Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 6
  • 11
Be Ye Not Gay
Topic Started: Oct 25 2011, 05:32 PM (3,715 Views)
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
That's 6.
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
Mikhailoh
Oct 27 2011, 05:16 PM
Oh, gosh, John. We haven't begun to tap the animal kingdom yet.

Well, you have, I suppose...
I was going to post this earlier today, but thought better of it. However, now that you've opened that door, I have no choice but to walk through:

Analysis of a rather odd paper on cancer of the penis

Yesterday a Tweet by @DrVes caught my attention. It was a link to an abstract of a paper, published ahead of print in the Journal of Sexual Medicine, entitled “Sex with Animals (SWA): Behavioral Characteristics and Possible Association with Penile Cancer. A Multicenter Study.” Subjects were interviewed and completed questionnaires about their sexual experiences. The paper is from the Department of Pelvic Surgery, Hospital A.C. Camargo, São Paulo, Brazil and has 20 authors. I will leave the fascinating subject of multiple authors and what 20 people could have done to meaningfully contribute to the authorship of any paper for another time.

Instead, let’s focus on the findings of this study. I was unable to obtain a full text version of the paper but in this case, the abstract may be enough. The paper concerns the difference between men with and without penile cancer.

The abstract states, “SWA [sex with animals] was reported by 171 (34.8%) subjects, 44.9% of PC [penile cancer] patients and 31.6% of controls (P<0.008).” I know economic issues exist in Brazil and times may be bad. But ONE-THIRD of the nearly 500 men questioned HAD SEX WITH ANIMALS! And that represents just the ones who admitted it.

There is more. From the abstract: “SWA with a group of men was reported by 29.8% of subjects and SWA alone was reported by 70.2%. Several animals were used by 62% of subjects, and 38% always used the same animal. The frequency of SWA included single (14%), weekly or more (39.5%), and monthly episodes (15%).” It is not clear why the frequency numbers do not add up to 100%.

That SWA is a risk factor for penile cancer was confirmed on multivariate analysis.

Not to downplay the seriousness of penile cancer, but I think we have even bigger problems in Brazil. One, having lived exclusively in the USA, I may be naïve but one-third of men admitting to having sex with animals seems quite high to me. Two, what about the fact that 30% of the sexual activity with animals involved groups of men? Could it be that the animals are not always willing participants? Three, almost 40% had sex with animals on a “weekly or more” basis. Four, what about the integrity of these men? Only 38% were faithful to their animal partners.

I wish to thank the authors for sharing this with us. I look forward to their next study.

A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
Now where did I put that 'Unsee' button?
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dan
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
Yeah, I've been afraid to look at the "there's some things you can't unsee" thread. Guess now I don't need to worry about what might be in there huh?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
jon-nyc
Oct 27 2011, 06:19 PM
That's 6.
That's zip, buddy boy. You asked me if I thought your statement was incorrect, to summarize it. I did.

Occasionally you get argumentative and act aggressively and obstinately. Maybe it's that time of the month, maybe you're dealing with some other stresses and trying to take it out here. If it's the latter, I hope you deal with it in a healthier manner than picking fights with friends.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
Occasionally, in fact more than just occasionally, you find it easier to evade questions and try to change the subject than concede a point. Your interlocutor has two choices - either let you do whatever you need to do to avoid ceding the point, or persist and be insulted, directly or obliquely.

It does get old, IT.
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
ivorythumper
Oct 27 2011, 08:29 PM
Occasionally you get argumentative and act aggressively and obstinately. Maybe it's that time of the month, maybe you're dealing with some other stresses and trying to take it out here. If it's the latter, I hope you deal with it in a healthier manner than picking fights with friends.
Funniest. Post. Ever.

And not in a good way :lol:
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
apple
one of the angels
may sheep safely graze

It's worth listening to the short intro before the piece starts. Virgil Fox rocks.
it behooves me to behold
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
jon-nyc
Oct 28 2011, 01:18 AM
Occasionally, in fact more than just occasionally, you find it easier to evade questions and try to change the subject than concede a point. Your interlocutor has two choices - either let you do whatever you need to do to avoid ceding the point, or persist and be insulted, directly or obliquely.

It does get old, IT.
Had I actually evaded a question, you would have had a legitimate point. All I did was try to show you why your "question" was not only completely unanswerable from the material that was presented, it was not even coherent. Evidently you still don't even understand that, and you evidently haven't even bothered to read what I did post in addressing your "point". I'll give it one last try.

