Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski
Sophistry. Pure and simple. You intentionally obfuscate the discussion by waffling on a meaningless distinction between SSA vs. gay. And after denying ER's point, you concede the point (see bold), but reduce the argument to a debate over "most" vs. "some". Argh.
|
I think it's an important distinction. You've offered no reason why it's obfuscation, sophistry, or meaningless, except your say-so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski
None of which you have demonstrated consistently in this debate. See the next point.
|
Pardon me if I don't accept your judgment on the matter. That's like asking Obama to rate McCain's performance in a debate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski
There are countless studies in the scientific/academic literature to this effect. The overwhelming body of evidence points to SSA being innate, and not a choice for the majority of gays. But I love how you cleverly inserted that last sentence. This gives you a convenient out in case someone bothers to give you citations. The ultimate cop-out.
|
I have not denied that SSA is innate--the distinction I make above, however, matters.
The last point is also legitimate. If someone says "I'm gay," what means are available to me to verify or not verify? None. The best studies that might be available on people who say why they are gay are nothing more than surveys asking for folks' opinions.
But don't ignore the reason I brought it up: even a flawed survey of homosexuals would provide some point-of-reference for ER to criticize cougarobgon. Instead, ER is himself guilty of what he accuses.
Lastly, if you cannot respond without calling me a sophist, ignorant, a bigot, or some other name, please: just don't respond.