PARENT GROUPS ASK MARYLAND TO STOP NEW SEX ED LESSONS

To: 3D-JOY; abner; Abundy; AGreatPer; Albion Wilde; alisasny; ALlRightAllTheTime; AlwaysFree; ...

Laughingstock school board strikes again!

241 posted on 03/03/2007 6:07:20 AM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (The Republican primary field SUCKS!!!)

To: thehumanlynx; scripter

I do appreciate your willingness to share with me about concepts that I have trouble with...like "walmart hating AFA," for example.

I have much more trouble understanding the existence of groups such as NAMBLA. BTAIM, denying they exist won't make them go away. This is something we should all be able to take to the bank, doncha think?

The forcing of anything on the people at large is just so ewww....yet it happens more and more often every day.

242 posted on 03/03/2007 7:45:50 AM PST by Froufrou

243 posted on 03/03/2007 11:53:23 AM PST by trooprally (Never Give Up - Never Give In - Remember Our Troops)

IMHO All democratic positions are vulnerable to attacks on the basis of Hillary’s position (there I used an absolute)

A principled Democratic Congressman would be far less vulnerable, since he voted against the war from the very beginning, even when it was very powerful. Fortunately, shrewd policitians who were for the war when it was popular and against the war when it was unpopular, are not immune to criticism.

Congress saw the raw data and what, president bush manipulated the intel for the brits, France, Israel and Germany? Do you (asking the Dhimmi crat) really think he’s that smart? (remember, they think he’s dumb, so they will have to back track here)

I assume France, Britain and Israel had their own intelligence. But I really don't know how they think about this, since it is a near-impossibility to get an answer out of them. They're very good at changing the subject.

Bingo! See, this can be won with “Logic” in the classical sense.

Sure you can be win with induction (as this was inductive/informal reasoning). I did not dispute that. What I did say is that you can't prove oyur point with certainty.

I live in Utah now, but do business all over (started my own company doing data conversions) I do not try to get into political debates while on business, but have had lots of opportunity to talk to people on planes and such, when faced with logic, most Dhimmi crats will retreat, admit you are right, and wait for you to go away to resume their opinion (they know they are wrong and don’t care.)

You're right about that. But is a defeat in an argument really evidence for the assertion that it is illogicl? Imagine a weak debater who is pro-Israel and a strong debater who is pro-terrorist. The pro-Israel debater will get outmaneuvered and defeated, but in his heart, he will still know that Israel is right. Similarly, most of my political positions come from a combination of what I think and feel about the issue.

Regarding Bush-haters, they are quite resilient and immune to fact. That's why I don't set out to persuade them anymore, because it is impossible. I set out to defeat them.

Bull, plant tons of Talc, switch a sample for anthrax at the lab, sanitize the area publicly, done!

I really believe someone in the government would leak that fact to the NYT, and it would be an even greater embarrassment for the Bush administration. And the Democrats were ready to attack anything (even legitimate) weapons as 'planted'.

Actually we had more allies for the second war with araq than we did for the first.

You mean that more countries provided military support? Because for the first Gulf War, Western political support was near-unanimous and even the Soviet Union supported us.

Many Science fiction stories are “plausible” that does not make them logical, or even believable. (Though science fiction is enjoyable.)

But regular fiction is plausible and it would be logical to believe it, except for the fact that we know that it is fiction.

My logic here establishes it’s conclusion with all the certainty the current information allows, remember my statements made in post 200? “It is illogical to expect that all your information will be correct. It is also illogical to reject the analysis based on all available data. Just as it is Illogical for people with more information to demand that decisions made in the past be evaluated according to data that did not exist at the time the decision was made.”

Absolutely. But the interpretation of that information ia a human's job, not a machine's. While a computer program can come up with answers when it comes to formal logic (because it's mathematical), it can't do so for informal logic.

We would not have nuked him, darn it, we were to hamstrung by the rest of the world.

