What is it with these Gay Rights people
-
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
That is non-sense. Kids emulate those around them. It has nothing to do with the sex. My daughter will do things I do and imitate them. She does not emulate me because my wife is not there.
Are you saying that your daughter emulates you and your wife equally? What I meant by not around is divorced parents and widowed. I meant not around long term, not gone shopping or working.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Again this is non-sense.
The fact is, couples tend to pick up each others mannerisms, the way they talk, dress, and all that. Yes it is due to the fact that they've been together a long time and may like what each other likes, but emulation also exists whether consciously or subconsciously.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
That is not a fact. The fact is they emulate that which is around them.
That is a contradictory statement. At a young age, parents are all around their kids and kids will emulate them. The fact that your daughter emulates a puppy is either her being cute or looking for attention. Either way, she's smart enough to realize that she doesn't actually want to be a puppy. The rest of your statement is just there to make the whole thing sound absurd. LOL!
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
What does that have to do with anything. Because you saw 2 people hugging and kissing you are straight?
Back in my day, we didn't see the other lifestyle on television. So I'm sure we weren't influenced. We need statistics on what percentage of straight parents had kids who grew up gay and what percentage of gay parents had straight kids and see what the trend is down the road. If it's nature, the trend should be moving slowly IMO.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
That is obvious.
Again you're using absurd statements to make what I said sound absurd. Enough said.
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
Are you saying that your daughter emulates you and your wife equally?
No idea. Right now I would say she emulates her brother and the dog the most.... I would not draw any conclusions from it. She is a 4 year old.
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
What I meant by not around is divorced parents and widowed. I meant not around long term, not gone shopping or working.
You are mixing up things here. Lack of emulation does not conclude something. Because they are not emulating something that is not around that other kids emulate which is around them does not mean they are being raised to not do (or to do) actions they observed and are emulating. A kid that does not participate in Baseball for most of their childhood does not mean the kid will not like baseball when they are older.
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
The fact is, couples tend to pick up each others mannerisms, the way they talk, dress, and all that.
It is not a fact. Some couples do. Some do not. My wife and I are very different. Yes we have some "mannerisms" that will be the same. That is more colloquial than anything. A phrase I start saying she may pick up on and start using it. That does not mean I will start buying Ugg boots and she will start programming.
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
Yes it is due to the fact that they've been together a long time and may like what each other likes
No, it is more likely that that couple is together because they like those similar things. My wife and I are together for different reasons. Her and my style is not necessarily merging as you are claiming. Because that is not what brought us together. Couples that end up together because they share similar styles will gradually have more similar styles. Not because they are together, but because their personalities were similar from the start. Think of it this way. If an Indian person marries and Indian person are they more or less likely to share an appreciation for Indian culture? If an Indian person marries an American, it is not conclusive that the American appreciates Indian culture nor that the Indian appreciates American culture. You might want to claim well they have to because they married a person from that culture. This is only relevant in the case where the person of that culture is forcing their cult
-
And I respect your opinion about that, but I shouldn't be forced to accept something just because everybody is on that bandwagon now. I don't go out beating and burning everyone (i.e., anyone) and everything (i.e., anything) that I disagree with. To each his own number one.
OK to me as well ! I was actually a bit surprised at your positions, because I know (well, from what I have read on CP) that we happen to agree on a lot of other things that have been discussed here (no specfiic example, but overall feeling), so I did not expect that.
~RaGE();
I think words like 'destiny' are a way of trying to find order where none exists. - Christian Graus Do not feed the troll ! - Common proverb
-
-
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
That does not mean I can raise him to like something. If I like army men and he does not I am not going to be able to force him into liking them.
You can't force him to like something, but if he sees you playing with army men he might start liking it especially if you continue to play with him.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
A child emulates what they like.
A child does not emulate what they like since they already like it. A child emulates when they're not aware of something and copy you tit for tat. After a while, they may start liking it or they may do it out of habit or they may stop completely.
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
You can't force him to like something, but if he sees you playing with army men he might start liking it especially if you continue to play with him.
And my daughter might start liking it too :omg: Well you do agree you can not force them to like something. So whether you hand your child a playboy or a playgirl it is irrelevant. They will like whatever they like.
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
A child does not emulate what they like since they already like it.
