Thread: Free Speech for all?

>> All sexual behavior is a “Learned Behavior” and not a result of design of the individual.

Please present your medical credentials and let's compare them to the authors of the DSM-IV*. I want to see what makes your medical credentials more valid than theirs. It would be a fun comparison...

If you don't have substantial medical credentials - They're right, you're wrong. End of discussion, move on.

They are studied experts, you're just some person on the Internet spouting whatever bunk you'll never have to actually back up. Doesn't lend a lot of credibility, ya know?

(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders - Fourth Edition. It's published by The American Psychiatric Association. It is the be-all-end-all in the US (and many other countries) for diagnosing and typing abberant behavior. After much study and debate by people who actually know what they are talking about, homosexuality was removed in the 3rd Ed. as memory serves)

Originally posted by kimpossible
>> All sexual behavior is a “Learned Behavior” and not a result of design of the individual.

If sexual behavior is not a “learned behavior” than how do you explain gay penguins?


Gay penguins won't go straight
A German zoo's plans to tempt its gay penguins to go straight by importing more females has been declared a failure.

The female penguins were flown in especially from Sweden in an effort to encourage the Humboldt penguins at the Bremerhaven Zoo to reproduce.
But the six homosexual penguins showed no interest in their new female companions and remained faithful to each other.

Zoo Director Heike Kueck said: "The relationships were apparently too strong."
A keeper confirmed that the male couples had adopted rocks which they were guarding like eggs in their caves.

The zoo has said that it will try again in Spring 2006, because the penguins are an endangered species and need to be encouraged to breed.

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_1279583.html

You mean God made them gay?...not!

The Rev.

How does some penguins being gay prove that it is a learned behaviour?

I'd say that animals being homosexual proves the opposite point . Animals obviously aren't being influenced by homosexuals, aren't being told to tolerate homosexuals, don't have that darn left-wing liberal media supporting the homosexual regime. They obviously didn't come from a family of homosexuals, as that would kinda make reproduction hard. It seems to me like they were just born homosexual from heteroxual penguin parents.

But again you've dodged the whole issue:

Originally posted by i wrote
If you say that all sexual behaviour is \"learned behaviour\", then heterosexuality is learned as well. What makes one learned behaviour better than another? If someone was to discriminate against you for being heterosexual, would you call it prejudice?

Wether homosexuality be a choice/learned behaviour or a genetic trait is besides the point. You're still discriminating against people on the basis of sexual orientation for no good reason. So I'll ask it again:

i wrote:
Calling a persons sexual orientation a sin is bigotry. Want to put foward some sort of argument as to why you think it is acceptable?

[/b]

Originally posted by Roller
From what I understand this law was passed to hold accountable those that preach hate, provoke violence or unjustly demoralise people. True Christians do none of the above, so I see no problem with it.

Those that do 'preach hate' (eh don't really like that description, reminds me of too many Bush speeches) should be punished, whether they hide behind Christianity or not.

People shouldn't be protected from ideas, no matter how strange or harmful they might be. Once we start protecting people from ideas, they lose the ability to reason for themselves, because they no longer must use it, which alows even more dangerous ideas to creep up without the scrutiny of many critical minds. I certainly don't agree with the Rev's ideas, and I doubt a politician would ever try to persecute Christians because they're such an important voting block, however, other political ideas might become dangerous to the government in the future and might be driven away. I also doubt that this whole story is legit because:

1. It's blatantly unconstitutional(although that hasn't stopped them in the past)
2. This is a .org website not a .gov website(I haven't looked at it yet)
3. Politicians on one side would be raising hell about this.

It's illegal in the US to incite to riot. And any law that is broken becomes MUCH tougher, penalty-wise, if it is shown to be a "hate-crime".

That's a fact.

So if you stand up at the pulpit an say "gays should be killed!" - you can be charged with a felony. And if someone does it, you'll likely be found as an accessory - or atleast guilty of depraved indifference.

Originally posted by spoon
How does some penguins being gay prove that it is a learned behaviour? *

No, I'vent I just allowed you to see a perfect Example that every living thing must learn by example, given a limited number, or (no females) these seemingly instinctive creatures learn homosexuality from watching other penguins mimic the act of sex from two of the same sex acting instinctively. Just as hue-man beings do while imprisoned as these penguins where.

