Gyroscopic Investing

If the sample sizes are small, then the "insight" is of small scope and depth.

From your posts, I don't find you to have "superior insight".

But, it's also as I said, small sample sizes and personal experiences aren't a good foundation for broad generalizations.

That's why we have things like data collection/analysis/experimentation in the various sciences, if we want to come to broader conclusions that are supported by broader realities.

For what it's worth, I grew up around a lot of gay/lesbian folks, and have some in my extended family, and I have found them to be no better or worse than straight folks in a wide variety of ways.  That's my personal experience.

IDrinkBloodLOL wrote:

moda0306 wrote:If your goal is to persuade people and/or have a meaningful conversation about these topics, pointing out how you're coming to establish these premises about reality is really helpful.

What about your observations of politics, media and the internet has led you to draw this conclusion?

Because it allows for the quick establishment of a logical trail. If somebody claims a certain statement as a fact with no backup for how they determined that to be true, it leaves the other person in the debate having to overtly question it. No biggie, but it slows things down to a crawl.

For instance, I'm still wondering how you came to the conclusion that a high percentage of gays believe that child molestation isn't immoral. How did you come to the conclusion that "we encourage" coming home to find out our child has been raped?

These aren't statements of opinion. They're statements of fact. But they don't appear to be true, to me. It's abundantly useful if you were to help us understand how you came to unintuitive or uncommonly-held conclusions.

A quick question.... Do you know how to construct an argument?  Like "deductive reasoning" and "inductive reasoning?"  As in "premise, premise, conclusion?"

I've found these to be the most effective ways of building one's arguments, communicating them to others, and efficiently zeroing in on points of disagreement.

Good gracious God,

Please return us to the Morality thread. 

Where is kshartle when you need him?

... M

IDrinkBloodLOL wrote:

jafs wrote: If the sample sizes are small, then the "insight" is of small scope and depth.

Someone with natural gymnastic talent does not need 10,000 backflips to figure out how a backflip works. In that scope, they have superior analytic ability.

If analytical ability cannot vary between individuals then libertarianism has no point as nobody has any talent to reward with currency or punish with poverty. If analytic ability cannot vary it also means that every guru on every subject is a charlatan, because all that counts is quantity of exposure. Harry Browne himself was therefore unexceptional because many fund managers and gurus handle equal sums of money for an equal time - his "sample size" was no better!

It means Mike Tyson is an inferior boxer to some mediocre nobody at a boxing club who loses as often as he wins but has more fights under his belt and thus a larger "sample size" of the subject matter.

I'm going to assume that you don't actually deny the possibility of superior insight, but rather you assume I do not have it.

I would have to assume, in the absence of some more evidence, that you do lack the insight to judge what seem to be monolithic mental health problems and motivations of an entire group of people. Perhaps you'd help us understand what makes your insight so uniquely accurate that it doesn't even require third party statistical support.

Keep in mind we aren't just talking about some unique personal talent, but the ability to establish a unique, monolithic mentality held by an entire group simply by personal interactions and no broader statistical data. I don't know if I've known of anyone that can do that successfully and consistently.

Simonjester wrote:

MangoMan wrote:

Michellebell wrote:
I believe that a lot of homosexuals are born that way

They are ALL born that way. The notion that it is somehow a choice is a myth perpetuated by the church.

  i am not sure that is true..... it is a premise taken on to strengthen the case for rights, but biology being what it is, i suspect the reality is that some are nature (born that way prenatal hormonal/genetic influences on brain wiring) and some are nurture (life experiences influences on brain wiring through imprinting etc..)

I came across a fascinating article recently indicating that homosexuality in men may often be due to the influence of a particular microorganism on brain wiring during the first few years after birth.  This was from what appeared to be a very unbiased source.  Not settled science yet, though.  Can't remember where I saw this.

