Ronda

Whilst you were posting your (non-argumentative, thank you) reply, I was busily adding examples. What is your opinion on the modified post?

Ummm.. no. You said: " The government, love it or hate it, ultimately has to answer to the electorate. If there isn't support for their management, then the government will be unseated." This leads me to believe that you think that the system as it stands and the result of said system ie. our government will essentially all come out fine in the wash because they have to "answer to the electorate". I believe that statement/logic is flawed because of low voter turnout coupled with lack of political knowledge amongst voters as well as little to no government accountability. An example would be the gay marriage issue. Regardless of one's stance on this topic, I find it ludicrous that an overwhelming majority of MPs (representing the people that voted them in) voted to uphold the traditional definition of marriage only to have Chretien and the Liberal government allow the Ontario courts to change that law only a few years later without appeal. They then decided to apply that new law to the entire country via "free" vote or should that fail, via Supreme Court or Senate. *IF* the MPs had voted against their constituents wishes in 1999, where was the outcry then? Where was the Supreme Court? This chain of events speaks directly to voter ignorance as well as little government accountability. I also made reference to the fact that once a government in power has changed something or enacted a policy, it may be difficult or impossible to change. To carry the previous thread to illustrate this point... assume the Liberals do make it law of the land that gays can marry. Assume further that this angers enough Canadians to elect a "right" government. What could or would the new government be able to do about that situation? A government may also be elected on the promise of making a change that they never intend to eg. GST. I then made an analogy linking your line of thinking to the idea that all corporate regulations should be removed because ultimately, they have to answer to consumers. I don't understand where the confusion is... perhaps I did not explain well enough the first time, sorry.

Great. Except for the fact that many people do not vote and furthermore, a large percentage of those who do refuse to try to educate themselves about what they are voting for. Add that to the fact that once in power, gov't's do things that take forever to UNdo... and even though they get elected promising to "undo" something (eg. GST), they frequently do nothing. Your statement could also be used to justify a complete removal of all laws and regulations that apply to corporations. I mean, if you don't like the way so and so dumps toxic waste in your backyard, don't buy their products. Sound good? Ronda

Every major religion preaches a lot of things. Most of which are voluntary. A tax system such as ours is considered immoral because the government spends as it likes and just takes your money to cover whatever it has decided to spend at whatever percentage it wants. It's obscene. I single-handedly support a family of five (barely) yet the government still manages to take a good chunk of my money every time I turn around. The municipal government hikes my property taxes up in the second half of the year after they've thought up a bunch of good ways to spend my money. Hey, next time I go shopping, I'll load the cart up and then when it comes time to pay, I'll just tell them to take the money from my boss. The government is the single most wasteful "organisation" on the face of the planet and furthermore, "helping the poor" is one thing... theft is another. Charity is voluntary - having your money taken from you and handed back out to whomever (including overpaid civil servants and corrupt government "workers") is something else altogether. Ronda

I have seen the same thing myself. Not in the "gateway drug" way, however. My mother was a social worker and doing quite well for herself and she started hanging around with ppl who smoked up all the time. She started when I was about 4-5yrs old and it was awful. She became intensely moody and smoked around 6 joints a day. I was always walking on eggshells, not sure if she'd hit me or laugh when I did something wrong. I could never have friends over because they might see or smell something. She, on many occasions, viciously accused me of stealing money and pot from her (even when I was as young as 10). It's gotten far worse as the years go by. She quit her social work when I was around 7 and went on welfare, where she's been ever since. She sits around all day, every day, smoking pot and watching tv. I've seen similar things happen with other ppl I know. In short, it is not harmless and "natural". I read some moron in a 'letter to the editor' talking about how pot is less harmful than table salt - absolute bull. It's not harmless. It's pretty stupid of the gov't anyway, to be making light of pot with good ole Jean talking about how he's going to have a joint once it's decriminalised etc. Look at their attitude when it comes to cigarettes. At least cigarettes don't turn you into a paranoid schizophrenic. Oh, and they also have filters. Yeah, and alcoholic wife-beaters likely beat their wives and lost their jobs before becoming alcoholics too. I'm not saying there cannot be contributing factors but what you are saying above is wrong. As for the brain damage, I found this info: http://www.marijuanaaddiction.info/brain-d...e-marijuana.htm Permanent brain damage is not necessarily present but behavioural changes certainly are. In my own experience, having lived with someone for 12 yrs who was chronic, it can cause a LOT of behavioural changes. My mother finally agreed to go to a very reputable psychiatrist in Toronto a few years back and he told her that her problem was the drug. That she needed to get off of pot in order to function properly and correct the personality/emotional issues she was/is having. She refused, of course, and he refused to continue to treat her. I would also point out that not a lot of studies, particularly long term, have been done with marijuana so we really don't know. Maybe it's not a fantastic idea to portray alcohol as dangerous, cigarettes as deadly and pot as "natural" and harmless? Furthermore, inhaling smoke, in any form, is not a good idea.

