OT technical points on sexuality from UGLY THREAD

[Guest guest]

@@@@ btdt100:

Now as a woman by virtue of my gender sex, I resent people who

associate their behavioral choices with something I had no choice in,

and who try to elicit sympathy, empathy and identification of

discrimination. This is not a situation of discrimination based on

physical birth qualities such as gender sex or race where rights are

given to some based on that and denied others based on the same

criteria. How dare you try to delude the issue that it is.

@@@@@

Please note that homosexuality is fundamentally a physical birth

quality like sex or race, not a behavioral choice. In the beginning

of this thread I wrote about the " cultural malleability " category of

homosexuality, but that's more of a minor theoretical point, and when

we're dealing with the fundamental status of homosexuality, as in

this thread, the existence of a physiological status of

homosexuality at birth must be acknowledged. This is scientific

fact; feel free to look it up for verification. Discrimination based

on sexual orientation is fundamentally in the same category as other

congenital criteria for discrimination like sex or race.

The only interpretation I can give to the phrase " gender sex " above

is that you're making a distinction between different meanings of the

word " sex " and clarifiying that you are referring to the gender-based

meaning. This would be sensible and valuable, yet I don't believe

this was your intention because the second appearance this phrase

refers to " gender sex " as a birth quality, which is not the gender-

based meaning of " sex " . My suspicion is that you are confused about

these words, so I'll try to set things straight. In any context

where the words " gender " and " sex " are both used and a distinction is

made, " sex " refers to a person's genes, womb experience, etc,

whereas " gender " refers to a psychological or cultural phenomenon.

A person's " gender " is not the same thing as their " sex " , and they

don't correllate clearly across the entire human population. This

is a scientific fact; feel free to look it up for verification. In

many contexts, the words " sex " and " gender " are used interchangeably

to refer to either the biological or the cultural components, or even

an abstract combination of the two, but when the distinctions are

relevant, they are not interchangeable terms.

@@@@@ btdt 100:

Reducio absurdum is the term for this. Are you telling me that you

determine whether all actions are right or wrong based on whether

you " feel " like doing it or not? Aside from your sexual activity that

is as that actually is typical argument for such behavior? If you

felt inclined to kill some one, would that make it right?

Should " feelings " even be a consideration when determining rights and

wrongs? That is what self control is about - I'm sorry you have a

problem with that concept.

@@@@@@@

As someone with an academic background in logic, I really enjoyed

this first sentence! When one argues by reductio absurdum (please

note spelling), it is actually a proof that the premise is wrong.

In this case, the premise was your's!!!! So you have conveniently,

and perhaps unwittingly, acknowledged the error of your argument.

@@@@@ btdt 100:

A homosexual is just like a heterosexual Judith - either male or

female. And they are whatever race they are born. I am sorry, I do

not see them as a different sex, nor race, nor species or something

any different than I am - just human beings. So throw tomatoes at me

for being discriminatory?

@@@@@@@@@@@@

Not quite. There are more categories than just " male " and " female " .

This is scientific fact; feel free to look it up for verification.

Mike

SE Pennsylvania

[Guest guest]

Anton wrote:

> As someone with an academic background in logic, I really enjoyed

> this first sentence! When one argues by reductio absurdum (please

> note spelling), it is actually a proof that the premise is wrong.

> In this case, the premise was your's!!!!

" Reductio ad absurdum, " actually. Is there a name for the postulate that

every spelling flame must contain an error of its own? And (there you

go) I don't care how prescriptivist you are--apostrophe abuse is NOT

cool.

[Guest guest]

@@@@@@@

> Anton wrote:

> > As someone with an academic background in logic, I really enjoyed

> > this first sentence! When one argues by reductio absurdum (please

> > note spelling), it is actually a proof that the premise is wrong.

> > In this case, the premise was your's!!!!

>

> " Reductio ad absurdum, " actually. Is there a name for the postulate

that

> every spelling flame must contain an error of its own? And (there

you

> go) I don't care how prescriptivist you are--apostrophe abuse is NOT

> cool.

>

>

@@@@@@@@@

Nice tries , but the version with and without " ad " are both in

standard use and perfectly correct. If you're writing in Latin, by

all means include " ad " , but in English the more concise version is

preferable in most cases.

