posted
Consider this a check drawn on the bank of reality.
We spend a lot of time here on Hatrack arguing the way things SHOULD be. There should be gay marriage, there should not be abortion, drugs should be legal, taxes should be lower, blah blah blah….
And that’s all well and good, but one thing we often forget, is how things actually are. In the interests of educating everyone in reality, I offer this periodic update on the way things actually are. Some of the information contained herein could be considered opinion, but if you disagree with me, you are wrong.
You’ve always hated Bush
This is the battle cry of the Bush apologist when faced with any sort of real criticism of the president. As if Bush materialized out of thin air during the Republican primary, and a big group of people said, “we haven’t got a clue who this guy is, but we hate him anyway.” It totally discounts the fact that GWB had a long career in business and politics prior to becoming President. It discounts the fact that certain people may have studied this career, and disliked what they saw.
Do you have to agree with the conclusions they reach? No. And go ahead and disagree vehemently with what they say. But keep your cheap hackneyed “You’ve always hated Bush” out of it. It’s a crap argument, and doesn’t mean a thing, and arrogantly discounts all of your opponents points. If you can’t defend your candidate without this kind of crap, then he can’t be defended.
Gay Marriage
The Djinni does not go back into the bottle guys. Just like abortion before it, and civil rights before that, and no taxation without representation before that, once enough people latch onto an idea, it is going to happen. What we wind up calling it is still open to debate. But gay couples are going to start being joined in some sort of civil contract that entitles them to married rights. It has too much momentum now.
Homosexuality is Genetic
If you know this for sure, you should hurry up and publish your findings and be a gazillionaire. Since, in reality, no on knows jack squat about where homosexuality comes from. People who claim it is genetic have an agenda, and people who claim it is a choice have an agenda, and those of us who don’t have an agenda are waiting for the real science. Eventually, they’ll figure it out. Until then, shut up. Making pronouncements on this topic just makes you sound dumb. And, in reality, homosexuality’s origins will not change the social momentum behind gay rights.
A final note
Thanks for reading Issue one of our new Hatrack Feature. Issue two will come out when I damn well feel like it. If you have a topic that you would like covered in our next issue, feel free to write to the editor.
Posts: 5383 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
On a serious note, I must say I can't disagree with much in issue 1... How much is a yearly subscription? Sacrifice of a child to the lord of the lizardmen?
posted
I just had the most bizarre feeling of deja vu. Partly from reading this thread and partly from my husband calling while I was reading it to say he's coming home.
Here's another one: Clinton was our greatest President Ever.
We should blow up Mt. Rushmore (after all, it's got that hideous syllable Rush in it) and just have a carving of Clinton. And the fact that Rodham Clinton isn't running/kicking butt means this country is mostly populated with jingoist Joe lunchbox heads.
posted
The amount of evidence for homosexuality having a genetic component is considerable -- for instance, if it were solely due to hormones in the womb and other environmental causes, one would expect the rate of homosexuality in the second of a pair of identical twins where one is homosexual to be about the same as the rate of homosexuality in the second pair of fraternal twins.
These are not statistical bumps within, or even close to the margin of error; the twin studies show a high correlation between genetics and homosexuality.
At the same time, some statistics do suggest a strong environmental component -- for instance, if it were wholly genetic one would expect the rate of homosexuality in the second pair of fraternal twins to be about the same as the rate of homosexuality in the second pair of non-twin siblings.
edit to add: rejecting the actual science in the matter because of the vehement and often ignorant disagreement by both sides is also a bad thing to do.
posted
Fugu, that was a wonderful way of saying, "there is evidence in both directions."
Which was my point. We don't know jack. Falling on either side of the issue at this point is merely displaying your bias one way or the other. And, as I said, it won't change gay rights a whit.
Posts: 5383 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, I know pooka misses the point. The point is that I'm mostly conserative, voted for Bush, and agreed with a lot of his policies—at least, his policies as he claimed they would be kept. In truth, he hasn't kept many of those policies the way they were originally drawn out our planned, and I dislike his "Big Stick" approach to foreign policy (it's about a century out-dated). I don't dislike the man, nor do I think he's some horrible person trying to take away our rights for the gain of some rich buddies. However, I do disagree with many of his decisions while in office, and don't think he's a suitable leader for the country. Conversely, while Clinton did a good job while running the country, he was personally reprehensible, and I didn't agree with much of his proposed policy (while much of his actualized policy wasn't bad). He was a good president, but his character kept him from the potential for being a great one (and he'd have to go very far to be in the same ballpark as the greatest).
