Dunce Americans Created 18 years ago2006-04-08 11:58:23 UTC by satchmo

I had a rough night. In fact, I announced that I am quitting last night to the director. I had enough of that crap.

I received a complaint from a mother because I didn't act immediately when she told me that her daughter threw up in the waiting room. Instead of dashing to the waiting room and clean up the mess myself immediately, I finished the visit with her daughter and then paged the janitorial service to clean it up. That wasn't good enough for her, so she complained to the department that I lack courtesy and had a bad attitude.

I strife to provide the best medical care with the highest satisfaction from the patients and parents. When they fail to appreciate my effort and come back to bite me in the neck, I have no tolerance for that sort of antic.

Fortunately, I found a new job already, and I am going to start next month.

nickelplate, do you believe in eugenics or just sympathise with Josef Mengele?

Wow, that's pretty terrible, satch. Ingrates.

I hope your new job is better. Still p?diatrics?

I can only do peds. I don't know how to treat adults.

Gotta go back to bed now. I was tossing and turning, and got up at 3 am. It's 4:30 am now. I have to work later today.

As for the genetic argument, there are plenty of genetic diseases that are prevalent despite the definite selective advantage against these condition. Why do we still have people with cystic fibrosis, when the gene is in one out of thirty Caucasian? Why do we still have diabetes, when the gene is perhaps one in five? In fact, why do we have ANY genetic disease at all, if natural selection is at work?

You sort of touched on the reason eariler with over protective parents. Weak people can survive these days because of all the hospitals and medical treatment and so on that exists. If a baby is born with severe disabilities it can be saved in a hospital and continue to live, and reproduce itself, thus the problem continues.

Oh and I am not a Nazi or a Gay hater, I was just saying that some people cant help hating gays, its just the way they are. One of my best friends is gay, and I dont care, so long as he doesnt try anything on with me (Which he has on a few occations when he was drunk, like invite me into his bed and shit, I soon put him in his place).

I think it's wrong to say "I'm going to CURE a gay person" they don't want to be cured, they want to be gay! It's what they want so leave them alone it's not a problem to be solved from your point of view.

Now I'm not for or against gay people, I just think they should be able to do what they want. I look at gay men as ugly girls anyways.

Hey, the Spartans were hardcore gay, but they were the greatest warriors known. At the battle of Thermopylae 40,000 Spartans held off 300,000 Persians for 5 days. They were helped too by the geography. A narrow rift between 2 mountains. The Persians were forced to displace into smaller units to take on the Spartans. Very interesting. The Spartans ONLY had sex with men, and children, and only reproduced for the population, but they were the greatest warriors ever known.

What's a "horn dog"? I think I've heard the term before.

I know it's a little belated, but The King sang about a "horndog".

I see.

Jobabob: How is ANYTHING I've said supportice of Eugenics? Natural Selection/Evolution is completely different that Eugenics. And it's DOCTOR Josef Mengele to you, mister.

Tycell, I agree fully. along with the use of technology, comes the prolonging of lifes that without it, would have been ended before they could have passed on the genes for it. Instead, we have people living a long time that would have been dead otherwise.

VOX: homosexuality being a curable disease is only an option, you know? But think of it this way, we treat everyone else for mental disorders against their wills, and they don't want to be cured. So, IF (just a scenario), homosexuality is a mental disorder, should we not treat them too? What makes it different? Of course people like Schizophrenics and other "crazy" people don't want to be cured, because they think everyone else is crazy. Homosexuality, in all honesty, DOES show many of the same signs as many other mental disorders.

because you are so obsessed with the 'natural order of things' you probably believe in something as crackpot as eugenics. You can't CURE someones sexuality and I find it offensive for people to even state such a stupid idea, you are only saying its a mental disease because it isnt 'the norm' in your bigotted eyes. Your posts are so sexist I'm amazed the moderators haven't said anything yet.

