California Proposition 8

Status
Not open for further replies.
I've had a lot of observation of mammals reaching puberty and how they act.

I think of all the people posting on this thread, I've seen more mammals (of which we are..sexually speaking) than anyone here.

That being said, I can tell you that from my observation and experience over the decades, that I've come to these theories from repetition, not from bias.

If I was biased, I would be saying there's something to hate about homosexuals. There isn't. I didn't hate my buck after he wouldn't mount females. However I did separate him from other up and coming bachelors in the herd. Animals learn from each other too. The paramount of that example is the human being.
 
Werbung:
I've had a lot of observation of mammals reaching puberty and how they act.

I think of all the people posting on this thread, I've seen more mammals (of which we are..sexually speaking) than anyone here.

That being said, I can tell you that from my observation and experience over the decades, that I've come to these theories from repetition, not from bias.

If I was biased, I would be saying there's something to hate about homosexuals. There isn't. I didn't hate my buck after he wouldn't mount females. However I did separate him from other up and coming bachelors in the herd. Animals learn from each other too. The paramount of that example is the human being.

So, Siho, in post 131 you called me out, demanded sources, and I supplied them. How about you? Got sources outside of the feedlot or the farrowing cage? What about that major in biology? It's probably good that people don't look at the sources I supplied, there is nothing so dangerous to ignorance as information.

Your silence is speaking louder than your words.
 
I'm glad that Mare is here posting. It is a perfect demonstration of wilfull obfuscation. S/he knows the points I'm making are valid and can be backed up by other animal professionals. So all s/he has left, since the points themselves hold weight, is to try to "kill the messenger" by denigrating me.

It won't work though. Learned people familiar with board-flaming can see right through the bluff. ;)
 
I'm glad that Mare is here posting. It is a perfect demonstration of wilfull obfuscation. S/he knows the points I'm making are valid and can be backed up by other animal professionals. So all s/he has left, since the points themselves hold weight, is to try to "kill the messenger" by denigrating me.

It won't work though. Learned people familiar with board-flaming can see right through the bluff. ;)

What's an "animal professional"? I worked in agri-business for 16 years, I raised cattle, pigs, sheep, chickens, and horses. Does that make me an animal professional?

I am more than willing to look at your sources if you will cite them, I cited mine. Pretending that you are under attack personally is only a way to try to divert attention from the fact that you have not presented any support for your personal opinions. Maybe that'll fly with ol' Unite, but not with the rest of us.
 
I was going to say, all the data that I posted was scientific. It was found in medical journals and research done in Brazil were homosexual marriage is legal. The long term consequences have been all negative. What exactly is not scientific about clearly documented evidence? Because it doesn't support the opposing side?
 
The really sad thing is that so many people get ideas fixed in their heads, you know, common knowledge stuff and it's tough to break away from that. We become so comfortable with our misperceptions that it's easier to ignore the onslaught of new information. The Sun doesn't rise or set, the Earth turns, but we don't want to change the way we see it, so we live with the easy falsehood rather than acknowldege an uncomfortable truth. In much the same way it's easy to look at the world and assume you know how it works based on what you see or think you see, the bad part is when you try to push your opinions on others in a way that hurts them.

A good example of this was the view that black people simply weren't as intelligent as white people. Part of this was due to revisionist history keeping, but a lot was personal observations by white people. When this information was disseminated it was easy for many people to believe, it reinforced their own attitudes and biases--not prejudices, but biases. School evaluation tests seemed to support the idea of lesser intelects in black people until somebody actually did some real scientific research on the subject. Taking into account that the tests were written by white people for white people and based on white people's cultural experiences skewed the results. The fact that black people had less opportunities to experience the world from anything like the perspective of the whites, the fact that blacks were generally less wealthy, and had less access to educational opportunities also tended to make the test results less accurate. If Bushmen made a test it's likely that most of us would fail it too.
 
"the bad part is when you try to push your opinions on others in a way that hurts them."

SO TRUE!!!

Mare, I think that is the point of this discussion. Gays have been trying for years to push their opinions and views upon others. According to polls, a majority of people changed their opinion in that they decided to let gay folks be who or what they wanted to be. That isn't enough for gays. They are still pushing. They want everyone to see this issue the way they do!

Most people are all for giving gays the same exact legal rights as any married couple. The only difference is what you call it.

This is nothing like what happened with black people!
 
Werbung:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top