Why Homosexuality MUST Be Recriminalized! Part 7

[7djengo7]

A lot of smileys

Sorry...I know that to you that's like garlic to a vampire.

but no answers again I note.

Like I said, as soon as you've actually read what I wrote, and are willing to ask me a question about what I actually wrote, I'll be more than happy to answer it.

Yes, of course an accuser is either telling the truth or not telling the truth.

Then why did you ask me the following:

How do you "know" that an accuser is telling the truth or not telling the truth? You say it's very easy to know by inference.

???

You claim that you can easily know by inference whether the accuser in question is doing either but won't explain as to how.

Obviously I never claimed that, which is why you cannot quote me doing so. Duh.

I've already shown how ascertaining whether someone is being truthful or not is hardly so easy to gauge as you seem to think.

I grant that you did, in fact, string some words together, and that you thereby have shown that you are capable of so doing.

So, once again, do explain how "you can easily know by inference that he/she is telling the truth or not telling the truth".

Sure, I'll explain once again. I'll lay out the syllogism for you:

Major Premise: Every accuser is someone who is telling the truth or not telling the truth,​

Minor Premise: X is an accuser,​

Ergo,​

Conclusion: X is someone who is telling the truth or not telling the truth.​

With which (if either) of those, two premises of this sound and valid argument do you disagree, Professor?

Now, as I said before: When you've actually read what I wrote, and are able to ask me a question about it, I'll be more than happy to answer it.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Sorry...I know that to you that's like garlic to a vampire.

Like I said, as soon as you've actually read what I wrote, and are willing to ask me a question about what I actually wrote, I'll be more than happy to answer it.


Then why did you ask me the following:

???


Obviously I never claimed that, which is why you cannot quote me doing so. Duh.

I grant that you did, in fact, string some words together, and that you thereby have shown that you are capable of so doing.


Sure, I'll explain once again. I'll lay out the syllogism for you:

Major Premise: Every accuser is someone who is telling the truth or not telling the truth,​

Minor Premise: X is an accuser,​

Ergo,​

Conclusion: X is someone who is telling the truth or not telling the truth.​

With which (if either) of those, two premises of this sound and valid argument do you disagree, Professor?

Now, as I said before: When you've actually read what I wrote, and are able to ask me a question about it, I'll be more than happy to answer it.

Rambling on does not help you. I quoted you directly in the latter part from your own post. Here it is again:

"So, as long as you know that so and so is an accuser, you can easily know by inference that he/she is telling the truth or not telling the truth. Duh!"

Why Homosexuality MUST Be Recriminalized! Part 7

Oh dear, reduced to pedantry already? I'll alter my quote to take that into account: How do you "know" that an accuser is telling the truth or not telling the truth? You say it's very easy to know by inference. Explain how. Once again, let me know if you ever get around to actually reading...

theologyonline.com

So, I've quite easily quoted you claiming the very thing you somehow seem to have forgotten about.

Crack on with it, the floor is yours!

 

[7djengo7]

Rambling on does not help you.

Then why do you do it?

I quoted you directly in the latter part, here it is again:

Yeah. What's your point?

Your memory is as pathetic as your attention span and your "reasoning" capacity, Arthropod. See, you gotta go further back in the thread to call up the correct post:

Why Homosexuality MUST Be Recriminalized! Part 7 You seem to think that there's some sort of 'psychological cause' for homosexuality Of course there is. What do you think it's genetic or something? that can be isolated and cured. That's nonsense. Some people are just naturally homosexual. It's not something that can be 'cured'. Those... theologyonline.com

Like I've said, numerous times, if you go actually read what I wrote (in that post) and actually ask me a question about what I wrote in it, I'll be happy to answer it for you.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Then why do you do it?


Yeah. What's your point?

Your memory is as pathetic as your attention span and your "reasoning" capacity, Arthropod. See, you gotta go further back in the thread to call up the correct post:

Why Homosexuality MUST Be Recriminalized! Part 7 You seem to think that there's some sort of 'psychological cause' for homosexuality Of course there is. What do you think it's genetic or something? that can be isolated and cured. That's nonsense. Some people are just naturally homosexual. It's not something that can be 'cured'. Those... theologyonline.com

Like I've said, numerous times, if you go actually read what I wrote (in that post) and actually ask me a question about what I wrote in it, I'll be happy to answer it for you.

I don't, I leave it to you, along with the kindergarten stuff.

You've been asked a question for long enough and frankly, someone who thinks that Trump won the 2020 election hardly reaches a conclusion through evidence and reasoning.

 

[7djengo7]

I don't

You don't what?

I leave it to you

You leave what to me?

along with the kindergarten stuff.

Ah, you're going to let me keep all my linked quotations of you in my posts? Thanks!

You've been asked a question for long enough and frankly, someone who thinks that Trump won the 2020 election hardly reaches a conclusion through evidence and reasoning.