Dude, I'm NOT obsessed with "the natural order of things."
Evolution, natural selection, and Science are the things that are beleived by atheists and agnostics and those people. I am a Christian. If I used my bible verses and Christian morals to justify my position it would not mean anything to them at all. So I chose to stick ONLY to what they beleive in so that no one could refute my views on the grounds that it's "based on a fake religion," or whatever they want to say. If they don't beleive in God and the bible, then what good would it do to use them as a source? Instead, I used their OWN beliefs to make my point.
All I've presented here are statistics, logic, science, and the basics of natural selection; and using all those together, you get a few choices about homosexuality: that it is a disorder/imbalance of some kind, or that it is passed on socially. To say otherwise would be to deny that the science/logic/evolution that they all love so much is false or flawed, which is hardly possible. You have to make a choice, and you can't ride the fence on it.
Either:
A. Evolution, Science, Logic is flawed, and homosexuality is in perfect natural order.
Or
B. They are all still valid and homosexuality is not a natural thing and is therefore is one of the 2 choices presented above.

You can't just deny the perfectly sound arguments I've made by calling me a "regressive fool" and saying that I beleive in Eugenics and I'm a nazi and that I make love to Josef Mengele and whatnot. If you think I'm wrong, I don't mind you telling me, but back it up with some logos (logic) and not with pathos (emotions). Because responding with name-calling and condemnations is what pisses everyone off about most Christians and conservatives.
Oh, and the moderators haven't said anything, probably because they beleive in a person's freedom of speech and all that.

Satchmo: Sorry, you've had a rough time lately. It'll get better I'm sure. I hope your new job works out!

There's always more then A/B nickel. Dont limit your mind to 2 when there's 26.

Homosexuality is caused by your environment, If you go to an all girl school all your life I'm pretty sure you're going to be gay. Plus not only do they not want to be "cured" they are also happy with themsleves and are productive so why "cure" them? You're just try to control their lives leave them alone.

A. Evolution, Science, Logic is flawed, and homosexuality is in perfect natural order.
Or
B. They are all still valid and homosexuality is not a natural thing and is therefore is one of the 2 choices presented above.

I don't think you understand at least three of those theories, nor fairly basic statistics. Maybe homosexuality will die out in thousands of years through natural selection, or maybe it's something that is based on something so fundamental that it can't. Who cares? We're talking about today, not 10 000 years. Maybe we'll all have gills by then. It's not really that relevant.

Anyway, I'm going to go with the "mixture" vote: probably both genetic and due to the environment. Most things seem to be.

Pepper: With logic there's always just 2. True and False. On and Off. 0 and 1.

Vox: I'm not trying to cure them, nor do I really want to. I'm leaving them alone, or else I'd be gay myself.

Seventh-monkey: I understand all of those theories thoroughly.

I guess my main point would be that there is more to life than just Science. And that life is bigger than just an issue of homosexuality, or any single issue for that matter.

Science doesn't have to be flawed. There's more than science.
And Gays don't have to change. They're not a drain on society, so I don't see why they have to.

But when someone says that people who are blinded by religion and don't tolerate gays are haters and are like Nazi Murderers, it does require a rebuttal.

You literaly only think in the box nickel.

You aren't blinded by religion, you are blinded by cold, emotionless logic you heartless bastard.

Pepper: With logic there's always just 2. True and False. On and Off. 0 and 1.

No there isn't. That's called a Boolean.

Seventh-monkey: I understand all of those theories thoroughly.

I think you just absolutely proved that you don't.

I think it's all about how you label things.

I agree that homosexuality is disadvantageous when it comes to reproduction. It's plainly obvious. But some way, some how, it's a phenomenon that has survived thousands of years, and across species. This practice is not limited to humans--plenty of species in the animal kingdom also exercise homosexual behaviors. From an anthropological and sociological perspective, it may form a stronger social unit, and that may indirectly advance one's survival.

Why do people help their friends when they are in need? It certainly doesn't benefit them in any way (because they don't share the same gene pool). Why do people care for their parents? It's really a drain in their limited time and resources, which could be better spent caring for their offspring and thereby advancing the survival of their own genes.

If evolution and natural selection were that simple and straightforward, it would not take scholars years to understand them, especially when they are applied to such sophisticated organisms such as the human being.

Let's assume that homosexuality is a disease for a moment, but what if there is no cure? Male-patterned baldness is a disease, and it certainly isn't furthering their survival. Yet somehow this condition survived thousands of years of evolution. It has no effective treatment. What should we do then? Should the government prohibit these bald people from getting married? Certainly they are inferior because they are not as attractive as us, who have hair in the right places.

