Target removes gender based signage for kids

[BmorePat87]

(09-01-2015, 09:26 AM)Blutarsky Wrote:  I don't quite understand all the bickering. Both are mental disorders, except that one has victims, the other one is victimless.
Things happen in nature for a reason. Attraction toward the opposite sex results in procreation. So for anyone to suggest that homosexuality is natural or normal is wrong because there is no rhyme or reason for it. Attraction for the same sex is meaningless, it results in nothing, serves no useful purpose in nature.

I like that Mike gave him rep for calling being gay a mental disorder. Not sure why he doesn't come out and say it himself.

[Rotobeast]

(09-01-2015, 02:28 PM)GMDino Wrote: I feel very bad that I didn't think of that!

Awww... don't feel bad.


I'm sure you WOULD have thought of it.
I just happened to be in the right place at the right time and beat you to it.

I'm working on my compassionate side.
How am I doing ?

[Mike M (the other one)]

(09-01-2015, 07:57 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I like that Mike gave him rep for calling being gay a mental disorder. Not sure why he doesn't come out and say it himself.

Poor baby did you get jealous cause I haven't given you any rep? 

Cyber bullying is not a new tactic for you, and it doesn't work with me.

[GMDino]

(09-01-2015, 11:09 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Awww... don't feel bad.


I'm sure you WOULD have thought of it.
I just happened to be in the right place at the right time and beat you to it.

I'm working on my compassionate side.
How am I doing ?

Good?

[BmorePat87]

(09-02-2015, 12:25 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Poor baby did you get jealous cause I haven't given you any rep? 

Cyber bullying is not a new tactic for you, and it doesn't work with me.

No, I was mocking you for liking such a disgusting post. It shows a lack of a character on your part.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-31-2015, 08:59 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Of the 3 links that I posted, not a single one of them mentioned CF.


No need to add lying to your unimpressive resume on the boards here.

I didn't present anything out of context, I stated MF diseases only and that's what my links referred to.

You're the first that actually posted a link containing references to CF within this thread.
Look it up and take your smugness down a notch or two.

First of all, you didn't provide any link until after I called you out for plagiarism.

(08-25-2015, 07:46 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: However, that is not why they ended up obese or an alcoholic. Environmental factors/social factors played a much bigger role is them getting it.

This is what many of you keep ignoring about this whole genetic argument.

Genetic predisposition can contribute to the development of a disease, but it will not directly cause it. Some with a certain predisposing genetic variation will never get it, while others can, even inside of the same family/genetic line.



The test is a false one from the start. You will be able to find certain markers/mutations that could contribute to it and increase the probability of someone getting a disease but:

Genetic predisposition can contribute to the development of a disease, but it will not directly cause it.

Let's not go to far off topic, but just an interesting tidbit about eye color:
A person's eye colors can change. For example, during pregnancy the pigmentation in the eyes gets darker. 15% of people report that it changes after puberty. Other things such as the food you eat, or stress can also alter your eye color. Age can also change the color of your eyes.

Genetics is nothing more than a recipe book. It gives you the recipe to create the proteins that make up the pigmentation in the eyes, and like a cook who uses the same recipe over and over again, sometimes the results might not always the same. IE Flame on oven hotter/colder, ingredients not as pure as previous time(s) etc.

But again, all of those instances are environmental factors, and not due to some hereditary genetic gene(s).

I think you get the picture, so I won't go further.

See?  No link.  Just plagiarism.

Then you provided the link you plagiarized . . .

http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/handbook/mutationsanddisorders/predisposition

The link I provided . . .

http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/handbook/mutationsanddisorders?show=all

Both links come from the Genetics Home Reference page of the US National Library of Medicine.  Do you see the hyperlinks at the top of my link?  Do you see the link, "What does it mean to have a genetic predisposition to a disease?"  That's your link.  You did exactly what I claimed you did; you presented only the information which supported your preconceived notion out of context while omitting all the other information.

Multifactorial disorders are only one of many types of genetic disorders.  You have zero evidence homosexuality is a multifactorial disorder instead of any of the other genetics disorders.  None.  Nada.  Zip.  Zilch.  Zero.  It is ironic and hilarious to watch you claim homosexuality isn't genetic by claiming it is a genetic disorder.  That tells you everything anyone needs to know about how little you understand this topic.

Let me explain how you rule out other possibilities.  Let's say you come see me for chest pain.  A heart attack is one of the possibilities.  In order for me to rule out a heart attack I need specific evidence proving your chest pain isn't a heart attack.  So I order cardiac enzymes which if normal rules out the possibility of a heart attack.  But, you don't even understand that simple concept.

