| What has/does TWTD make 09:51 - Oct 23 with 18317 views | chicoazul |
…of Morsy not wearing the rainbow armband on Friday? |  |
| |  |
| What has/does TWTD make on 10:33 - Oct 27 with 1125 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| What has/does TWTD make on 22:44 - Oct 26 by BanksterDebtSlave |
Skimming through the thread but to me it is obvious what you meant. Perhaps Brixton and Stokie are keen on the idea of being constantly surrounded by a homo/bi/heterosexual animal instinct driven orgy at all times.
But especially in Qatar!! [Post edited 26 Oct 2022 22:45]
|
Maybe you should read the thread properly rather than skimming it. We were discussing something very different to what he's posted. |  |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| What has/does TWTD make on 10:44 - Oct 27 with 1079 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| What has/does TWTD make on 22:50 - Oct 26 by Nthsuffolkblue |
I thought about replying but then thought you are simply trying to push a particular line here that is going down a rabbit hole (you already decided in your reply it was not relevant). I was clarifying a question from Jeera. You are then saying it is irrelevant to the overall context. Stokie is now picking up on it and trying to project it as a comment on homosexual practice specifically. I have clarified. I don't think it gains anything from getting drawn into further argument. But to make it absolutely clear here it is:
Stokie questioned whether sexual orientation is partly affected by environmental factors, and I gave the scientific evidence published for that.
My comments that you (and Stokie) are now trying to decide what they mean beyond what they say are from the following trail of question and response:
Me: "I think there is plenty of evidence that sexuality is a combination of innate and upbringing - a combination of genetic and environmental factors.
Everyone has a freedom to express their sexuality or not (although for many there are serious consequences to expressing it). I would like to think that we are all agreed that where governments and others persecute people for expressing their sexuality it is wrong. This has clearly happened in the past and still does now.
What often gets overlooked in this debate is the idea that sexual attraction does not have to determine behaviour. Plenty of people have chosen celibacy, abstinence or monogamy over satisfying their base desires for a variety of reasons."
Jeera: "To claim someone is attracted to another person through choice is stupid so to single that out as unique to people who are gay is by design, homophobic."
Me: "Indeed. Attraction is an instinct and by nature (whether entirely genetic or partly environmental as studies suggest). What you choose to do with that attraction is the conscious action. There is a choice about the lifestyle and actions we lead. Most people would say it is not right to act on every desire we feel." That is not meant to suggest anything other than what I have already clearly stated. To then decide it is saying something else is simply disingenuous or a careless lack of reading. I am not sure what is unclear from what I have put here.
If it isn't already clear, I am in no way attempting to defend anything the OP has written. I was simply trying to clarify something that didn't seem clear and may have been impacting on the way I saw a potential misunderstanding in the debate. |
I don't have a problem with most of what you're saying, my problem was with Bluearmy71 who was asserting that people can choose their sexuality. You've come in with "well they can choose not to act on it" (apols for paraphrasing), which to me is irrelevant to the main discussion and what I and others have an issue with. It's a straw man. No-one's suggesting otherwise. Your sexuality is your sexuality whether you act on it or not.
I do however have a problem with "there is plenty of evidence that sexuality is a combination of innate and upbringing". I can't for the life of me see how someone can become gay (for example) due to their upbringing, and Stokers has found holes in your 'evidence'. This is the sort of argument that's used to say same sex couples shouldn't adopt 'in case they turn the kid gay'. I'm not saying you're saying this but it's dangerously close with your statement above. | |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| What has/does TWTD make on 10:52 - Oct 27 with 1067 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| What has/does TWTD make on 10:44 - Oct 27 by The_Flashing_Smile |
I don't have a problem with most of what you're saying, my problem was with Bluearmy71 who was asserting that people can choose their sexuality. You've come in with "well they can choose not to act on it" (apols for paraphrasing), which to me is irrelevant to the main discussion and what I and others have an issue with. It's a straw man. No-one's suggesting otherwise. Your sexuality is your sexuality whether you act on it or not.