I think we would have nuked them, or at least, Saddam thought that we would, and that is sufficient to explain his actions. If you don't agree, why didn't he use his WMDs? Why would we even invade a country that would use WMDs against us if attacked? (If not [use WMDs when attacked], why not?)

Too bad, I assign a thread to both and “focus on them both.

Ah! You're a computer program yourself, and you're using your programmer's FR-account. (Grin. Of course, this is an impossibility, because you understand informal logic.)

Well, I for example and 5’11” tall Grin) but the point is how big were the first computers? I’d be willing to bet that the computer you are using (if it’s not a laptop) has a physical displacement larger than your head. Yet your head has more computing power, storage, and redundancy than the computer. Science and religion both try to answer the questions “How did that happen?”.

Power, yeah. Understanding, yeah. Computers are very stupid. But storage? I wish I could load 400 GB of Ebooks in my mind.

Grin, yep one of those polar opposites thingies

LOL! What I actually meant was with that, was that he might have created us because He thought we would be interesting to Him.

“Elect a teenager president, while they still know everything.” – Old Joke

Isn't that the truth?

I divide people into three categories: 1. The Ignorant (one who has not yet had the opportunity to learn, or has not availed them selves of an opportunity that was presented, willful ignorance is still ignorance) 2. The Stupid (you just can’t teach some people, and they will never learn) 3. The learned (have had education on the topic at hand and have an opinion based on study. A learned individual will always be seeking more education on every subject.) People can move from one category to another as the topics being discussed change. A well rounded individual will know something on just about every subject.

There is some overlap between the groups. Some people are learned but stupid. They don't know how to use what they have learned in a good manner. Oftentimes, they will reach conclusions that are even worse than the ones reached by those who are not learned and stupid. Most people in the world would fit in the second group, BTW.

All minds are open if we can just find the right phrase to open the lock they have placed there; words are keys, just find the right ones.

Your opinion of mankind is way too optimistic, I think.

Statement: “This ship is unsinkable!” Question “Why do you say that” Answer “It is still floating.” So the mind is impenetrable because ti has no been penetrated yet? (grin) Has anyone with a closed mind on this ever had their mind changed? If so, how did that happen? Has it happened more than once? Can it be repeated? What techniques were used to defeat the “Closed mind syndrome” successfully? IF you really wanted to you could find a way.

You're correct. But you've got to have the patience to deal with such types. I don't think I have it. And I think that any effect on the person will be long-term, the person will realize that his views are irrational, but will not readily admit it. It takes some time.

Goal, create better drivers. Tool: people think that they are good drivers. Method: Couch your teaching in terms of giving people ways to improve therit already good driving skills, appeal to their vanity about their good driving skills (even if they are not) and convince them to change their driving habits to actually improve their driving competency. What you are confusing here is Logic and Tactics. Logic is how you formulate your Tactics. The tactics, since you are working with a person who might not be logical, do not have to be logical in and of themselves. Starting with someone’s belief about themselves to affect the desired change is a time tested tactic, and belongs in any good debaters’ arsenal of argument.

Absolutely, I am not disputing that this is a sound tactit to chance behavior. However, I do not think that it is a sound way of assessing whether people are good drivers. People's self-report tends to be biased in their own favor.

. As for establishing that someone is good, if the person agrees that most people are good, then the must admit that Whoever we are talking about sees themselves in a good light (in all probability) so they must now explain why that person is wrong in their evaluation of what is good (so why is president bush mistaken that he is a good person)

I don't see why any person's view of himself has any relevance to the debate about whether the person is good. The mere fact that a person sees himself as good, does not mean that it should be the starting point for a debate about whether he is really good. You're very good at getting the starting positions in a way that is favorable to your own position, but this doesn't seem logical to me (though it is a terrific debating technique).

