Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Hate speech is pretty well defined (Score 1) 1031

You are just splitting hairs whenever I make a point.

No I'm splitting paragraphs whenever I have a point. Zing!

But no, you're dismissing arguments you don't like without addressing them. Your philosophy seems to be based on what biology wants. I claim, biology wants nothing so your entire line of reasoning is void.

You're also glomming on to my individual words (like "outside") while completely ignoring the point. Free will is very poorly defined. Every definition you use I can pick holes in. So, when you claim being gay is a matter of free will, I claim your argument is invalid because you can't even define what free will is.

In fact you have an incredibly black and white view of the world which doesn't account for the large amount of nuance present. You dismiss anything not fitting this as "pedantry", "splitting hairs" or other things.

You are also willfully ignoring half the points I'm making by playing dumb, viz:

what claim did I make that you require evidence of?

You claimed biology cares who people have sex with. There is no evidence biology cares about anything.

You're claiming gay people are mentally ill, again with no evidence. You cite a something thoroughly discredited as evidence even that itself had no evidence for it which is why its now discredited.

Oh yeah, you claimed a gay gang was the second largest (? or merely very large) in the country or some gang filled area or something. Again, not a single little morsel to back that up.

Would you like me to continue?

if there was any kind of evidence that being gay is an immutable trait one is born with, then you would have cited it long ago.

I've given the same example something like 4 times now. Instead of addressing it, you pretend I never gave it. I shall not give it again, but this another great example of you simple making shit up to fit your prejudices. If you don't like some evidence, just keep pretending your opponent never gave it until he gives up!

If we observed a cell that refused to divide, we would say it is dead or inert.

No, we don't. Heart, brain and neural cells don't generally divide in adults. That's why neurological injuries or heart attacks have such long term effects. I can assure you however that my heart cells are very much alive. Red and white blood cells don't divide either.

Oh there you go! There's another thing you claimed without evidence which is not in fact true.

If we observed a domesticated animal refusing to mate, we would take it to a doctor and ask what is wrong with it.

Doe that apply to any of the following domesticated animals: mules, hinnies, capons, bullocks, gelding, steers, barrows or wethers?. Does it apply to spayed or neutered dogs and cats too? The very fact we have those words proves that we place considerable value on animals for purposes other than mating.

You keep putting forth the "fact" that mating is the only goal in life. This is not a fact. It does not matter how much you mate. In 1e9 years, the earth will run out of free carbon. In 2 or 3e9, the earth will scorch because of the rising luminosity of the sun. In 6e9 years, the earth will fall into the sun and be consumed. Eventually the sun will cool to a black dwarf, red dwarfs will burn out and stellar formation will cease. Breeding won't delay that.

There is no moral reasoning or feel-good explanation needed here. We see how biological machines are generally supposed to operate.

No, we take a non-breeding animal to the vet only if we want it to breed for some specific purpose. We don't attempt to fix every example of non-breeding because we claim to be some enforcer of how biological machines are supposed (and supposed by whom?) to operate. In fact we purposely create animals that can't breed.

Penis is made for vagina,

No, it's not made for: it evolved for. Splitting hairs? You'd like to think so, but no. You lack precision in language when trying to debate precise things. This is why you're doing so badly, because you fuzz over things with imprecise language then use that fuzz for reasoning. I give you something more precise:

Penis is made for vagina, it is just a coincidence that it works for butts and mouths and titties and feet and microwaved cantaloupes.

Our penis evolved for that (and peeing on things), but so what? That means less than nothing, because evolution does not care. At some point our brains then further evolved to take advantage of all the other things a penis could be used with. Our brains (and those of bonobos too) have evolved to take pleasure in getting off by what ever means. We've even identified some of the mechanisms and neurotransmitters involved.

Deviate from this intended behavior, and assume the role of aberration.

Do you believe that evolution intended for us to live in cities, operate computers? If so then you're being aberrant 24/7 instead of (according to you) a gay person being aberrant at most a few hours per week.

Anyway your philosophy is flawed because not only does evolution not have "intent" but the very notion is actually against evolution. If evolution had a purpose and everything operated precisely as intended then further evolution could not occur.

but if you are drawn to behavior that is fundamentally opposed to life itself

You just equated not wanting to have children with wanting to wipe out all life. You're certifiable.

