping of resources)? Tell me, Fraser, what exactly do you mean by "falsified"?
I did, and you responded with a series of personal attacks and personal assumptions about me.