You reference Jolly's statements. Here's what he wrote:

Yet, I find interesting the stone cold fact that sexual orientation is not biological destiny.

If the study is correct, it shows that being gay is not biological destiny. Not for all.


Maybe you thought he wrote "Not at all" - -or something else similar. Had he written such, then your "point" would actually be coherent. But it is sloppy thinking on your part to insist that

The study has zero relevance to the nature v nurture debate and The outcome of the study has no bearing on the origins of sexual behavior.

The first comment you wrote is obviously wrong, since the study does undermine the theory that homosexuality is entirely a matter of nature ("born that way"). Whether or not the study is accurate or well grounded or properly executed or anything else, or whether future research shows it to be erroneous, it obviously has direct relevance to that debate. You, probably, will not conceded even that.

The second comment is not germane since the study never purports to explain the origins of sexual behavior. You could well say that the study has no bearing on the origins of glottal stop in indo-eurpoean languages. It is every bit as meaningless in terms of the study. I doubt you will concede that one either.


The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
Quote:
 
On the contrary - no one has yet put forward a convincing argument as to how the origin of homosexual behavior can be determined from the fact that a small minority of religious homosexuals who attempt to change their behavior are successful in doing so.


Still unaddressed. You have have not provided an argument, just an assertion, like Jolly. The only difference is you added the word 'entirely' in order to make it something of a strawman.


Ivorythumper
 

The first comment you wrote is obviously wrong, since the study does undermine the theory that homosexuality is entirely a matter of nature ("born that way").





In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
ivorythumper
Oct 28 2011, 10:44 PM
The second comment is not germane since the study never purports to explain the origins of sexual behavior. You could well say that the study has no bearing on the origins of glottal stop in indo-eurpoean languages. It is every bit as meaningless in terms of the study. I doubt you will concede that one either.


I fully agree the study doesn't purport to explain the origins of sexual behavior. Hence my issue with Jolly's logical leap.

(as a reminder, no where have I expressed the slightest issue with this entirely unremarkable study - only Jolly's conclusion)
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
By the way, IT, do you think that heterosexual behavior has a genetic basis?

I do. It would seem to me rather difficult to argue otherwise.

In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AndyD
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
Spare a thought for Ostrea edulis, which changes sex twice a year.

Every morning the soul is once again as good as new, and again one offers it to one's brothers & sisters in life.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
I was talking about humans, but I certainly will spare the thought. :)
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
This past year, I was asked by an administration member of the seminary if I'd be interested in switching teams, denominationally. Later in the year, I was asked by a student if I'd be interested in switching teams, sexually. I told them both that I'd consider the offer, but I'd need to know more details about their retirement plan. ^_^
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
jon-nyc
Oct 28 2011, 11:06 PM
Quote:
 
On the contrary - no one has yet put forward a convincing argument as to how the origin of homosexual behavior can be determined from the fact that a small minority of religious homosexuals who attempt to change their behavior are successful in doing so.

Still unaddressed. You have have not provided an argument, just an assertion, like Jolly. The only difference is you added the word 'entirely' in order to make it something of a strawman.
Ivorythumper
 

The first comment you wrote is obviously wrong, since the study does undermine the theory that homosexuality is entirely a matter of nature ("born that way").

I guess you don't know what a strawman argument is. For that matter, you don't seem to understand what an actual "argument" is. Maybe if I broke it down for you it would help.

Proposition: "homosexuality is not entirely a matter of genetics and is not an immutable and permanent trait in a person" -- the "born that way" position is not conclusive.
Sub proposition: "assumption that matters of genetics are immutable and permanent traits in a person".
Evidence: "the study evinces that some people can be redirected through therapy to overcome same sex attraction"
Conclusion: "If some people can be redirected through therapy to overcome same sex attraction, then it must be granted that it is not an immutable and permanent trait in a person, and it must be assumed that it is not entirely a matter of genetics".

The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
jon-nyc
Oct 28 2011, 11:09 PM
ivorythumper
Oct 28 2011, 10:44 PM
The second comment is not germane since the study never purports to explain the origins of sexual behavior. You could well say that the study has no bearing on the origins of glottal stop in indo-eurpoean languages. It is every bit as meaningless in terms of the study. I doubt you will concede that one either.
I fully agree the study doesn't purport to explain the origins of sexual behavior. Hence my issue with Jolly's logical leap.
(as a reminder, no where have I expressed the slightest issue with this entirely unremarkable study - only Jolly's conclusion)
If you fully agree with that statement, then your reasoning for belligerently insisting that I have evaded answering your questions, or that I should concede to a meaningless statement, is opaque.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
Again, you've built the strawman by adding 'entirely' and 'immutable and permanent'. Very easy to knock that over.

