Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66
This reply doesn't even say anything real on the topic, or the points I was making.  |
As if your response really addressed my post. But let's move on.
Quote:
1) And realistically, who does not "have the option" to leave where they were born? Anybody can move and try to make a living elsewhere.
Whether or not they want to sacrifice as much as they need to and PLAN to make it happen is another thing.
|
Many countries such as China and India have systems in place that limit the places a person can move. Economic, societal, ethnic forces can limit freedom.
Quote:
|
2) Even in the imaginary world you're talking about, gays CAN and DO move. Saying that some can't doesn't ignore the fact that the migration DOES happen, thus reducing your complaint observation.
|
And in your limited view of the world, some people can't move. Not just gays. Maybe you ought to read with I'm saying and not what you think I'm saying or want to believe I'm saying. There are countries with populations that don't have the same freedoms we enjoy here.
Quote:
3) For your observation to have any REAL meaning, you would first (amongst many things) have to examine how many gays were BORN in the city vs rural areas.
Since you aren't going to do that, all the rest of this is pointless.
|
And I do believe I mentioned that more study is required.
Quote:
I know what you meant.
You said "that", THEN you tried to take it a step further and tie the economic success TO A SPECIFIC TYPE of city living environment.
I then pointed out what you were saying, and then you evidently dropped the second part of your comment.
|
I don't drop anything. Although you have proven time and time again to lie about crap that has never been said. What "specific type" of city living environment do you think I meant. It seems you might be reading something into my words that isn't there.
Quote:
You aren't even listening...
I'm not refuting "observation A" and "observation B" that you made.
I'm talking about how you tried to THEN go to "Since A and B, then C".
|
Which A B and C are you talking about? Because honestly, I think in your zeal to argue about something, you are misinterpreting my words.
Quote:
|
The "C" argument you made is the illogical leap. Just because you have A and B doesn't mean C.
|
Depends on the A B and C.
Quote:
That's an assumption.
Just because you have two phenomenon doesn't mean squat.
|
Depends on the phenomena.
Quote:
|
You are committing the logical fallacy of "Dogs run on four legs. Animals that run on four legs typically aren't smart. Therefore, Dogs aren't smart."
|
Not really. I prefer the dogs have smaller brains. Animals with smaller brains are usually not very smart. Dogs aren't smart. May still require more research, but considering the facts available, makes logical sense.
Quote:
|
You are committing a logical fallacy in your assumption in MIXING the observations, and making a conclusion that is unproven.
|
Sounds more to me like you are obfuscating to try and create fallacy.
Quote:
If you're not the one doing the studies, then don't pretend to make such invalid conclusions either.
It's funny how you take this cop-out, but then refuse to acknowledge that you're unqualified to make the type of conclusion you made as well.
|
If you have a problem with the information presented, discuss that with the scientists. Which is what you were talking about. They are the ones that reported what they found. I'd still be willing to see if the birth order studies correlate with the percent of the population that is more likely to have more kids.
Quote:
That is a possibility, but unproven.
Making that conclusion without scientific proof is a logical fallacy.
|
Not in a thread about scientific theories. Perfectly logical to present those opinions here.
Quote:
|
No, fxashun. It wouldn't.
|
Yes it would. Those are the only races you listed. Why would the person have to White, he could be "other" race too. Depends on what country you are in. Maybe you need to reread what you wrote.
Quote:
Most families are not "mixed". Ergo, your point is meaningless.
And other races would not mitigate the points I made. All I did was compare TWO of the races.
How other races compare would be a look at the larger picture, but would not change the point I made.
|
No what you did was say if it wasn't one race, it had to be the other. That's looking at your analogy as "Black and White" as if no other race can be rich. You gave no other options. Honestly with gender though it IS that simple. You are male female or [other]. You didn't compare "two of the races", you only compared two races.
Quote:
We could make clear lines of delineation. Perhaps just looking at the "poor" people by using the established "poverty" line.
But your response is proving my point.
You are trying to come up with these other ideas to mitigate the casual correlation attempt, ignoring the fact that according to your logic, it would indicate what I said.
I repeated your logical fallacy, and you are trying to point out the fallacy in that approach.
Yet you persist in repeating your own logical fallacy.
|
No, I'm just pointing out your analogy made no sense.
Quote:
Actually, there IS a middle there.
Not only bisexuality, but a whole continuum in how "gay" or "straight" people actually are.
It's not binary, but a spectrum.
|
And I say to you as well, show me a study that actually includes "bisexuality" when looking for sexual orientation causality and I'll be happy to check them out. But in the studies I have read, they deal almost exclusively with one or the other.
07-06-2008, 01:24 PM
Re: Homosexuality: Genetics and random factors
Linear Mode