The Rev.

P.S. it is usually those who reply inconsistently, that are as you say; dodging the whole issue.

Originally posted by dictionary.com
hue *
n.

* 1. The property of colors by which they can be perceived as ranging from red through yellow, green, and blue, as determined by the dominant wavelength of the light. See table at color.
* 2. A particular gradation of color; a shade or tint.
* 3. Color: all the hues of the rainbow.
* 4. Appearance; aspect: a man of somber hue.

P.S. it is usually those who reply inconsistently, that are as you say; dodging the whole issue. [/b]

I (and many other people) have responded point by point to every single bit of your rhetoric. You've never responded to any point save with more rhetoric.

"spoon"]what makes one learned behaviour (heterosexuality) worse than another (homosexuality)?

The result of the two behaviors is one behavior is killing people the other is not.


The Rev.

P.S. The use of the term (hue-man) is what man has become from his original form (A hue-man is a result of man’s behavior, not a result of God’s creation. ‘Hued’ is a transitional form from one form to another.)

The result of the two behaviors is one behavior is killing people the other is not.[/b]

See now that wasnt that hard was it. Now you can explain that statement and give some evidence.

Originally posted by Awaken4e1
P.S. The use of the term (hue-man) is what man has become from his original form (A hue-man is a result of man’s behavior, not a result of God’s creation. ‘Hued’ is a transitional form from one form to another.)

Rev, I think it's time to dust off your feet and be on your way, if ya know what I mean.

As I said in the other thread:

Originally posted by Placebo
Actually, the name 'human' has nothing to do with hues at all.
The word \"human\" is from humanus, the adjectival form of homo. The word homo is simply the Latin for \"person\", chosen originally by Carolus Linnaeus in his classificatory system.
And of course our species is named Homo Sapiens in full.

Nothing to do with colours or transitions.

Originally posted by Rakkantekimusouka



Rev, I think it's time to dust off your feet and be on your way, if ya know what I mean.

Yah when your rebuttal degrades to your argument is pretty much cashed.

Before his fall Man was a pure creation, without any other outer influence, until he partook of the knowledge of good, and evil, Evil then hued, or cut his constitution down which made him into a lesser state of being. Man is fallen; he once was a pure creature, but now a being of mixture, hued by evil, therefore a hued-man.

P.S. Is that a clearer understanding of the term?

The Rev.

Sure. As long as we all agree not to speak english, it's much clearer, thanks!

"Hued" is an adjective. So "hued man" doesn't work in english. "Dark-hued man" "evil-hued man" "purple-with-pink-polka-dots-and-chartruese-stripes-hued man" Those all work.

If you have a dictionary of FantasyLand language that you can send my way, I might be willing to spend a few minutes to learn it, though. Just for giggles.

If you're going to communicate with primarily english speakers, you might want to stick to their language, though.

The inability to incorporate multiple understandings, of the natural and the supernatural applications of what happen to the soul of Man when he deluded (in other words - hued) himself from light to dark, from good to evil. A (hued-man) or human, a term which is not used in the Word because it is the result of Man's actions, God has never called Man (human.)

Those who are so set in the ‘correct’ use of a term and not being able to see the intent of the term used are so limited in their ability see beyond their own rigid view-point is overwhelmingly constrictive in their pursuit of knowledge. In other (words, or terms,) they are ever learning but never able to come to the knowledge of the Truth!

The Rev.

Or to delude themselves with fantasy...

The sole purpose of language is communication. When you muck it up with your own made-up terms, you are impeding communication rather than enhancing it.

If I suddenly decide to start calling what the rest of you know as a truck a "spaceshuttle", it's going to really suck when you step out into the crosswalk and I say "hey, watch out for that spaceshuttle.". You're going to be looking at the sky when the spaceshuttle, errr, I mean truck hits you at 60MPH.

Instead of applying made-up definitions to english words, why not call them a "ljeroiwrelnwer-man"? I hereby give you my tacit permission to apply whatever definition (as long as it's consistant) to the made-up word "ljeroiwrelnwer". Go to town.

All sexual behavior is a “Learned Behavior” and not a result of design of the individual.[/b]

I'm sorry but that is just not true.

Going further, to say that All behavior is learned, as if to say, taught by someone else, that is False.

