SirRiff

this is why i made a passionate case for a general forum in the news and help section. it went criminally unrecognized. almost half of the total posters are on this thread...that alone should suggest something sirRiff

those lines convolute the very nature of biology and philosophy. just because something will become human doesnt mean thus it is human. an adult human is sencient, they can suffer, they can exist seperately from all other humans, they have wills and desires. a cell has none of these characteristics. only society can decide at what biological point do we give the fetus the rights of all others in society. as science had advanced we get more and more resolution on the beginnings of life and we can be more precise with our definitions. i think if you take a philosophical approach, anthing that has the potential to be a human, must have some of the protections of society. else you could argu that any person must prove they are human at any stage in order to be included or protected. if you take the biological approach you might argu that you must resemble the unque characteristics of a human before being declaring a human subject to protection. this would include basic physical and mental tests to show advanced development. the reality is someone in between i think well i will give you two differences 1. an embryo would not suffer unduely like a baby 2. a baby can exist independantly of the mother, the embryo cant. SirRiff

first educate americans on the numberous illegal CIA operations the US has done. this would give them a balanced look at the reality of the world so they stop waiving their flags like idiotss pretending they do no harm. tell them all about he past relations with iran, iraq, and afganistan, all the dirty secrets, teh body counts, the violations of law and so on. you cant make decisions unless you know all teh facts second stop buying oil from saudi arabia and make everyone walk to work- this will also solve the rampant obesity problem. third- give isael and palestine one last change to work it out, nuke the side that screws it up.

the CIA said the Kay report will have no evidence of WMD being in existance, and even the program or intent evidence is weak they say. you are waiting for that?

whoa whoa whoa... exonerated blair personally? or exonerated the gov from misleading its people remember we have the british intelligence report that was lifted from that american kids research report then the whole 45 minute launch thing and numerous other cases of twisting the truth so i dont think its accurate to impy that the british gov is innocent of any misinformation, they are obviously not.

so many people coming out of the woodwork.. HUGO why dont you ever actually reference what you are talking about? what do you think i was arguing in the begining exactly? because yo rant about contraditions, then when i explain myself, you vaugely refer to something else. it indicates either you 1) dont care to read the posts but pretend you do, 2) read the posts but dont understand them, or 3) just dont take the time to back up your assertions after they are challenged. another vauge non responsive line. just because you repeat it doesnt make it true. if you want to spell out the logic that makes you think what i said are mutually exclusive go ahead, but repeating the same line over again after the explaination is plainly written is pathetic. what exactly is contradictory? care to actually say it instead of running away from what i say? ah the ol internet default of when challenged by someone with greater information on the subjet just cover your ears and yell "na na na na i cant hear you ". HUGO we both know you and I couldnt have an intelligent discussion on modern genetic techniques and theories. your vocabulary on the matter is very limited as most peoples are. and actually, i do have about 20 massive genetic textbooks in my closet if you want to buy them used, they are a good deal. i'm sure the definition of heritable is in there somewhere. happy? i wonder where did you get the whole media conspiracy idea? i dont recall mentioning anything to do with that. maybe you got it along with your genetics experience, who knows. do share though why that assertion makes sense because it seems pretty random to me. thats really about as substantiated as someone saying you cant think for yourself and get all your ideas from some outdated religious text. now that wouldnt be very insightfull now would it? you and ronda keep having this problem reading what i said. i actually said above that what i was saying was obvious, not the 'truth' (whatever that is). i cant imagine why you guys keep getting that wrong. i wrote in plain (genetic) english so i keep saying that what i write is 'obvious' to read. when faced with someone who actually knows about the subject, you have just keep vaugly muttering about contraditions although when i repeatidly explain them you never exactly point out where this contradition was. when you misuse basic genetic terms and i correct you, you proudly conclude that it must be me who is in error (check any high school textbook on that one), and again and again you are more concerned about my education then the discussion at hand. i dont know why you are so obsessed about it because the basic concepts of genetics are pretty consistant regardless of what i say, so i am just pointing them out, not inventing them. so once again, i know its easier to run away from an informed opinion then deal with it, but i notice you havnt actually responded to the biological aspect of what i have been saying for a while, which really is the telling aspect of this debate, as you dont even reference the subject of teh 'gay' gene post which you yourself started. your grand 'contradiction' response was a perfect example of that. RONDA ah ronda, you too obsessed with my education like hugo? man i never thought it would get so much attention. well as to your memory, yes the main argument of the thread from hugo was that he found his magical proof that gayness isnt genetic and also this means it cant be used a a defence when saying bad things about gay people or giving them complete equality. hugo actually did attempt to say it; so hopefully ronda, you yourself have learned critical reading skills as i did in university, and can see the general theme of hugos argument. thus i just stepped in and pointed out the genetics support for his opinion was badly misstated and poorly understood. hmm...thats an interesting statement... someone with a genetics degree having information that more others are not privy to? would that be like a lawyer speaking on law or a nurse on clinical care? how bizarre, its funny all my engineer friends have insight that i am not privy to... hmm...so you think that someone who is trained in a specific field doestnt have relative information/insight that the general public isnt privy too? by that logic nobody would be more expert on a subject then anyone else, regardless of what specialization they have done? wow...that just...like a communist philosophy that is....whatever you were smoking on that one much be good stuff. actually i never claimed i had all the answer, several times i recall specifically saying its just my opinion and the field in general is less sure about it. anyways, since your not a genetics scientist, i dont think you would be qualified to disprove my opinions anyways now would you? so how do you know how valid my genetic insight is? what makes you qualified to discuss the evolution of sexual behavior? but i will tell you one thing, the basic scentific facts were so incorrectly used by hugo, that its not an opinin when i say they are wrong, any geneticist woudl tell you the same thing, that it was inaccurate and misleading. its not an opinion, its common knowledge (to those of us who are privy) once again i ask why you would have any intelligent opinons on the matter? how did you learn about genetics? what experiments have you done? what degrees do you have? what kind of Phds did you learn from? i dont see why you would question my education without citing your own, something i challanged fastned on once. so do tell us ronda, give us the credentials of a real scientific mind. start with yoru most current degree and scientific experience and work backwords...ok? you can disagree with my opinions, but the simple truth about what has been concluded to date on basic scientifiic concepts is pretty well known. the definition of heritable isnt up for debate ronda, sorry to tell you. i would love for one person to just actually put up thier background in science and talk intelligently about the science of genetics which they feel they are so informed on. now THAT would be fun. but i wont hold my breath sirriff

