Homosexuality & Choice
(Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Since the matter of choice is rather interesting to me, it is hardly a shock that I would be interested in the question of whether or not sexual orientation is a choice. One obvious problem with trying to settle this matter is that it seems impossible to prove (or disprove) the existence of the capacity for choice. As Kant argued, free will seems to lie beyond the reach of our knowledge. As such, it would seem that it could not be said with confidence that a person’s sexual orientation is a matter of choice. But, this is nothing special: the same can be said about the person’s political party, religion, hobbies and so on.
Laying aside the metaphysical speculation, it can be assumed (or perhaps pretended) that people do have a choice in some matters. Given this assumption, the question would seem to be whether sexual orientation legitimately belongs in the category of things that can be reasonably assumed to be matters of choice.
On the face of it, sexual orientation seems to fall within the realm of sexual preference. That is, in the domain of what a person finds sexually appealing and attractive. This seems to fall within a larger set of what a person finds appealing and attractive.
At this time, it seems reasonable to believe that what people find appealing and attractive has some foundation in neural hardwiring rather than in what could be regarded as choice. For example, humans apparently find symmetrical faces more attractive than non-symmetrical faces and this is not a matter of choosing to prefer one over another. Folks who like evolution tend to claim that this preference exists because those with symmetrical faces are often healthier and hence better for breeding purposes.
Food preferences probably also involve hard wiring: humans really like salty and sweet foods and the usual explanation also ties into evolution. For example, sweet foods are high calorie foods but are rare in nature, hence our ancestors who really liked sweets did better at surviving than those who did not really like sweets. Or some such story of survival of the sweetest.
Given the assumption that there are such hardwired preferences, it is conceivable that sexual preferences also involve some hardwiring. So, for example, a person might be hardwired to have a preference for sexual partners with light hair over those with dark hair. Then again, the preference might be based on experience—the person might have had positive experiences with those with light hair and thus was conditioned to have that preference. The challenge is, of course, to sort out the causal role of hard wiring from the causal role of experience (including socialization). What is left over might be what could be regarded as choice.
In the case of sexual orientation, it seems reasonable to have some doubts about experience being the primary factor. After all, homosexual behavior has long been condemned, discouraged and punished. As such, it seems less likely that people would be socialized into being homosexual—especially in places where being homosexual is punishable by death. However, this is not impossible—perhaps people could be somehow socialized into being gay by all the social efforts to make them be straight.
In regards to hardwiring for sexual orientation, that seems to have some plausibility. This is mainly because there seems to be a lack of evidence that homosexuality is chosen. Assuming that the options are choice, nature or nurture, then eliminating choice and nurture would leave nature. But, of course, this could be a false trilemma: there might be other options.
It can be objected that people do chose homosexual behavior and thus being homosexual is a choice. While this does have some appeal, it is important to distinguish between a person’s orientation and what the person choses to do. A person might be heterosexual and chose to engage in homosexual activity in order to gain the protection of a stronger male in prison. A homosexual might elect to act like a heterosexual to avoid being killed. However, this choices would not seem to change their actual orientation. As such, I tend to hold that orientation is not a choice but that behavior is a matter of choice.
A Philosopher's Blog 
I tend to agree with you that our sexuality is hard wired, why else would Oscar Wilde have risked everything and ended up in Reading Jail where this not the case? I think though that sexuality is more complex. One might ask, for example whether bisexuality is a choice or part of a person’s DNA? There, are undoubtedly people (probably a small minority) who, despite being straight engage in sexual activity with persons of the same gender “for kicks”, I.E. the thrill of doing so. Perhaps there is an element of passive bisexuality in many more persons than would admit it. Not wishing to acknowledge bicuriosity might stem from a fear of social ostracism, it being easier to tow the line and exhibit (in public at least) hetrosexual behaviour. Whatever the case consenting adults should be free to engage in hetrosexual or homosexual behaviour, with interference behind closed doors.
Reality Is Determined; Homosexuality Is Product Of Choice, Training
Drew: humans are beasts and “sinners,” first and most–they (we) only become human as we become RATIONAL–get it?
So, one could be homo or hetero depending only upon the degree of rationalism, hence, to a great extent training. So if u have a corrupt irrationalist, hence subjectivist, hence Pharisaic (moralistic) culture it isn’t surprising if all the people are trained to tolerate these homosexual-oriented creatures.