Simonjester wrote: i agree, its not settled science.. there is a lot about how the mind, brain, hormones, genes, miro-biome work that is far from understood, but given that so much of our sexual preference and impulses come from experience (nobody pops out of the womb with a foot fetish or any other specific set of attractions ) it would seem to be a pretty big presumption that orientation is always set ahead of time...

Seemed appropriate. 

... M

If—
BY RUDYARD KIPLING

If you can keep your head when all about you 
    Are losing theirs and blaming it on you, 
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
    But make allowance for their doubting too; 
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
    Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies,
Or being hated, don’t give way to hating,
    And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise:

If you can dream—and not make dreams your master; 
    If you can think—and not make thoughts your aim; 
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
    And treat those two impostors just the same; 
If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
    Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
    And stoop and build ’em up with worn-out tools:

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
    And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
    And never breathe a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
    To serve your turn long after they are gone, 
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
    Except the Will which says to them: ‘Hold on!’

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue, 
    Or walk with Kings—nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
    If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
    With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run, 
Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it, 
    And—which is more—you’ll be a Man, my son!

(today's version would say "you'll be a LGBTQXRXFFTYIEMMXXX my ?!" )

Source: A Choice of Kipling's Verse (1943)

Libertarian666 wrote:

IDrinkBloodLOL wrote: Gays shouldn't really have rights because they are not mentally sound.

Regardless of what you personally believe about homosexuality itself being a mental disorder, they all (100%) have secondary mental disorders, which they quite frequently attempt to self medicate with wanton illicit drug use. They all seem to be bipolar, alcoholic and addicted to meth and a few other drugs of choice.

Secondly, their sexuality in itself is more fixated on promiscuity and outright orgies than anything sensible or healthy. They have bloody buttsex with dozens of new men per week. Gay establishments such as gyms and bars often proudly declare that they feature "hookup rooms" for casual sex. Often this casual sex is used to pay for drugs.

Lastly, they are aggressive and proselyte. They actively try to recruit young men into homosexuality, and actively try to molest little boys.

They shouldn't have rights, they're mental cases. They should be institutionalized. Whether or not it's their "fault" is up for debate, but the fact remains that each and every single one unleashes such horror on society with their "lifestyle" that they couldn't possibly do enough good, individually or collectively, to offset it.

An important point to consider: whatever you reward and encourage in society, you get more of. We currently reward and encourage coming home to find that our 11 year old son did not return home from school because a strange man talked him into letting a room full of strange men take turns snorting cocaine out of his butthole.

That we allow and even encourage this "lifestyle" is all the proof I need to know that we live in an insane cartoon world.

inb4 "wow just wow" and "it's (current year)!" etc.

It's not polite to barge into a conversation in a group of which you are a recent member and in effect insult everyone before you as being crazy for not having the same opinion as you do.

That is an indication of "oppositional defiant disorder".

I disagree, Libertarian666.  I started this thread asking for people's thoughts, attitudes, and  opinions on this topic.  He was invited to share his opinions, no matter how tolerant vs. intolerant of homosexuality they are.  They are his views, and although he didn't fill it with disclaimers or "IMO's" I think we are all intelligent enough to know that they are his own personal views, whether based on research or observations. 

I expected a range of views here and wanted to get an honest picture of how people feel about it. 

Now if Blood went to a gay pride parade announcing this stuff, that would be a different story,  but I don't think that's the kind of thing he does. 

MangoMan wrote:

Michellebell wrote:
I believe that a lot of homosexuals are born that way

They are ALL born that way. The notion that it is somehow a choice is a myth perpetuated by the church.

Michellebell wrote: I can't make up my mind over the issue of gay people raising children.  I think that the nuclear family is the very best for children. 

Why can't two parents of the same sex create a nuclear family? Who says it has to be one parent of each gender?