This is an extremely difficult argument for them to win as they do not know all the information at the President’s disposal. Having arrived at this point in the discussion, they will concede that the President may indeed be a good man, just in a very difficult position (they may even think he is out of his depth, but the “Bad Man” argument will be won.) This is tactics BTW.

However, you must also realize that this very same tacit can be used against you.

It is an excellent argument, you yourself said that good and Bad are relative.

It's a poor argument, even though it might work. Fallacies might work in some cases, but that doesn't mean they're not fallacies.

As for good and bad being relative, I don't believe I've said that just like that. Different persons may have differing opinions, but there is some truth out there.

A presidential debate is not about convincing the other candidate, it is about convincing potential voters. It is a very difficult position, because the person you are actually responding to (the other candidate) is not the person you want to influence. That is why so many of those debates seem to be each side saying their “Talking points” in response to any question without regard to relevance.

It is. But my entire point was that in many cases, winning is the goal, and not persuasion. In other cases, persuasion may be the goal. At least, this is how it is for me.

Precisely, I had a goal, I had my plans laid, I set the terms of the engagement and I executed my plan in the way I calculated to have the most probable outcome of success. Actually, it used formal Logic, or real logic, the original logic? OK, Logic.

It didn't. A lot can be said to contest your arguments. The fact that this particular woman was too stupid/clueless to do so, does not mean that you used formal logic and that your conclusion was established with certainty.

1. She might not believe in a God.
2. She might not believe that God, even if He exists, has created a particular'natural order'.
3. She might argue about the exact nature of the 'natural order'.

The fact that she was technically able to contest your argument, means that you were not using formal logic. Think about it. Who can contest the following? 1. All men are moral. 2. DelphiUser is a man. 3. DelphiUser is mortal. That's deductive/syllogism/formal logic, and it establishes its conclusion with certainty.

Yes, it did, I set the terrain (the three types). I set the predilliction for Darwanisem (postulates that are difficult to refute, once agreed upon are facts for the course of the discussion) And I pointed out that the only remaining logical position was one of Denial. I then pointed out that the only arguments there were disingenuous arguments designed to delay inevitable defeat. So logically if defeat is indeed inevitable, the fight is over, if you are dealing with a logical person anyway, which leaves anyone left fighting branding themselves as illogical, emotional, and defecto a fanatic.

You did not 'point out' that the only remaining Logic was Denial (false dilemma), nor that all arguments were disingenuous, or that they were designed to delay inevitable defeat, you merely asserted that. And assertion is not evidence, you need to provide evidence for why that is the case. As a lot can be said about your argument, you did not establish your conclusions with certainty and thus were not using formal logic, regardless of whether or not the other participants were defeated by you.

I believe that do, break it by a logical means if you can.

What was the question exactly that was in dispute? As you have stated, the point being argued is very important to any debate.

Anyhow, even if it cannot be broken by logical means (which I think it can), the mere fact that it can be tarnished by logical means, means that you have not established your conclusion with certainty. A syllogism cannot be disputed, if the evidence is true, the conclusion must be true. That is not the case in your argument.

I don’t think so, infact I have had many political debates by basing my poition entirely in Logic, not “Informal Logic” I am using Logic, the old style.

With due respect, but whatever you think you are using is irrelevant. Either your definition of logic will include something of my definitions of both formal & informal logic, or you are flat out wrong about the certainty with which your conclusions are established. (And this is not a false dilemma.)

Of course, it is my fault that I haven't cleraly explained informal logic. But explanation has never been my strongest point.

Really? Show one of my arguments that is not based in fact, or accepted postulates.

All your arguments are based on fact, but they need to be based on form (formal logic) te be deductive, and thus establish their conclusions with certainty. Those facts are open to interpretation, that is NOT the case with formal logic/deduction.

As a programmer, I could code all the arguments I have made here.

I assure you, you cannot code a program that will come up with any conclusion in the debates we have used, if you feed it the evidence. There are few certainties in life, but this is one of them. Unless you have secretly invented some sophisticated form of AI, of course.