In other words, Slash was saying the world isn't made up of a bunch of lines in the sand. It's more a bunch of squiggles and dashes along history.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, it is not a way of saying we don't know jack, Its a way of saying we know with a high degree of certainty that there are both environmental and genetic components to homosexuality.
Saying the evidence means we don't know jack is false.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
When they can tell you which gene is responsible, then that will be facts. Until then, it is speculation and unprovable.
And we actually don't know anything. We do studies and then try to pin our ideas on statistics whose causes we are totally in the dark about.
Posts: 5383 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
So until a few decades ago, skin color wasn't mostly genetic in component because we couldn't name a gene? So until a few decades ago, Hemophilia didn't have a genetic cause because even though we could prove the existence of a gene we couldn't locate it? So Mendel never knew anything for certain about there being genes involved because he couldn't point to the locations of the genes he discovered?
Utter poppycock. We can be have a low degree of doubt (under 1%, definitely) that something has a genetic component while having no idea what genes are involved.
Also, even if we can find a gene that is likely responsible, here's a bit of a revelation -- its still unprovable! Science doesn't prove anything in the absolute sense!
We can know a huge number of things about genetics without being able to name genes. Heck, even today skin pigmentation is still almost entirely a mystery, yet I don't see you doubting its high genetic component (the one or two genes we've found bearing on it don't account for the effects). And we certainly do not know "jack squat" about anythign we haven't found a gene for! We know we haven't found a gene for it, just as we haven't found a gene for a lot of things, because finding genes is hard (and things are often not linked to one gene).
There are many degrees of certainty, in science, and none of them equals 100% (in terms of non personal observations -- one can say with absolute certainty 'I saw the color red', but that's an assertion with very limited scientific value). Saying that because we haven't obtained some arbitrary degree of certainty you happen to like as a number we don't know anything about the subject is ignorant.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fugu, this is just demonstrating your own personal bias on this issue.
There are a lot of scientists who do NOT believe that the data regarding genetic component for homosexual behavior is at all conclusive. If they have reached a level of certainty that meets your personal standard for acceptance, great. I'm glad it's all settle for you.
But that doesn't mean you can wander around bashing anyone who doesn't feel the same way. It is far from a decided issue, and there is no concensus.
And that is my point. The 'genetic' backers trash talk anyone who doesn't buy into their party line. The 'choice' people bash anyone who doesn't buy into theirs. The point is that neither side has been proven to a sufficient degree that they can claim victory on this issue.
Sorry, but it's the truth.
Posts: 5383 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
I don't think you even quite realize what you just said.
My point is that your post completely ignores the degree of certainty we do have because it does not meet your level of acceptance -- the problem is, there is a degree of certainty, and whether or not it meets your worldview is a separate matter. You don't get to dismiss stuff as being meaningless (jack squat) just because it isn't meaningful enough for you.
Even scientists out there who don't think there is a high enough degree of certainty that homosexuality has a genetic component understand there is still some degree of certainty that homosexuality has a genetic component. Your rejection of any evidence that doesn't meet your degree of certainty is ignorant and unscientific.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, arguing which one is right or wrong violates the whole point of this exercise.
The point is still that people want to lay claim to absolutes that don't exist. And we need to get off the 'my side has been proven right' bandwagon when dealing with issues where no one has been proven right at all.
Posts: 5383 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Slash, I'm mostly on your side here, but it'd help if you released a little of that steam.
I think all Fugu is saying is that we can have evidence that something is the case without having all the details. As he says, there's good evidence that skin color is genetic, as indicated by the patterns we see in inheritance, even though we haven't yet found all the genes that cause it. Or, for that matter, the enzymes and structural proteins those genes produce to make skin color "happen".
I don't believe homosexuality is primarily genetic myself, but the heightened occurrence in increasingly closely related people strongly suggests that there is some genetic component. (And that there is only a 50% correlation even between identical twins, suggests that there is more to the issue than genetics or uterine environment.)
Just because we don't know every detail doesn't mean we know nothing at all. We still don't know the exact nature of gravity, either, but we know it's there .
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well... considering that scientists have ruled out homosexuality as a mental disorder there aren't that many possibilities left. You have it being genetic or being something triggered in the womb. Both are biological in the end. And that's all that matters. It's not an agenda... just a statement of knowing yourself. The more you know about yourself the better you can live and find happiness.