do you hear about a saudi arabia invasion? nope, america will look the other way for oil, or when their own government funds terrorists, but when the economys slow and you need some propaganda, then its INTO IRAQ. americans are so brainwashed they dont have a clue. there were no more terrorists in iraq then there are in brazil, or egypt or mexcio. 70% of them believe the bush propaganda that saddam wa likely involved in 9/11, how disgusting there was obviously no imminent threat that couldnt wait a few more weeks for UN support. there were obviously no WMDs that could be fired in 45minutes as the kay report will state. all lies SirRiff

the good thing about canadian politics is even though we will go from PC to a huge liberal majority, ontario will still go on pretty much the same. they dont have alot of power to fuck us up any more then normal. so it wont effect our lives as bad as it would in alot of other countries. hopefully they wont waste our money as much as expected though, that pisses me off. then again, thats what gov does. actually i would love to see a party emerge with a policy of focusing on goverment downsizing and efficientcy. instead of moving money every election from health care, to eduction, and back to health care, we could save hundreds of millions by getting rid of redundant government services and firing the lazy ass civil servents who do nothing. SirRIff

first of all, its not arrogent to be correct. hugo misstated several scientific facts, as a pseudo-scientist its not arrogent to correct him, especially since he is posting on a public message board arguing that genetics supports homosexuality being a deviant lifestyle. yes, i would say he is open for criticism. secondly, i never said i was obviously right as you mistate, i said, i said it was obvious what i said, regardless of whether you agree with me. i suspect that HUGO just likes implying i dont know what i am talking about, which i notice you didnt single out to tell him to 'stay on topic', which is telling. i had let the thread drop till he insulted me again, thus i thought it fair to point out the shaky basis of his criticism of me. actualy i explained in detail that what i said was plain to see and there was no contradiction. see what a nice guy i am? so please spare us all your fake disgust untill you are ready to focus it on the factual ignorance of the original post and the 'off topic' aspects of others on teh board. if you expect to go onto a public message board, claim you have genetic evidence that homosexuals should not be treated equally, and then incorrectly use the world heritable (and several other basic genetic concepts) and expect someone not to point out its very very wrong, you are in for a surprise. hugo is a big boy, he doesnt need your maternal protection. understanding genetics isnt arrogent pretending you do, is SirRiff