I heard the CBC talking about the NDP not qualifying for party status and saying that the Liberals would probably change the law and make it 7 seats required so that the NDP could still "participate". I sure bet they'd do that if it was the PCs. I am pretty sure though, that the Liberals will now (as opposed to before) change or make whatever laws they want and no one will be able to do a thing about it. So much for lefty liberals wanting more than anything to prevent concentration of power.

DJ, I think many fetologists or embryologists would disagree with your statement. It is not obvious at all. By the time a woman knows she is pregnant, it isn't like two cells in a petri dish. I had an ultrasound at 6 weeks (when most women would find out) and my son looked like a little worm, admittedly... however, there was clearly a head and more clearly a strong, beating heart. The most obvious feature was actually the heart beating. It was amazing. It's not an inanimate lump of nothing.

Skin colour and gender are innate. They are not altered by environmental influences - tanning beds and surgery aside. The original theme was basically that the parallel between gays and black emancipation/feminism cannot rightly be made because homosexuality is a behaviour, not an innate quality. I believe that's where we got on this tangent. Whether or not we redefine words and essentially reorder our society to please/satisfy the more extreme elements in the homosexual population is not really what we were discussing. As the topic heading suggests, we're discussing whether homosexuality is 100% genetic, like one's skin colour or gender, or if it is not. I believe that it is obvious homosexuality is not. Also, point taken about height - however, height is still not EVER a matter of choice, convenience, experimentation, etc. I think enough evidence exists that homosexual tendancies quite often involve CHOOSING certain behaviour. Therein lies the key difference. I think it's more akin to alcoholism or smoking. One could say there exists genetic predispositions towards alcohol/substance abuse, ie. "addictive personality". However, that doesn't mean one WILL be an alcoholic, only that they may be more inclined. Environmental influences and experience play a large part and the subject always has some level of control over what they do. Height certainly does not fall into that category. It is not a behaviour. Oh, and before you mention it, I do not buy the feminist notion that being a woman or man is about how you feel inside...

This continues to baffle me, Riff. You, a geneticist, should probably concede that at the very least GENETICALLY, a fertilised implanted human egg is nothing BUT human. It's preposterous for you, of all people, to argue the "half human/potential human" argument. Blackdog, I see the point you are making, however, does that mean that every person who is having a rough time would be better off dead? Every kid not raised in a suburban, middle class well-adjusted family (assuming that's not an oxymoron) should've been killed before hand? You cannot predict which kids will be abused nor if the abuse will permanently damage them should it occur. I was abused as a child/teen until I left home. I was pregnant at 19. My first son was a prime candidate for abuse, poverty and abortion. I did not abort, I do not abuse and he is very well looked after. Although my life looked very bleak to social workers I saw during my teens, I am doing very well now and raising great kids. I would prefer not to have been looked at as a poster child for abortion in my younger years, if you see what I mean. And by the way, all those kids that your friend was talking about.... their mothers had the option to abort and did not. Abortion does not prevent child abuse. In fact, I'm pretty sure saline and butchering count as abuse in their own right. Other than that, I've pretty much said all I need to say on this subject elsewhere on this forum.

BTW: "heritable - adj : that can be inherited; "inheritable traits such as eye color"; "an inheritable title" [syn: inheritable] [ant: noninheritable] Capable of being passed from one generation to the next; hereditary. Capable of inheriting or taking by inheritance. " What's the issue, exactly? Why do you continue to argue semantics as if the entire issue hinges on the interpretation of a word? What Hugo originally said, which I agree with, (as does the scientist who wrote the cited paper) is that there may be some genetic predisposition but it is not the same as being black, which you would obviously directly inherit from your parents.

Yeah, me too, if they're handing degrees to you. I wouldn't be questioning your qualifications and education if you didn't bring it up in the first place as some sort of immediate trump card. Not to mention your insufferable arrogance when questioned. The original point, if we can stop talking about you for a second, was that sexuality is not genetic in the way that hair colour, eye colour, skin colour, and gender are. I don't need a degree to know that is true, Riff, just a brain, eyeballs, and a little life experience. That was ALL the original point of this thread pointed out. You're making a moron of yourself arguing that it isn't so. Whether sexuality is determined in some degree by genetics (which I disagree with) is questionable. Whether it is SOLELY genetic, like the above mentioned is IMPOSSIBLE. Again, no degree needed.