A child "plays" and uses imagination to see if they like it. When they realize they like it they create patterns around it. They may play with the toy once. This usually means they don't like it ;)
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
A child emulates when they're not aware of something and copy you tit for tat.
Sure. That does not make them like it. If they get bored copying you tit for tat they will find something else.
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
After a while, they may start liking it or they may do it out of habit or they may stop completely.
Exactly. But that has nothing to do with you showing them it or not. They will like what they like and not like what they do not like.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet. The interesting thing about software is it can not reproduce, until it can.
-
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
That is non-sense. Kids emulate those around them. It has nothing to do with the sex. My daughter will do things I do and imitate them. She does not emulate me because my wife is not there.
Are you saying that your daughter emulates you and your wife equally? What I meant by not around is divorced parents and widowed. I meant not around long term, not gone shopping or working.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Again this is non-sense.
The fact is, couples tend to pick up each others mannerisms, the way they talk, dress, and all that. Yes it is due to the fact that they've been together a long time and may like what each other likes, but emulation also exists whether consciously or subconsciously.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
That is not a fact. The fact is they emulate that which is around them.
That is a contradictory statement. At a young age, parents are all around their kids and kids will emulate them. The fact that your daughter emulates a puppy is either her being cute or looking for attention. Either way, she's smart enough to realize that she doesn't actually want to be a puppy. The rest of your statement is just there to make the whole thing sound absurd. LOL!
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
What does that have to do with anything. Because you saw 2 people hugging and kissing you are straight?
Back in my day, we didn't see the other lifestyle on television. So I'm sure we weren't influenced. We need statistics on what percentage of straight parents had kids who grew up gay and what percentage of gay parents had straight kids and see what the trend is down the road. If it's nature, the trend should be moving slowly IMO.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
That is obvious.
Again you're using absurd statements to make what I said sound absurd. Enough said.
-
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
Are you saying that your daughter emulates you and your wife equally?
No idea. Right now I would say she emulates her brother and the dog the most.... I would not draw any conclusions from it. She is a 4 year old.
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
What I meant by not around is divorced parents and widowed. I meant not around long term, not gone shopping or working.
You are mixing up things here. Lack of emulation does not conclude something. Because they are not emulating something that is not around that other kids emulate which is around them does not mean they are being raised to not do (or to do) actions they observed and are emulating. A kid that does not participate in Baseball for most of their childhood does not mean the kid will not like baseball when they are older.
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
The fact is, couples tend to pick up each others mannerisms, the way they talk, dress, and all that.
It is not a fact. Some couples do. Some do not. My wife and I are very different. Yes we have some "mannerisms" that will be the same. That is more colloquial than anything. A phrase I start saying she may pick up on and start using it. That does not mean I will start buying Ugg boots and she will start programming.
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
Yes it is due to the fact that they've been together a long time and may like what each other likes
No, it is more likely that that couple is together because they like those similar things. My wife and I are together for different reasons. Her and my style is not necessarily merging as you are claiming. Because that is not what brought us together. Couples that end up together because they share similar styles will gradually have more similar styles. Not because they are together, but because their personalities were similar from the start. Think of it this way. If an Indian person marries and Indian person are they more or less likely to share an appreciation for Indian culture? If an Indian person marries an American, it is not conclusive that the American appreciates Indian culture nor that the Indian appreciates American culture. You might want to claim well they have to because they married a person from that culture. This is only relevant in the case where the person of that culture is forcing their cult
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
No idea. Right now I would say she emulates her brother and the dog the most.... I would not draw any conclusions from it. She is a 4 year old.
I wasn't asking about her brother or the dog. Between you and her mom, I would think she emulates her mom more. The fact that most of the boys in my family emulate their dads and the girls their moms cannot be coincidence since both are equally available.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
You are mixing up things here. Lack of emulation does not conclude something. Because they are not emulating something that is not around that other kids emulate which is around them does not mean they are being raised to not do (or to do) actions they observed and are emulating.
A kid that does not participate in Baseball for most of their childhood does not mean the kid will not like baseball when they are older.But if the kid grew up watching baseball with the dad and played outside with the dad, they will like it. Similarly, the kid may not like it until he's old enough to try it and change his mind about it. But until they're old enough to change the way they think, they are learning from observation and their parents actions, inactions, or reactions around them. Emulation is not permanent and is mostly influential at young ages. Again, I fail to see your point here.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
My wife and I are together for different reasons.
