This thread is gay

[*bfine32*]

(09-21-2015, 03:52 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: It gets another LMAO because you don't understand basics such as phenotype, genotype, and autosomal recessive without getting into the complicated stuff such as gene expression and suppression.

Example:  Two parents without autism have a child with autism.  According to your logic, autism can't be genetic in nature because the child has a trait the parents don't.

I'll just take this as a lack of reading comprehension. Where have I said it cannot be genetic if the trait is not shared by the parents? If you cannot show me that then your analogy makes no sense.

I just found the assertion amusing that the fact that it is not shared is more proof that it is genetic. Do you agree with that assertion or not?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-21-2015, 04:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'll just take this as a lack of reading comprehension. Where have I said it cannot be genetic if the trait is not shared by the parents? If you cannot show me that then your analogy makes no sense.

Okay, rocket surgeon . . .  Lemme "dumb it down" for you as you stated.

"Yes, because not sharing traits with relatives is more proof that something is genetic.  Good work."

Your above quote is sarcasm.  Sarcasm involves the use of irony.  Irony involves conveying a meaning opposite of the literal meaning.  When you make a sarcastic comment your intended meaning is the opposite of the literal meaning.  Therefore, when you wrote "not sharing traits with relatives is more proof that something is genetic" you mean not sharing traits with relatives is more proof that something is not genetic.  Parents are relatives, correct?  Yes, correct.  So you sent the message not sharing traits with parents is more proof something is not genetic.  I can't believe I have to explain this.  (See, that is sarcasm because I'm not surprised I have to explain this to you.)  But, you think because I can't show you a verbatim quote you didn't send that message.  Once again, you're incorrect.  You're getting as bad as Rugby with the "I didn't say that" crap.

Quote:I just found the assertion amusing that the fact that it is not shared is more proof that it is genetic. Do you agree with that assertion or not?

I agree with Pat's explanation.

[*bfine32*]

(09-22-2015, 10:14 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Okay, rocket surgeon . . .  Lemme "dumb it down" for you as you stated.

"Yes, because not sharing traits with relatives is more proof that something is genetic.  Good work."

Your above quote is sarcasm.  Sarcasm involves the use of irony.  Irony involves conveying a meaning opposite of the literal meaning.  When you make a sarcastic comment your intended meaning is the opposite of the literal meaning.  Therefore, when you wrote "not sharing traits with relatives is more proof that something is genetic" you mean not sharing traits with relatives is more proof that something is not genetic.  Parents are relatives, correct?  Yes, correct.  So you sent the message not sharing traits with parents is more proof something is not genetic.  I can't believe I have to explain this.  (See, that is sarcasm because I'm not surprised I have to explain this to you.)  But, you think because I can't show you a verbatim quote you didn't send that message.  Once again, you're incorrect.  You're getting as bad as Rugby with the "I didn't say that" crap.


I agree with Pat's explanation.

So you cannot show me where I said what you suggested and must admit your little analogy made zero sense.

Who mentioned anything about Pat. I asked you did you agree with the assertion that because relatives do not share a trait is more proof that something is genetic? It's a yes or no; it's not "rocket surgery". I thought it was a silly assertion and pointed it out as such. Even the the person that said it has said he may have used poor wording. 

[GMDino]

(09-22-2015, 12:40 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So you cannot show me where I said what you suggested and must admit your little analogy made zero sense.

Who mentioned anything about Pat. I asked you did you agree with the assertion that because relatives do not share a trait is more proof that something is genetic? It's a yes or no; it's not "rocket surgery". I thought it was a silly assertion and pointed it out as such. Even the the person that said it has said he may have used poor wording. 

You'd actually have to say what you mean for some to quote it.

[*bfine32*]

(09-22-2015, 12:46 PM)GMDino Wrote: You'd actually have to say what you mean for some to quote it.

OK, this is what I have meant and said throughout the entire thread so you, benton, breech, or whomever can quote it and show me where I am "wrong":

The assertion that if a trait is not shared it is more proof that it is genetic is a ridiculous statement. 