No, some homosexuals choose that for themselves.  Here's an article written by a lesbian about why she chose lesbianism, along with many others commenting about how correct she was:
http://carolyngage.weebly.com/blog/just ... at-way-not

As far as nuclear families, I believe children are best off with their biological mother and father.  They benefit from a male and female role model, and biological parents identify with their children better because of similar genetics.

When did you choose to be straight, if you believe sexual orientation is a choice?

Simonjester wrote: i didn't say it was a choice,.... i said it was a mix of nature and nurture, biology allows for both pre and post natal influences on the final makeup of a persons orientation and attractions, there is little or no choice involved until someone is an adult, and even/by then things are pretty hard wired and require a strong will to alter or deny them..

but just because it the influences aren't likely a choice doesn't mean you are "born that way", it is just as likely that someone is gay due to the confluence of hormonal, psychological, environmental influences as a child as they are due to genetic hormonal influences in the womb..

http://thefederalist.com/2015/07/08/how ... ientation/

A small excerpt:

Our emotional responses to our president are caused by our prior judgments, our prior evaluation of whether our president is good for us and the things we value dearly, or bad for us and the things we value dearly. Sometime in our past, we made evaluations not only of the president, but also of what things in the world are fundamentally important to us. All of these prior evaluations are choices.
The Tricky Relationship Between Emotions and Choice

On the recent anniversary of D-Day, I attended a reception for U.S. veterans of World War II and the Korean War. When we sang “God Bless America,” many of the Veterans and guests were moved to tears. Did we choose to weep at that moment? Of course not. But sometime in our past, we made judgments about our country and about the men and women who fight for it, and about the importance of those things to us. Those past judgments are the cause of our present tears when we honor our military heroes.

Here's an article on promiscuity amongst gay males:

http://www.josephnicolosi.com/an-open-s ... uth-about/

I personally have mixed feelings about homosexuality.  But some people asked for statistics so here are some.

Michellebell wrote: Here's an article on promiscuity amongst gay males:

http://www.josephnicolosi.com/an-open-s ... uth-about/

I personally have mixed feelings about homosexuality.  But some people asked for statistics so here are some.

A lot of that research is done some-time ago.  It wouldn't surprise me at all that the average gay person who was open enough to come out in 1968 would be much more likely to have... alternative... views on traditional relationship roles and promiscuity.

I'm not saying there isn't a higher correlation there, however.  I think it's more of a correlation thing, though.

But what does it mean to have "mixed feelings?"  To me, issues like this can MOSTLY get split up into four categories:

1) Personal: I really, really don't like the idea of personally being gay.  Very disgusting to me, in-fact.  Luckily, it's not forced upon me in the least.

2) Social: I am a-ok with being friends, colleagues with them.  The super flamboyant ones are pretty weird and annoying, but isn't the flamboyant extreme of any social group (Bible thumpers, rednecks, gangstas, feminists, anarchists, etc).  On-average I've found them to be great people, but my sample is admittedly extremely limited and biased.

3) Societal/Cultural: I have about as much general fear of them worsening society as I do feminism.  Men are pansies today not because of gayness and feminism, but Xbox, Domino's Pizza, and comforts/stimulation galore at little/no cost/effort. 

4) Political:  I think they should have the same political rights as any of us.  Including marriage.  Including adoption.  However, I don't like the idea of forcing businesses to hire, promote or serve people that they don't want to.

Perhaps there are other categories, but I think this mostly sums it up.

Michellebell wrote:

Libertarian666 wrote:

IDrinkBloodLOL wrote: Gays shouldn't really have rights because they are not mentally sound.

Regardless of what you personally believe about homosexuality itself being a mental disorder, they all (100%) have secondary mental disorders, which they quite frequently attempt to self medicate with wanton illicit drug use. They all seem to be bipolar, alcoholic and addicted to meth and a few other drugs of choice.

Secondly, their sexuality in itself is more fixated on promiscuity and outright orgies than anything sensible or healthy. They have bloody buttsex with dozens of new men per week. Gay establishments such as gyms and bars often proudly declare that they feature "hookup rooms" for casual sex. Often this casual sex is used to pay for drugs.

