I understand the argument you're trying to make, however, the fact remains that there is no cumulative, convergent, quantitatively rigorous evidence to support it. Period. Collusion of external perceptions of tastes and predilection for crime is neither scientifically valid nor public policy-wise responsible or ethical.
From your word choice (including assigning "fact" to your opinion) and emphatic use of all-caps, however, it's clear where your personal, empirically unjustifiable biases lie, and how those prejudices influence your own judgments and claims--all which I'm confident others who read/hear your ... comments ... become quickly aware of.
I don't mean to be rude, but there's really no reason for us to continue the conversation.
It's not about "convincing." It's about rational arguments formed on convergent, rigorous, objective evidence over long stretches of time, made in different research settings the globe over. The tobacco industry wasn't "convinced" by the weight of the amassing medical evidence linking tobacco smoke with lung cancer, either. But that's exactly why empiricism is humanity's best means of discerning what's true. The overwhelming biomedical, anthropological, and historical evidence supports the evolutionary model of homosexuality as a natural variation, not just of human behavior, but of animal behavior across the animal kingdom.
You're welcome to your perspective. Just don't be surprised that very many, including very many of the planet's brightest minds, disagree with you.
Is it normal that I can't stand age restrictions?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
I understand the argument you're trying to make, however, the fact remains that there is no cumulative, convergent, quantitatively rigorous evidence to support it. Period. Collusion of external perceptions of tastes and predilection for crime is neither scientifically valid nor public policy-wise responsible or ethical.
From your word choice (including assigning "fact" to your opinion) and emphatic use of all-caps, however, it's clear where your personal, empirically unjustifiable biases lie, and how those prejudices influence your own judgments and claims--all which I'm confident others who read/hear your ... comments ... become quickly aware of.
I don't mean to be rude, but there's really no reason for us to continue the conversation.
--
LittleGirlRapedAndSodomised#S2
7 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
You're not going to convince me I've looked a bit too far into this subject a couple years ago and have made up my mind.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ygrd29-_O3I
--
AB1234
7 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
It's not about "convincing." It's about rational arguments formed on convergent, rigorous, objective evidence over long stretches of time, made in different research settings the globe over. The tobacco industry wasn't "convinced" by the weight of the amassing medical evidence linking tobacco smoke with lung cancer, either. But that's exactly why empiricism is humanity's best means of discerning what's true. The overwhelming biomedical, anthropological, and historical evidence supports the evolutionary model of homosexuality as a natural variation, not just of human behavior, but of animal behavior across the animal kingdom.
You're welcome to your perspective. Just don't be surprised that very many, including very many of the planet's brightest minds, disagree with you.