But the rational society can only be built upon heterosexuality which MUST be protected BY LAW. Thus people have a right to democratically–by means of majority voting–to discriminate AGAINST homosexual psychos and obsessives–even though it can be seen as “natural” IF u have a degenerate culture which induces this psycho-pathology within the minds of the people, beginning in child-hood.
Mike, are you aware of any sociobiological basis for homosexuality?
What does that mean? I do recall the fad of sociobiology in philosophy, but it seemed to be fraught with problems.
Ho ho ho–Mike: socio-biology is deterministic which isn’t good for ur Pharisaism, built necessarily upon subjectivism, so naturally it must be problematic, eh? Ho ho ho ho
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_O._Wilson
Socio-biology:
“Sociobiology is defined as the scientific or systematic study of the biological basis of all forms of social behavior, in all kinds of organisms including man, and incorporating knowledge from ethology, ecology, and genetics, in order to derive general principles concerning the biological properties of entire societies. “If humankind evolved by Darwinian natural selection, genetic chance and environmental necessity, not God, made the species.” “The brain [and the mind] exists because it promotes the survival and multiplication of the genes that direct its assembly.” The two apparent dilemmas we face therefore are: (1) We lack any goal external to our biological nature (for even religions evolve to enhance the persistence and influence of their practitioners). Will the transcendental goals of societies dissolve, and will our post-ideological societies regress steadily toward self-indulgence? (2) Morality evolved as instinct. “Which of the censors and motivators should be obeyed and which ones might better be curtailed or sublimated?”
This is sociobiology:
“For example, humans apparently find symmetrical faces more attractive than non-symmetrical faces and this is not a matter of choosing to prefer one over another. Folks who like evolution tend to claim that this preference exists because those with symmetrical faces are often healthier and hence better for breeding purposes.
Food preferences probably also involve hard wiring: humans really like salty and sweet foods and the usual explanation also ties into evolution. For example, sweet foods are high calorie foods but are rare in nature, hence our ancestors who really liked sweets did better at surviving than those who did not really like sweets. Or some such story of survival of the sweetest.”
Agreed: Mike likes to pick & choose, u notice. The lot of a Pharisaist is tough–but that’s why they’re so well-paid in today’s thought-control institutions, u see. ho ho ho ho ho
Soon as u admit “hard-wiring,” u’re admitting determinism, hence socio-biology. So a good Pharisaist has to be capable of muddying the waters as he goes.
Hmm, I thought it was just a materialist account of innate ideas.
Homosexual Perversion Natural To “Decline Of West,” By Spengler
TJB: note homosexuality & irrationalism (they go together) is quite understandable in socio-biologic (deterministic) terms when u consider the Spenglerian, CYCLIC “Decline of the West” and it’s necessary progress, such as it is.
Thus the original culture arises as people are HONEST and objectivistically-oriented (Aristotle), but as the culture advances in military victory and prosperity, it breeds up generations of spoiled brats (as we see) who didn’t have to fight and struggle for what they now have, provided by earlier, more intrepid generations.
Thus the evermore corrupted culture falls-away fm honesty, objectivity (Aristotle) and begins to adopt the wishful-thinking and HUBRIS of SUBJECTIVISM, and this esp. in form of Pharisaism-moralism (Immanuel Kant, especially) whence the corrupt suckers of the society pretend to HUBRIS, “good-evil” and the perfectly “free” human will–we see this in the Roman example, and now in the West, as so brilliantly and definitively described and exposited by Oswald Spengler.
Thus, if u think of society as a biologic sort of organism or super-organism, u see the very same process of Aristotelian-styled “GENERATION AND CORRUPTION.”
Thus in USA, for example, u first see the definitive and horrific destruction of US Constitution in US “Civil War,” whence Lincoln mass-murdered nearly a million white citizens of the south, plains Indians were next on the list of ruthless extermination, explicit imperialism ensued in Spanish-American war of 1898.
This destruction of the rational culture was then confirmed in 1913 w. passage of US Federal Reserve Act which set up literal, legalized COUNTERFEITING of the money-supply, the definitive enthronement of a criminal class as overlords, this rapidly moving, as we see presently, to total world domination and dictatorship of United Nations, IMF, NAFTA, etc.–now moving to explicit GENOCIDE of AGENDA-21 “population-reduction” and, as we see here in USA, ObongoCare death-panels, not to mention the on-going slow-kill mass-murder of the people by means of poison fluoride in water-supplies, toxic vaccines, forced drugging of population, poison “chem-trails,” not to mention the horrific radiation-poisoning of depleted-uranium weapons–which kills our own troops–and Fukushima.