Lastly, they are aggressive and proselyte. They actively try to recruit young men into homosexuality, and actively try to molest little boys.

They shouldn't have rights, they're mental cases. They should be institutionalized. Whether or not it's their "fault" is up for debate, but the fact remains that each and every single one unleashes such horror on society with their "lifestyle" that they couldn't possibly do enough good, individually or collectively, to offset it.

An important point to consider: whatever you reward and encourage in society, you get more of. We currently reward and encourage coming home to find that our 11 year old son did not return home from school because a strange man talked him into letting a room full of strange men take turns snorting cocaine out of his butthole.

That we allow and even encourage this "lifestyle" is all the proof I need to know that we live in an insane cartoon world.

inb4 "wow just wow" and "it's (current year)!" etc.

It's not polite to barge into a conversation in a group of which you are a recent member and in effect insult everyone before you as being crazy for not having the same opinion as you do.

That is an indication of "oppositional defiant disorder".

I disagree, Libertarian666.  I started this thread asking for people's thoughts, attitudes, and  opinions on this topic.  He was invited to share his opinions, no matter how tolerant vs. intolerant of homosexuality they are.  They are his views, and although he didn't fill it with disclaimers or "IMO's" I think we are all intelligent enough to know that they are his own personal views, whether based on research or observations. 

I expected a range of views here and wanted to get an honest picture of how people feel about it. 

Now if Blood went to a gay pride parade announcing this stuff, that would be a different story,  but I don't think that's the kind of thing he does.

Ok, you're the OP, so you are pretty much entitled to decide whether he's being disruptive on your thread.

But I still think his approach is unnecessarily abrasive. It also isn't going to get him very far in this crowd of independent thinkers, but that's his problem.

jafs wrote: When did you choose to be straight, if you believe sexual orientation is a choice?

It's my opinion that the male of the species was not genetically programmed to be monogamous and yet this is a choice that many make for moral reasons.

Mountaineer wrote: Seemed appropriate. 

... M

If—
BY RUDYARD KIPLING...

Just read through 4 pages of absolutely nothing that made any difference in my life (except wanting to get more involved in med school selection committees  ). Until I came to this. Wow! knocked my socks off. Thanks for sharing.

Michellebell wrote: I disagree, Libertarian666.  I started this thread asking for people's thoughts, attitudes, and  opinions on this topic...

Curious. Did you or anyone really learn anything from this dialog? I don't mean that to sound obnoxious. Just really curious is anyone fundamentally changes their options based on such discussions?

Yeah it was a bit surprising to me how tolerant the group is on this subject. Even those with strong religious beliefs. And surprising that the most extreme opinion was from a medical student (that I pray does NOT go into anesthesia). But nothing fundamentally shifted.

Desert wrote: To just follow up on one of your examples: if the mallard drake pairs never mated with females, then according to naturalistic evolutionary theory, they would not reproduce and whatever genetic trait contributed to them wanting to hang out with other drakes could not be naturally selected and hence would tend to die out.  If morality is derived by evolutionary mechanisms, then one would expect traits that don't lead to reproduction to be viewed as immoral. 

For what it's worth, I have no moral difficulties with your vibrator.  I would recommend you keep it away from your perverted dog, however.

Who said morality is derived by evolutionary mechanisms? And when/if it does, is this a perfect enough derivation to be fully trusted? Everything that is not of evolutionary benefit is immoral? And, conversely, all that furthers the propagation of one's genome, moral?

Fred wrote:

jafs wrote: When did you choose to be straight, if you believe sexual orientation is a choice?

It's my opinion that the male of the species was not genetically programmed to be monogamous and yet this is a choice that many make for moral reasons.

That may be true, but doesn't answer my question.

Did you choose your sexual orientation?

And, there's obviously a huge difference between being able to have sex and get married, and not being able to do those things.

