Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

blaktoof wrote:

I think you are just seeing the part you want and ignoring the rest.

The fething hilarious irony of this comment, oh my fething god you're a natural comedian.

First sentence there:

Dr Bailey said: “Sexual orientation has nothing to do with choice.

Clearly this can be ignored in favor of your own deluded ideas, right blaktoof?

You guys understand that are a significant number of other, non Dr Bailey articles that substantiate what Blaktoof is saying, right?

 cincydooley wrote:
You guys understand that are a significant number of other, non Dr Bailey articles that substantiate what Blaktoof is saying, right?

If you can show me one of those without a religious agenda let me know.

And not only that, but how can you completely ignore the "not a determinative factor" portion of the very quote you supplied?

the sentence is editorial commentary that obviously conflicts with the fact that they say they may have found evidence and then go on to say that the genes are not determinative.

If the found evidence that there may be genes involved, but then go on to state "But it is not completely determinative; there are certainly other environmental factors involved"

obviously genes are not the only thing involved.

if something other than genes is involved scientifically would that other thing be a choice or non choice?

most people assume anything that is 100% genetic is a non choice. Ie if we have blonde hair, we cannot choose for our hair to be non blonde, we can dye it, cut it off, but we still have blonde hair.

if there are other "determinative factors" those factors are choice.

so the doctor may make an editorial statement, which has no scientific bearing in their own work, and then goes on to show their data shows that genes are not the only determinative factor showing that obviously there ARE other determinative factors.

These are not my statements that are "deluded" but what you just quoted.... sorry you don't like it, but L2Readz

Could you post the peer reviewed, widely accepted ones that aren't done with religious pressure/influence?

I'd be interested to see them, especially if they're post 2014 February.

"there are certainly other environmental factors involved" <- Not things you choose.

 cincydooley wrote:
And not only that, but how can you completely ignore the "not a determinative factor" portion of the very quote you supplied?

Genes aren't the sole determinative factor, this doesn't suddenly mean it's a choice.

 MrDwhitey wrote:

blaktoof wrote:

I think you are just seeing the part you want and ignoring the rest.

The fething hilarious irony of this comment, oh my fething god you're a natural comedian.

Hey you know what guys, this threads not about that. That thread is two doors down.

A little off topic, I believe. Might make a great separate thread though?

 MWHistorian wrote:
A little off topic, I believe. Might make a great separate thread though?

Eh, I'm done. All it's gonna boil down to is clubbing the religious seal.

I agree, I will stop.

For some people gun ownership is part of their culture and rural way of life.

an interesting article that lightly touches on the topic

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/jul/25/kids-guns-and-the-american-way

Cause Sigmar gave us the right to use guns don't be jealous that your people still worship Ulrik and the chaos gods...

Way to serious of a Forum just research our culture and how we have the right to bear arms just in case our countries government turns on the people.

And because Sigmar gave us the weapons to defend ourselves!

There are multiple studies of twins that are not religious in nature. They're all linked within the wiki. Most recent was from Sweden.

 Frazzled wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:

blaktoof wrote:

I think you are just seeing the part you want and ignoring the rest.

The fething hilarious irony of this comment, oh my fething god you're a natural comedian.

Hey you know what guys, this threads not about that. That thread is two doors down.

What are you trying to say about the English, eh Frazzled?

 cincydooley wrote:
There are multiple studies of twins that are not religious in nature. They're all linked within the wiki. Most recent was from Sweden.

As you haven't dropped it, those studies just show that genetics is not the only decider, which is already agreed upon.

Now we drop it? Yes? Thanks.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Actually you're the one who doesn't understand it. Especially as the Doctor actually saying it even says "It isn't a choice", so considering that fact and you not being able to read it, I see no point in discussing further with you.

Comparing sexuality to gun ownership and female genital mutilation, fething hilarious. Seriously, genuinely hilarious.

To be fair, there's a difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior, and even sexual orientation itself isn't a binary, but rather a continuum.


When examining it in that light, perhaps a comparison with a person's views on gun rights could be made, at least in the sense that it can be influenced by environmental factors not of one's choosing. And I mean, if someone really likes a certain kind of gun, do they have to have a reason? Are they really choosing to like it or not? I suppose they probably just like what they like. They choose whether or not to buy it, but they don't choose whether or not they like it. Here we see an example of what might be termed firearms orientation, as opposed to firearms behavior.

It's not a comparison that I would consider particularly worthwhile, but there it is.

I thought that this was interesting. For those of you who think that gun owners are a bunch of white racist red necks, (If you do, you're ignorant) take a look at this. This guy won on Top Shot. I remember watching that season and was surprised that the tech geek won. He was kind of the under dog but he was amazing. He just came out as gay and is now a news reporter for the NRA. He's not the only 'typical white guy.' There's also the Pink Pistols, Colin Noir is black and Gabby Franco is a Latina immigrant.
Gun rights shouldn't be about Conservative or Liberal. It's about authoritarianism.
http://news.msn.com/us/the-gay-advocates-of-gun-rights-1#tscptmf

Gun rights are universal rights - they are not based on sexual orientation, religion, race, or gender. To hear the usual mis-characterization of gun owners as a Southern caricature does not advance any reasonable line of argument.