1. Iraq had them. 2. Iraq hid them 3. Iraq refuses to show they have gotten rid of them (change cannot be proved) Therefore Iraq still has WMDs (assuming a steady state environment, which most computers assume I.E. unless you change a value it stays the same)

Now, can you come up with a program that will come up with the conclusion based on the first three pieces of evidence? And also be able to make other conclusions? Of course, that's impossible. However, I can make a program that will handle 100% of all formal logic cases (with BASIC). Everything else is informal logic.

When information is withheld, judgment is impaired.

Not only that, but logical people can disagree on how to interpret the information. Put 100 logical people in a room, provide them with some evidence about some subject, and I guarantee you that there will be no unanimous conclusion. But give them the two premises of a formal argument, and they will agree on the conclusion, 100% of them.

We must then look at the logical reasons why information would be withheld and you are admittedly in a sub optimal analysis position. Being in a sub optimal position only means that your result produces a probability with more decimal places (remember the statistical universe question?) since we do not live in a statistical universe, we round the statistic up for .49+ and down for .50- thus reducing a probability to a one or zero (true or false) answer. This equation would result in a true for Iraq having weapons of Mass destruction. The accuracy of that equation is that we have found TONS of WMD’s in Iraq, just scattered and hidden, which I could also have predicted with a mathematical formula.

How do you make a formula that will work in most cases? Of course, that is impossible. Informal logic is a human endeavor, since it requires human judgement. You can integate that judgement into a formula for one single case, but since you did that, you might just as well made a conclusion for yourself.

So to you the philosophical question of whether or not you exist for you is an exercise in Informal Logic? I have accepted certain truths to be self evident. I no longer participate in discussion of whether or not I exist. (Since the outcome of the discussion will not actually affect me.) I also refuse to be dragged into discussions of whether or not absolute truth exists. (I respond “Absolutely!” Grin)

I have accepted some truths as self-evident too. I do exist, and discussion about that is tiresome indeed. Absolute truth exists, but it's limited. People who think they've found the truth and cling to it as if it was God's own word, are particularly annoying. But other philosophical and political questions are without doubt exercises in informal logic. I could have made this more clear if we disagreed on most political issues, since in that case, I could show you that neither one of us could establish his conclusions with absolute certainty, and that necessarily means that it is informal logic.

I speak from the best facts at my disposal, even while admitting that I do not have all the facts. I accept new facts as they are available, and supportable. Thus I am a rational man.

We all think we are. But truth be told, there are limits to our rationality. Some of us are more rational than others, but no man is wholly rational.

Why not stick to Logic for “Formal Logic” and “Informal Logic” for this new variety, it will save on all the effort of correcting all the books written when “Formal Logic” was all the “Logic” there was.

Because you keep using the word 'logic' to mean 'informal logic'! Or maybe you think that you have established your conclusions with certainty, while you have not done so. No offense BTW.

I could make a joke about Assumptions (grin) but I won’t Etymology, or the study of the history of words can indeed tell us whaere words cae from and e=when they and the concepts that came with them were created.

Gladly. Logic comes from the Greek word logos, which means word or reasoning. And reasoning is, without doubt, informal logic.

For example, in Chinese there is no word for “Clash”. You cannot say in Chinese that shirt and those pants clash. You can say it looks ugly together, but that is as close as you can get. (This explains how Chinese people just off of the plane dress, then after they have been here a year or so, they suddenly get it and dress much better) So once their English gets to the point the understand the English word clash, they can now use it, until then because they have no word, they have no concept.

Indeed. But as you have said, you can get wet even if you don't have a word for it. And you can use formal logic without having a word for it. I assume that the word was invented after someone discovered that such a thing existed, which necessarily means that that it was used before the invention of the word.

Etymology (which is a science) would say otherwise.

I beg to disgaree. (Oh, and by the way, Etymology can't establish its conclusions with certainty either, so they're using informal logic, grin.)

