Goodbye CDC, Goodbye Country

Nope, not guessing at all. Why do people think they are heterosexual and then later in life decide they are homosexual? Environmental factors are at play, that's why.

You are just assuming they are born that way, because it justifies your argument. The more likely reason, based on evidence at hand, is that it is a learned trait, albeit a subconscious one.

Not sure what evidence you have “at hand”. All we’ve seen is a lot of personal opinion.

We know that gay people emerge from societies where being gay is socially unacceptable or even illegal. Seems that if it were a “learned” trait that wouldn’t be possible. Being openly gay is a relatively recent development.

What evidence do you actually have?
 
No, like you bumpkin imbeciles not believing in life-saving vaccines.

Go back to your 9th century cave, MAGA troll.
For every poster here who says he will NOT get a vaccine, why don't you get two and even it all out?
 


CDC $5B to promote vaccines, $20M to study vaccines

RFK Jr is a treasure
 
There's nothing wrong with healthy skepticism, questioning the statements of experts is not illegal and never has been, I've done it myself (I am skeptical for example about certain evolution claims).

But that isn't what magats do, they cannot express healthy skepticism, no, they must dramatize it all, construct an entire conspiracy fantasy and then peddle that amongst the other magats and before we know it what should have been a simple expression of doubt becomes a claim that respected certificated health professionals murdered 700,000 people.

If they can't understand something then just disregard it and justify that on the basis of some imagined conspiracy, that way they can participate in the discussion and try to appear relevant.

I've watched this behavior since Covid appeared, I recall reading about it long before it became a crisis here. I read it in science news months ahead and was aware it was looming, I read what experts thought, people who've dealt with unknown pathogens for years.

Well the press began to raise questions here and started to ask Trump about his plan and thoughts on the matter.

Trump didn't know what to do and has no humility so can't bring himself to ask expert advice, so how to make the problem go away? He lied, he denied, he resisted and began to ridicule those experts not because their advice was unsound but because he can't take advice, would rather the problem just went away and so has to hide that fact by pretending the experts were wrong.

Of course the maga cult lapped this up, they followed suit and so the conspiracy mentality took over, no more reason, no more logic, no more rationality just the old pitchfork and anti-intellectualism.

Magats despise intellectuals because they regard them as elitists, why? because magats themselves are low achievers, largely uneducated and feel isolated so they attack intellectuals and find ways to discredit them, that's their modus operandi, lie, misrepresent, sensationalize, spread fear and doubt.

When magats here attack medical experts, people who've studied virology, pharmacology, microbiology, biochemistry, synthetic chemistry and so on, I find it laughable, they have no credibility, utterly ridiculous yet they continue, preferring ignorance of knowledge.

The same magats who were praising experts a few days ago (rocket designers, rocket engineers, communications engineers and so on - Starship) attack experts in a different discipline.

Funny how all rocket engineers are lauded as experts while medical experts (many of whom likely attended the same universities and perhaps even some classes with NASA/SpaceX engineers) are dragged over the coals for being a danger, a threat and responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands.

Magats are fools, uneducable idiots, I've not encountered a single magat here who seems to have any real technical expertise in any subject, as I said you're all underachievers who probably can't pass even a basic science and mathematics test.

Underacheiver is probably the wrong term here too, it implies a potential to learn and improve and frankly I see no evidence that these cultists have that potential.

View attachment 1155923
Bullshit. The CDC ACTIVELY suppressed dissenting voices during the covid scamdemic.

For that reason alone it should be shutdown.
 
Not sure what evidence you have “at hand”. All we’ve seen is a lot of personal opinion.

We know that gay people emerge from societies where being gay is socially unacceptable or even illegal. Seems that if it were a “learned” trait that wouldn’t be possible. Being openly gay is a relatively recent development.

What evidence do you actually have?

What evidence do you have that some are just born that way? Right, there isn't any. There may be some combination of biological factors involved, though no "gay gene" has ever been found, however, there is no doubt that early experiences and environment also play a role. If being gay is complex and involves both biology and environment, why would we knowingly provide that second piece to the puzzle? Do we want/need people to be gay for some reason? What benefit is it to society?
 
What evidence do you have that some are just born that way? Right, there isn't any. There may be some combination of biological factors involved, though no "gay gene" has ever been found, however, there is no doubt that early experiences and environment also play a role. If being gay is complex and involves both biology and environment, why would we knowingly provide that second piece to the puzzle? Do we want/need people to be gay for some reason? What benefit is it to society?

I’m still trying to figure out how you determined “there is no doubt” that being around gay people makes kids gay.
 
I’m still trying to figure out how you determined “there is no doubt” that being around gay people makes kids gay.

Why you believe it doesn't? The thing is, if we don't know if it is biological, societal or a combination of both, why not control the one thing we can control? Why would you choose to potentially make people gay? That doesn't make any sense.
 
Why you believe it doesn't? The thing is, if we don't know if it is biological, societal or a combination of both, why not control the one thing we can control? Why would you choose to potentially make people gay? That doesn't make any sense.

For the third time, we know that gay people emerge from societies where being gay is suppressed or illegal, meaning they are gay despite not being exposed to gay people. You haven’t really responded to this.

Is it just argument from incredulity? You’re so sure, have no doubt, but you don’t see to have an actual reason to believe that being around gay people makes kids gay.
 
For the third time, we know that gay people emerge from societies where being gay is suppressed or illegal, meaning they are gay despite not being exposed to gay people. You haven’t really responded to this.

We also know that societies that have normalized the behavior have a higher percentage of gay people. Your point is moot. I have stated that biology can be a factor, just not the only factor. You are too obtuse to recognize that environment also plays a role.

