Sounds like you think alot about dick

Well, I am a dick.

u guys are all F#$king retarded.

It is funny how only .000001% of the medical community share this same view, yet you parade it around as fact. Oh, but this is you, and you would and often do sink this low.

I find it difficult to come to grips with the reality that you are really trying to claim there is no such thing as instinct.

Have fun training your dick to get a hard on when you see a naked lady since that obviously isn't any kind of instinct. Good luck training any children you may have to get all excited at the mere site of titties and the possibility of suckling those life-sustaining nutrients evolved into a perfect formula for developing newborns. I won't even try and confuse you with mention of the Babinski reflex. Even I know what that is and I do not have any children.. Hunger.. Fight or flight...

Possessing the capability to override these instincts as you mature with age does not preclude humans from instinctual behavior.

It is funny to see how f**ked up and twisted you will bend your own false reality to conform to your moral beliefs that are already based out of ineptitude and hatred.

Homo's are GAY!!!

First, I posted this historical snapshot for the benefit of the list knowing that most of you weren't on AD prior to 1993, and may not even realize where we've been on this issue. I didn't intend for my tone to be anything but neutral. I was simply reporting the facts.

To answer the question "Am I opposed to homosexuals serving in the U. S. Armed forces", no, I am not. But I have concerns.

Concerns? Like what?

More whitesnakes in the shower?

Don't drop the soap!!

It is true

You are obviously the one who is talking out the wrong orifice on your body. Try looking up what an instinct is, I guarantee it's nothing like an erection. It is not my reality as I already stated and you clearly quoted I said in the SOCIOLOGISTS view, ie an science which studies they social process/mechanisms of humans. Sociology has nothing to do with religious belief as it is a science and in such the sociological view includes discovering the EVOLUTIONARY steps that took place to create the complex social beings that are humans.

I've stated in the past that you sometimes have some intelligence to your posts but it seems more and more you put blinders on go on screaming your microscopic amount of understanding of things as the one and only and all others you just try and lambaste with your insults and strawmen. Try adding something useful to the topic and removing your one track views and you might learn something which is actually the true sign of intelligence, the capacity to learn!

I'm still, for the record, going to disagree with your statement that human beings are clean slates.

I will paste this from Wiki as it sums up the debate pretty well, a debate that has been going for years. While I can't declare that I am 100% correct, neither can you.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some sociobiologists and ethologists have attempted to comprehend human and animal social behavior in terms of instincts. Psychoanalysts have stated that instinct refers to human motivational forces (such as sex and aggression), sometimes represented as life instinct and death instinct. This use of the term motivational forces has mainly been replaced by the term instinctual drives.

Instincts in humans can also be seen in what are called instinctive reflexes. Reflexes, such as the Babinski Reflex (fanning of the toes when the foot is stroked), are seen in babies and are indicative of stages of development. These reflexes can truly be considered instinctive because they are generally free of environmental influences or conditioning.

Additional human traits that have been looked at as instincts are: sleeping, altruism, disgust, face perception, language acquisitions, "fight or flight" and "subjugate or be subjugated". Some experiments in human and primate societies have also come to the conclusion that a sense of fairness could be considered instinctual, with humans and apes willing to harm their own interests in protesting unfair treatment of self or others.[2][3]

Many scientists consider that it is instinctual in children to put everything in their mouths, because this is how they tell their immune system about the environment and the surroundings, what the immune system should adapt to.[4]

Other sociologists argue that humans have no instincts, defining them as a "complex pattern of behavior present in every specimen of a particular species, that is innate, and that cannot be overridden." Said sociologists argue that drives such as sex and hunger cannot be considered instincts, as they can be overridden. This definitory argument is present in many introductory sociology and biology textbooks,[5] but is still hotly debated.

\

Oh no, he quoted the wiki. Its clearly fact and any attempt to dispute it would cause the rath of lifeline, in one or more of his different forms!

On top of that the last paragraph practically backs up everything I said word for word.

I'm so glad you quoted a wiki page on Sociobiology to, because I clearly stated about eight hundred times that I was speaking of the SOCIOLOGISTS view not the SOCIOBIOLOGISTS view. Look it up there is a clear and distinct difference and the main point being this particular bone of contention. As well as SOCIOLOGY is strictly a study of HUMANS as social beings whereas SOCIOBIOLOGY includes humans as well as the rest of the animal kingdom.

Lastly I love how you present no topical concepts or ideas of your own yet claim equal intellectual ground on a subject you just looked up in wiki.



Hmmm, you got me good f-er!

1. Posting from wiki was easier than writing it myself.

2. I posted it to basically convey the idea that there is debate, and that neither side can claim that they have all the answers.

Human beings not having instincts is not a fact, plain and simple. You can claim it's debatable, but that's about it. Unless of course, you can link the definitive answer on here for all to read.

PS - yes I'm lazy, which is why I pasted from wiki.

Riddle me this, when did I ever portray anything I said as fact and not just presenting a view from the sociologists perspective/theory of things?

I merely stated my opinion as did you, my opinion leans towards the area of science I tend to side with more. Everything is a theory and none of us truly no for a fact hardly anything that happens in this world.

IcemanIV wrote:
Instincts are what make us different from animals in the eyes of the Socioliogist. Humans do not have instincts, we are born blank slates and everything that appears to be an instinct ie suckling is actually a crude response to stimuli.