You’ll have to take it to the Highes court, and then he would just have to recuse himself so the case would be thrown out, so nope, can’t sue. Then again, I am not a lawyer; I do not even play one on T.V. so you should ask your council for sound legal advice.

That's a shame. Maybe Satan will stand in for God. After all, he used to be God's chief angel, not?

I was teaching the son of the translator for the living Buddha, and his father wanted one of us to take his class in order to give permission to be baptized, besides, it was fascinating. (grin with a win, win, win)

Heh. You're willing to do a lot to win a convert.

Story telling is a skill that can be acquired, I recommend it, along with speed reading.

I'll try, but I'm not sure that I will succeed.

When your opponent retreats, make then expend capital defending their retreat, then according to your strategy, either pursue the retreating argument, or sow dissention by attacking elsewhere to cause confusion in his coherent arguments, if the latter, then return to the retreating front of defense to create an argument on two fronts, few debaters can keep up with logical arguments on two fronts, and they often concede ideological ground that they should not.

Thank you.

Not true since one day/ night? The sun will inevitably not rise as it will have gone out, gone novae, etc.

Of course, we're not talking about the end of the world, but about the near and foreseeable future. The chance would be 100%, not?

Actually, the formula would be flawed because it is not taking into account the constraint posed by the constitution.

That was exactly what I meant. You can make up anything, and claim after the fact that you were right. 99% chance that Bush would be elected? Well, the 1% scenario played out.

Thus, the problem with statistics, they do not represent the real world, even though we try to make it do so. (Once Bush is not reelected is it not now a 100% probability?)

I don't know. If you toss up a coin and get a head, does that mean that the chance was 100%?

I wish he was a true conservative… I wish I had the facts to know for sure.

Well, it's either Romney or Rudy. Fortunately for me, I like them both. :P

(Oh, and I don't think Reagan was a mythical 'true conservative' either.)

Since I was telling the story, I used logic as streaigth lines, and Informal Logic as curved because that is how it seemed to me. The power to draw such similies is part of being the story teller.

How would you define 'informal logic'? I've seen you use the word 'logic' for both informal and formal logic, so I don't understand what you mean by it.

Thanks, this has been fun so far.

Thank YOU.

244 posted on 03/03/2007 3:35:23 PM PST by LtdGovt ("Where government moves in, community retreats and civil society disintegrates" -Janice Rogers Brown)

To: thehumanlynx

The study of argumentation is not necessarily yap yap, but in the midst of this thread it is b/c it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

That wouldn't make it 'yap yap'. If we were discussing the Theory of Relativity in this thread, that wouldn't make it yap yap. You display contempt for the study of argumentation, while arguing that you don't think that it is 'necessarily' yap yap, even though you hint that in a significant majority of the cases, it might well me.

Like I said, you spend more time defending the style and semantics of your arguments rather than the substance

I'm sorry if you have made this misinterpretation (no doubt without reading all the posts), but this ends up re-inforcing the point of the wise man about how a man feels about what he does not understand.

I'm certain you realize that "I'll be around" was not in any way a threat considering I have not said anything that is close to threatening.

Why would you be around? I thought that the 'yap yap' was bothering you? And I knew it was not a threat, but it did seem like someone who thought too highly of himself and his presence.

Your response was juvenile and a waste of time.

I believe that my response did not force you to respond to it. Therefore, if you choose to read it, and choose to respond to it with a comment of your own, who is really responsible for the alleged waste of time? The choice was yours, and you chose to waste time.

245 posted on 03/03/2007 3:42:45 PM PST by LtdGovt ("Where government moves in, community retreats and civil society disintegrates" -Janice Rogers Brown)

To: thehumanlynx

Thats fine, your comments remind me of someone who is arrogant beyond belief.

Who would that be?

By the way, it's called realistic.

Because the conversation you engaged in does not belong in this thread does not mean I'm ignorant of argumentation or scared of it or an enemy of it.