Comment Re:Hate speech is pretty well defined (Score 1) 1031

What is the only thing that simple lifeforms do, from single cell organisms to more complex beings? Procreate in order to perpetuate the species. The reasons that people come up with not to procreate have no basis in reality as far as biology is concerned.

No, they have no basis in reality as far as _you_ are concerned. Biology doesn't care. It has no reasons. It simply exists.

We classify problems that impede normal function as mental or physical illness.

Except you have chosen yourself to be the arbiter of "normal", and come to think of it, the arbiter of "problems" too.

The only basis we have for judging something as normal or healthy is pure biology, not vague philosophies created by people. ... says the guy who has a philosophy where biology has reasons and concerns.

I literally could not get any more basic in empirical observation (aka fact), than this.

There's no empericism in anthropomorphising biology.

If we were being farmed as domesticated animals, being looked upon by an alien race whose comprehension was far outside our understanding, the ones that were not reproducing would be looked at with wonder, "what is wrong, here?".

And that's relevant how? Firstly, there is no higher power farming us for meat. There is no one to care. And if there were, why would I give a fig what they thought?

I would include straight people that refuse to reproduce for some philosophy in the same regard,

See, this is where you're being very hypocritical and your biases leak through. You classify gay people as mentally ill because they don't "reproduce", even though some of them in fact do you haven't dropped your classification of them as mentally ill. So, you keep trying to argue one thing but you're deciding where you end up a-propri. You've now as a sop to my inconvenient fact decided to call something like 20% of the population mentally ill. Of course you're not even being consistent there: you're not classifying people who have few offspring as somehow more deficient than those who have more.

TL;DR You've invented a philosophy about a sentient version of biology in order to reach a conclusion you want to reach and are presenting that as a fact.

Comment Re:Hate speech is pretty well defined (Score 1) 1031

If you are arguing that the stereotype of alpha-male doesn't exist, when we are both sitting here using the term, you are just being ignorant.

Yes, i am arguing that it is so ill defined that it is absolutely useless. I notice that you have yet again refused to define it. It's becoming increasingly obvious that you have conceded my point but won't admit to it.

You accuse me of being a "raging douche-bag" for what?

I'm accusing you of being a "raging douchebad" for not having good reading comprehension and misunderdtanding what I read so poorly that you thought I was accusing you of being a raging douchebag.

For classifying gayness as a mental illness when even the psychiatric association only retracted their classification after lots of protesting as opposed to research?

There was no solid research that put gayness as a mental illness in the first place. Just some very old, very recycled anti Greek propaganda, fresh out of Canaan.

I am sure hearing facts

I'll let you know when I hear one from you. So far, you haven't provided any, just opinions.

If you can give me a good reason that one is "born gay",

I've given you the same reason about 4 or 5 times now. You keep ignoring it. I'll do it once more. People have tried and failed to "pray away the gay". They live in societies where gayness is considered bad, they really REALLY don't want to be gay and they put in a lot of effort to not be gay. And yet they keep on failing. That sounds like it's pretty innate to me.

or that being gay is not equivalent to an illness from a biological standpoint

No, you have to give one good reason why it is. Reproduction doesn't cut it. If I simply choose (as a straight man) to not have kids for various reasons, then I'm not ill. If a gay man goes one of the mildly convoluted routes like using a surrogate to have a kid, then he even gets to reproduce.

Your criteria are entirely arbitrary.

Comment Re: Finally, the gloves will come off! (Score 1) 1031

Typical: "anyone who is critical of gay propaganda is a closet case".

Except you're note being "critical of gay propaganda", you're literally making shit up to support a point you already hold.

If you want evidence that gayness is represented at a higher rate in criminals, drug-abusers, pedophiles, and mental illness I can get it for you

You mean unlike your made-up fact about gay gangs?

Anyway I'm sure your data corrects accounts for some underlying causitive factors like for example the general marginalisation of gay people.

Being gay was one and the same with the psychological disorder of neuroticism until it was changed in the 80's due to, get this, not research but people protesting and yelling "bigotry"

Yep. Because it was a stupid medical opinion based on bigotry, not evidence. I like how you implicitly take the status quo to be true.

The previous classification was the result of almost 200 years of research.

lol. That's such a wild claim, I don't even know where to begin.