IOW, you still refuse to go back to actually read--and ask me a question about--what I wrote in this post:

Why Homosexuality MUST Be Recriminalized! Part 7 You seem to think that there's some sort of 'psychological cause' for homosexuality Of course there is. What do you think it's genetic or something? that can be isolated and cured. That's nonsense. Some people are just naturally homosexual. It's not something that can be 'cured'. Those... theologyonline.com

 

[annabenedetti]

I'll do you one better, I found a link with the full study.

Wait, I asked you if you'd read past the abstract and accessed the entire paper and you said yes but you didn't find a link until after I asked for citations from it? How had you read the paper already if you didn't have access?

I'll take a look. I'm interested in more than just "homosexuals were interviewed."

 

[annabenedetti]

Okay, I've read it through and questions, do I have questions...

Clear sampling bias in the metadata, which is included simplistically and without links to look at methodology. Samples from individuals in alcoholic recovery, sexually transmitted disease clinics, survivors of incest where the gender of the perpetrator is unknown, Pride parade participants who self-presented at a parade booth, and good ol' WEIRD sample, ever the staple of psychology papers.

None of the metadata are linked from the paper.

Finding differences between Pride Parade samples and WEIRD samples doesn't show cause.

Table II: Take a look at the number/percentage of men who identified as homosexual prior to molestation.

Then take a look at the numbers of lesbians molested by a male vs. female.


Sexual orientation and sexual identity are complex. This paper reads like a grad school paper. Maybe it is, I don't know.

I'm not particularly interested in the subject but had to point out some of the limitations of your links. There are more.

 

[Idolater]

A lot of smileys but no answers again I note. Yes, of course an accuser is either telling the truth or not telling the truth. You claim that you can easily know by inference whether the accuser in question is doing either but won't explain as to how. I've already shown how ascertaining whether someone is being truthful or not is hardly so easy to gauge as you seem to think.

So, once again, do explain how "you can easily know by inference that he/she is telling the truth or not telling the truth".

This is what I've been attempting to say about former President Trump all along. He's a poor judge of character and he's not a crook.

 

[Idolater]

Wait, I asked you if you'd read past the abstract and accessed the entire paper and you said yes but you didn't find a link until after I asked for citations from it? How had you read the paper already if you didn't have access?

I used to have access to the whole thing on the nih.gov website domain, idk what happened in the meantime. The study is from 2001, I read it a long time ago. I can't help what these website's do with their publishing policies in the meantime. Relax.

I'll take a look. I'm interested in more than just "homosexuals were interviewed."

Enjoy.

Okay, I've read it through and questions, do I have questions...

Clear sampling bias in the metadata, which is included simplistically and without links to look at methodology. Samples from individuals in alcoholic recovery, sexually transmitted disease clinics, survivors of incest where the gender of the perpetrator is unknown, Pride parade participants who self-presented at a parade booth, and good ol' WEIRD sample, ever the staple of psychology papers.

None of the metadata are linked from the paper.

Finding differences between Pride Parade samples and WEIRD samples doesn't show cause.

Table II: Take a look at the number/percentage of men who identified as homosexual prior to molestation.

Then take a look at the numbers of lesbians molested by a male vs. female.


Sexual orientation and sexual identity are complex. This paper reads like a grad school paper. Maybe it is, I don't know.

I'm not particularly interested in the subject but had to point out some of the limitations of your links. There are more.

There aren't any more limitations than the biggest practical limitation which is 1. are they liars (the interviewees). The idea that homosexuals who participate in studies might skew toward exposure to rape when young, if you're going to argue that as a source of bias, then OK. I still think the results are serious. I really think it's irresponsible to make up reasons for hand-waving to dismiss them. That's the opposite of responsible. That's what the Democratic party promotes: irresponsibility.

 

[annabenedetti]

I used to have access to the whole thing on the nih.gov website domain, idk what happened in the meantime. The study is from 2001, I read it a long time ago. I can't help what these website's do with their publishing policies in the meantime. Relax.

Enjoy.

There aren't any more limitations than the biggest practical limitation which is 1. are they liars (the interviewees). The idea that homosexuals who participate in studies might skew toward exposure to rape when young, if you're going to argue that as a source of bias, then OK. I still think the results are serious. I really think it's irresponsible to make up reasons for hand-waving to dismiss them. That's the opposite of responsible. That's what the Democratic party promotes: irresponsibility.

Yeah okay.

 

[Idolater]

They are even more like animals than we originally thought. Yay?

https://us.cnn.com/2024/06/21/science/animal-same-sex-behavior-underreported-scli-intl-scn/index.html

 

[Idolater]

Article's behind a paywall and I didn't read it, but the title (On Transgender Issues, Voters Want Common Sense) is enough.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/14/opinion/trump-democrats-transgender.html

What we want is to rescind so-called "gay marriage". We tried it, we tried to validate anti-traditional, irregular marriage. We honestly tried. Support for same-sex, irregular marriage incrementally rose until we finally in slight majority decided to try it out.

The result was woke. And we know now, go woke, go broke, in more than just finance, but also in cultural values. Woke has led to:

25% of our youngsters now identify as Let's Get Blasted Together.
No improvement in the suicidality of those who identify as Let's Get Blasted Together.
Permanent, irreversible injuries to youngsters.