So when u understand the Aristotelian, objective, hence determinist nature of reality in general, u then see how things happen and manifest more particularly in definitive CYCLIC mode, historically, as noted by one of the great geniuses, Oswald Spengler–thus u see the part played by irrationalism-as-fashion, esp. in way of homosexual perversion, destruction of family and humanity, etc. as evident before our very eyes.
I did, of course mean “without interference”, not “with interference”.
Mike’s and others’ purely materialist view of biology and the mind does not withstand close scrutiny.
Do we find human beings who are sexually attracted to Bose earphones? Why not? What is the basis for determining what a human is attracted to, on a purely biological foundation?
What about all forms of crime? Greed?
Moreover, how do you measure the effects of biology in these matters, even if they exist in the forms Mike thinks they do? Do we guess and call it science, like we do with evolution and climate change? Yes, of course. And then we make policy based on our guesses.
Additionally, everything we do has some biological basis, but biology is not causative. Ever. People can light themsleves on fire and starve themselves to death in protest.
biology is not causative. Ever.
Sooo…Think about this…when you were a child and first heard about sex, did it at all sound appealing? Did you count up your siblings and say to yourself, well Mom & Dad may have done it x number of times, but certainly no more than that? If so, as is generally the typical experience, what flipped that switch from “yuck” to “yum”?
By causative, I mean human behavior. Biology forces my heart to beat of course.
I do not argue that biology has a strong influence, but it does not tell us how a human must express sexuality. The switch would be a combination of hormones and other poorly understood inputs. In fact, hormones may be overrated in their effects on libido:
“Third, testosterone wasn’t significantly related to sexual desire in healthy men. There are services starting to pop up attempting to supplement testosterone in men who are feeling sluggish or like they want a boost in sex drive. This study is scientific evidence that the link between drive and testosterone in healthy men doesn’t exist.” – See more at: http://kinseyconfidential.org/testosterone-sexual-desire/#sthash.ivJyK3n3.dpuf
TJ posted a link about socio-biology. This is very similar to some of the things I see written about in “evolutionary psychology.” One problem with this, is that tastes can change. Socio-biologists try to find reasons why people like sweet foods. They seem to fail to understand that tastes can change given certain environments and contexts. For instance, as a kid, i ate tons of sugar. Eventually I got to the point as an adult, when I figured out it wasn’t good for me, and I significantly cut down on sugar. Now, I don’t like sweet things at all, except for ice cream once in a while, but even that is seldom. It’s simply overpowering to me now.
Could not the same thing take place in sexuality? Given a complicated mix of background, biology and current environment, may it not impact whether a person decides they’re gay?
Determinism And Corruption In Western Decline, Manifest In Ur Face
Remember in a determinist universe EVERYTHING is affected, including biology. It isn’t “biology” causing anything–it’s things being determined, working its way through everything, including biology.
So things happen within a hierarchic-type structure, fm the basic metaphysics, to physics, to biology, to society, down finally to the individual.
Anyway magus, perhaps u’re missing the pt. As I noted above, we’re basically beasts, only tempered as humans by means of reason. SO, if our training and socialization is that queers are cool, then we’re likely to tolerate queers and all act like queers–which is what’s going on for way big-bro. is trying to affect things, if u only notice.
See, it only depends upon what u want–want a rational society?–then u must practice, defend, and enforce heterosexuality, by means of law, voting, and democratic/republican measures, up-holding the family, individual freedom, property-rights, etc.
Do u want to enshrine Jews and suck-alongs as overlords?–then u must abide their criminal measures, like present US Fed COUNTERFEITING, and to abide criminality u must abide IRRATIONALITY and subjectivism, pushing Pharisaism (moralism) as an end. Along w. irrationality goes homosexuality, necessarily–it’s all of a piece in “Decline of the West,” by Oswald Spengler, within the determinist CYCLIC process and course of things, historically.
Simply ask urself is/was there anything more monstrously irrational and absolutely suicidal than US “Civil War” when whites mass-murdered whites in order to free blacks who are now gleefully murdering whites?–this is Western “Decline,” and it’s been going on since Hume and Kant in mid 18th cent., don’t doubt.