Riff, Nothing specific, but the key difference is I don't stroll into every conversation stating that I'm some kind of pseudo-expert because of my "background in genetics". Your attempts to trump all conversations and "clear up misconceptions" because of your "qualifications" is what aggravates. You can offer an opinion and debate it. Nobody is saying you can't. The issue is the way you keep talking about how you can't have a real conversation about these issues because no one on here can understand on your level. Please give it a rest. Yeah, by the way, Riff... since there is no proof of any kind that homosexuality is genetic, your background in genetics doesn't really help. That should technically put the issue to rest but you and others keep harping on anyway. And I've brought up many instances where people I know have "changed teams", so to speak, as did Craig just now. To paraphrase Craig, I doubt people's genes just "kick in" suddenly... and then back out again. As for the rest of your post, I don't have time to read it, I work. I guess people with your background, what is it Phd in Everything?? don't have to do much of it to get by. Nova: That's another charming misconception and libellous piece of garbage hot off your presses. I don't recall anyone ever saying they'd like to "kill them all"... except maybe yourself and possibly Aidan Pryde a while back talking about religious people.

It wasn't fake. Your posts disgusted me to exactly the level that I expressed. Oh, so the problem is that you didn't learn to read when you were supposedly getting an education. I don't recall reading anyone stating that they had "genetic evidence that homosexuals should not be treated equally". You're always presuming to speak for the scientific community as though you are privy to information that the rest of us idiots are not. It's not so. I'm sure many "scientists" either just as "qualified" or more so disagree with what you consider irrefutable. So stop acting like you have all the answers. You don't. You have an opinion. And your questionable scientific "credentials" give your opinions exactly zero extra weight. Quit coming into conversations with the informercial style "As a geneticist, I must correct the following opinions.... " Ditto for the posts about abortion, evolution and genetic engineering. Thanks for the opinions and information but don't assume that when you waltz in with your "extra informed" opinion, you trump all others because of your stellar "qualifications".

SirRiff, You are sickeningly arrogant. You assume that everyone can OBVIOUSLY see that you are right, etc... That you are so educated, you couldn't actually have a proper conversation because nobody on this board is as learned as you. Does it actually ache sometimes to be so brilliant? To be so far above? So liberal, so caring, so intelligent, so gosh-darn RIGHT all the time? Please spare us in future and TRY to just stay on topic. I know it's difficult due to other people's blinding ignorance and refusal to recognise that you know everything but please try. It would be an interesting conversation if it weren't for your constant assertions of intellectual superiority.

I brought that up as sort of a snide sidenote. It was not my central point. Furthermore, I do believe that human life is especially sacred and I believe that human life exists within an unborn baby. Unborn babies are as important as born babies. I am not campaigning for "rights" for them - that was your idiotic conclusion. ("If chimps are 97% identical to humans, should they have 97% of rights too...) I do, however, think it would be just as horrible to inject a pregnant chimp's womb with saline and kill an unborn chimp as it would be to kill a "born chimp". Shall we discuss the "potentiality" of unborn chimps? How it is ok to kill them in utero but not once they're born... because they aren't really chimps yet, just "potential chimps"? Thank YOU for knowing how to read. What I said was: "Riff says we share 97% of DNA with chimps and you say it's 99.9%??" And by the way, to clarify for both of you... I'll again stress that I don't really care because chimps and humans are not the same thing anyway but the percentage is actually between 95% - 98.5% Here's a link from a story in Sept. 2002... I think you're both working with old information. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...4_dnachimp.html Now, I know from being told over and over again, that you are utterly brilliant and educated beyond all normal levels but let me ask you this: If you "cannot possibly" share 98% of your DNA with a baby, how can you share 99.999999% with a chimp. Unless there's something you're not telling us. Is it any particular chimp? A second cousin or something? Yeah, nice debate skills they're teaching you. And by the way, most people open books and actually read them... you cannot actually get information from books by physical contact alone. Maybe that's where we're running into problems here. I never said 'humans are not animals' in the way that you claim. We are all living creatures, with blood and eyeballs and legs, etc. Granted. HOWEVER, humans are VERY different in nature and yes, they are ABOVE animals. You are attempting to apply some post modernist crap to this argument by stating that since we all belong to the animal kingdom, we're the same. That humans are arrogant for thinking that they're above animals or that they are more complex etc. I do not agree. Now you are attempting to make me out to be stupid because I said we are not the same as animals. We may share a kingdom but not a genus. A pen and a computer are not 'the same' even though they are both inanimate. And one is infinitely more useful than the other.