Are people born gay or do they choose to be gay?

My very quick two cents on that whole “all” issue you guys are having….

I’m a Boston Red Sox fan. If I say, “I hate the Yankees”, I don’t literally mean that I hate every single player on the Yankees. I mean that I hate the organization, and I probably even have a strong dislike for many of the players on the Yankees, but I don’t mean I hate every single one of them.

Or, conversely, if I say, “I love ice cream”, I don’t necessarily mean that I love every single flavor of ice cream. I just mean that in general, I am a fan of ice cream and may even like most flavors. Doesn’t necessarily mean ALL flavors.

In any case, doesn’t seem like something to fight over. Rather, just seek clarification on what he means and move on.
 
Crazy Ivan said:
My very quick two cents on that whole “all” issue you guys are having….

I’m a Boston Red Sox fan. If I say, “I hate the Yankees”, I don’t literally mean that I hate every single player on the Yankees. I mean that I hate the organization, and I probably even have a strong dislike for many of the players on the Yankees, but I don’t mean I hate every single one of them.
Click to expand...
If somebody you "do you hate dogs?", do you take this to refer to dogs in general?
 
Eightcrackers said:
They asked me the following
So you abhor human beings?
Click to expand...
I, and another poster, took this to refer to all human beings, in general.

Were we wrong?
Click to expand...
No, you were right.

The question was intentionally vague/provocative. It covers the range of "a majority" of human beings to "all" human beings. Given the provocation, it is reasonable to assume "all" was intended.

If you had answered YES, you can rest assured that the same person would have assumed you meant "all"...
 
Crazy Ivan said:
My very quick two cents on that whole “all” issue you guys are having….

I’m a Boston Red Sox fan. If I say, “I hate the Yankees”, I don’t literally mean that I hate every single player on the Yankees. I mean that I hate the organization, and I probably even have a strong dislike for many of the players on the Yankees, but I don’t mean I hate every single one of them.

Or, conversely, if I say, “I love ice cream”, I don’t necessarily mean that I love every single flavor of ice cream. I just mean that in general, I am a fan of ice cream and may even like most flavors. Doesn’t necessarily mean ALL flavors.

In any case, doesn’t seem like something to fight over. Rather, just seek clarification on what he means and move on.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Don't expect it. When they're losing a conversation as badly as they are..... then people (in general) become rather childish with such things.
 
Crazy Ivan said:
Hard to say. Context would matter. If someone asked me out of the clear blue if I hate dogs, I’d probably ask a clarifying question before leveling an accusation at them.
Click to expand...
If somebody asks "do you hate dogs?", and you say "yes", do you think they would take your meaning to be dogs-in-general?
 
Last edited:
mikeT said:
No, you were right.

The question was intentionally vague/provocative. It covers the range of "a majority" of human beings to "all" human beings. Given the provocation, it is reasonable to assume "all" was intended.

If you had answered YES, you can rest assured that the same person would have assumed you meant "all"...
Click to expand...

Feel free to provide reference for your claims.....

It doesn't matter how you would take it. You can be mistaken. Which you are.
 
Eightcrackers said:
If somebody asks "do you hate dogs?", and you say "yes", do you think they would take your meaning to be all dogs?
Click to expand...

No. Because it is a generalized statement. Such statements are spoken with the context of opposites. Like a cat lover would say they hate dogs. That doesn't mean there isn't a dog they wouldn't love.

Get a grip. Learn English and communications. People do this kind of stuff when arguing over the Bible. You can't judge a conversation or topic based upon a generalized statement of fact. You can't "sum" up complicated topics with a single sentence. You were being petty and childish.
 
Crazy Ivan said:
Well where we agree is that there certainly are some cases (extreme cases) where a parent is totally unfit and the state needs to step in. But those cases don’t (or shouldn’t) include things like, “I want to have sex with my boyfriend but my parents won’t let me”. Or “I want to get an abortion but I don’t want my parents even knowing about it”. Or “I want to undergo gender transition as a 12 year old and I don’t want my parents to have any say in it.