Folks have tried to turn that into me saying a great many thing and argue I only didn't say those thing because I didn't say those things and we really want you to have said those things so we're going to say you said those things. 

[GMDino]

(09-22-2015, 12:56 PM)bfine32 Wrote: OK, this is what I have meant and said throughout the entire thread so you, benton, breech, or whomever can quote it and show me where I am "wrong":

The assertion that if a trait is not shared it is more proof that it is genetic is a ridiculous statement.

Folks have tried to turn that into me saying a great many thing and argue I only didn't say those thing because I didn't say those things and we really want you to have said those things so we're going to say you said those things.

I think where you are going wrong (or trolling, I'm never sure) is that you are saying if the PARENTS don't show the same traits it cannot have been passed on by the parents.

Whereas my initial post was pointing to the fact that if no one in the home is gay then it would point against "nurture" and toward "nature". I later clarified that to not necessarily mean "proof".

(09-21-2015, 07:27 AM)GMDino Wrote: Pat's right but that won't stop Lucy from trying again.

As to the rest of his post:  If a woman was raised by lesbians and she is straight what does that say about the influence of parents on your own sexuality?

Every gay person I know was raised by straight parents.  Most of them is a household with multiple siblings who are NOT gay.

You then got sarcastic (again I assume).

(09-21-2015, 09:57 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Yet, it is somehow genetic.

Since I knew what I meant and that you had gone to far to the other side I responded.

(09-21-2015, 10:15 AM)GMDino Wrote:

That's even more proof that it is genetic.  

And here is where you went astray with the notion that nothing genetic can be passed on without the parents also being affected by the same trait.

(09-21-2015, 10:32 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Yes, because not sharing traits with relatives is more proof that something is genetic.

Good work.

In response I used your own full throttle to one side type argument and a dash of sarcasm.

(09-21-2015, 10:42 AM)GMDino Wrote: Yes, because if you are raised with no gay people around you you will decide to "choose" to be gay vs you are born that way and the outside influences didn't affect you.

Solid post.

Here you are stuck on the word "proof" which was already debated and altered.

(09-21-2015, 10:47 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Well it damn sure isn't further proof that it is genetic; regarless what some may say and you attempt to support in a round about way.

And then you throw in this: Where you attempt to say it is neither nature (genetics) or nurture but some "abnormality" that magically appears without rhyme or reason.

(09-21-2015, 10:48 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Imangine my shock. Nowhere have I said people are gay because of their environment. Where is everybody getting this from?

(09-21-2015, 10:58 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I have said many times before, IMO it is a sort of mental abnormallity (I can't say disorder). Similar to schizophrenia 

Then you say this "abnormality" shows MORE of a genetic link...but dismiss homosexuality (which you compared to the abnormality) as genetic because there is some debate about the abnormality.

And you are still hung on the word "proof" which was already discarded much earlier in the thread.

(09-21-2015, 12:23 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Actually Schizophrenia shows more of a genetic link than homosexuality and scholars still debate if it is hereditary; but I do feel they function simalarry in the brain. So if you are of the opinion that mental disorders are genetic then yes. If you are of the opinion that there is no mental disorder gene then no.

But regardless how many times you and others say it; the fact that your relatives do not have it is not more proof that it is genetic. I cannot believe I actually have to repeat this.

And again you use the defense that since there is no consensus that mental disorders are genetic no one can say homosexuality is.

And you finish it with an analogy that shows you don't understand recessive genes...and which leads me to believe you are not understanding that the parents do not have to show the traits for them to be passed on to their children.

(09-21-2015, 03:31 PM)bfine32 Wrote: That is your opinion and there is data to back up both lines of thinking. Too often folks pretty much say "I'm not sure what it is, I'm just sure you are wrong". As I have said there are studies that show no genetic link to certain types of mental disorders. 