I think you meant " descriptivist " , but in any case I'll defend that

apostrophe with great vigor on theoretical grounds, and it's the

prevailing usage, so you don't have much of a case there. Of course,

if you want to be servile to some clutch of blinkered prescriptivists

in this matter, then that quirk of your's will make that rather

miniscule segment of the human population quite happy in the

statistically insignificant number of cases your discourse overlaps

at the relevant juncture.

Mike

SE Pennsylvania

[Guest guest]

,

<Please note that homosexuality is fundamentally a physical birth

quality like sex or race, not a behavioral choice.

That is your opinion but one certainly subject to argument. Now, I am

not looking to argue a specific definition of what constitutes a homosexual but

that has to be done before you can even attempt to make such a qualification.

In the process of doing that, behavior versus feelings or causation of sexual

stimulation will be a relevant issue in the debate. Then, however you define

it, such a qualification that it is a physical birth quality is still just

opinion. And I can argue the fallacies in logic to such ideas being applicable

in all situations but that is going to depend on how we define it in the first

place. Now you can take the position as some biologists that ALL behavior is

physical but as a logician, I am think you will agree that arguments regarding

free will vs biological determinism are complicated. If we decide that all is

determined for us, then those who dislike homosexuals or take revoltion or

whatever, are no more responsible for their feelings and actions than a

homosexual is for his. And then once we finished the argument, we are both going

to resume living in a society that says we are still responsible for our actions

which leaves the argument to be resolved as to what actions are right and which

are wrong. That again is another complicated philosophical argument and ones

with different value systems are going to derive different answers. Am I wrong

here professor?

<<< In the beginning

of this thread I wrote about the " cultural malleability " category of

homosexuality, but that's more of a minor theoretical point, and when

we're dealing with the fundamental status of homosexuality, as in

this thread, the existence of a physiological status of

homosexuality at birth must be acknowledged. This is scientific

fact; feel free to look it up for verification.

You are wrong in this. It is theorized, hypothesized, believed by some -

that's it. It is not accepted or established as scientific fact.

Such ideas have not endured peer review and challenge, and collective acceptance

by the scientific community which is necessary to be claimed as scientific fact.

..

<<<Discrimination based

on sexual orientation is fundamentally in the same category as other

congenital criteria for discrimination like sex or race.

I disagree with you because behavior would be an important aspect of how I would

define the term.

<<The only interpretation I can give to the phrase " gender sex " above

is that you're making a distinction between different meanings of the

word " sex " and clarifiying that you are referring to the gender-based

meaning. This would be sensible and valuable, yet I don't believe

this was your intention because the second appearance this phrase

refers to " gender sex " as a birth quality, which is not the gender-

based meaning of " sex " . My suspicion is that you are confused about

these words, so I'll try to set things straight.

There is no confusion and I think you understood what I meant. Some females have

more masculine qualities, some males are more effeminate. These qualities are

how we are born by which we have no control over and reflected in physical

appearance. Masculine or effiminate qualities use to be aspects by which some

would judge sexual orientation. From all I have read, there is no correlation

and such judgements would be erroneous and unfair. Correct me if I am wrong.

If you know a better way this could have been expressed, please share.

<<<As someone with an academic background in logic, I really enjoyed

this first sentence! When one argues by reductio absurdum (please

note spelling), it is actually a proof that the premise is wrong.

In this case, the premise was your's!!!! So you have conveniently,

and perhaps unwittingly, acknowledged the error of your argument.

I'll give you the spelling and I will give you poor construction. But I am

afraid it was a response to many rediculos ugly comments made towards me, not a

premise for any argument I was presenting. If I intially said something " ugly " ,

there was no intention. I have reread back and can find no where I presented

any argument or position of my own when I started receiving attack and name

calling such as being bigot, homophobic, prejudicial, and discrimnatory. So I

got ugly back which I think was fair and on terms set by others.

<Not quite. There are more categories than just " male " and " female " .

This is scientific fact; feel free to look it up for verification.

And just what scientific book would you suggest as I am only aware of two - or

maybe you are talking about abnormal situations such as hermorphidites or

neuters which doesn't really seem relevant to this.

[Guest guest]

-

>Now, I am not looking to argue a specific definition of what constitutes a

>homosexual but that has to be done before you can even attempt to make

>such a qualification.

Is your name really ?

>So I got ugly back which I think was fair and on terms set by others.

Getting ugly is unacceptable by anyone.

-

[Guest guest]

Anton wrote:

> @@@@@@@

>> Anton wrote:

>>> As someone with an academic background in logic, I really enjoyed

>>> this first sentence! When one argues by reductio absurdum (please

>>> note spelling), it is actually a proof that the premise is wrong.