Okay, you never said "attention, this is a fact." Just from re-reading this statement it sounds like you think it's a fact, or that in the eyes of Sociologists, it's a fact.

I say that it's not. Not all scientists Sociologists, Sociobiologists, or otherwise have deemed it a known fact. It's debatable.

Ahhh but isn't every scientific theory debatable? The answer is yes when enough evidence or feasible possibilities to the contrary can be presented.

Either way I really would encourage you to look into the sexuality research of feral children and the statistics of homosexuality occurences that I previously posted. I would say I've pointed in a direction that has far more clout than your wiki article. I'm pointing to actual research and scientific study whereas you have a wiki post that merely lays out the argument.

Yes, everything is debatable to an extent, but I couldn't find anything even showing a large consensus. This tells me that it's a prominent arguement but that's it.

I'll be honest that there wasn't much showing one arguement being more or less correct than the other, maybe my google-fu is weak today.

As for the feral stuff, post it and I'll try and read it at some point.

Check out this article about a feral child in Fl. Not raised by wolves feral, but neglected and exposed to little or no stimuli.

http://www.tampabay.com/features/humani ... 750838.ece

Man, all debates aside. That article is just terrible. The mom should be shot.

So you're attempting to argue with me on a point which you have now just admittedly stated you are just now trying to research?

Hmmmm, as I said to $2 it seems you are the one speaking out of the wrong orifice. How can you attempt to come to a conclusion on a topic of discussion which you have not even heard or come across the idea before? How can you justify defending that human's are born with instincts when in fact you only believe that because you've never heard, read, or been told anything to the contrary? How can you attempt to belittle my point when you yourself in your miniscule amount of study on the subject state that you couldn't find anything making one side or the other more or less correct? Especially given that I gave you case studies and statistics that support the sociologists perspective.

That sounds alot like what a select few around here try and throw in some people's face as speaking about something which you clearly know very little to nothing about.

I'd love to hand you one of my Sociology text books and tell you to read it then attempt to dispute what I've stated afterwards but you don't live near me and I am not spending my money on your education to ship it to you. I'd love to give you links to all the feral children case studies that pertain to human sexuality. But if I just give it to you, If I just hand over the answers that you should do the work to find out, you will not value it as much as if you went and found it out on your own. If I post link after link you'll say "well I can find all of these links that argue the other point". As my grandfather always told me that which is hard earned is hard valued.

Either way you believe I'm not putting the blame of homosexual deviation on the person, it's not their fault but in the same breath I'm not going to say "well they were just born that way. It's not their fault because their genes made em do it." If that were the case for this deviation from the norm than the same could be said about pedophiles, polygamists, serial killers, and serial rapists. NO I am not saying that homosexuality is akin to those things. The only similarity is that somewhere in their sociolization process something happened that caused a change from the norm (that doesn't mean they're perverts, it just means they are a minority whose social makeup is different from the majority) and caused them to feel, act, and behave outside of common social norms.




BTW the Feral Child link Dr Satan posted is a long read but and interesting but is no way to be considered a case study, although the dramatic story paints an image which some might say supports the sociologist view it is not what I was referring to.

I was trying to bring the conversation to an amicable end, because I really don't feel like getting into it right now.

Of course I've read about the topic before today, but I was looking for a specific argument so that I could post a link. As I've said before on here, I try not to study up on something before I post an opinion, because then I'm not thinking for myself, rather summarizing someone else's points. When someone pulls up a specific debate or aspect, then, yes I try and look it up to find a counter.

You mention my deficiency in the subject? Lemme guess, you took intro to Sociology a few years back, while working on your CCAF, and now have the ability to speak with authority on the topic? Please.

As far as your case studies... um, if you don't post your sources, then how am I supposed to know that you even have specific sources. Doing the work for me? Here's a tip - I don't give a f**k about feral kids. I'm not going to sit and study for a Iceman exam.

I post what I think, what I believe to be as close to the truth and I can. I don't feel that need to study for a conversation with you. Chances are, if I met you in real life, I could talk circles around you off the top of my head... with no interweb to help you, you'd probably be reduced to mumbles and watching your feet shuffle around.

The only thing that I lack is better typing ability, and as I've already stated, I'm lazy.

Backpeddle backpeddle backpeddle. Ok well how about you go take an intro Sociology course and a few others. It's simple to find the case studies on the net if you try. I'm not saying you need to study up to discuss things but don't come flexing on me like you got Mighty Pythons when all you got is 'wittle wiki pipe cleaners'.

I commend you for wanting to formulate your own opinions but if you attempt to do so whilst only listening to one side, well like I said before that's not exactly scientific process/thinking and in fact a little more like dogmatic belief.

As for talking circles around me,?... not sure if that actually means something but I know where you're trying to get to. It's quite funny you say that I have the interweb to help me yet it's you who has relied on wikipedia to attempt to debate me, I've personally been speaking off the cuff entirely from the many lectures and time spent in sociology CLASSES learning about the sociologists side of this subject as well as the biologists and sociobiologists sides. But I'm sure I'd be in a tizzy and quite dizzy from listening to you froth yourself into a Chris Matthews hissy fit "off the top of your head".

I'll just finish by saying that truely what you (and myself as well) do lack is what everyone lacks to some degree on any given subject and that is a more extensive education on any give subject.

( Well except of course Lifeline, cuz everybody knows that jackass may have a degree but he will never be educated about anything. He's lacking the humility to shut up and listen so he can learn from others.)


End...... Amicable if you feel you must.