I would, however, classify that as a mental illness.

I'm very glad then that you have absoloutely no say in what is and is not a mental illness.

Comment Re:Hate speech is pretty well defined (Score 1) 1031

I proposed that white, straight males are often discriminated against because of a perceived stereotype (alpha-male).

Except there's no even remotely consistend definition lf "alpha male" because "alpha male" isn't a thing. There's also no evidence you gave for being discriminated against merely for being male and fitting to some stereotype you refuse to define.

You might be discriminated against for acting like a raging douchebag, but yeah I'm cool with that and "raging douchebag" is not currently a protected category. Also, it spans the enture gamut of humans and you can find raging douchebags of all stripes (any race, male, female, transgender or other, gay, straight or bi, tall, short, any ethnic background, any culture, any religion etc etc).

You are the one who started talking about mustaches and nonsense

I was mocking you for your use of the meaningless term "alpha male".

So go on, define it.

Comment Re: Finally, the gloves will come off! (Score 1) 1031

I see you have decided to not actually address anything

Ah fantasy meets reality, I guess. I addressed most of your points. My guess is that my rebuttals were so devastating that you've fantasised that I did no such thing and have transmuted that in your mind to me not addressing your points.


Look at how many of your responses here are simply different forms of "you are wrong".

That's because you make a bunch of wild-ass claims without any evidence, like "gays are criminals". Basically it has become apparent that you are deeply bigoted and are using scientific-sounding language to justify your bigotry post-hoc.

I think I also understand why you thought I was insulting you! You porbably thought I was implying you are gay. It's sad that you think that's an insult.

Now I think you are a bigoted closet case. Lose the attitude, find yourself a nice twink (or bear if that's you scene) and you'll be much happier.

Comment Re: Finally, the gloves will come off! (Score 1) 1031

If there is situational and societal influence, then it is a learnable trait.

False dichotomy. Things are not divided into "learnable" and "not learnable". I can, and have, learned to play chess. I am however incapable of learning to play at IM level (let alone GM level) no matter how much time I put in. Some people can get that far with a lot of effort, others can get there easily.

Being gay is a mixture of innate and external things.

Everything sounds like word-salad if you don't understand it fully.

And some things sound like word salad because they are word salad.

Since gayness is influenced by social factors like how we frame its cause and why someone would be gay, we should make sure we are using scientific reasoning in how we talk about it.

That's nice, except you're not being remotely scientific.

Especially since it would interfere with a fundamental aspect of life, reproduction.

Reproduction is not a fundamental aspect of human life. Life literally has no purpose.

There is a stronger tendency towards what you could maybe call anti-social behavior among people who are gay or sexually indiscriminate.

You're just making up crap based on cherry picking samples. Among the people I know, I ahve never noticed a greater tendency towards antisocial behaviour among gay and/or sexually indiscriminate people.

Look at something like 4chan/b

Yeah because 4chan is representative of... well nothing.

And they are all gay/bi or turned on by animal costumes and much worse

You're ragging on furries now? Seriously why the fuck do you care? Furries don't do you any harm.

The second largest gang in Atlanta, behind Black Mafia Family, is the Gay Mafia.

*sniff* *sniff* smells like bullshit to me. And even if it's true (which it isn't), you're cherry picking to support your poing.

I am not advocating for gay reeducation. I am trying to frame gay for what it is, instead of the emotional argument currently in place.

You're claiming it's a choice. I pointed out examples where it manifestly is not and you're persistently ignoring evidence you don't like. I'm beginning (lol) to suspect you have an alternative agenda.

That is pretty much what I am saying.

Well then you're talking crap because the only person saying it is you. i.e. you just invented it to support your point. You're also entirely ignoring the point I'm trying to make.

We hold fat people responsible for their appearance.

Except we have various obesity reduction programmes, aimed at tackling the problem because we recognise that it's not a simple choice internal to the people who made it.

We even hold crazy people responsible for their actions (although there are mitigated punishments).

Actually we don't: that's where diminished responsibility and related things come in. We lock them up since they're a danger to others, but we put them in secure psyciatric hospitals, not maximum security prisons. Just because they're not responsible, doesn't mean they can go free.

A person may end up gay if they disregard mental health (sounds bad, but let me explain)

Oh yes that sounds bad.