>>> In this case, the premise was your's!!!!

>>

>> " Reductio ad absurdum, " actually. Is there a name for the postulate

>> that every spelling flame must contain an error of its own? And

>> (there you go) I don't care how prescriptivist you are--apostrophe

>> abuse is NOT cool.

>

> Nice tries , but the version with and without " ad " are both in

> standard use and perfectly correct. If you're writing in Latin, by

> all means include " ad " , but in English the more concise version is

> preferable in most cases.

I've never heard anything like that. In any case it's very rare, at

least on the Web. " Reductio absurdum " turns up 163 hits on Google

compared to 30,000 for " reductio ad absurdum. "

> I think you meant " descriptivist " ...

....It's a local dialect.

> but in any case I'll defend that

> apostrophe with great vigor on theoretical grounds, and it's the

> prevailing usage, so you don't have much of a case there.

Huh? Now your just making thing's up. Outside of AOL chat room's, at

least, " yours " is more common by orders of magnitude, and Ive nev'er

heard anyone suggest that " your's " is either common or correct.

> Of course,

> if you want to be servile to some clutch of blinkered prescriptivists

> in this matter, then that quirk of your's will make that rather

> miniscule segment of the human population quite happy in the

> statistically insignificant number of cases your discourse overlaps

> at the relevant juncture.

Lets see how many of m'y yacht's you get wi'th an attitude like that!

Bran'don

[Guest guest]

<Is your name really ?

I have no idea what that means.

<Getting ugly is unacceptable by anyone.

I have not gotten ugly since you asked that I not in respect for your terms.

And there has certainly been more ugly towards me since. In that, I was

answering comments towards what I had written. I read back, the attacks and

insults came on me first, I attacked no one nor had taken any position one way

or the other on the sensitive issue so no attack back to me was provoked by me.

Had I first been ugly, then I would have phrased that statement that I was in

the wrong for getting ugly and I would have apologized. Had it been a matter of

misunderstanding or mistating something, I would have attributed it to that and

again apologized. However, in this circumstance there was nothing I could

apologize for. I didn't think going back to the argument with he said, she said

was wise to explain the phrase that was being made issue of.

Now, while I respect your position that ugly is unacceptable by anyone, I hope

you can respect mine that I feel when ugly is thrown at me for no merit, that it

is fair for me to throw it back. That does not mean I am going to do that on

your board. I already agreed I wouldn't.

Re: OT technical points on sexuality from UGLY THREAD

-

>Now, I am not looking to argue a specific definition of what constitutes a

>homosexual but that has to be done before you can even attempt to make

>such a qualification.

>So I got ugly back which I think was fair and on terms set by others.

-

[Guest guest]

,

Can you understand that perpetuating abuse has and never will stop it?

Defense is not the best offense? That nothing good will come from either

manner?

Wanita

> <Is your name really ?

>

> I have no idea what that means.

>

> <Getting ugly is unacceptable by anyone.

>

> I have not gotten ugly since you asked that I not in respect for your

terms. And there has certainly been more ugly towards me since. In that, I

was answering comments towards what I had written. I read back, the attacks

and insults came on me first, I attacked no one nor had taken any position

one way or the other on the sensitive issue so no attack back to me was

provoked by me. Had I first been ugly, then I would have phrased that

statement that I was in the wrong for getting ugly and I would have

apologized. Had it been a matter of misunderstanding or mistating something,

I would have attributed it to that and again apologized. However, in this

circumstance there was nothing I could apologize for. I didn't think going

back to the argument with he said, she said was wise to explain the phrase

that was being made issue of.

>

> Now, while I respect your position that ugly is unacceptable by anyone, I

hope you can respect mine that I feel when ugly is thrown at me for no

merit, that it is fair for me to throw it back. That does not mean I am

going to do that on your board. I already agreed I wouldn't.

>

>

> Re: OT technical points on sexuality from UGLY THREAD

>

>

> -

>

> >Now, I am not looking to argue a specific definition of what

constitutes a

> >homosexual but that has to be done before you can even attempt to make

> >such a qualification.

>

>

>

> >So I got ugly back which I think was fair and on terms set by others.

>

>

>

>

>

>

> -

[Guest guest]

-

>And there has certainly been more ugly towards me since.

If you have complaints about specific posts directed at you, please send

them to me offlist.

-