Different reasons than other married couples or different reasons than each other? :confused: (Pleading the fifth is acceptable.)
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
No. You made a conclusion from the emulation claiming they emulate one sex over the other. You have no data to back that up.
Gender typing is a well studied subject and there are countless articles on it. The fact that I see it in my own extended family all the time cannot be coincidence. I see it in my son a lot and he's with his mother for most of the week. Google it if you need more data. It's there.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
That is an assumption.
Agreed. There are more plausible explanations of why and I'm just giving you the few that came to mind. However, I sincerely doubt that your daughter actually thinks she's a puppy and I'm sure you'd have her checked if you thought that was t
-
Quote:
Again you're using absurd statements to make what I said sound absurd. Enough said.
Welcome to dealing with Collin. :)
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
[check the forum title] yep this is the Soapbox so: I don't get the whole furore over Russia's gay laws. It seems to me the not being allowed to promote gay relationships to minors is a GOOD thing. If a teenager is so inclined then they will find out about their options as far as sexuality are concerned. If they are incapable of locating resources then they are not strongly motivated in the gay direction. And no I'm not homophobic, I don't give a rats arse what someones sexual preferences are just keep it to themselves. I would also like to include religion in the ban but I know I'd be pissing in the wind on that one.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity RAH
It's been taken as a rather bald attempt to simply not allow gay people to express themselves in public. The issue is simply that denying any exposure while not having implemented that whole ban on religious stupidity bit, you have pricks screaming it's horrible and wrong to be that way while no one is allowed to say those pricks are wrong. Don't know how much you've followed of just how insane people get with the intolerance of the idea someone(particularly their own child) may be gay, but generally when it comes to having your own child kidnapped in the night, stuffed into a van and shipped off to a camp where they tell them that their desires go against god and should be suppressed or they'll go to hell. Letting people talk about it a bit seems to be the more sane option. Right now it's a semi-private shame that some groups will persecute at will, particularly with the children they have full control over. Why it's becoming public is simply to remove the level of isolation that's used to victimize young gay(or occasionally mistaken for gay) people. It seems stupid with the media that's out there, but knowing REAL gay people exist and hearing what they've done has helped a lot of kids. It's not some skeevy old guy with free candy painted on his 80s van, just someone who's already grown up through the same bullshit and may have advice on dealing with it. It's not really promotion, at least not the useful things that have been done, it's simply acknowledging that the kid's aren't alone, aren't intrinsically wrong for their feelings and that when they grow up their life is largely under their own control.
-
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
You can't force him to like something, but if he sees you playing with army men he might start liking it especially if you continue to play with him.
And my daughter might start liking it too :omg: Well you do agree you can not force them to like something. So whether you hand your child a playboy or a playgirl it is irrelevant. They will like whatever they like.
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
A child does not emulate what they like since they already like it.
A child "plays" and uses imagination to see if they like it. When they realize they like it they create patterns around it. They may play with the toy once. This usually means they don't like it ;)
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
A child emulates when they're not aware of something and copy you tit for tat.
Sure. That does not make them like it. If they get bored copying you tit for tat they will find something else.
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
After a while, they may start liking it or they may do it out of habit or they may stop completely.
Exactly. But that has nothing to do with you showing them it or not. They will like what they like and not like what they do not like.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet. The interesting thing about software is it can not reproduce, until it can.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
And my daughter might start liking it too
Sure, especially if her mother isn't around to influence her. Then, tag, you're it.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
A child "plays" and uses imagination to see if they like it.
That's not quite the same though. All kids have some level of imagination when left to their own devices.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Exactly. But that has nothing to do with you showing them it or not. They will like what they like and not like what they do not like.
Exactly, but they can still be influenced by you while growing up and then they will get influenced by others which may or may not undo all that you've taught them. That doesn't mean I give up since their childhood and leave it all up to them (them being the kids and them being the other influencers).
-
I think the reverse samples were all regarding strait people, and in favor of that argument. When I point out a contrast, even if it's a small sample, it still goes to show that the point being made is absolutely not a fact.
Im_no_troll wrote:
When I point out a contrast, even if it's a small sample, it still goes to show that the point being made is absolutely not a fact.