i specifically asked you to reassert a particular set of statements so you dont keep making vauge references as you have done several times. i'm not going to backtrack through pages of me explaining genetics to try to figure out what you may be talking about. i wanted you to clarify it because frankly it doesnt make sense to me that you cant understand things i made simple and obvious. is this all you are talking about? all that fuss over this? thats pathetic man. ok, read this very slowly... in the first one, i said there COULD be an arrangement of genes that would explain experimentally the observed ('phenotypic' for you genetically impaired people) range of sexual preferences. this genetic system would be predictable, experimentally reproducable, and quantifiable. why did i ponder this possibility? because it has to do with the conclusions you reach about what it means if something is genetic vs learned. i was pointing out, that we can consider a complete genetic explaination for sexual preference, but really, how does that change the criteria by which society can accept teh behavior? my opinion was that an unacceptable behavior to society is still unacceptable regardless of its proven genetic origin, thus even if there COULD be a purely genetic explanation, it would not serve to additionally condemn them in societies accepting embrace, nor would it exonerate them in societies harsh judgement. the first statement pointed out that the lack or proof of strong genetic influence cannot intelligently cause a conclusion to be reached about how society should treat gays. only society at large can make a collective decision on which behaviors to accept, and that decision is made on a large number of factors, none of which i believe will take into account the genetic nature of the behavior. as examples, rape will never be tolerated by society EVEN IF a strong genetic componant is found, and mentally disturbed citizens will never be abandoned on the grounds they cannot demonstrate a genetic disease link. thus, that statement illustrates the incorrect conclusions you propose on the grounds there may not be a strong genetic basis for homosexuality. on the second statement, i am simply just saying obvious science, its a mix and thats all we know. if you read them carefully you see ther is nothing contradictory. and in fact, if i recall, teh first is part of a larger argument where i expanded on the implications of having a purely environmental or purely genetic cause. the first one was an example of an explanation for the behavior and i was contrasting the conclusions that you reached (that the cause of teh behavior can be used to judge it), with what a society would need to do in order to maintain its law and order (that behavior would need to be judged and reacted to on its effect on society regardless of how it originated). there, i have explained it in detail, and there is obviously nothing wrong with the argument i put forth. i dont think it would be hard to understand what i said especially if you read my preceeding posts like you so intently suggested that i myself do. again if you actually read them in total, and on merit instead of being dismayed that i know about genetics you would have known they were perfectly sound statements. but you seem to choose to ignore what i post and just try in vain to prove i am wrong. of course we both know i am not wrong, and it shows that we couldnt even have a base level technical discussion on human genetics because you are not familiar with the theories and techniques of the science. as i said before, that is why i know what heritable means, what linkage studies are, how you screen libraries of cloned dna, how we sequence genes and so on and so on. how do i know this? because i have done it. lawers know law, MBAs know business, i know genetics. so after all this, i explained in detail what you could have found out by yourself if you werent so keen on pretending i dont have years of experience in genetics. is there anything else i can do for you? any other statements that need clarifying? any other study you want to cite? SirRiff

his approval is alrady down to 50% and clark ties him in 1 on 1 polls. i am just concerned about how the winner treats canada. if bush is there when martin is in, martin will kiss his ass and bow down to warmonger policies. hopefully clark will win and have a more productive attitute towards us. SirRiff

it will be funny to watch Bush & Co. backtrack from thier numberous lies and propaganda. linking saddam to 9/11 claiming they have undeniable proof of huge WMD stockpiles, defectors with exact locations, 45 minute launch time. then you get ther and its a 3rd world nation pathetic. the world would sanction the US by letting them take care of this cost and let americans freak out after a few more months. SirRiff

i dont want to rain on your parade craig, but the US had contacts with iraq in the 80s the Us had contacts with iran in the 80s the US had contacts with the pre-taliban/alqueda terrorists in the 80s Thus, the US are supporting terrorism and should be destroyed right? do you really believe that? because they estimate it only cost a few hundred thousand $$ in total, nothing really for an international terror group. it would actually been simple for 20 men to do the same thing spontaneously, so in truth it was very very easy to carry out the 9/11 attacks. my god man, look at the reality of the situation. the US had just as many terror links in teh last 20 years as saddam. SirRiff

HUGO i think its obvious that you just didnt understand what i was saying, not that i magically rewrote scientific fact in my head. considing your didnt even use the basic definition of heritable correctly, its not like we need to look far for a clear example of what differs an informed opinion from a copy and paste opinon. there are only examples of you not understanding the science, or ignoring the science because it doesnt agree with your personal opinion. HUGO, if i recall, you are the one who spontaneously claimed; so you are suprised someone responds to point out your ignorance on the subject? this stuff is very simple for me. i have spent years studying the science of gentics and years actually practicing it in labs. if you dont believe me fine, maybe you are intimidated by simple degrees or real world experience, i dont know, no reason to be though, nobody can be an expert on everything. its just sad when people talk talk talk, then dont back it up. i ask craig, please cite your own UWO study that shows this magical 'proof" i ask you, if you feel you have this magic post where i say two completely opposite things, post it clearly and ask for clarification. either i mistyped something, or you misread it. its simple to clear it up without pretending that i dont know what i am talking about. because we both know i cant bring up detailed technical discussions on this board, its over most peoples heads who arent in teh field. but getting all insecure and accusing people of stupidity when they obviously arent is petty and disruptive. stop clinging onto this and either recite the specific material you are having problems with for clarification or forget about it and dont keep making statements that make you feel smarter. its not very flattering at all. SirRiff