Those kinds of decisions absolutely should involve the parents. And if, I suppose, a COMPELLING case can be made that the parents’ decisions are truly significantly harmful to the child, then the state can step in. But a pre-teen wanting to transition against the wishes of the parent is NOT one of those cases.
Click to expand...
You cannot say definitely one way or another. Such generalisations, which you insist on making are worthless, since there will always be a set of circumstances that doesn't fit. For example , I would argue that a 12 year old who wants to transition in the teeth of opposition from parents, is a good candidate for intervention from professionals. And please don't interpret that as supporting left wing extremists mutilating the genitalia of pre-teens in the name of wokery. Whether the child suffer a mental illness or not, being left unsupervised in the hands of antagonistic parents is very likely not in the best interests of the child. But we can argue generalities till the cows come home. Neither of us has the expertise or experience to make such judgements in particular cases. So, radical thought I know, let's leave it to those that do. And if they act in a way we would not have acted, perhaps that's precisely because they know more about it than we do.
 
Temujin said:
You cannot say definitely one way or another. Such generalisations, which you insist on making are worthless, since there will always be a set of circumstances that doesn't fit. For example , I would argue that a 12 year old who wants to transition in the teeth of opposition from parents, is a good candidate for intervention from professionals. And please don't interpret that as supporting left wing extremists mutilating the genitalia of pre-teens in the name of wokery. Whether the child suffer a mental illness or not, being left unsupervised in the hands of antagonistic parents is very likely not in the best interests of the child. But we can argue generalities till the cows come home. Neither of us has the expertise or experience to make such judgements in particular cases. So, radical thought I know, let's leave it to those that do. And if they act in a way we would not have acted, perhaps that's precisely because they know more about it than we do.
Click to expand...

So you do understand generalizations.....
 
christ_undivided said:
You're the one that spent several posts arguing with me over it... Now you want to run away. That is understandable.......

BTW....That last sentence was a generalization.
Click to expand...
Not running, but laughing. I've said by what I wanted to, and it still applies. Your continued bewildered whittering to the contrary notwithstanding.
 
Eightcrackers said:
Absolutely not - the idea of a parent forcing their child to carry to term, is abhorrent to me.
Click to expand...
The idea of forcing is not sound. Conception may occur with unprotected sex and that results in a pregnancy.
You are trying to say you wont put up with reality. And to have the offspring is abhorent.
 
Temujin said:
Not quite. They are not old enough to get an abortion that is not in their interests. It isn't always in their interests for the parents to make that decision, or indeed to be informed. If the young person has capacity, their decision is reasonable in the circumstances and involving parents would make matters worse, then certainly proceed without parental consent. I have been involved in such cases personally, albeit with 18 and 19 year olds. The rights of children to a private life, separate and distinct from their parents, is to be respected. I find it astonishing how much power and influence American parents are able to wield over their children. Perhaps that reinforces the impression that American teenagers are incredibly immature.
Click to expand...
I think parents should be very careful to.ignore people who support sexual grroming of children,.
 
Eightcrackers said:
If somebody asks "do you hate dogs?", and you say "yes", do you think they would take your meaning to be all dogs?
Click to expand...

I’m going to be honest here… this isn’t me avoiding the question. My answer is: it all depends on what they meant by their initial question. If them asking “do you hate dogs”, they meant “do you hate all dogs”, then me answering “yes” indicates to them that I hate all dogs. If them asking “do you hate dogs”, they mean “do you hate dogs as a general category”, and I answer “yes”, then that indicates to them that I hate dogs in general.

This is why, if someone asked me that out of the blue, I’d ask for clarification (I.e., what do they mean by that?) before answering.
 
Temujin said:
Of course I do. Don't be pathetic and think you are being clever. I've taught 12 year olds for half a lifetime, and you couldn't even compete with them.
Click to expand...
Jimmy Saville was around children for half his lifetime and so was Rolf Harris.. teaching or being around children for.half a lifetime isnt always good
 
Temujin said:
I'm not in a position to comment on specific organisations in a different country. I am making a general argument, which doesn't fail just because you don't like the specific circumstances of a specific organisation. The way health care is organised in your country is shambolic. That's what is wrong, not the principles that I am arguing for.

If there was a case where parents refused to allow tooth removal despite it being in the interest of the child, I would expect the removal to still take place. The principle is that the interest of the patient come first. That applies in every case. The interests of the parents are secondary, in every case.
Click to expand...
Classic...the NHS is on its knees and it doesnt even now know what sex some people ARE.

People dying because they cant afford health care or people dying because the system cant cope in time is not really much use to anyone
 
Eightcrackers said:
They asked me the following

I, and another poster, took this to refer to all human beings, in general.

Were we wrong?
Click to expand...
That is obviously an insincere question.

Nobody abhors all human beings, yet we all abhor some human beings.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top