I do however have a problem with "there is plenty of evidence that sexuality is a combination of innate and upbringing". I can't for the life of me see how someone can become gay (for example) due to their upbringing, and Stokers has found holes in your 'evidence'. This is the sort of argument that's used to say same sex couples shouldn't adopt 'in case they turn the kid gay'. I'm not saying you're saying this but it's dangerously close with your statement above. |
It may well be irrelevant to what you are discussing with Bluearmy71. It was relevant to something Jeera had posted at the time. I made it clear that sexuality is developed by a combination of genetic and environmental factors (although SB is querying the science of the published articles on this - I am not an expert in the field so am simply relying on those qualified scientists who are saying it is a combination and not setting myself up as above them).
I had not thought of this as an argument for banning same sex couples from adopting. That is now a separate argument that you are choosing to bring in. To ignore the science because you don't like the conclusion you are drawing from it is a dangerous position to take. |  |
| |
| What has/does TWTD make on 11:02 - Oct 27 with 1042 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| What has/does TWTD make on 10:52 - Oct 27 by Nthsuffolkblue |
It may well be irrelevant to what you are discussing with Bluearmy71. It was relevant to something Jeera had posted at the time. I made it clear that sexuality is developed by a combination of genetic and environmental factors (although SB is querying the science of the published articles on this - I am not an expert in the field so am simply relying on those qualified scientists who are saying it is a combination and not setting myself up as above them).
I had not thought of this as an argument for banning same sex couples from adopting. That is now a separate argument that you are choosing to bring in. To ignore the science because you don't like the conclusion you are drawing from it is a dangerous position to take. |
I'm not ignoring the science because I don't like the conclusion. I'm ignoring the science because it's contradictory, and doesn't seem to say what you think it does, even though you posted it. Stokers has said "they were internally contradictory, I could post a paragraph from them which said that environmental factors were not a proven factor in sexual orientation."
So if the science you posted doesn't prove it, what are we ignoring? Accepting contradictory science is far more dangerous than ignoring it. | |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| What has/does TWTD make on 11:20 - Oct 27 with 1004 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| What has/does TWTD make on 11:02 - Oct 27 by The_Flashing_Smile |
I'm not ignoring the science because I don't like the conclusion. I'm ignoring the science because it's contradictory, and doesn't seem to say what you think it does, even though you posted it. Stokers has said "they were internally contradictory, I could post a paragraph from them which said that environmental factors were not a proven factor in sexual orientation."
So if the science you posted doesn't prove it, what are we ignoring? Accepting contradictory science is far more dangerous than ignoring it. |
Something like these articles possibly unpacks it a little more clearly:
https://open.lib.umn.edu/evolutionbiology/chapter/12-6/
https://www.broadinstitute.org/blog/opinion-weighing-positive-and-negative-impac
"a complex mix of genetics and environmental factors intermingle to determine an individual’s sexuality, similarly to other complex human traits and behaviors, such as height, personality, and athletic ability."
In short, it is complicated. I am uncomfortable with you and Stokie dismissing the articles simply because Stokie claims there are internal inconsistencies.
Please do link where the science proves that sexuality has no basis in environmental factors. | |
| |
| What has/does TWTD make on 11:44 - Oct 27 with 980 views | StokieBlue |
Those are summaries rather than studies but it's interesting that the definition of environmental factors in these (and other) studies is different to what I thought. It's not just social factors (which was my impression) but includes factors such as testosterone exposure in the womb and other invitro external influence.
I would fully accept that those things could have an effect on sexual orientation.
Once again, I didn't dismiss social environmental factors and I am certainly willing to believe they could have an differing effect in differing situations, I just didn't think it evidence was quite as ironclad as your original post suggested.
SB |  |
| Avatar - M51 - The Whirlpool Galaxy - Taken on 29th April 2024 |
| |
| What has/does TWTD make on 11:44 - Oct 27 with 978 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
Well I don't really have the time to look through scientific reports, but reading through that first link your 'science' is inconclusive. Did you actually read the whole thing or just the first line? Also, correlation doesn't prove causation.