Oh, I’m not excluding a conscious decision and/or one based on environment, for some homosexuality. In an environment where homosexuality is considered acceptable and even desirable I would not doubt that you will find more of it. I recall as study, can’t vouch for it’s accuracy but found it interesting, that indicated that there has been a rise in lesbianism that correlates to the rise in sexually oriented advertising and the highly sexual culture (can’t think of the right damn word right now but YKWIM). Anyway, the study attributed this in some manner to the fact that when we sell sex or use sex to sell in western culture we use the female form far more often over the male form. This is supposed to have had a subliminal or such effect on sexuality. Now not sure I buy it entirely but found it interesting. When I was younger you saw far more feminine/gay men than lesbians.
BTW, have you ever read much of David Thompson’s blog?
http://davidthompson.typepad.com/
If you have some time, give it a read and let me know what you think.
I’m a dualist, not a materialist.
Ho ho oh ho ho–Mike: u’re a subjectivist, PERIOD, basis of ur Pharisaism. Hence u must oppose Aristotle, objectivity, and determinism–admit the truth.
But are you taking a materialist view when it comes to this subject?
Magus: what do u mean by “materialist”? I assure u Mike is Pharisaist, hence subjectivist (Plato, Kant, Descarte, et al), who worships “moralism” as end, not mere means, Pharisaism being the official policy/doctrine to be forced upon the population and students.
Thus Mike supports, necessarily, perfectly “free” will–which would indicate “mind” over matter–IF this is what u’re getting at.
But the politically-correct party-line is that homosexuality is “hard-wired”–not matter of choice–SOOOOO, u see Mike has a problem for his rationalizations.
Pharisaists, subjectivists, and advocates of perfectly “free” (God-like) human will have difficulty w. determinism and hence materialism (as Marx’s).
See magus: the analysis (metaphysics) goes like this, if reality exists, does it exist ONLY in the mind (subjectivism, Plato)?–or is there something “out there” (objectivity, Aristotle).
So u see materialism is, could only be, mere FURTHER conclusion or manifestation of objectivity.
Mike is Pharisaist, hence subjectivist. Homosexuality “wired-in” (determinism), not matter of “free” will, is a TOTAL contradiction which requires clever circumlocutions fm Pharisaists, well-trained and -paid by big-bro.
By materialist, I mean the belief that the “mind” is only the brain.
Yes, hence mind-as-brain is merely deterministic matter–this is why Descartes had to posit “dualism,” two kinds of “substance,” this his pretended “improvement” over Aristotle, ho ho ho. Thus Descartes pretended to preserve both determinism (for matter) and “free” will at same time. But reality either exists (monism) or it doesn’t, and Cartesian “dualism” is just subjectivism when all is said and done.
Pharisaism, hence subjectivism can get complicated–requires “training,” ho ho ho
No. That would be identity theory, which has been refuted rather successfully.
No. Dualism, of the sort that allows interaction between the mind and body, is consistent with the body influencing the mind. For example, suppose you are physically worn out and very hungry. This can impact your mental behavior. Likewise, sexual orientation could be hardwired in the biology, yet influence the mind. So, a straight person would experience the biological process of being sexually attracted to the opposite sex, would would presumably affect the mind. The person could elect to act or not act on these influences-so straight oriented people can have sex with members of their own sex. Or no one at all.
Ok. I accept that. Still, a person’s taste can change, right?
This still seems materialistic to me. By mind, you mean brain? To me, the brain is like a computer in that it still requires a user to tell it what to do. That user is not material as we understand it.
What is the “first cause” of a thought or action?
“As such, it seems less likely that people would be socialized into being homosexual—especially in places where being homosexual is punishable by death. However, this is not impossible—perhaps people could be somehow socialized into being gay by all the social efforts to make them be straight.”
Since when does being socially unacceptable prevent all people from engaging in these activities? Gambling too much? Drinking too much? Lying? Adultery? The list is long.
But are people socialized into those behaviors? Obviously people do them, but they seem to go against what society (that is, people in general) tries to train people to do. Then again, there is a clear distinction between what we tell people to do and what we do (“don’t drink too much kid, pass me that six pack…I got to get my drink on before I go cheat on your mother. Tell her I am helping Ted fix his lawnmower.”
Of course folks are “socialized” (one way or another) into EVERYTHING–whatever they do is product of training, imitating, etc., actual WILL plays very small, infinitesimal part of our deterministic existence, all truth be told.
And homosexuality and its present HEAVY rationalization, indoctrination, esp. on part of u thought-controllers in public edjumacation, is OUTSTANDING, blatant, notorious, and pre-eminent example and instance of most emphatic, urgent, and poignant “socialization,” etc. we see going on–as on TV, in movies, justified in the present hereticalist “Judeo-Christian” churches & institutions, subsidized by the gov., enforced by law, etc.