Seventh-Monkey: All logic works assuming that things are either true or false. anything else is "Fuzzy Logic," which I'm sure we all want to avoid. All logic works on a binary system. I teach at a high school and one part of what I teach is logic. I think that maybe you're confused about it.

Jobabob: Isn't "heartless bastard" a bit harsh, considering you are so in touch with everyone else's feelings? I mean, are you even reading anything I'm saying? I'm not talking about killing people or anything like that. I'm discussing possible reasons why people might be gay. At the same time I'm making my next point. You need to stop name calling. If you tell me I'm wrong, fine; but prove it so I can SEE that I'm wrong.

Satchmo: NOW you are starting to see what I am saying. People are made up of more than just science. What makes people help other people at a clear disadvantage to themselves? Why do they take care of people who only lessen thier abilities to spread their genes as much as possible? Why would someone turn the other cheek instead of fighting to defend themselves and therefore their bloodlines? Any other organism would never do anything like this. Why? Perhaps there is more to humans than there is to other animals: a soul, or a spirit perhaps. You know there is more to humans than just logic, why deny this other side until it fits your argument?

Also, we KNOW that male-pattern baldness is a genetic thing. There's no "BALD RIGHTS" activist movement, because nobody feels the need to justify what they know is natural. Balding is part of getting old in just about every culture and genetic "race" in the world. I don't know what purpose this gene could've served in the past, but probably the same as people getting grey hair. Interesting, that.

Why are you fellows just calling names and telling me what I'm saying is not true, without providing any proof or reasons. I'm not above admitting that I'm wrong, just, you know... provide proof, don't just call me names, please.

Zombie, you can't seriously believe that correlation = causation. The fact that guns are less restricted in America does negetively correlate with the increase in murder rate. Though you fail to acknowledge two things. One, that a murder will procede, gun or no gun. Two, the American culture is much different to that of other countries, leaving a huge correlation issue that would take forever to narrow down. Bias and incorrect knowledge leads to confused statement.

Why is everyone so tipsy by the way? We've got people who believe one extreme calling people of true objective viewing radicals and bastards. You must approach this in a conductive way to make any distance. And leave your religious belongings at the door because they are no good here. Religious arguements are for religious purposes only, that is how it has been for the past couple milleniums. Science and common sense arguements are for anything. So no more religious crap.

Everyone should label their experiences with "From my experience, ...".
Everyone should label their opinions with "What I think, ..."
Everyone should label their observations with "From what I have observed, at the point of view I viewed it at, ..."

Anything else is prone to confusion and ultimately unnecessary fighting amongst each other, people we share a common ground with, yet choose to negatively judge.

You wanna know what I have observed:
Environment isn't sole responsibility for being homosexual. Private all-boys schools in my area to not grow homosexual students.
A homosexual whom has seen and lived the life of a heterosexual and homosexual can make an educated decision on their lifestyle. This would be a very interesting study, and would prove to have very interesting results as I could only predict from natural behavior the outcome of the decision.

Oh, by the way, enough with the logic stuff, it will just get too heated. For what technology and capacity of knowledge we have, it is too hard to come out of it without agreeing to disagree.

EDIT YOUR POST!

There's no "BALD RIGHTS" activist movement, because nobody feels the need to justify what they know is natural.

Yeah, er, there wouldn't be gay rights movements if they'd had their rights restricted, though, would there? There wouldn't be feminists unless women had been treated differently, etc.

Thats how we discuss things in here, like it or leave it i'd say. We never had encountered problems with this since people dont take it on to other threads.

Though you fail to acknowledge two things. One, that a murder will procede, gun or no gun.

I disagree. Somebody unarmed in a mad rage is less likely, in some cases, to kill the other person than if they were holding a loaded firearm. You can easily imagine the situation.

"Less likely, in some cases"

Sounds like a horoscope. It's not like a firearm's the only thing you can kill a person with, it's just the most popular because most people are too pussy to use a knife. Ergo, a mugger with a knife is more dangerous (usually [now I sound like a horoscope]).

Obviously it's not. You can fight over a knife, though. Can't with a bullet.