Desert wrote:

dualstow wrote:

Desert wrote: In my previous life as an agnostic, I would argue that "homophobia" seems like a quite natural and logical position to hold, if morality is something that evolved along with humans.  While racism is illogical in a naturalistic worldview, because inbreeding can lead to genetic problems, homophobia should be the default moral position.  So I think that naturalists that worry a lot about homosexual rights are not necessarily thinking consistently.

I'm not sure exactly where you're coming from with this, but it seems like you have breeding and morality mixed up. Yes, racism is illogical. Luckily, in Yellowstone, young daughter wolf may sneak off with someone from another pack that daddy wolf does not approve of, so that trumps daddy wolf's "racist" feelings.

Homophobia is every bit as illogical as racism. If you woke up one day and the entire world were gay, it would be logical to fear that the human race would not reproduce and carry on. But that's got nothing to do with homophobia, or limiting a gay person's rights to marry, enjoy tax benefits, and do all the things straight people do. And, it's got nothing to do with morality. How is that a "default moral position?"

My point was that if one is a naturalist, and that morality simply evolved along with modern humans, it would be quite natural for homosexuality to be found immoral simply on practical grounds.  In other words, homosexuals wouldn't reproduce, thus wouldn't be naturally selected.  Of course I don't personally feel that the source of morality can be explained by naturalistic mechanisms, so I don't personally hold this view.  But it seems quite inconsistent for a committed naturalist to try to make a moral argument in favor of homosexuality.

It would be problematic if every human being were gay or lesbian, for sure.  But it's not at all problematic for a small percentage to be that way, from a naturalistic viewpoint.  Especially now, when we're overpopulating the planet.

Okay let me explain my mixed feelings a little more . 

I do want to hear your opinions, however brash or accepting they are, because I have not yet formed my own opinions.  I don't care how convincing you all are really.  I just want to know what the attitudes are, partially because I want to know how people I care about will be viewed by others if they choose a gay lifestyle.  I am trying to make sense of my own thoughts by talking to what I perceive as a group of pretty intelligent people who are interested in the world around them.

I personally have an aversion to homosexuality.  I guess that qualifies me as homophobic.  And yet I have a sister whom I love who is choosing a gay lifestyle.  We are as a culture moving toward celebrating homosexuality.  It's all over our media and seen as almost an elite club to me.  I don't believe homosexuals should have equal rights to adoption as much as committed married heterosexual couples.  Intolerant?  Yes, and maybe I'm wrong.  But as of right now that is my opinion.

Here's an article that goes over survey results of children raised by homosexuals:
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/06/5640/

In terms of adoption, I have met several couples who have adopted, and in more cases than not, those children have many issues.  Many of their biological parents were unstable or on drugs.  The parents are very admirable in their calling to raise and love these children.  However I think these children will be best off if placed in the most stable environment possible . 

Homosexual relationships IMO are not as stable.  They do not last as long, many male relationships are open relationships, many lesbian relationships are full of drama.  My mom is an ObGyn and she said that the lesbian couples she sees are just over the top with drama.  I also knew a girl who told me that although she's bisexual and slightly more attracted to women than men, she refuses to date women anymore because she can't handle the drama.  Her relationships are much better with men.

Now you might say, who cares?  Well maybe it's just a curiosity thing for me.  I wonder if my sister will be happy as a lesbian.  She claims she's bisexual but hasn't tried dating any men.  Why would she when lesbianism is so "cool" these days?  But her first girlfriend had a lot of issues and tried to commit suicide several times.  Her next girlfriend struggled with gender identity and has been going back and forth between identifying as a female vs a male. 

I know another woman who married a woman and then left her because the relationship was so unstable.  She identified herself as a lesbian and became friends almost exclusively with lesbians.  When she started dating men again (she's married now), her friends were really angry at her and her boss even sexually harassed her.