Have you never figured out anything on your own? The human brain, when logic is applied, is quite cable of first-timing its way through countless experiences, many times with astounding success. You wake up in a body. After a few days you feel that certain sensations to certain parts of your body feel better than others, after a while, talking with a person of the opposite sex that says the same thing, you put to and two together (pun intended 8) ) and holy shit you've figured something out by yourself.
On a darker note, if you grew up as some sick bastard with an appreciation for blood, and have never been laid in your life, your first encounter with sex may trigger that need for the euphoria you've felt coming up with misguided neo-gothic adolescence "whabam" you might have just began your own journey into sexual derrangement, Without the help of a guide. lol.

Impulse. Instinct. Free Spirit. Logic. All these are tied together with The Simple and Unbridled Desire to Act and Conquer. (sp) Those are some of the natural things that help us overcome new problems. Sure its always nice to have a guide, but to say that a person can't figure things out on their own is just plain False.

This is true of all things. If you download a peice of software that you've never used, and do not have the luxury of a manual, is it impossible to get the hang of it by applying a bit of logic?

In the case of homosexuals...a human bond is a powerful thing. People make you feel a certain way, especially if you find that person attractive. Straight people find others of the same sex attractive all the time (though many will not always admit it, and it may not always be on That Deep Level, but it still happens.) This, coupled with a bond with a certain person, or certain people, can lead to a conflict of perception when it comes to Desire. Now, granted, I've never had a homosexual experience before (and I hope never to, don't get me wrong) but I don't see why it is such a Shock to so many heterosexual people. Its no big deal.
...But if a guy was to hit on me, and I tell him not to, disrespecting that would be bad judgement on his part.

Originally posted by kimpossible


Instead of applying made-up definitions to english words

If further study would have been made at the first posting of the term hued, or hue-man when it was presented, (your vast intellect would taken over, and made the proper adjustments to the term,) but as all who view themselves as being a little smarter than everyone else the planet, would spend their time correcting the poster with obtuse remarks in the relentless pursuit to make themselves look better than everyone else.

Sorry it hasn’t work, but has only reflected the insecurity of those who correct those who use term outside there establish usage. To draw attention to others misuse of a term instead of engaging to the conversation which was applied to the readers in the first place.

So, in just plain ole’ English stick to the conversation, not weather or not the one posting is of your vast intellect or not.

The Rev.

Originally posted by Awaken4e1

To draw attention to others misuse of a term instead of engaging to the conversation which was applied to the readers in the first place. *

If you'd cut it out with the baby-talk and made-up words, we might be able to have atleast some rudimentary conversation. As it stands, though, you're speaking fantasy-land-language whilst we grown-ups are trying to have a discussion. It's not working out. So if you want to go eat at the kiddie table, be our guest.

Spoken like a true xenophobe

Originally posted by www.etymonline.com
c.1250, from M.Fr. humain \"of or belonging to man,\" from L. humanus, probably related to homo (gen. hominis) \"man,\" and to humus \"earth,\" on notion of \"earthly beings,\" as opposed to the gods (cf. Heb. adam \"man,\" from adamah \"ground\"). Cognate with O.Lith. zmuo (acc. zmuni) \"man, male person.\" Displaced its O.E. cognate guma (from P.Gmc. *guman-) which survives only in disguise in bridegroom. First record of humankind is from 1645. Humanoid (1918) is a hybrid of L. humanus and Gk. -oeides \"like,\" from eidos \"form, shape\" (see -oid).

You see the word did not arise from the like-sounding \"hue\" - it has never been used like that.

So, in just plain ole’ English stick to the conversation, not weather or not the one posting is of your vast intellect or not.[/b]

You last reply to the original topic was " ", maybe if you want to stick to the conversation you could reply to anyone's points with as much effort as you replied to this "hued" tangent.

-spoon

Why am I picking on it?

It's simple really. It is indicative of the BS that your ilk uses to cover flaws. If you can't explain a logical fallicy, you immediately jump to made-up words and then point fingers at the lack of comprehension. Of course there's a lack of comprehension! What you're talking about doesn't exist in world language because it doesn't exist!

This thread's gotten boring......
back to freedom of speech

*click*

*throw*

\"Fire in the Hole !!\"

*Runs for cover*