Of course you'll have to forgive me if I don't take your point of view as scientific fact; as you have already claimed that the lack of a shared trait is more proof that something is genetic.

Let's see if I can provide an analogy (always willing to "dumb it down").If everybody in your family has dark hair and complexion; yet, you have fair skin and blond hair, is the fact that you do not share these traits with the rest of your family more proof that skin and hair color are genetic?

No it is not. It is just more likely that you have a blond haired, fair-skinned mail man. 

If your story was applied to being gay then it would have to be more likely that you had a gay mailman...who had sex with your mother.

But I want to copy something from this very post so it isn't missed:

Quote:

Quote:I think where you are going wrong (or trolling, I'm never sure) is that you are saying if the PARENTS don't show the same traits it cannot have been passed on by the parents.

Whereas my initial post was pointing to the fact that if no one in the home is gay then it would point against "nurture" and toward "nature". I later clarified that to not necessarily mean "proof".

This where I think you are not understanding genetics. (Again, giving you the benefit of the doubt there.)

Well...that was fun!

[*bfine32*]

(09-22-2015, 12:56 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Folks have tried to turn that into me saying a great many thing and argue I only didn't say those thing because I didn't say those things and we really want you to have said those things so we're going to say you said those things. 

Exhibit A:

(09-22-2015, 01:39 PM)GMDino Wrote: I think where you are going wrong (or trolling, I'm never sure) is that you are saying if the PARENTS don't show the same traits it cannot have been passed on by the parents.

Whereas my initial post was pointing to the fact that if no one in the home is gay then it would point against "nurture" and toward "nature".  I later clarified that to not necessarily mean "proof".


You then got sarcastic (again I assume).


Since I knew what I meant and that you had gone to far to the other side I responded.


And here is where you went astray with the notion that nothing genetic can be passed on without the parents also being affected by the same trait.


In response I used your own full throttle to one side type argument and a dash of sarcasm.


Here you are stuck on the word "proof" which was already debated and altered.


And then you throw in this:  Where you attempt to say it is neither nature (genetics) or nurture but some "abnormality" that magically appears without rhyme or reason.



Then you say this "abnormality" shows MORE of a genetic link...but dismiss homosexuality (which you compared to the abnormality) as genetic because there is some debate about the abnormality.

And you are still hung on the word "proof" which was already discarded much earlier in the thread.


And again you use the defense that since there is no consensus that mental disorders are genetic no one can say homosexuality is.

And you finish it with an analogy that shows you don't understand recessive genes...and which leads me to believe you are not understanding that the parents do not have to show the traits for them to be passed on to their children.


If your story was applied to being gay then it would have to be more likely that you had a gay mailman...who had sex with your mother.  

But I want to copy something from this very post so it isn't missed:


This where I think you are not understanding genetics. (Again, giving you the benefit of the doubt there.)

Well...that was fun!

[GMDino]

(09-22-2015, 01:44 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Exhibit A:

Sorry.  

I guess giving you the benefit of the doubt and using your actual quotes to try and understand what your meant (and perhaps where a misunderstanding had occurred) was the wrong thing to do and you ARE simply trolling.

My bad.

[*bfine32*]

(09-22-2015, 01:50 PM)GMDino Wrote: Sorry.  

I guess giving you the benefit of the doubt and using your actual quotes to try and understand what your meant (and perhaps where a misunderstanding had occurred) was the wrong thing to do and you ARE simply trolling.

My bad.

I told you and the others exactly what I meant and the quotes you provided support that fact. I'm not sure what there is to "try to understand". 

[GMDino]

(09-22-2015, 01:54 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I told you and the others exactly what I meant and the quotes you provided support that fact. I'm not sure what there is to "try to understand". 

Yes.  You meant its not genetic because the parents aren't gay and traits cannot be passed unless its directly from the parents who must show those traits too.  And you're NOT saying its nurture...its just happens like a brain abnormality.  But NOT genetically because there's some debate about those abnormalities and if homosexuality is even one.  