Apply that to the hetero example - or any human behavior that isn't involuntary and its absurdity becomes manifest.
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
ivorythumper
Oct 29 2011, 10:17 AM
jon-nyc
Oct 28 2011, 11:09 PM
ivorythumper
Oct 28 2011, 10:44 PM
The second comment is not germane since the study never purports to explain the origins of sexual behavior. You could well say that the study has no bearing on the origins of glottal stop in indo-eurpoean languages. It is every bit as meaningless in terms of the study. I doubt you will concede that one either.
I fully agree the study doesn't purport to explain the origins of sexual behavior. Hence my issue with Jolly's logical leap.
(as a reminder, no where have I expressed the slightest issue with this entirely unremarkable study - only Jolly's conclusion)
If you fully agree with that statement, then your reasoning for belligerently insisting that I have evaded answering your questions, or that I should concede to a meaningless statement, is opaque.
Again, I never took issue with the study, other than pointing out how meaningless and unremarkable it is. Jolly's conclusion is what I had issue with.
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
ivorythumper
Oct 29 2011, 10:13 AM
I guess you don't know what a strawman argument is.
Wiki's take:

Quote:
 
A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position, twisting his words or by means of [false] assumptions.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[1][2]



By adding 'entirely' and 'immutable and permanent', you misrepresented my position by means of [false] assumptions creating the illusion of having refuted it with a superficially similar yet non equivalent proposition.
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
jon-nyc
Oct 28 2011, 11:17 PM
By the way, IT, do you think that heterosexual behavior has a genetic basis?

I do. It would seem to me rather difficult to argue otherwise.

No, it don't think heterosexuality has a "genetic" basis strictly speaking -- I don't think that human nature is a matter of "genetics" once you get past the subject of human genes. The issue is not genetics but human nature.

As for homosexuality, I don't think it has a genetic basis either. I think it can be adequately explained entirely from "nurture" and developmental psychology. At best one can try to argue that certain "feminine" boys or "masculine" girls (which could well be a matter of genetics) are treated differently, ostracized, find acceptance and intimacy in homosexual relationships, develop appetites and self identification as gays, etc. But that does not explain very much since there are many 'fem' men in entirely heterosexual relationships and who have no sense of same sex attraction. I think that pre-adolescent and adolescent curiosity are strong motivators, and if one has developed certain practices, habits, and enforced inclinations in the course of sexual development, these become highly formative on the appetite and passions and very much form one's sense of self identity and body image.

I think the basis for all homosexuality is a question of finding acceptance for oneself in relationship, where due to whatever developmental issues one did not find acceptance in heterosexual relationships. The human nature argument is for an innate inclination for intimacy and relationship -- the nurture argument is how these inclinations are developed and manifested.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
What source of 'human nature' if not genes?
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 

Again, you've built the strawman by adding 'entirely' and 'immutable and permanent'. Very easy to knock that over.


Proposition: The number of legs people have is not entirely a matter of genetics and is not an immutable and permanent trait in a person" -- the "born that way" position is not conclusive.
Sub proposition: "assumption that matters of genetics are immutable and permanent traits in a person".
Evidence: "the study evinces that some people can be redirected through the use of landmines to overcome their bipediality"
Conclusion: "If some people can get their limbs blown off then it must be granted that the number of limbs we possess is not an immutable and permanent trait in a person, and it must be assumed that it is not entirely a matter of genetics".
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
Beautiful, Moonbat.

In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
jon-nyc
Oct 29 2011, 10:23 AM
Again, you've built the strawman by adding 'entirely' and 'immutable and permanent'. Very easy to knock that over.

Apply that to the hetero example - or any human behavior that isn't involuntary and its absurdity becomes manifest.
You don't seem to understand a what a strawman is. If you bothered to read the report of the study, you would see that this matter of questioning the permanence of homosexuality is under consideration. I tried to point that out to you by quoting from the report, I'll try again, and maybe you'll actually read it this time:

"But I think the study stands as a significant challenge to the reigning views on this matter, especially given that the major mental health organizations say in alternate voices that change of sexual orientation is impossible or that change in sexual orientation is highly unlikely."

It can't be a strawman -- which is "a misrepresentation of an opponent's position, twisting his words or by means of [false] assumptions" since the matter of permanence is the very subject of the study.

But I've explain this enough times to you. If you can't get it, you can't get it.


The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
Learn More · Sign-up for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 6
  • 11