Homosexual agenda is INTEGRAL part in present culture-of-death, within empire-of-lies–all pushed by the criminal COUNTERFEITERS at the top, by primary means (in practice) of US Federal Reserve Bank which pays u folks in public thought-control and edjumacation for exemplary case in pt.
“A homosexual might elect to act like a heterosexual to avoid being killed. However, this choice would not seem to change their actual orientation. As such, I tend to hold that orientation is not a choice but that behavior is a matter of choice.”
“A philosopher might elect to act like a Nazi to avoid being killed. However, this choice would not seem to change their actual orientation. As such, I tend to hold that orientation is not a choice but that behavior is a matter of choice.”
“A rapist might elect to act like a gentleman to avoid being killed. However, this choice would not seem to change their actual orientation. As such, I tend to hold that orientation is not a choice but that behavior is a matter of choice.”
“A womanizer might elect to act like a faithful husband to avoid being killed. However, this choice would not seem to change their actual orientation. As such, I tend to hold that orientation is not a choice but that behavior is a matter of choice.”
We’re slaves to sin professor.
We’re all immoral. We’re all murderers, rapists, and perverts at heart.
The question is: How can we prevent ourselves from yielding to these innate evil desires? Or: How can we free ourselves from our bondage to sin?
We have two (2) choices:
1. We can choose not to justify our evil desires and behaviors, seek to overcome them, and be morally healthy (and happy)
2. We can choose to justify our evil desires and behaviors, give-in to them, and be morally unhealthy (and unhappy)
#2 is easier, more natural, and politically correct.
#1 is harder, less natural, and politically incorrect.
Although it’s politically incorrect to say so, repenting of our sins, placing our faith in the risen Christ, living our lives with holiness, love of God, and love of neighbor is the only way to be free of our bondage to sin.
It’s obvious we choose who we wish to have sex with, and that our society influences our choices.
A good society teaches us what is — and is not — moral, and tells us we should have good moral behavior.
A bad society replaces good behavior with evil behavior, demonized those engage in good behavior, and praises those who engage in evil behavior while using words to make evil behavior seem praiseworthy and good behavior seem evil.
Our society is bad. It’s rotten to the core. And we’ve misused language to get us where we are, which is at the moral bottom.
Homosex used to be considered a deviant choice — for good (individual and sociological) reasons — and now it’s considered to be a superior choice.
This transformation — from deviant to superior — was a long time in the making, but it has now arrived.
The current ramming of politically correct homosex down our collective throats is a form of sociological rape.
Our society has three (3) intellectual and immoral guiding lights: Sade, Nietzsche, and Foucault, and if you don’t agree with them you’re not politically correct.
The truth is we will reap what we have sown. In fact, we’re already reaping what we’ve sown.
Never forget Heidegger wore a Nazi uniform while teaching his classes.
(See: Heil Heidegger! – https://chronicle.com/article/Heil-Heidegger-/48806/)
I wonder what would happen to you if you wrote a post saying homosex was deviant behavior?
I suspect there would be politically correct howls for your immediate dismissal.
“Whoever sows injustice reaps calamity, and the rod they wield in fury will be broken.” ~ Proverbs 22:8
“I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave of sin.” ~ Jesus
“Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap. For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.” ~ Saint Paul
“Thus, a good man, though a slave, is free; but a wicked man, though a king, is a slave. For he serves, not one man alone, but, what is worse, as many masters as he has vices.” – St. Augustine
Libido Dominandi – Sexual Liberation as Political Slavery – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntFLjJbxLiU
“How can we free ourselves from our bondage to sin?”
AJ: here’s only place I disagree–we can NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER completely free ourselves fm bondage to sin, EVER, no matter what we do–for this would be Pelagian heresy of salvation-by-works. But we can yet & still have hope for salvation through Christ (TRUTH TRUTH TRUTH). For there is no one perfect in the eyes of the Lord, under ANY circumstances, according to St. Paul. St. Augustine and Luther agree.
Homosexual Degeneracy: Part-Parcel Of Spenglerian Western Decline
Note humanity begins w. beastly passion tempered evermore by reason, the greater the reason the greater the humanity. And rational civilization encourages heterosexual behavior, the production of legitimate children to provide the natural social-security. Question then is HOW homosexuality comes to pushing its irrationalist weight about in the CYCLIC “Decline of the West,” by Oswald Spengler.