Why would you care about a thread that is a week old and has few responses that are relevant to its subject matter? Why would you be bothered if two people chose to debate about argumentation?

Your commments also remind me of someone that would respond better to a few swift kicks, and maybe a hook and a cross. I tend to think that you will take delight in that b/c you think that since I referred to physicality that you "got me", but I can't help what things remind me of.

Not at all. I didn't get you. You got yourself.

246 posted on 03/03/2007 3:45:25 PM PST by LtdGovt ("Where government moves in, community retreats and civil society disintegrates" -Janice Rogers Brown)

To: thehumanlynx

He will put it in the same category as the AFA article. (he discounted that one b/c he hates the "wal-mart hating AFA").

For entirely different reasons. AFA's pathological hatred of Wal-Mart, and by extension capitalism, really discredits the organisation for me. That's a second negative. The first one is that I prefer objectivity over subjectivity, articles written by experts over those written by people arguing one side of the position. You seem awfully upset about that.

By the way, you're supposed to ping people when talkinga bout them.

247 posted on 03/03/2007 3:48:55 PM PST by LtdGovt ("Where government moves in, community retreats and civil society disintegrates" -Janice Rogers Brown)

To: Froufrou; thehumanlynx

You might find this article of interest. It's the story of how Charlene Cothran, publisher of Venus Magazine, a 13 year old periodical for homosexuals of African-American descent has left the homosexual lifestyle and is now using Venus Magazine to tell homosexuals that change is possible.

248 posted on 03/04/2007 7:11:42 AM PST by scripter (Duncan Hunter in 2008)

By the way, it's called realistic.

I agree, it is realistic to believe that you are arrogant.

You display contempt for the study of argumentation

Omniscient? You don't know nearly as much as you think. I have no contempt, I was making the case that you spent more time/space in this thread discussing the form of your arguments than actually discussing the information that is pertinent to this debate.

I believe that my response did not force you to respond to it. Therefore, if you choose to read it, and choose to respond to it with a comment of your own, who is really responsible for the alleged waste of time? The choice was yours, and you chose to waste time.

It was my choice to read it, but I could not know what the content was until I read it. So I was sort of at an impass, I gave you the benefit of the doubt, and I was mistaken. I thought that perhaps you would have something pertinent to say but, alas, I was incorrect. You decided to blather on about something that was inconsequential.

Not at all. I didn't get you. You got yourself.

I have had little opportunity here at the FR to have discourse with any remotely as arrogant or offputting as you. Congrats.

I'm sorry if you have made this misinterpretation (no doubt without reading all the posts), but this ends up re-inforcing the point of the wise man about how a man feels about what he does not understand.

I and a majority of the other folks who followed this thread made the same "misinterpretation", but that wouldn't matter to you considering you have a command of all knowledge, according to yourself.

Why would you be around? I thought that the 'yap yap' was bothering you? And I knew it was not a threat, but it did seem like someone who thought too highly of himself and his presence.I would be around, because I have been around here for the last year. I will be more clear so that you will know exactly what I mean this time. I will see you around at some later time, in some later thread. I try to be positive around here, so even though I found your contributions less than desirable in this thread (and likely the same will occur on another thread of this content) I will say that I enjoyed the first part of your homepage. ISLAM is a TERRORIST ORGANIZATION. and I appreciate that you reference the truth about mohammed. So hopefully the next time I see you will be on an article about Islamism so we can be more cordial before we become combative again.

To be clear: I am done with this thread re: LtdGovt and I will be around, just not in this specific thread. got it? Good day.

249 posted on 03/04/2007 8:10:54 AM PST by thehumanlynx (All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -Edmund Burke)

To: thehumanlynx

I agree, it is realistic to believe that you are arrogant.

A person would be arrogant if there is a significant positive discrepancy between reality and self-perception. You haven't provided any evidence for that.