As far as our physical body is concerned (and what else is there), we should be procreating

Utter crap. Many straight people go through life without procreating quite happily. In fact more straight people do that than there exist gay people.

But as far as the phenomenal world is concerned, we are organisms whose main responsibility is to procreate.

Nope. Evolution has tautologically made those with a better chance of procreating pass on their genetics. But there is no responsibility, because that implies that there is an entity to whom the responsibility is due. There is no higher power that we have a responsibility to.

This phenomenal world is the one that science deals in

Your idea of science seems to centre on making shit up.

If nothing that could be called outside-this-being is the determining factor of being's actions, then that being has free-will.

And what is that system then? Does oxygen count? The presence or absence of a breathable atmosphere will strongly determine your actions.

Comment Re:Hate speech is pretty well defined (Score 1) 1031

I don't know, probably the mustache thing. Remember that everyone cooler or tougher than you is just a hipster

Well you've just contradicted yourself there. Hipsters have large waxed mustaches anyway.

ertainly, obsession with computers is really cool...

Look, dude, you're the one that brought up this "alpha male" crap in the first place. If you're trying to dismiss it with sarcasm you're actually dismissing your own argument.

Comment Re:Koran 9:29 (Score 1) 376

Actually, that's part of the point of Christianity, as opposed to Judaism.

That's precisely what I was referring to. It's an Abrahamic religion which has no emphasis on converting people. Many of the modern interpretations, like the Reform for example allow it.

Jews also expect you to do certain things while you're alive if you want to be favored by God when you're dead, and so do the Muslims. The Christians are the only ones for whom belief is sufficient. In that way, if in no other, Christianity is less bigoted than its fellows.

Well... that depends a lot on interpretation. Not everyone agrees with that.

Comment Re:Since when did the West prototype this shit? (Score 2) 76

I find it instructive that "shadowbanning," a tactic already in use by Twitter and Reddit, has been adopted by a Communist dictatorship.

It gets worse! You know what the Chinese censors eat? Food. You know what the reddit AND twitter admins eat? Also food. I think it's also instructive that both also do their censoring on IP based networks. Will the similarities never end???!?

IOW Holy false equivalence, Batman!

Comment Re:Surprised it took them this long (Score 1) 76

I hid their posts for all other users. Some clued in, but it did work against most. Later I made it so that the moderators would still see the banned posts and I asked them to "feed" the trolls, to make it harder for them to realise something was wrong.

The sneakier tactic is to go the full hellban and make the hellbanned people visible to other hellbanned people. That way the trolls have lots of fun trolling each other and get lots of responses and never notice that the rest of the forum is blissfully unaware of their existence.

This can also be combined with a "discourage" mode. Some forum software (there's a plugin for Xenforo for example) which will randomly at some predetermined rate truncate/timeout/404/go slow on URLs entirely at random. This makes the forum technically usable, but shitty and frustrating, but for not easily determined reasons. Discouraged users eventually get fed up and leave, rather than returning under a different registration.

It's proven quite effective on a forum I'm a member of.

Comment Re:That can't be right (Score 5, Insightful) 490

So Obama didn't really "fix" anything

Well, that all depends on what the rest of the world was doing. The US doesn't exist in a vacuum. If things get only a little bit worse in the US, but much worse in the global economy, then the president has done a good job.

Likewise if things get only a little bit better in the US, but the world economy gets a lot better, then the president has done a poor job even if things have improved.

Comment Re:Koran 9:29 (Score 1) 376

All of the Abrahamic religions are rife with this same bullshit. You can pull up chapter and verses about how swell it is to kill "infidels" in Christian texts all day long.

A core principal of all religion is spreading their seed and wouldn't you know it people are still as gullible today as they were back then.

Well, not entirely. I mean sure, it's fine to stone to death those who worship false idols etc. But if you're not from the right tribe, you can never become one of God's chosen people. So, you're basically boned either way.

Comment Re:Thoughtcrime (Score 2) 376

I assume you have the evidence to back this up? Could you point us to it, please?

I could ask you the very same question. You "rebutted" the GP's unsourced assertions with a bunch of unsourced assertions. Human psychology is *weird*, and obvious, logical things but surely X so Y have an unpleasant habit of not actually being correct.

Slashdot Top Deals

Disc space -- the final frontier!