Also, it's not my job to find alternative science since it's you making the controversial assertion. | |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| What has/does TWTD make on 14:40 - Dec 11 with 661 views | viewfromtheu2 |
Let people, professional sports people included, show their support however they wish, to whatever cause, however they want. I can see both sides of the argument. I've also tried being the best ally I could to several different campaigns and either get labelled a tokenistic virtue signaller or get told I'm not doing enough. Shame really. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| What has/does TWTD make on 11:48 - Dec 12 with 535 views | ibbleobble |
I respect him more for being his own person and not conforming to something just because it’s popular or impressed on him by public opinion and trends. |  | | |
| What has/does TWTD make on 12:52 - Dec 12 with 492 views | HalifaxBlue |
| What has/does TWTD make on 10:43 - Oct 23 by FrimleyBlue |
His choice so respect it?
Difficult one, I feel as a club captain he should be representing the club, on the other we have to respect his personal decision don't we? |
Wow, are your takes on the world possibly worse than the football ones?
Re-read this. You are literally saying we have to respect every choice anyone makes. Murder is a choice. Assault is a choice. Racial abuse is a choice. Genocide is a choice. |  |
| |
| What has/does TWTD make on 12:54 - Dec 12 with 490 views | HalifaxBlue |
Didn't see this thread and am obviously very late to the party, I'm not going through the pages and pages, just want to add my voice saying it is very very disappointing to me personally.
I pretty well echo Joe's sentiment on the first page, and would add that I am a big fan of Orient choosing to go with a captain who would wear it for a couple games when El Miz refused. | |
| |
| What has/does TWTD make on 13:20 - Dec 12 with 468 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| What has/does TWTD make on 12:52 - Dec 12 by HalifaxBlue |
Wow, are your takes on the world possibly worse than the football ones?
Re-read this. You are literally saying we have to respect every choice anyone makes. Murder is a choice. Assault is a choice. Racial abuse is a choice. Genocide is a choice. |
You've gone a bit OTT there fella! | |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| What has/does TWTD make on 13:44 - Dec 12 with 441 views | NeedhamChris |
| What has/does TWTD make on 12:54 - Dec 12 by HalifaxBlue |
Didn't see this thread and am obviously very late to the party, I'm not going through the pages and pages, just want to add my voice saying it is very very disappointing to me personally.
I pretty well echo Joe's sentiment on the first page, and would add that I am a big fan of Orient choosing to go with a captain who would wear it for a couple games when El Miz refused. |
For me, the Orient approach is the worst one as it basically highlights how it's about the tokenism (in their case).
If it was a principled position they'd remove the captaincy, not make it look more palatable for a couple of matches. In reality - El Miz would have still been their captain, armband or not.
You can take a view of either a) the club supports the rights of players to maintain their own beliefs or b) that it insists on it's representatives promoting it's aims - Orient seem more focussed on how it appears than anything else. | |
| |
| What has/does TWTD make on 13:45 - Dec 12 with 427 views | NeedhamChris |
| What has/does TWTD make on 12:52 - Dec 12 by HalifaxBlue |
Wow, are your takes on the world possibly worse than the football ones?
Re-read this. You are literally saying we have to respect every choice anyone makes. Murder is a choice. Assault is a choice. Racial abuse is a choice. Genocide is a choice. |
If you're going to say "literally saying" - then you really need to not follow that up with something that they're quite clearly not literally saying otherwise it makes you look ridiculous. | |
| |
| What has/does TWTD make on 14:01 - Dec 12 with 379 views | JackNorthStand |
| What has/does TWTD make on 09:56 - Oct 23 by Dubtractor |
Honestly, I'm not sure I care. If he'd actively spoken against it then that would be one thing, but just quietly going about his business, I assume because of his religious beliefs, doesn't really warrant too much drama.
I'd feel the same if someone chose not to wear a poppy, or chose not to take the knee, so I'm consistent here!
Edit: Just for clarity, I fully support the rainbow laces thing, and movements to make the LGBTQ community feel included are welcome and needed. [Post edited 23 Oct 2022 10:01]
|
Agree 100% with your post.
He does not have to actively show support for any cause if he does not wish. This is a non issue. | | | |
| What has/does TWTD make on 14:31 - Dec 12 with 332 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| What has/does TWTD make on 14:01 - Dec 12 by JackNorthStand |
Agree 100% with your post.
He does not have to actively show support for any cause if he does not wish. This is a non issue. |
Yep, I'm in agreement with Dubs too. | |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