On top of that there are numerous cases of a straight couple raising a gay child... I guess that data is conveniently ignored :rolleyes:
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet. The interesting thing about software is it can not reproduce, until it can.
-
OK to me as well ! I was actually a bit surprised at your positions, because I know (well, from what I have read on CP) that we happen to agree on a lot of other things that have been discussed here (no specfiic example, but overall feeling), so I did not expect that.
~RaGE();
I think words like 'destiny' are a way of trying to find order where none exists. - Christian Graus Do not feed the troll ! - Common proverb
-
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
No idea. Right now I would say she emulates her brother and the dog the most.... I would not draw any conclusions from it. She is a 4 year old.
I wasn't asking about her brother or the dog. Between you and her mom, I would think she emulates her mom more. The fact that most of the boys in my family emulate their dads and the girls their moms cannot be coincidence since both are equally available.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
You are mixing up things here. Lack of emulation does not conclude something. Because they are not emulating something that is not around that other kids emulate which is around them does not mean they are being raised to not do (or to do) actions they observed and are emulating.
A kid that does not participate in Baseball for most of their childhood does not mean the kid will not like baseball when they are older.But if the kid grew up watching baseball with the dad and played outside with the dad, they will like it. Similarly, the kid may not like it until he's old enough to try it and change his mind about it. But until they're old enough to change the way they think, they are learning from observation and their parents actions, inactions, or reactions around them. Emulation is not permanent and is mostly influential at young ages. Again, I fail to see your point here.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
My wife and I are together for different reasons.
Different reasons than other married couples or different reasons than each other? :confused: (Pleading the fifth is acceptable.)
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
No. You made a conclusion from the emulation claiming they emulate one sex over the other. You have no data to back that up.
Gender typing is a well studied subject and there are countless articles on it. The fact that I see it in my own extended family all the time cannot be coincidence. I see it in my son a lot and he's with his mother for most of the week. Google it if you need more data. It's there.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
That is an assumption.
Agreed. There are more plausible explanations of why and I'm just giving you the few that came to mind. However, I sincerely doubt that your daughter actually thinks she's a puppy and I'm sure you'd have her checked if you thought that was t
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
Between you and her mom, I would think she emulates her mom more.
So you want to dismiss all of the other emulation she does which more than likely accounts for over 50% and break it down to 2 specific people that are emulated. On top of that you are going to compare this emulation to data sets which are a rarity in themselves (gay couple raising a child) and make a deduction. Do you know what margin of error means? :rolleyes:
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
The fact that most of the boys in my family emulate their dads and the girls their moms cannot be coincidence since both are equally available.
So you are taking one sample out of 1 to 1.5 billion (families in the world) and making a deduction from your observations. I ask again, do you know what margin of error means?
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
But if the kid grew up watching baseball with the dad and played outside with the dad, they will like it.
Why are you so certain? Maybe the kid hates it. The kid does it because the kid enjoys spending time with their father (or mother.. another example where sex is irrelevant).
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
But until they're old enough to change the way they think
You think a child does not decide what they like and do like? "You will throw this ball and you will like it!" Wow. Must be fun in your household :rolleyes:
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
Different reasons than other married couples or different reasons than each other? :confused: (Pleading the fifth is acceptable.)
Both actually. Her and I have similarities but we definitely have many differences (likely more). Thus, our styles and such do not meld and mash. Why we most certainly influence each other on our styles it is more often than not a negotiation of A vs B rather than A + B = C. I mean to say our desires and styles of each other are accepted. She wants a wall to be painted light brown and it is. But I am going to hang this picture of a mountain. Does not mean I like to have brown walls or that she likes scenic pictures hanging on the wall.
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
Gender typing is a well studied subject and there are countless articles on it. The fact that I see it in my own exte
-
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
And my daughter might start liking it too
Sure, especially if her mother isn't around to influence her. Then, tag, you're it.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
A child "plays" and uses imagination to see if they like it.
That's not quite the same though. All kids have some level of imagination when left to their own devices.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Exactly. But that has nothing to do with you showing them it or not. They will like what they like and not like what they do not like.
Exactly, but they can still be influenced by you while growing up and then they will get influenced by others which may or may not undo all that you've taught them. That doesn't mean I give up since their childhood and leave it all up to them (them being the kids and them being the other influencers).