I'm not taking any smugness down any notches because you don't have a clue what you're talking about and I will continue to correct you because stupidity shouldn't go unchecked.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-01-2015, 09:26 AM)Blutarsky Wrote:  I don't quite understand all the bickering. Both are mental disorders, except that one has victims, the other one is victimless.
Things happen in nature for a reason. Attraction toward the opposite sex results in procreation. So for anyone to suggest that homosexuality is natural or normal is wrong because there is no rhyme or reason for it. Attraction for the same sex is meaningless, it results in nothing, serves no useful purpose in nature.

http://www.dsm5.org/Pages/Default.aspx

According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, homosexuality is not a mental disorder.  I already knew it wasn't.  I just wanted to show you and others like you.

Y'all are welcome.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-01-2015, 03:38 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Sure it does. Dude suggested same sex mating was not natural and you suggested it was because it occurs among animals.



Who was talking about victims?

No, it doesn't.  Dude suggested it is a mental disorder.  I provided you with a link to DSM-5.  Maybe you can show me where homosexuality is listed as a mental disorder.

[Belsnickel]

(09-02-2015, 11:51 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: No, it doesn't.  Dude suggested it is a mental disorder.  I provided you with a link to DSM-5.  Maybe you can show me where homosexuality is listed as a mental disorder.

*cue posts about how the "gay agenda" was in place and bullied the psychiatric community into removing it from the list of mental disorders.*

[RoyleRedlegs]

(09-02-2015, 01:25 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: *queue posts about how the "gay agenda" was in place and bullied the psychiatric community into removing it from the list of mental disorders.*

"Gay agenda" now?
I see they got to you too...can't see them for what they really are....or too scared to say it...

[*Nately120*]

(09-02-2015, 01:54 PM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: "Gay agenda" now?
I see they got to you too...can't see them for what they really are....or too scared to say it...

[Rotobeast]

(09-02-2015, 08:39 AM)GMDino Wrote: Good?

With the question mark added, my confidence has taken a slide.
I'll have to work harder.

[GMDino]

(09-02-2015, 03:14 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: With the question mark added, my confidence has taken a slide.
I'll have to work harder.

Yes.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-01-2015, 02:04 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Obligatory.....

Hit.

[*bfine32*]

(09-02-2015, 11:51 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: No, it doesn't.  Dude suggested it is a mental disorder.  I provided you with a link to DSM-5.  Maybe you can show me where homosexuality is listed as a mental disorder.

It is currently not classified as a disorder simply because it does not hinder you in your daily functions; however, there are many that consider it a process that happens in the brain. So perhaps it should be called a mental abnormality; I'm pretty sure it was/is classified as deviant behavior and not too long ago deviant behaviors we considered to be mental disorders. The behavior has not changed; only the classification.

BTW: Mike M do not rep this post. I'd rather not have Pat stalking my Rep page.

[*Nately120*]

(09-02-2015, 05:18 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It is currently not classified as a disorder simply because it does not hinder you in your daily functions

Maybe it's just liberal fear-mongering, but can't you still be fired for being gay in more than half of the US states?  I honestly don't know because I'm all man and I'll sleep with 100 women right now if you need proof.

[StLucieBengal]

(09-01-2015, 07:57 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I like that Mike gave him rep for calling being gay a mental disorder. Not sure why he doesn't come out and say it himself.

Lol seriously did you actually take the time and effort to screen shot then make an imgur of this ..... That is magical.

Who cares why anyone gives rep? When we start making money of giving and receiving rep then you have something. But now it just makes you look like a stalker.

Come on.... your better this man.

[Rotobeast]

(09-03-2015, 03:07 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Lol seriously did you actually take the time and effort to screen shot then make an imgur of this .....   That is magical.  

Who cares why anyone gives rep?   When we start making money of giving and receiving rep then you have something.   But now it just makes you look like a stalker.  

Come on....  your better this man.

Not sure why, but that made me....
 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-03-2015, 03:07 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Lol seriously did you actually take the time and effort to screen shot then make an imgur of this .....   That is magical.  

Who cares why anyone gives rep?   When we start making money of giving and receiving rep then you have something.   But now it just makes you look like a stalker.  

Come on....  your better this man.

Come on . . . you're better than this, man.

Just play in', dawg. Obviously, you're not.

[djs7685]

(09-03-2015, 03:07 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Lol seriously did you actually take the time and effort to screen shot then make an imgur of this .....   That is magical.  

Who cares why anyone gives rep?   When we start making money of giving and receiving rep then you have something.   But now it just makes you look like a stalker.  

Come on....  your better this man.

I don't know why people resort to this type of behavior when a poster calls someone out for their rep notes on the new board.

For those that haven't noticed, rep comments are public information now for all to see. It's no different that Pat taking a screenshot of a stupid post made on the boards and posting it on here. Nobody is a "stalker" or some type of weirdo for taking the 2 seconds to click on a button and read through PUBLIC reputation comments.

Going through someone's rep comments on this board is no different than going through a random thread that you feel like reading. No need for the ass backwards logic that anyone is a "stalker" for looking at public information on a message board. I could completely understand if Pat was trying to figure out your password so he could read your private messages, that would be creepy, but this isn't....at all.