That said I agree with the rest of your reality check, Slash. Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mabus, please reference my above post about the point of this. Which is, that people stop taking what little evidence we do have one way or the other and using it as a club to bash those on the other side of the issue.
We are nowhere near having the level of certainty that some people include in their arguments against others.
Posts: 5383 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, jack, maybe it's because you've been around here for almost three years, but you have only a little over a hundred posts.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Slash, you're absolutely right about that. I keep hearing people saying "It's genetic, and science has proved it, so there!" And that's simply not right or fair. But so far as I can tell that is not what Fugu is saying at all, and I don't think you have anything to argue with him about on this particular matter.
I'm just saying, maybe the both of you should step back, take a deep breath, and reread the posts in question.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: considering that scientists have ruled out homosexuality as a mental disorder
Wow! Those sure are some loaded terms!
But is that really true? To use the nomenclature of Dog, where has it been ruled out that homosexuality is a psychological phenomenon? AFAIK, it has not.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, rereading the whole thing, I have come to the conclusion that Fugu just dislikes the phrase 'don't know jack'.
Ah well, you can't please everyone. Fugu, you are hereby appointed as the official detractor of the Slash Tells It Like It Is feature. No good publication is without its detractors. I look forward to you chiming in to correct my phrasing on many future topics.
That being said, if you call me ignorant again, I am going to drive to wherever you live and beat you senseless. Just so you know.
[ March 16, 2004, 04:51 PM: Message edited by: Slash the Berzerker ]
Posts: 5383 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
So your point is that we don't know jack? What the heck kind of news flash is that? By the way, has anyone else taken the "Which Disney Princess are you?" test? I was Briar Rose.
Port, homosexuality used to be a listed condition in the DSM-whatever edition Psychological diagnosis manual. It no longer is.
Many of the people (mostly college students) who I speak to who claim to hate bush are unable to back that claim up with anything. Other than pointing out how pathetic that is what other response is there?
Posts: 1458 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
See, now if we had just stuck to getting to know jack better, none of this would have happened.
Posts: 171 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Slashy, fugu might have called you ignorant, but you called every single person who believes homosexuality is genetic "dumb"
Not a big diff, honeycakes.
It should have been obvious from the get-go that fugu acknowledged that there was no conclusive proof but was calling you on saying that there wasn't *any* proof. We used aspirin for 50 years and called it effective medicine before anyone could prove how it worked...we knew it had scientific proof somewhere, but we just hadn't found it yet. All fugu's saying is that we have a definite idea that some aspect of homosexuality is based on genetics. Can't you give him that?
Posts: 3516 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am very passionate about science being used correctly.
Let me try to point it out in way that may make more sense: You just told me that just because the degree of certainty I'm willing to accept has been passed, it doesn't mean its true. Earlier in this thread you said that because the degree of certainty you needed (finding a gene) isn't passed, its so much jack squat.
My statements have been completely true: there is a degree of certainty we know it with, and that degree of certainty is both high and high enough for me.
Your statements, that the degree of certainty isn't high enough for you, and that because it isn't high enough for you any statements on the subject mean jack squat, are not both true. The first certainly is, but the second most definitely is not, and is ignorant and unscientific. I avoided using such language initially because 1) everyone, myself included, says things we don't necessarily believe at some point or another, particularly in heated discussions, and 2) even moreso, people including myself say things without thinking them through occasionally.
However, it is very harmful to science when someone, in a thread that is otherwise pretty reasonable, spouts things about science that are completely false, for instance there being jack squat evidence homosexuality has a genetic component, and keeps saying it. It is ignorant, and one of the few ways to get someone to pay attention to their words is to use strong language about those words -- and what you have been saying is ignorant. Using a reasonable voice often leads to an agree to disagree situation, which can be acceptable, but I did not want to accept in this case.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I already gave him that. I have no problem with it. And I don't think people who believe one way or another are dumb at all. I think people who declare one way or the other to be the absolute truth, based on our current murky understanding, SOUND dumb. Please don't make it worse than it is.
And Xavier? I think Fugu has been around long enough to know that I am kidding about beating him up. Do I actually HAVE to put a stinking smiley next to it?
Posts: 5383 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, I just keep reiterating the jack squat phrase because using synonyms will often lead to someone rejecting the synonym. Here are several accepted meanings, none of which apply to the evidence for homosexuality having a genetic component.
Sorry again bud. Just reminded me of Otaku or Ced or something.
It was just twice you mentioned fighting him and...
Bah, nevermind. Return to your regularly scheduled thread. Perhaps I haven't been here long enough to know you are joking. Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