You might say these are isolated cases, but I think they're still worth thinking about.  My sister may not know if she might actually like being in a relationship with a man.  I don't think she'd be able to attract a man honestly.  She is beautiful, tall and thin, blond...a classic beauty like Grace Kelly, but she looks like a lesbian (short hair, dresses like a boy, gets mistaken for a boy sometimes, etc.).  Shes also genius-level smart.

I can tell my dad is having a hard time accepting this but he loves her and doesn't want to alienate her.  I really avoid talking about it with her.  My father told me once he would be very upset if I became a lesbian, not because he would take offense, but because my life would be so much harder if I chose that route.

As far as the statistics on homosexual males, yes those stats are very old...  But I read somewhere that even after all the HIV awareness, they have remained a much more promiscuous group. 

Sounds to me like the person you want to talk to is your sister.  She's probably just as confused as you are, and would appreciate hashing out her thoughts with you.  Here's a suggested place to start: whether your sister feels she has "chosen" a homosexual lifestyle.  She may not feel comfortable with that description.  I do suggest trying not to be judgmental when you're talking to her, just listen.  There are a lot of judgmental red flags in your post.

The question of legal status for gays is sort of secondary to the above, I think.  Interesting topic to be sure, but not your main concern just now.  But, let me put to rest the idea that homosexuals are inherently mentally disordered.  They're approximately as disordered as everyone else.

Like BearBones, I hope very much that a certain medical student on this board goes into radiology or pathology.  Better opportunities for part-time work and no interaction with patients.  Some of whom might be gay.  Incidentally, about 10% of his medical school classmates and teaching attendings are gay, and chances are he doesn't know who those are.

Michellebell wrote:
<snip> We are as a culture moving toward celebrating homosexuality.  It's all over our media and seen as almost an elite club to me.  I don't believe homosexuals should have equal rights to adoption as much as committed married heterosexual couples.  Intolerant?  Yes, and maybe I'm wrong.  But as of right now that is my opinion. <end snip>

Michellebell,

Eugenics is no longer popular like it was in the early 1900s; it seemed to reach its peak in Nazi Germany but may be making a comeback via assisted reproductive technology.  Those who are concerned about over populating the planet (typically those more liberal in their thoughts and actions, e.g. the media, e.g. acedemia) need something to replace eugenics (an aim of which was to create smarter peope who will save us) without the stigma of the word eugenics.  It appears they have chosen to make abortion and homosexuality glamorous as the current strategy to save us (via limiting successful births) from ourselves.  You may wish to counsel your sister about other possibilities for her chosen lifestyle and help her see how she is likely being manipulated by pop culture.  All my opinion.

... M

That's a serious misstatement of liberal thought on homosexuality.

The comments about overpopulation are in direct response to concerns that homosexuality is a threat to the species, and that we'll die out if we accept it.

Those concerns are clearly unfounded unless a vast percentage of human beings were homosexual, and that's just not the case.

Desert wrote: Well, I've managed to put myself in the position of arguing a point I don't agree with, but I'm doing so for a reason.  As a Christian, I think morality is prescribed.  But before becoming a Christian, I of course thought a lot about morality, its origins, and frankly its usefulness.  To be a true naturalist, as many on this forum are, one has to view morality as something that has simply evolved or occurred.  There is no external source of morality, it is simply something that humans have somehow invented.  Perhaps the invention wasn't strictly evolutionary in its source, but still we must think about it as being accidental, since our very existence is accidental. 

I like and respect that, Desert. I think that morals are human constructs that generally are beneficial for individuals, relationships, and societies. But not always. And not being dogmatically religious, I prefer looking at each for how accurate and helpful it might be in a given moment and situation.

Pork used to be loaded with parasites. So it made sense to refrain from including in a diet. And even prescribing as a moral duty, I guess. No longer, so I think it is kind of crazy to make it morally objectionable.

Great quote by Dawkins. Thanks.