The right to self defense is one of the most basic rights that exists.

If everyone wants to give up their guns - from the Secret Service to the gangbanger in Compton, I just want to make sure I'm the last one to.

 MWHistorian wrote:
I thought that this was interesting. For those of you who think that gun owners are a bunch of white racist red necks, (If you do, you're ignorant) take a look at this. This guy won on Top Shot. I remember watching that season and was surprised that the tech geek won. He was kind of the under dog but he was amazing. He just came out as gay and is now a news reporter for the NRA. He's not the only 'typical white guy.' There's also the Pink Pistols, Colin Noir is black and Gabby Franco is a Latina immigrant.
Gun rights shouldn't be about Conservative or Liberal. It's about authoritarianism.
http://news.msn.com/us/the-gay-advocates-of-gun-rights-1#tscptmf

To add to this, and please don't think I'm taking this down a road to arguing about the case because honestly I wasn't there so I don't know what happened, but when the whole George Zimmerman thing went down, you didn't see the "crazy ass crackers" who modern Liberals assume make up the majority of gun owners really rushing to either side of the debate. They didn't attempt to throw him under the bus just because he was Latino, and they didn't necessarily back him unanimously.

The gun community is far more diverse than most people realize.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

The gun community is far more diverse than most people realize.

It is however, really easy to attack "hill billy red necks who lurv their guns" in a "debate".

 MrDwhitey wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

The gun community is far more diverse than most people realize.

It is however, really easy to attack "hill billy red necks who lurv their guns" in a "debate".

I'd honestly be afraid to attack this guy in any situation! I'm not sure the FBI minimum penetration standards apply to Jabba here...

 MrDwhitey wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

The gun community is far more diverse than most people realize.

It is however, really easy to attack "hill billy red necks who lurv their guns" in a "debate".

Which I'm pretty sure none of the gun enthusiasts here are, nor do they represent the whole community.

Collecting, firing, and maintaining firearms isn't exactly a poor mans hobby, which flies pretty clearly In the face of the "durf rednecks" claims and accusations.

In Dakka, why does a kid come along every once in a while and assume we've NEVER done this thread before?

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

The gun community is far more diverse than most people realize.

It is however, really easy to attack "hill billy red necks who lurv their guns" in a "debate".

I'd honestly be afraid to attack this guy in any situation! I'm not sure the FBI minimum penetration standards apply to Jabba here...

That guy would die of a heart attack before he could pull the trigger.

I live in Sweden, where gun laws are far more strict than in the US (The guns per capita in Sweden is less than a third of the US number). I love this. Guns terrify me. The idea that any drunkard who has lost his sense of judgment could grab a gun and shoot me is disturbing. Sure, he'll go to jail, but that won't bring me back from the grave. He might be dangerous without a gun too, but I can outrun a drunkard. I can't outrun his gun.

No offense against gunlovers, but guns are just so scary!

 Ashiraya wrote:
The idea that any drunkard who has lost his sense of judgment could get in a car and hit me is disturbing. Sure, he'll go to jail, but that won't bring me back from the grave. He might be dangerous without a car too, but I can outrun a drunkard. I can't outrun his car.

Interesting what one can do by changing a single word.

Guns aren't scary at all.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
The idea that any drunkard who has lost his sense of judgment could get in a car and hit me is disturbing. Sure, he'll go to jail, but that won't bring me back from the grave. He might be dangerous without a car too, but I can outrun a drunkard. I can't outrun his car.

Interesting what one can do by changing a single word.

Guns aren't scary at all.

YMMV, whether or not guns are scary is completely subjective.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
The idea that any drunkard who has lost his sense of judgment could get in a car and hit me is disturbing. Sure, he'll go to jail, but that won't bring me back from the grave. He might be dangerous without a car too, but I can outrun a drunkard. I can't outrun his car.

Interesting what one can do by changing a single word.

Guns aren't scary at all.

Cars are easier to avoid, seeing as I usually hear them coming, allowing me to jump off the walkway into a yard or whatever.

Guns less so. :|

They are just so unpredictable. A guy can take a gun out of his pocket completely surprisingly, but I usually do not see people take cars out of their pockets.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
The idea that any drunkard who has lost his sense of judgment could get in a car and hit me is disturbing. Sure, he'll go to jail, but that won't bring me back from the grave. He might be dangerous without a car too, but I can outrun a drunkard. I can't outrun his car.

Interesting what one can do by changing a single word.

You're right, it is an interesting comparison. Everyone knows that drunk driving is a problem, and you know what? We try to fix that problem. If you get caught driving drunk you're going to jail and could lose your license, even if you didn't hurt anyone. But the pro-gun side would act like it's the end of the world if we tried to have similar laws for guns, and make it a crime to possess a gun while drunk. FFS, we even have angry debates over whether it should be legal to have a gun at a bar!