1. Like it or not, EVERYONE gets treated differently/badly at some time. It's just that some people don't have a "movement" for them. During the civil rights era, it was minorities. Then, from the "affirmative action" era til now, it has been white males. http://www.wilsonsalmanac.com/strategy.html this is an interesting piece on just that.
And don't get me started on the feminist movement:So, they DO want to be equal? or do they want us to hold the doors open for them? They want to "break up the old boys' club" but have women-only clubs and buildings? It's so full of double-standards, that I don't see how anyone can take them seriously... at all. Like not wearing a bra is going to keep men from viewing them as sex objects? Come on, ladies, that is going to MAKE them look. It's all so ridiculous.
2. Guns don't kill people, bullets kill people. If you bleeding-heart people who don't like to hunt want to get around the second amendment, then ban bullets. the "right to bear arms" doesn't mean right to bear munitions. use that loophole if you want america to be a bunch of fat, weeping vaginas on legs. But really, guns are not the only thing you can kill with. Otherwise we'd have seen a lack of murder before guns were invented. Sure it's easier to pull a trigger than to do a bit of stabbing, but it's easier for pedophiles to spread child porn on the internet, but you don't boycott that. Guns, like the internet, are tools. To be used for good. It's just that sometimes they are used for evil.

Professa Oak: Thank you, I agree. I was just leaving my own beliefs out of the whole thing and be objective, and I get called names. I need a "Nickelplate Rights" movement.

I just hate when I try to debate something with people and they just get mad. There's no use in being upset, just present your views as best you can.

You CAN fight over a gun, just like a knife. only the gun does not cut you if you mistakenly grab the wrong side.

[edit] Professa oak: All our current technology WORKS on binary logic. Why can't we come to a conclusion?

I agree with nickelplate and Professa Oak.

Apart from the gun thing, sure you can get cut fighting over a knife, even stabbed, but in the same respect you could easily get accidently shot in a struggle for a gun. Besides, with a gun you could sit anything up to and beyond a mile away and shoot somone, even a kid could do it. So selling guns in the mainstream is still a bad thing, in my view. But hey, if thats the way the US wants it, who am I to stop them. Its just my opinion that its bad, its not a fact (although that is easily arguable).

If you go to an all girl school all your life I'm pretty sure you're going to be gay.

That or the happiest and most sexually satified straight male on the planet. Infact I think a boy going to a girls school is more likely to be straight than gay, no men to bum in an all girls school.

On the note of gay people, human behavior patterns are pretty easy to predict and understand in this day and age with phychology at the level that it is. Gay people quite literally DO have somthing wrong with them, because they didnt get born with a penis to go sticking it in other men. You can always find somthing, even if you have to dig deep, that has caused somone or encouraged somone to be homosexual. Perhaps they are weak minded? Or perhaps they just have a rough or undesirable enviroment. I'm not saying its bad, but homosexuality is literally caused by somthing wrong with the person (history, enviroment, social state etc).

I wouldnt be surprised if in years to come Homosexuality was slowly wiped out or at least diminished because our understanding of it would be so much better. In this day and age though it flourishes because of our self indulgence fueled socially warped society.

In logic, there isnt always two options. If you break it right down, all the way down, there usually is only the two but not always. Thats in rare cases however, usually there is only 2; 1 or 0.

I think basically what a lot of this thread boils down to is that people are born every day, some are strong some are weak, but in this day and age a lot more weak people can survive where as before (many years ago) they would of been killed or died.

Lets bottom line it: Who gives a fuck? They can play 'smokey and the bandit' with each other all they want, so long as they dont try to force anyone else in to doing it, who's to say they cant.

Any other organism would never do anything like this. Why?

This is when you have to admit your limited knowledge of biology, nickleplate. There are numerous examples of altruism in the animal kingdom. In fact, for primates, it's more of the rule rather than the exception. If animals, guided by purely instinct, behave altruistically, there must be some inherent biological advantage to justify our seemingly superior human interactions.

I believe homosexuality is just as genetic-based as male-pattern baldness. This may be hard for some people to accept, just as it was difficult for people to accept that women should have the same rights as men, that they weren't a "weaker" gender. But time has changed, and I am hoping the rest of the world would see the light eventually. Some of us are just more progressive than others.

I graduated top of my class majoring in biology at the university, so I dare say that I know more about biology than anyone here at TWHL.

In this day and age though it flourishes because of our self indulgence fueled socially warped society.

So someone else noticed... lol.

