Quote:
Originally Posted by nemesis
I didn't realize that restating a consensus is speculation? I guess restating anything anyone ever says qualifies as speculation. To quote a president is speculation or even paraphrase someone is speculation now.
|
Well I'd say first off that it is disingenuous in ANY CASE for you to say that you "didn't realize" what speculation is as I've already provided you the dictionary definition of speculation is. So regardless of what your position is, you already know what that word means after I showed you and I've shown that you've speculated on the issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nemesis
Really?? I "implicitly" criticized you for speculation? You seem to know what I'm saying better then I do? Why don't you just speak on my behalf?
|
I wouldn't bother. I don't find your opinions to be worth speaking on your behalf.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nemesis
These are your words.
You dismissed the link as being irrelevant to your argument on the grounds that it spoke only of rape and non-consensual sex. It did not speak of the kind of gay sex in prisons you were referring to so you did not consider it relevant. Therefore there is no point in me commenting on it.
|
That's not a dismissal, that's me pointing out it's irrelevancy. Your labeling that as a "dismissal" is just a biased and childish remark.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nemesis
I still cannot fathom how you come to the conclusion that paraphrasing and speculation are the same thing.
|
That is because you failed to observe the dictionary definition I provided to you as well as me plugging that dictionary definition into your own words. A failure like that is pretty significant failure in the use of the English language. That is why you failed to fathom this conclusion you speak of.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nemesis
Where exactly in the article did it say that it was coming to a conclusion regarding the size of the Suprachiasmatic nucleus in humans based on animals and not humans? You have chosen to narrow your argument to a very complicated piece of text here and I still can't find that anywhere in the text? At least give me a page number.
|
I would think that a complicated piece on the issue would be your strongest source. It is YOUR source after all. I will not give you the page number to YOUR SOURCE that talks about how the data is rats and quails because you request this information in a very rude way. You say "at least" give you a page number, but this is the first time you are asking me to give you that information which is like complaining about me not giving you the page number. Since you NEVER ASKED for the page number before, it is very rude how you complain about something you never asked for. Thus, due to your making your request very rudely, I deny your request.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nemesis
lol. I didn't use a quantity over quality argument. I gave you a link to a Wikipedia article after you requested information on physiological differences in gays. I didn't put the citations there. Since you requested the information I just assumed you would take it for what was rather then find one of the citations to nitpick about.
|
I don't share the bias that you are advocating here. You say that I should "take it (your sources) for what it was", a blind acceptance of your sources, merely because they support your pro-gay agenda. I find that to be very hypocritical. What's the point of using sources if one is just going to blindly accept what they say, as you have done? You fail to defend your source or to even see what is the data being used for your source. If you think that you can fail to do that and still have confidence in your source, then your presenting those sources was just a farce anyway, as you were going to accept their pro-gay conclusions regardless of their quality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nemesis
This man does in fact suggest that homosexuality is genetically influenced.But this isn't so much a study as it is an educated opinion of one man anyway.
|
Genetically influenced, but with such a weak influence as to be largely determined by choice. The study in your earlier source was just as much of an "educated opinion" of one or two men just as you criticize my source for being.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nemesis
I don't see how this one helps you either.
|
That's your failure to see that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nemesis
At any rate of the articles I've read none if them definitely argue homosexuality as being a choice at all. Can you point to me the one that does?
|
They all do. You've failed to see this, just as you failed to see that in your own source the data are rats and quail, and not human beings. In another study you showed, the data were sheep, and among another study you used, the data was among people who died of AIDS, thus adding in another variable that could have accounted for their physiological differences from the rest of the population.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nemesis
Hey, it may very well be. I never said it wasn't. However that doesn't make it a choice.
|
It makes it a choice, in the context of how I talked about choice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nemesis
No, I messed up my quotes. Before I finished that sentence I went back to copy my comment. When I put my comment in quotes it ended up in there however I did not realize it until I re-read my post. I highlighted it rather then edit it out because if I removed it it would seem as though I edited my post further.
|
It still makes no sense how you quoted yourself and added in comments into the quote, which you never said in your original quote. It's a little shady.
WEB