Omniscient? You don't know nearly as much as you think.

True, I have thought a lot more in my life than I have known. But since our mind is processing thoughts all the time, that's natural.

I have no contempt, I was making the case that you spent more time/space in this thread discussing the form of your arguments than actually discussing the information that is pertinent to this debate.

So your argument was that the subject of argumentation has nothing to do with the subject matter of this thread. However, you were making an argument that has even less relevance to the thread. And I fail to see why you would be so concerned about the health of a topic that is one week old.

It was my choice to read it, but I could not know what the content was until I read it.

Absolutely. But... within two seconds, you could have known whether you should see my response as 'pertinent' or not. However, you chose to waste more time by continue reading, chose to waste more time by accuse me of time-wasting, chose to waste more time by read my response to your accusation of time-wasting and chose to waste even more time by defend your allegation. If there is any time-wasting here, it is entirely of your own making. I bear no responsibility for your own actions.

I have had little opportunity here at the FR to have discourse with any remotely as arrogant or offputting as you. Congrats.

Wouldn't this be an example of something that is offputting? No wonder you haven't been able to discourse with such a person, because that would be... you! (Oh, and no offense, but I had to fire back.)

I and a majority of the other folks who followed this thread made the same "misinterpretation",

Let's first establish what we were talking about. Namely, the accusation that "you spend more time defending the style and semantics of your arguments rather than the substance". You claim that "a majority of other folks who followed this thread made the same 'misinterpretation'". However, there is no way for you to know this, unless you're omniscient. You...

1. don't know how many people have been following this thread. Unless you are somehow subconsciously aware of what they think, this statement is worthy of ridicule.
2. don't have the response of but one person to support your interpretation
3. Conclusion: you can't possibly know the thoughts of:
a. the persons who responded in this thread
b. the persons who follow this thread but did not respond.

You accuse me of being arrogant and of feigning omniscience, but that might well be projection.

but that wouldn't matter to you considering you have a command of all knowledge, according to yourself.

I said so? Then please do quote me.

I would be around, because I have been around here for the last year. I will be more clear so that you will know exactly what I mean this time. I will see you around at some later time, in some later thread.

Good. I particularly hope to see you in the evolution threads. It's interesting to discuss that subject.

I will say that I enjoyed the first part of your homepage. ISLAM is a TERRORIST ORGANIZATION. and I appreciate that you reference the truth about mohammed. So hopefully the next time I see you will be on an article about Islamism so we can be more cordial before we become combative again.

Thank you. As you well know, nothing in life is all good, so we shouldn't expect it to be that way. The best we can hope for is a combination of good and evil.

To be clear: I am done with this thread re: LtdGovt and I will be around, just not in this specific thread. got it? Good day.

Acknowledged.

250 posted on 03/04/2007 4:13:50 PM PST by LtdGovt ("Where government moves in, community retreats and civil society disintegrates" -Janice Rogers Brown)

Ummm, wouldn't an ex-gay be heterosexual? I believe heterosexuality is discussed.

In a word, no.

251 posted on 03/05/2007 12:48:01 PM PST by Albion Wilde (...where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. -2 Cor 3:17)

To: Albion Wilde

OK. In a word, what is the sexual orientation of someone who is ex-gay?

252 posted on 03/05/2007 12:51:58 PM PST by dmz

That, you don't know. You have some people who claim they have changed their orientation, but you don't really have anything but their word for it. I remain sceptical of such claims.

The entire canard of "sexual identity" is the problem. In the traditional behavior-based model, people whose behavior is problematic are encouraged to embrace better, safer, healthier and more affirmative behavior. "Identity" is the marketing-based leftist political rationale for bad behavior that costs society and the taxpayer more money for a negative return.

253 posted on 03/05/2007 12:52:23 PM PST by Albion Wilde (...where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. -2 Cor 3:17)

I wouldn't want my daughter to marry one of those people, people who imagine her to be a man. Not in one hundred years.