Tycell: So how about only selling certain kinds of guns to the mainstream? Like don't sell sniper rifles and automtics. But even so, the only people that would be restricting is law-abiding citizens. Inner city gang memebers will still manage to get Uzis which are ilegal NOW, and arms dealers will still have thier buyers.

Satchmo: As you know I pride myself on my ability to admit shortcomings, and yes, I have not been able to take that many biology classes in my studies. I graduated top-of-my class in computer science, nothing to do with biology.

Just so, please give me more examples of altrusim in nature. Because the things i think of are squirrels castrating all the young in another's nest, and birds crushing other birds' eggs. Lions killing the offspring of the former alpha male of the pack. Lots more.

Also, if homosexuality is genetic... HOW? because the whole thing with it is that two of the same sex cannot mate, you know? So is it a mutation, or what? If so how come every other mutation is viewed as bad, and not this one?

I didn't know all mutations were considered bad, did you make that up?

A lot of Americans are scared to face reality, they are stuck in the false "left"/"right" paradigm, mainstream media rhetoric, and are afraid to 'deviate' from this mentality. Every debate is separated into the "left"/"right" category when all that matters is what's right and wrong.

Charlie Sheen, a true American, was criticised in a playground fashion for simply saying that he had 'unanswered question' about 9/11, instead of intellectually debating these questions, the media jumped on the 'tinfoil hat' bandwagon.

The NeoCon administration is openly corrupt, they believe they have the right to abolish the Bill Of Rights, they feel as though they are playing 'God' and that everyone is under their command. The mainstream media is their greatest WMD; it has eaten the entire country from inside out.

Bush does not run the country, he is a bootlicking puppet, just like the rest of them - it's the guys behind the scenes that command these fruitcakes.Don?t criticise the people, criticise the schizophrenic Bush administration, the Pentagon-funded mainstream media propaganda ministries, and more importantly, the behind-closed doors round table network of secret organisations, banks, and elite groups.

Jahzel, for all your denouncing the tinfoil hats, you sound like a bit of a conspiracy theorist yourself.

Although I do agree with you that the whole "conservative/liberal, left-right" thing has got to go. Too many people say "I voted for so-and-so because i am of such-and-such a political party." It's sickening. Oh, and how many people voted for Bush because "He had nicer hair."

Saribous: Not all mutations are bad, I guess. I can't think of any good ones, but I don't know for sure that they don't exist.

he was, he is, and always will be.

and he's right about this.

and for the all girls school issue. I go to an all guys school. you don't turn gay, you turn uber strait because of it. then you have the added benifit of having an all girls school but a few miles away...

Not all mutations are bad, I guess. I can't think of any good ones, but I don't know for sure that they don't exist.

Without mutations, the Earth would still be populated by single-cell organisms swimming in a pool of water. Human beings are the result of mutations. It did take millions of years, but that's how it happened.

Unless you don't think human beings are special or extraordinary, you would respect the role of mutation played in our own evolution.

And if you're willing to get down to the nitty-gritty technical calculation, here is the scientific and mathematical proof that demonstrates why altruistic genes survived thousands of years of evolution, despite the apparent initial paradox.

And here is the less mathematical but more philosophical approach to the same answer.

Jahzel returns with plausible theories, making all of our hearts rejoice! I'm agreeing to some degree.

As for the gay-debate, I believe Seventh made a valid point..;

Maybe homosexuality will die out in thousands of years through natural selection, or maybe it's something that is based on something so fundamental that it can't. Who cares? We're talking about today, not 10 000 years. Maybe we'll all have gills by then. It's not really that relevant.

What "causes" homosexuality really doesn't matter - it's a widespread phenomenom that should be accepted, not removed.

For nickleplate, here are some additional examples of altruism in the animal kingdom, with detailed explanation on why such behavioral pattern is favored in natural selection. My specialty in biology is molecular evolution, so this is what I spent four years studying in university.

Jahzel returns with plausible theories, making all of our hearts rejoice!

Jahzel

satch-mo! satch-mo!

... and Jahzel too, to a lesser extent :).

nickelplate, with every post you show how little you understand another of your points of argument.

Why not put [unecessary harm] [/unecessary harm] around that last post seventh. I have no idea why you choose to side with the paritsans and not the objective thinkers. I have not witnessed one instance in which nickelplate has made a remark punishable by your last post.