Is it just argument from incredulity? You’re so sure, have no doubt, but you don’t see to have an actual reason to believe that being around gay people makes kids gay.

No doubt in my mind. Does that help you? It is like you have no doubt in your mind that people are just born that way, although there is no proof of that. See how that works?
 
We also know that societies that have normalized the behavior have a higher percentage of gay people. Your point is moot. I have stated that biology can be a factor, just not the only factor. You are too obtuse to recognize that environment also plays a role.
How does one identify the number of gay people in a society that suppresses gay people? It's hardly surprising that a society that accepts gay people would have more people that identify as gay. The number of left handers increased after it became socially acceptable to be left handed. Did exposure make people left handed or did society allow people to be what they always were?

I think you're confusing cause and effect.
No doubt in my mind. Does that help you?
It helps suggest that this isn't a belief founded in evidence, but out of convenience.
It is like you have no doubt in your mind that people are just born that way, although there is no proof of that. See how that works?
I never said any such thing, you just assumed it.
 
How does one identify the number of gay people in a society that suppresses gay people? It's hardly surprising that a society that accepts gay people would have more people that identify as gay. The number of left handers increased after it became socially acceptable to be left handed. Did exposure make people left handed or did society allow people to be what they always were?

False equivalence. Being left-handed is a neurological trait with clear genetic and motor-pattern roots. Being homosexual is much more complex involving some small links to biology but also links to psychology, environment and social construct.

It helps suggest that this isn't a belief founded in evidence, but out of convenience.

Again, you don't have evidence that is contrary either, so why take the chance?

I never said any such thing, you just assumed it.

Yeah, I assumed it because you are arguing against the environment or social construct playing a role.
 
False equivalence. Being left-handed is a neurological trait with clear genetic and motor-pattern roots. Being homosexual is much more complex involving some small links to biology but also links to psychology, environment and social construct.
The point stands, even if it's more complex. It's hardly surprising that societies that accept gay people are far more likely to have more people who admit their gay. If this is the entirety of your evidence, it's very weak unless you find a way to isolate whether this is a cause or an effect.
Again, you don't have evidence that is contrary either, so why take the chance?
There's that argument from incredulity again. You seem to believe there's no way it could possibly be false.

"Why take the chance" is weird thing to say. I'm not 100% sure what you mean by that. Are you saying society shouldn't allow people to be openly gay because there's a chance that it could make other people gay? I believe that's what they do in Russia.

Yeah, I assumed it because you are arguing against the environment or social construct playing a role.
It's entirely possible environment plays a role. I'm just very skeptical that knowing people are gay can actually make people gay. It's entirely clear at this point in time this is just a thing you've decided to believe because you want to.
 
The point stands, even if it's more complex. It's hardly surprising that societies that accept gay people are far more likely to have more people who admit their gay. If this is the entirety of your evidence, it's very weak unless you find a way to isolate whether this is a cause or an effect.

The point is meaningless. Men and women are more likely to live together now before marriage because society has normalized it. More people get tattoos now because they are more culturally acceptable. There are a litany of other examples. You are working under the assumption that being gay is a purely biological trait which can't be influenced by society and environment. I believe that to be false and fairly ignorant.

"Why take the chance" is weird thing to say. I'm not 100% sure what you mean by that. Are you saying society shouldn't allow people to be openly gay because there's a chance that it could make other people gay? I believe that's what they do in Russia

I am saying that normalizing being gay does potentially, if not likely, influence the behavior. If the potential is there, why would we want to take steps to proliferate abnormal behavior. It makes no sense.

It's entirely possible environment plays a role. I'm just very skeptical that knowing people are gay can actually make people gay.

It isn't about knowing if someone is gay. It is about society normalizing it. It isn't normal. Sorry.

It's entirely clear at this point in time this is just a thing you've decided to believe because you want to.

Ditto
 
Why you believe it doesn't? The thing is, if we don't know if it is biological, societal or a combination of both, why not control the one thing we can control? Why would you choose to potentially make people gay? That doesn't make any sense.
Illogical.
 
Men and women are more likely to live together now before marriage because society has normalized it. More people get tattoos now because they are more culturally acceptable. There are a litany of other examples. You are working under the assumption that being gay is a purely biological trait which can't be influenced by society and environment. I believe that to be false and fairly ignorant.
I don't know exactly what you mean by "purely biological". That said, it's pretty obvious that sexual impulses have deep rooted biological basis. Living together, getting tattoos are hardly similar as there's no deep rooted biological basis for them and clearly elective choices people make. Sexual preference, whether you call it biological or not, is by and large immutable. We simply don't seem to have much choice over who we are sexually attracted to.

The point is hardly meaningless. You can't truly know how many gay people exist in a society unless you allow them to actually be comfortable in admitting that they're gay.

I am saying that normalizing being gay does potentially, if not likely, influence the behavior. If the potential is there, why would we want to take steps to proliferate abnormal behavior. It makes no sense.

I guess you don't really have any concern for the well being for gay people. Being gay in a society that doesn't accept it sucks.


Are you pretending that your claims here are anything but something you believe because you want to believe it?
 
15th post
False equivalence. Being left-handed is a neurological trait with clear genetic and motor-pattern roots. Being homosexual is much more complex involving some small links to biology but also links to psychology, environment and social construct.



Again, you don't have evidence that is contrary either, so why take the chance?



Yeah, I assumed it because you are arguing against the environment or social construct playing a role.
What exactly is your agenda?
 
Completely logical, but I don't expect you to understand.

Most people typically error on the side of caution.
Entirely illogical, and based on a false assumption.
 
Back
Top Bottom