Woke is the fruit of experimenting with validating irregular, anti-traditional marriage. It has not worked.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Article's behind a paywall and I didn't read it, but the title (On Transgender Issues, Voters Want Common Sense) is enough.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/14/opinion/trump-democrats-transgender.html

What we want is to rescind so-called "gay marriage". We tried it, we tried to validate anti-traditional, irregular marriage. We honestly tried. Support for same-sex, irregular marriage incrementally rose until we finally in slight majority decided to try it out.

The result was woke. And we know now, go woke, go broke, in more than just finance, but also in cultural values. Woke has led to:

25% of our youngsters now identify as Let's Get Blasted Together.
No improvement in the suicidality of those who identify as Let's Get Blasted Together.
Permanent, irreversible injuries to youngsters.

Woke is the fruit of experimenting with validating irregular, anti-traditional marriage. It has not worked.

I asked ChatGPT to summarize the article (I have a subscription to the NYT, but I won't post the article itself due to it being paid content) and this is what it said (do note that the author of the article is very clearly an "Opinion Columnist" who very clearly supports the "trans movement"):

The article highlights the use of transgender issues as a central theme in Donald Trump's recent campaign strategy, which resonated with many voters despite affecting a small population. Trump pledged to ban gender-affirming care for minors, defund programs supporting gender transition, and restrict transgender participation in sports. These stances were amplified through ads attacking Kamala Harris and the Democratic Party for supporting progressive transgender policies. Polls indicate that many Americans, including Democrats, have complex views on transgender rights and oppose some aspects of gender-affirming care, especially for minors. While Trump’s rhetoric and policies may embolden transphobia, the article suggests that Democrats’ positions on these issues are often seen as out of touch with public opinion. There is increasing resistance to the teaching of gender identity in schools and medical interventions for minors, with skepticism growing as these topics receive more attention. The article argues that Democrats should adopt a more nuanced approach, acknowledging broader perspectives on gender issues while protecting the rights and dignity of transgender individuals. This strategy may help bridge divides and resonate better with voters, ensuring vulnerable groups remain protected under the law.

- ChatGPT 4o

 

[Idolater]

View attachment 13166

100%, and "gay" marriage (irregular, non- and anti-traditional) is the Trojan Horse that let in woke.

We need to get "gay" marriage out and that will exterminate the woke infestation. We've got a problem here, we've got to get rid of it.

 

[Idolater]

I don't, I leave it to you, along with the kindergarten stuff.

You've been asked a question for long enough and frankly, someone who thinks that Trump won the 2020 election hardly reaches a conclusion through evidence and reasoning.

If you were to ask a fair A.I. it would tell you how many of Trump's attempts to overturn the election, judicially, not extra-judicially, even made it to trial, MOST of them were DISMISSED before trial for one reason or other. They only do that when the evidence is PATHETIC. Some of Trump's attorneys (members of the bar), were SANCTIONED by jurists (members of the bench, which is an exclusive club made up of members of the bar, some of whom were hired by Trump (he nominates and if the Senate doesn't veto, then he's effectively hiring jurists, from among the bar); they were trying so hard, and being so pathetic. They left no stone unturned, judicially, and risked their careers on top. Since the election wasn't stolen, since the irregularities that certainly did obtain in 2020, on the ground, was not enough to overturn the results of the national election: it was legitimate.

We Americans legitimately and fairly, elected President Biden in 2020. It was the strangest thing though. There's this large voting bloc of Americans who usually vote by proxy, meaning they don't vote, but in 2020 they were motivated to vote directly instead of vote by proxy. Something about that pandemic did it. And in 2024, those people went back to their busy lives, and let typical voters in America vote FOR them, in a more normal election season. In 2020 Trump-Harris would have been competitive and down to a January 6 situation too, because of the irregularity that so many voters who normally vote by proxy (they don't vote) voted directly.

It was thought that the fact that really loosely regulated mail-in voting was new in 2020, contributed to the Democrats' victory. That's now obv not true. We had mail-in ballots in 2024 too, and even still, all those millions of voters by proxy, went back to voting by proxy again (by not voting).

There were tons of normal voters by proxy who voted for Trump, but there were more of them who voted for Biden. That is, there is a healthy bloc of our electorate who is roughly at least two-to-one potentially in favor of the Democratic party. But they have to be motivated to vote directly, so until they are motivated, they decide to authorize the rest of us who do vote normally to vote for them, by proxy. They weren't motivated in 2024, they were OK with us handling it, and that's why Harris was handled so easily, because Harris could only win if the Democratic leaning voting bloc, the normally non-voting voting bloc, was motivated to put their foot down; but they weren't. They went back to not voting, to voting by proxy, to trusting the rest of us, to decide for them. They imbue us with their power /right to vote normally. And we said in 2024, no doubt about it, Trump. Definitely Trump. First time a Republican president won the popular vote since President George W. Bush.