h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

>> "She knows the difference. At least I hope she does."

It really depends on what people interpret as an attack. Attacking a point of view is rather different to attacking a person.
In many of these debates, I've deleted 90% of the replies I'd written after taking several deep breaths, though there are those that presumably haven't. I'd *like* to think that I only 'attack' statements that I'd still think were worthy of attack if I was responsible for them.
I seem to remember having an argument with Hoo over the limits of legal of self-defence where we clearly both thought the other was talking rubbish, but still managed to keep things largely anchored around the actual argument, rather than getting more widely personal.


Anyways, there *are* other ways of something being innate than being genetically caused. I'm sure I read something about a link between the number of older male siblings and the odds of a male being homosexual. It might well be that something is prenatally developmental without being genetic, *not* that that would necessarily comfort people worried about the worst-case possibilities of parents interested in manipulating the sexuality of their potential offspring.

And my point, Potholer, about all this nonsense about discovering *why* some people end up being homosexual is - who the f**k really cares? Do you? I don't.

Some are, some aren't. So?

It would only be if I thought homosexuality was some sort of 'problem' that I would be interested in discovering the 'root' of this so-called problem.


az

There is a valid interest from a purely scientific point of view, in the same way it's possible to wonder why someone has eyes of a certain colour, or is a particular height, without actually valuing one colour or height over another. Personally, I suspect that for the population as a whole, the more noise there is around the debate, the more some people would like some kind of answer to be found just so they can forget about the whole thing.

There *are* potential pitfalls from knowing what the various causes are, but potential benefits as well. Putting people off attempting 'cures' via whatever means they can dream up is a definite potential benefit, though even in a pure nurture scenario, changing things at a later date might still prove difficult or impossible even for those who actually consider it desirable.

In terms of worst-case scenarios of prenatal screening, etc, in the long run, with the escalating possibilities and lowering price of genetic technology, it's pretty likely that someone will get a fairly good idea of the heredity or otherwise pretty soon anyway, whether other people like it or not.

what consenting ADULTS do behind closed doors has never bothered me, either way, what fascinates me about this thread is what others think, and why they think the way they do, why do they think their way is better than others?

I really need to go to

<>

If it *is* heredity. Maybe it is. Maybe it isn't. This is not something I've ever felt any concern about.

I find this sort of research totally sick and sickening. Like, there aren't far more useful things to be doing with all this research money - things that will actually benefit mankind?


az

I don't believe that responding to nonsensical, badly researched, or just plain false postings constitutes "attacks".

What I find particularly infuriating is when I have taken the time to research something, given facts and figures, and written what I perceive as a valid point, and someone states that they assue I am just "against" everything, no one takes issue with that (not that it isn't just water off a ducks back) but that people consider me to be "bashing" the person to whom I have responded in a reasonable and intelligent manner.

The fact is, the purpose of conversations is to discuss a particular matter in whatever direction the discussion takes one. In "real life" if someone makes a dissenting statement or asks a question, one doesn't simply say "that isn't on topic" or "that isn't what I want to talk about". If points need clarifying, if questions need answering, or if statements are made based on incorrect information, in "real life" one diresses to clarify, answer, or to provide correct information.....

one digresses.... not diresses, whatever that is.

"diresses"
N,plural, Upper class group of particularly bad women.

Wanting to make a VERY silly joke but shall just wander off and get another glass of wine instead . ..


az

ah go on, even the most serious thread needs an intermission!

and on that note I shall post this link,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4085023.stm
tut loudly, make some comment wondering why the supreme being would worry as to what a bunch of students say about his son and
Actually, there's some very good quotes in there too. Some very apt, but unintentioanl ones.

No sense of humour, those Christians!

<>

Yeah well, Muslms might decide on a fatwah, but Buddists?


az

I always thought that, but someone mentioned the other day that Bushido is based/a version of Buddhist teachings?
Ever come across a book called 'Your god is Too Small'? The title caught me the other day but I didn;t get a chance to browse it. Sounded interesting..

I don't even know what Bushido is - please enlighten me.

As for 'Your god is Too Small' - nope. Not heard of that one either.

Honestly, I am so stupid I wonder why I even bother getting out of bed in the morning!


az

ps
just kidding - love being educated, all the time . . .

bushido (sp?) is the Japanese warrior code of honour and so forth as I understand it. What the Samurai adhered to I think.

Regarding Buddhists, at the risk of generalising, I understood that not only do they tend to be laid back, but think about things rather more deeply than some others. (the two may be somewhat related).

With a fairly common emphasis on a utilitarian principle of judging actions on their consequences, rather than a simplistic prejudging of categories of acts as 'good' or 'evil', I suspect many Buddhists would just say 'So what?"

That said, it can't be denied that homophobic attitudes from society as a whole can be absorbed by people in many Buddhist cultures, and like other religions and secular belief systems, there are no doubt those who would try to adopt the authority of religious or secular dogma to bolster their own prejudices.

At the risk of pointing out the obvious, history would seem to show that not *everyone* in the Catholic hierarchy is quite as anti-gay as *some* people would like to think.

Some of the Popes for instance?

The Cardinal of Seville? (total hearsay, of course).


az

From the article
"The Bible says that Jesus Christ is the way, the truth and the life, that there's no way to Heaven but through him."
So presumably they were just taking the Bible a tad too literally?

Don't ask me, Ictoan, it seems only Christians know which bits are real or otherwise . . .


az

I really don't wish to cause offence to anyones religious beliefs but I am tempted to say that "only Christians **choose** which bits are real or otherwise".