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
Sure, especially if her mother isn't around to influence her. Then, tag, you're it.
That is quite the assumption. Well in my case my wife is a home maker so she is essentially always around. My daughter does in fact love playing whatever her brother and I play. Mostly because she seems to really like playing with her brother. If he was playing in the mud she would jump in. Even if her mother was right there.
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
That's not quite the same though. All kids have some level of imagination when left to their own devices.
Right so how can does what they directly see or do force them into liking or disliking something? Their imaginations are unique and based off of said likes. It also allows them to understand more if they like or dislike something.
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
Exactly, but they can still be influenced by you while growing up and then they will get influenced by others which may or may not undo all that you've taught them. That doesn't mean I give up since their childhood and leave it all up to them (them being the kids and them being the other influencers).
It also doesn't mean that you living in a household with the opposite sex impacts in the slightest which sex they prefer.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet. The interesting thing about software is it can not reproduce, until it can.
-
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
Between you and her mom, I would think she emulates her mom more.
So you want to dismiss all of the other emulation she does which more than likely accounts for over 50% and break it down to 2 specific people that are emulated. On top of that you are going to compare this emulation to data sets which are a rarity in themselves (gay couple raising a child) and make a deduction. Do you know what margin of error means? :rolleyes:
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
The fact that most of the boys in my family emulate their dads and the girls their moms cannot be coincidence since both are equally available.
So you are taking one sample out of 1 to 1.5 billion (families in the world) and making a deduction from your observations. I ask again, do you know what margin of error means?
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
But if the kid grew up watching baseball with the dad and played outside with the dad, they will like it.
Why are you so certain? Maybe the kid hates it. The kid does it because the kid enjoys spending time with their father (or mother.. another example where sex is irrelevant).
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
But until they're old enough to change the way they think
You think a child does not decide what they like and do like? "You will throw this ball and you will like it!" Wow. Must be fun in your household :rolleyes:
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
Different reasons than other married couples or different reasons than each other? :confused: (Pleading the fifth is acceptable.)
Both actually. Her and I have similarities but we definitely have many differences (likely more). Thus, our styles and such do not meld and mash. Why we most certainly influence each other on our styles it is more often than not a negotiation of A vs B rather than A + B = C. I mean to say our desires and styles of each other are accepted. She wants a wall to be painted light brown and it is. But I am going to hang this picture of a mountain. Does not mean I like to have brown walls or that she likes scenic pictures hanging on the wall.
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
Gender typing is a well studied subject and there are countless articles on it. The fact that I see it in my own exte
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
So you want to dismiss all of the other emulation she does which more than likely accounts for over 50% and break it down to 2 specific people that are emulated.
I'm not dismissing all other aspects. I had asked just between the two of her parents, which one do you think she emulates more. I never said kids only emulate their parents. On the contrary, I said the opposite. However, I think even if she does emulate a dog or what-not, your daughter's emulation of her mom, and you, is going to stick much longer than that of the dog.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
You are right. From the way you speak it is highly likely that you and your extended family type cast individuals purely off of their sex type. You may feel good about it but I say shame on you.
When scientific papers say that kids emulate their same-sex parent more, it is not just me and my family, but almost all families. I have nothing to be ashamed of if I'm in the norm. My margin-of-error is insignificant. So it would seem I'm not the outlier here.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
That was not what you said. You said there is no way that she wants to be a puppy.
Potatoe, po-tah-toe. Either way, I don't think she actually wants to be a puppy.
-
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
Sure, especially if her mother isn't around to influence her. Then, tag, you're it.
That is quite the assumption. Well in my case my wife is a home maker so she is essentially always around. My daughter does in fact love playing whatever her brother and I play. Mostly because she seems to really like playing with her brother. If he was playing in the mud she would jump in. Even if her mother was right there.
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
That's not quite the same though. All kids have some level of imagination when left to their own devices.
Right so how can does what they directly see or do force them into liking or disliking something? Their imaginations are unique and based off of said likes. It also allows them to understand more if they like or dislike something.
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
Exactly, but they can still be influenced by you while growing up and then they will get influenced by others which may or may not undo all that you've taught them. That doesn't mean I give up since their childhood and leave it all up to them (them being the kids and them being the other influencers).