This goes for everyone, guilty of such or not. I have stated it before, your post means nothing if it is not based on some objective thought, or clearly states the perspective it was based on, whether that perspective be from experience, observation, or so on.

But I have to agree with what seventh, zombie, etc. have been saying about the homosexuality "issue". They are a minority if you consider African-Americans minorities. They suffer in many of the same ways, along with Native-Americans, Women, legal Foreigners for that matter. They are to be accepted as along with African Americans, Native Americans, Women, legal Foreigners, etc. I'm guessing you would be one of those people to openly express your hate for niggars if you would choose add insult to injury to the situation that homosexuals are already in. I believe the KKK does still exist, so I'm sure they would gladly except your devout thinking into the Klan.

Seventh-Monkey, you still have not backed up your statements with anything but... well, you have nothing. Start PROVING things. What you're doing is akin to the guy that guy at the party that yells "F-YOU!" and runs off to his car. Or something like when your parents said "because I said so." and didn't ever give you a REAL reason. you're saying I'm wrong, but not saying how.

Professa Oak: I don't HATE anyone. Not blacks or gays or hispanics or whites or women or anything else. There is a difference between hatred of someone and disagreeing with thier lifestyle. Surely you can see that.
BTW the Klan does stll exist, under some corporate guise I beleive.

[edit] Still looking at that stuff, Satch. more later

I know you're all going to yell at me for this, and I agree with you probably to some degree, but I hate mexicans. They come into our country illegally, they don't pay taxes, they don't want to learn the language, and they take what taxpayers are paying for in the first place! (free stuff) They take away from our school system, and they think they are hot shit because of it! The only thing they are good for is low end jobs that we wouldn't normally want to work at.

Lol. That is true of some, yes. Those are the ones I don't really care for either.

Sorry, nickelplate if I sounded like I was talking directly to you. I was just generalizing to anyone that hated homosexuals or thought they were not welcome at all. I guess as a very smart History teacher would put it. If there was a room full of homosexuals (he usually uses African-Americans when we talk about oppresion) and a room full of heterosexuals, which room would you go in. His emphasis was that you need to seperate uncomfortable situations and racist situations.

I personally would have a preference of going to the heterosexual room, not because I don't like homosexuals, but because I feel more comfortable with heterosexuals. If there is anything that I have said that would contradict this or not go in line with such, this would be more of my view than the previous statement.

Most people, at least at my age just make fun of others. It makes me feel good when you have people like Dave Chappelle, Richard Pryor, Chris Rock, Carlos Mencia, etc. make your jokes look like nothing. These guys make everyone look like an ass; whites, hispanic, blacks, asians, celebrities, rich people, poor people, green people, purple people, etc., and that is how it should be.

There are also plenty of examples of homosexual behavior in animals, especially among primates.

So how did these animals escape the lay person's superficial understanding of natural selection? Are there truly no evolutionary advantage of homosexuality?

Fraternities and sororities...are they just closet faggots who can't bring themselves to admit that they're really gay deep down inside?

When you drop the religious "blind faith" argument, nothing else holds up to scientific and logical scrutiny.

People who cannot accept homosexuality are just as narrow minded as those who cannot accept other ethnicity or gender. They are no better.

I have not witnessed one instance in which nickelplate has made a remark punishable by your last post.

Seventh-Monkey, you still have not backed up your statements with anything but... well, you have nothing. Start PROVING things.

No... really. You very clearly proved that you have absolutely no idea how evolution works:

Not all mutations are bad, I guess. I can't think of any good ones, but I don't know for sure that they don't exist.

Thanks for the links, too, satchy. I knew of homosexuality in various primates, but not birds.

Meh, I wouldn't say I accept homosexuality as much as blacks/Asians/whatevers since race isn't caused by environment at all whereas sexual preference could be. There was that one chick from Sex and the City (I think it was) who started cavorting with women after she had a messed-up relationship with her manfriend.

Either way, assuming that gays do get equal rights in the form of new laws, it's still basically discrimination because there's no laws that say straights have such-and-such rights.

Doing anything sexually with someone of the same sex does not make you gay.

Assuming that gays do get equal rights in the form of new laws, it's still basically discrimination because there's no laws that say straights have such-and-such rights.

Is this serious? Do you even understand what equal rights means?