Craig do you find it odd to mention a study you claim supports your view without citing it properly, then demand citation of an opposing view? once again, as someone who has a genetics degree from UWO i have never heard of anything of "proof" like you mention. please follow your own advice and post a link. enlighten us all. HUGO i said it before, its not my fault you dont know the basic techniques and theories of modern genetics. your definition of 'heritable' in your first post shows that all too well. and when i say something that you dont understand, dont assume its something i changed, its just complex technical material, and it takes time to learn it. that is why they give degrees for this stuff, ya know? if i actually discussed the real world experimental applications of genetics you wouldnt have a clue what i was talking about. posting a snippet of a study, then misstating the data and conslusions to support your opinon doesnt count as science in the real world, and i should know. instead of learning something and gaining insight some people just get threatened when someone else has a truly informed opinion. of course it doesnt affect me, since i actually know about heritability and linkage studies and such, but it never hurts to learn. SirRiff

have you been living under a rock fastned? all reports have come back no WMD to be found. saddam would obviously never attack his neighbors becuase he knew it would bring a full US retalization iraq is a third world nation as we can all plainly see by thier non existent defence and broken infrastructure. its obvious iraq was not a threat to the US as the american propaganda claimed. lies, lies, lies SirRiff

its pathetic that after months of claiming they had all this secret information about WMDs and how there were mountains of them just sitting around and defectors had given them specific information there is nothing to be found. nobody can ever trust Bush again. SirRiff

that speech was pathetic. it was like a kid reciting a book report on a book he never read (an analogy that fits Bush good). if Cowboy bush didnt do such a bad job of making the case in the first place maybe we would have some sympathy. but from the country that has had its hands in seveal secret wars, i am not too concerned about thier lecturing to anybody. add to that the entire WMD song and dance along with all the "intelligence" propaganda, and the US under militant bush cannot be trusted to act morally and ethically. unfortunatly, this botched operation will set back future legitimate humanitarian causes. SirRiff

thats funny, i got a genetics degree from UWO and worked with all the genetics professors, read thier published studies, and researched hundreds of other experiements. never came across anything that "disproved" anything about gays. maybe the experimental data is in teh bible? SirRiff

additionally, if you look at all the arguments that are simliar to preemption the US has made, such as supporting iraq against iran, supporting iran against iraq, supporting bin ladens crew and so on. the spin guys can always convince the population its all good and clean, but decades later when the files and declassified and the international organizations figure out all the covert CIA actions, the US acts just as bad as any second rate international bully. SirRiff

what should have been done in IRaq? first- hold a position of morality america has not been held accountable for supporting saddam while he gassed his own people or while he waged war against Iran mindlessly. the oil was flowing and nobody asked any questions (just like saudi arabia) thus they have no position of moral authority despite thier words to the contrary secondly- tell the truth. as we all see now as Bush backpeddles from WMD to human rights, IF america was truly a great nation the true justification for "liberating" iraq, namely humanitarian reasons, should have been sufficient. the fact that the US gov had to lie to its own people and the world with these pathetic "intelligence" papers is a sure sign that given the opportunity to do the right thing, the american people would never have moved for such boring reasons as rape, murder, and torture. since there was no obvious immediate threat from iraq, a third world nation, the US should have gone to the UN and worked out with the world a moral and ethical case for removing illigetamate dicatators. IF, after making a passionate humanitarian case for the removing of violent and oppressive dictators based on universal human rights and global instabilty, THEN the US can go it alone and could legitimately wag a finger at europe as being useless. this is not what happened, and no amount of revisionist history will credit the US after the fact with making a sensible case for war, instead the lies and fanatical distraction will leave a legacy that will harm future humanitarian missions. its astonishing that a nation with so many resources did such a bad job in making its case. Sirriff

do you actually believe that is how our canadian legal system will function from now on? if so, jews control the media, blacks are destroying the white race, and Islam is an evil religion while christianity is the only faith of God. SirRiff

nothing more disturbing then a group of people who benefit from civil protection every day of their lives criticizing the letter of protection because it offers the same protection to gays or blacks or whatever. i suggest before anybody can reasonably claim the insight to decide others do not deserve teh same civil rights, they should cite thier contributions towards securing these rights in the first place. else its just mental masterbation SirRiff

normally i would agree about humiliating stupid world leaders, but considering how dangerous Iraq is to the stability to the world, we just need anything to make sure it doesnt go to hell. its costing america 1 Billion a week, adn even the rich US cant keep that up for years. thus the UN NEEDS to get other nations in there or iraq will go to hell, iran/syria could go to hell, then we will all suffer for it. it would be nice to teach the US some international humility, but it would be at the cost of innocent human lives both american and iraqi, so it would be unethical. SirRiff

we should go back to the days when blacks were slaves and women were property. its the way God wanted it before all those pesky courts, and politicians, and constitutions got in the way. amen Sirriff