It also doesn't mean that you living in a household with the opposite sex impacts in the slightest which sex they prefer.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet. The interesting thing about software is it can not reproduce, until it can.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
It also doesn't mean that you living in a household with the opposite sex impacts in the slightest which sex they prefer.
What's the margin of error on that? Where's the proof, the data, the statistics, the published scientific papers that attest to this?
-
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
So you want to dismiss all of the other emulation she does which more than likely accounts for over 50% and break it down to 2 specific people that are emulated.
I'm not dismissing all other aspects. I had asked just between the two of her parents, which one do you think she emulates more. I never said kids only emulate their parents. On the contrary, I said the opposite. However, I think even if she does emulate a dog or what-not, your daughter's emulation of her mom, and you, is going to stick much longer than that of the dog.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
You are right. From the way you speak it is highly likely that you and your extended family type cast individuals purely off of their sex type. You may feel good about it but I say shame on you.
When scientific papers say that kids emulate their same-sex parent more, it is not just me and my family, but almost all families. I have nothing to be ashamed of if I'm in the norm. My margin-of-error is insignificant. So it would seem I'm not the outlier here.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
That was not what you said. You said there is no way that she wants to be a puppy.
Potatoe, po-tah-toe. Either way, I don't think she actually wants to be a puppy.
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
I'm not dismissing all other aspects. I had asked just between the two of her parents, which one do you think she emulates more. I never said kids only emulate their parents.
ANd I have no idea because both values are a fraction out of the whole emulation. That's the point. So lets say you are right and she emulate her mother twice that of me. If out of all emulation she emulates me 1% that means she emulates her mother 2%. Hardly meaningful. Maybe she is emulating the dog 10%. That does not mean she will become a dog, own a dog when she is older, fall in love with dogs to the point of bestiality, nor does it mean she will not own a cat.
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
However, I think even if she does emulate a dog or what-not, your daughter's emulation of her mom, and you, is going to stick much longer than that of the dog.
It seems you do not actually observe toddlers much. I have seen many toddlers (not just my own, in fact I recall playing similar games) emulate dogs and cats for hours on end. Don't see too many kids emulate anything about their parents for the long of a stretch. So yeah, I say that is a BS guess and not even back-able by any data. Go ahead and prove me wrong and find resources backing your claim.
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
When scientific papers say that kids emulate their same-sex parent more
Reference? Also, them emulating the same sex parent does not mean they are not gay. Nor does it mean they are gay if they emulate the other sex. That is a subset of data that must be compiled out of this data which you are claiming but not yet referenced.
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
I have nothing to be ashamed of if I'm in the norm. My margin-of-error is insignificant. So it would seem I'm not the outlier here.
Your error is in the fact you make deductions from data that don't make since. Even if what you claim is true that has nothing to do with sexual preference. My mother prefers salty snacks and my father prefers sweet snacks. I have no idea who I emulated more, but for the sake of argument lets say I emulated my father more. Today I am open and no for certain I prefer salty snacks more. How can this be!? I emulated my father more!!
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so h
-
Im_no_troll wrote:
When I point out a contrast, even if it's a small sample, it still goes to show that the point being made is absolutely not a fact.
On top of that there are numerous cases of a straight couple raising a gay child... I guess that data is conveniently ignored :rolleyes:
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet. The interesting thing about software is it can not reproduce, until it can.
-
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
It also doesn't mean that you living in a household with the opposite sex impacts in the slightest which sex they prefer.
What's the margin of error on that? Where's the proof, the data, the statistics, the published scientific papers that attest to this?
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
What's the margin of error on that? Where's the proof, the data, the statistics, the published scientific papers that attest to this?
You have made the claim that it impacts it. You need data. The point of this is about rights of people. You want something oppressed or out of sight because it violates your opinion on what is standard or right and wrong. Until you provide data it is simply that, an opinion.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet. The interesting thing about software is it can not reproduce, until it can.
-
It was a ... joke. Derived from the joke "Racism is like niggers, should not exist"... That apart, I am completely backing you up and I fundamentally disagree with Bassam. I am even surprised to have this kind of dark age mentality still going round nowadays, but, well, everyone may think what they fancy, as long as their resulting acts do not mean harm for others.
~RaGE();
I think words like 'destiny' are a way of trying to find order where none exists. - Christian Graus Do not feed the troll ! - Common proverb