Your view of the issues and of the depth of the Christian responses to this problem is still very uninformed and superficial. Learn more, for everyone's benefit, most especially your own.

254 posted on 03/05/2007 12:56:00 PM PST by Albion Wilde (...where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. -2 Cor 3:17)

I do know. They're almost exclusively Christian, usually fundamentali

And the problem with Christians is, what, precisely?

255 posted on 03/05/2007 12:58:48 PM PST by Albion Wilde (...where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. -2 Cor 3:17)

To: LtdGovt; scripter

For example, I imagine that some fruitcake has already filed a lawsuit alleging that seperate bathrooms are discriminatory. There's no way to know.

"There's no way to know" -- ? * gasp * This statement alone disqualifies your presumptions of being qualified to discuss these issues with most Freepers, let alone Scripter.

256 posted on 03/05/2007 1:13:47 PM PST by Albion Wilde (...where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. -2 Cor 3:17)

To: Judith Anne; scripter; OMalley

Your recent join date and posting behavior indicates you are a re-tread--that you've quit or been thrown out before, and are back under another nom de plume.

Very astute. Sounds like the old blowhard "John Robertson" (banned).

257 posted on 03/05/2007 1:33:12 PM PST by Albion Wilde (...where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. -2 Cor 3:17)

To: william clark

The reason the therapies are now found largely within the context of "religious" institutions is because, from their sense of moral obligation to attempt to bring people to wholeness, such organizations are the only ones still willing to regard homosexuality as a dysfunction, unlike the professional psychological organizations that were long ago bullied into silence and submission by the political activists.

Nailed it.

258 posted on 03/05/2007 1:35:11 PM PST by Albion Wilde (...where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. -2 Cor 3:17)

I think it would be very interesting to see statistics on those who identify in any of the above categories from the following pool: government, private and home schools. Because environment is the major factor, I would think those who homeschool would have the lowest statistic by huge margin.

Indeed it would, as would a study of the number of self-identified homosexuals who were abused as children by priests. We have already seen that abuse itself in childhood is a factor.

I wish I had ordered a transcript, but fwiw, I heard a most interesting radio interview some years ago about the influence of low brain serotonin on depression and addictive behavior. The commentator said that low-serotonin individuals tend to become depressives and/or addicts in greater numbers because by using substances, they are attempting to self-medicate for the depression. In the same way, high-risk behavior that stimulates the body's own adrenaline response is an attempt to self-medicate against depression originating in low serotonin levels in the brain.

He said that many Americans of all kinds of ethnic backgrounds are persons who were willing to take the high risk of migrating to another country and leave their origins behind; he speculated that low serotonin is therefore part of the general American psyche.

The point I'm getting to is that in his studies of religious persons with low-serotonin profiles whose communities forbid alcohol consumption, such as Methodists or Baptists with Irish ancestry, he found fewer incidences of alcoholism than in communities that allow drinking. He postulated that therefore environment trumps brain chemistry with regard to addictive or "high"-seeking behavior.

Like I said, I wish I had written down the particulars. I remember I was driving on the PA Turnpike at the time!

259 posted on 03/05/2007 1:53:58 PM PST by Albion Wilde (...where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. -2 Cor 3:17)

In a word, what is the sexual orientation of someone who is ex-gay?

Sexual orientation is a psychological fiction. It is not a fixed and immutable part of one's body, like a bone (which is also capable of growing and changing, btw). One's "orientation" is a record of one's experiences and a point of view about where one intends to continue accruing experiences. But people can and do change. Having worked in the arts for many years, I have seen many people with this preoccupation about gay sex encounter an experience or undergo a series of insights from which they set about to change, and did change, and stayed changed -- some with more consistency than others. The brain is fluid, not concrete.

"Be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind."

260 posted on 03/05/2007 2:12:45 PM PST by Albion Wilde (...where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. -2 Cor 3:17)

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794