Thus homosexuality naturally accompanies irrationalism in the rise of subjectivism and hubris of Pharisaist moralism in the degenerate phase of the hist. CYCLE.
And indeed, Mike deserves credit for bringing up this extremely topical issue, homosexuality being heavily pushed by the politically-correct powers fueled by the endless funds pushed out by the US Federal Reserve Bank COUNTERFEIT scam.
And as Mike is careful to be sure for keeping his job in thought-control edjumacation, he parrots the PC line for homosexuality–gee whiz they can’t help it, etc.–it’s not mere matter of choice. And after all, objective reality must be determined (according to cause-effect), right?
So we see Mike picking-and-choosing, “free” will for some occasions, determinism for others–all as it’s expedient as for keeping one’s job in the evermore corrupt culture, etc.
Thus the COUNTERFEITING criminals rule the culture–now the empire-of-lies. Hence these criminals, to justify their fraud (basis of all their power, don’t forget), will naturally push SUBJECTIVISM, this first, most, and especially in guise of moralism/Pharisaism, which subjectivism justifies any lie, esp. Fed COUNTERFEITING first and most.
And as empire-of-lies is culture of death-worship, ObongoCare death-panels and AGENDA-21 “pop.-reduction” genocide, naturally it also endorses such psycho-pathology of homosexuality.
So we see homosexuality is just anti-Christ, anti-reason, anti-humanity, and destruction of all civilization, pushed heavily by our dear Jew overlords, for one telling and significant thing, as we see, all in the general Spenglerian “Decline of the West.”
I think Jung said that we’re all bisexual at heart. So, if you “choose” to be homosexual or “straight,” or “bi,” so what?! Perhaps the only people it matters to are those with hang-ups & guilt trips about their own sexual feelings???
Note: I’ve read somewhere that the great “anti-gay” GW Bush was known as “Lips” at his University (for his bj skills). And you might like to check out:
Homosexuality and the Nazi Party
http://modernhistoryproject.org/mhp?Article=PinkSwastika
Christ. I support gays’ rights to be treated like anybody else. But if you believe this sort of sh*t, you’re an idiot. Have you met Mr. Apollonian and AJ? You’d fit right in were circumstances slightly different.
And to cut you off at your out…by sh*t I refer to your assumption of GWB being “anti-gay” and being a bj artists. Which, given your position, you might consider that if GWB actually was gay, wouldn’t the outing of him be antigay itself? I mean, if he really was gay, what gives you the right to mock his sexual choice? Poor guy, having to hide who he really is because of bigots like you.
Well WTP, maybe Darius just wants to protest hypocrisy–but for crass neo-con traitors like u, hypocrisy is second-nature, isn’t it?
And hypocrisy and homosexuality goes hand-in-hand w. SATANISM–which satanist is probably what GWB really, truly is
Sorry, aplutonium. You feeling OK? You seem to have forgotten something.
I’m feeling ok, I think–how about u?
I will fill in the blank.
Ho ho ho ho.
Thanks for cutting me off at my out, wtp… and for your wise, anal reply!
Socrates [and Ernst Roehm & Jung???] would have loved discussing this with you, I’m sure.
But I think I’m finished here ; )
Well, don’t go away mad…
See what I mean? this is where it’s going.
It’s OK, Magus. Just stand up to them and they run away. If more people would simply say, no that’s BS, there would be less BS in this country. See above.
You might note, at least AFAICT, the perpetrators of this supposedly gay-supporting hoax appear to be heterosexuals.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/15/gay-dad-birthday-invite-hoax_n_4794437.html?utm_hp_ref=gay-voices
Though I’m sure the likes of run-away-Darius will approve of the fake-but-accurate story line. I’m sure Socrates [and Ernst Roehm & Jung???] would have.
An example of why I left Facebook. As the social apps drive the world mad, I figure it gives me a competative edge in analytical thinking and life in general.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2551578/Is-Twitter-making-STUPID-Social-networking-sites-making-hard-people-think-themselves.html
Well, the bat & ball cost question used in the link is very similar to what I related in the Monty Hall problem. Instead of an appeal to authority, we have an appeal to group think. All predate social media. In the Monty Hall problem, do we blame universities? To which I do say yes…but not to the exclusion of the concept of higher education.
Qսality articles is the main to innvite the
users to pay a visit the website, that’s what this weƅѕite is
providing.