Got it.

[*bfine32*]

(09-22-2015, 12:56 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Folks have tried to turn that into me saying a great many thing and argue I only didn't say those thing because I didn't say those things and we really want you to have said those things so we're going to say you said those things. 

(09-22-2015, 02:02 PM)GMDino Wrote: Yes.  You meant its not genetic because the parents aren't gay and traits cannot be passed unless its directly from the parents who must show those traits too.  And you're NOT saying its nurture...its just happens like a brain abnormality.  But NOT genetically because there's some debate about those abnormalities and if homosexuality is even one.  


Got it.

I'm done. I should have known better, but I'm taking a Farris Bueler day today 

[Rotobeast]

(09-22-2015, 02:05 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'm done. I should have known better, but I'm taking a Farris Bueler day today 

Won't the DARPA chip in your cerebral cortex let the DOD know that you're not really sick ?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-22-2015, 12:40 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So you cannot show me where I said what you suggested and must admit your little analogy made zero sense.

Who mentioned anything about Pat. I asked you did you agree with the assertion that because relatives do not share a trait is more proof that something is genetic? It's a yes or no; it's not "rocket surgery". I thought it was a silly assertion and pointed it out as such. Even the the person that said it has said he may have used poor wording. 

Let me explain how sarcasm works, genius.  I don't literally mean you're a genius.  I sarcastically mean you are the opposite of a genius.

Show me where I wrote you're as dumb as a box of rocks.  "So you cannot show me where I said" you're as dumb as a box of rocks because I didn't even though that's what I meant by sarcastically calling you a genius.  Only a genius, such as yourself (more sarcasm), would ask me for a verbatim quote of something you communicated via sarcasm.  If you don't know how to use sarcasm then: 1) don't use sarcasm so you won't be misunderstood or 2) don't cry about being misunderstood later.  

I told you I agreed with Pat because he already provided an excellent explanation to a question which isn't best answered by a yes or no.  Poor wording aside, you and I both know what GMDino meant.  But, as usual, you have chosen to focus on a single leaf of a single branch of a single tree rather than the forest as if that somehow might change the forest. 

[*bfine32*]

(09-22-2015, 03:32 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Let me explain how sarcasm works, genius.  I don't literally mean you're a genius.  I sarcastically mean you are the opposite of a genius.

Show me where I wrote you're as dumb as a box of rocks.  "So you cannot show me where I said" you're as dumb as a box of rocks because I didn't even though that's what I meant by sarcastically calling you a genius.  Only a genius, such as yourself (more sarcasm), would ask me for a verbatim quote of something you communicated via sarcasm.  If you don't know how to use sarcasm then: 1) don't use sarcasm so you won't be misunderstood or 2) don't cry about being misunderstood later.  

I told you I agreed with Pat because he already provided an excellent explanation to a question which isn't best answered by a yes or no.  Poor wording aside, you and I both know what GMDino meant.  But, as usual, you have chosen to focus on a single leaf of a single branch of a single tree rather than the forest as if that somehow might change the forest. 

Thanks for the long explanation I know know what I said and meant.

Do you mind if I call on you in the future to explain my words and thoughts to me?

Didn't you once get all huffy because I suggested you put words in someone's mouth? What the hell was I thinking with that assertion?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-22-2015, 03:45 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Thanks for the long explanation I know know what I said and meant.

You're welcome. You know what they say, teach a man to fish . . .

Quote:Do you mind if I call on you in the future to explain my words and thoughts to me?

Yes.

Quote:Didn't you once get all huffy because I suggested you put words in someone's mouth? What the hell was I thinking with that assertion?

I wrote I preferred to let Benson answer a question himself rather than answer for him.  I don't know why that makes you so bitchy.

Conversely, you asked me to show you where you said something. I'm literally doing what you asked and your panties are in a bunch because I did what you asked. Wash the sand out of it, take a midol, do something for Christ sake.