That's not "sophistry" my dude, it is a basic correction about a misunderstanding of congeniality on this post lmao, and it is not irrelevant either. The number of people who say they are left-handed have increased TREMENDOUSLY, so did the number of autists and many people with learning disorders. All the obvious of them being identified…
That's not "sophistry" my dude, it is a basic correction about a misunderstanding of congeniality on this post lmao, and it is not irrelevant either. The number of people who say they are left-handed have increased TREMENDOUSLY, so did the number of autists and many people with learning disorders. All the obvious of them being identified (by themselves or others) more now than before. It is the more soft (easier to blend or not notice, better hide from a cost/effective) forms of autism that have "increased" similarly it is the bisexuals (who had the better chance of blend) who increased the most, not the gays. This applies too to the ones that were barely known or talked about until recently so they/we wouldn't notice them like the trans. Again, an increase in people calling themselves a thing or being recognise as a thing =/= an increase in that thing in itself. We usually think of the sexual orientation as being the attraction and feelings, not the identity. For evidence that this is pretty consistent with the past: it is fairly common for sexologists to observe self identified "straights" who have engaged in significant amounts of homosexual sex and enjoyed it, as well as those who deny attraction yet show quite pronounced sexual arousal at same sex erotica when measured with objective instruments etc. This is also true about gender dysphoria (many people seem to experience it, even if the distinct IDENTITY isn't there) Mind you, this is quite intuitive for most LGBT people, the resentment over there being a bunch of bisexuals among the straights (cause they fuck the gays occasionally and call themselves straights) as well as a general distrust of bisexuals as being duplicious and so on is a notorious "problematic" meme among gays. The idea that as much of 20% of people experience non heterosexual attraction to some level or at some point would be quite consistent with our research on sexual arousal of people decades ago, there isn't any need to suggest that people have become more lgb (per sexual attraction and arousal, not sexual identity) recently.
You spent an awful lot of words to say that you didn't read the post carefully. Caplan directly addresses your fallacious point about people coming out of the closet. This data comes from a diverse pool of ages/generations. Regardless of whether some 70 year old was gay and repressed back in the 50s, 60s, 70s, he is clearly not repressed TODAY. Nothing would stop him from truthfully answering an ANONYMOUS survey TODAY. This is NOT a time series. It is a contemporary snapshot.
While trans and non-binary are relatively new concepts, the concepts of gay, lesbian, and bisexual are ancient. People in the Traditional generation certainly knew what they were. They could certainly identify or not identify with them based on their own feelings and experiences.
You also argued my point for me. I said that Bisexual was over-estimated because of ambiguity in what Bisexual means. Many survey participants might respond Bisexual merely because they have had sex with both genders and not because of how they identify themselves. I'm familiar with a LOT of women from college who had sex with female friends but they are ENTIRELY heterosexual. It was an experimentation and friendship intimacy thing, not a sexual orientation.
You also fallaciously attempt to pump up representation of fringe sexual classes by claiming many people have had mere THOUGHTS about homosexual sex. Me having a momentary and fleeting sexual attraction to a drop-dead gorgeous, six-foot tall, perfectly proportioned fourteen year old, post-pubescent girl doesn't make me a pedophile; it simply makes me a heterosexual male with natural attraction to certain female forms. It is my human self-discipline and moral sentiment that keeps me from acting on any urges I have. So no, momentarily thinking about gay sex does NOT make you gay, bi, or whatever. Thinking about physically harming someone doesn't make me a murderer or a threat to them.
Unlike Caplan, you are a political hack starting with a pre-determined conclusion and then working backward to justify it. Since Caplan made statements-against-interest in his post, he has revealed himself as having intellectual honesty.
Chil, dude. You dont even know me to conclude all of that. I know he addresses it, I just disagree with him
You are right that thinking about killing people dont make you a murder, murdering is about the act, not the thought. But if you get off on the idea you might be called a "sadist". It is strange that you come up with this silly example then fully understand that having had gay sex once might not mean you are non-straight. I didnt say "had a thought" I said "experienced sexual arousal at the same sex". Indeed, having being attracted to post pubescent teen doesnt make you a pedo lol, but being aroused by a a pre-pubescent one might. In fact, research on offending samples of pedophiles take as a given that measuring (checking how hard someone's peepee get and shit like that) arousal to pedo stimuli (such as seen a LITTLE GIRL or LITTLE BOY or being told stories in the form of pedophilic erotica or in some dubiously ethical ones straight up being showed child porn) gives you an accurate picture of whether or not someone is a pedo, they do this specifically cause pedos won't admit. That's the type of thing I had in mind as well as ACTUAL AROUSAL at the thought of a same sex person as self reported by the person "have you ever felt sexually attracted by an actual adult of the same sex" if the answer is YES than you ain't fully straight by the most strict definition of the word that many zoomers accept. This may be true of as much as 20% of people. And if you show LITERAL GAY PORN to men and try to measure their physiological sexual arousal materially by erections and all (again, the typical method to define who is kinda lying about it when it comes to pedos) you get many self ID straight man HORNY FOR IT. This is considered by many bisexuality and a person like this gets to identify as bisexual. It may as well be true that ZOOMERS and MILLENIALS who identify as bisexual ARE LIKE THIS. If you gonna claim the word doesnt apply, fine. But that's the threshold that gets you the label for them. Again, I am arguing that there is no need to state that the qualia of same sex attraction has been intensified in any way to explain this. If you gonna argue that the people I described ain't really bisexual because that's not what it means or whatever than sure, fine, what I was arguing was that one does need to postulate any change in patterns of attraction to explain this, if zoomers think this counts as bisexual, then they may call themselves that based on it. Simple as. If you agree that there haven't change to qualia than or disagreement is semantic and in my opinion uninteresting. Use words the way you please. If you think the self ID straight man who gets horny at gay porn is straight than call it that, whatever.
And for me being "a political hack" having a "working backwardson a pre-determined conclusion" for the first: im a random anon in a comment section, not the local pundit (or as the kids say: sir, this is a wendy's) for the second: this is precisely what I predicted, I didnt work backwards to a conclusion. My hypothesis has been that the qualia of sexual orientation is stable and that the true rate of homosexuality is about 2-5% and that bisexuality (per the above definition)is is much higher, maybe as much as 20%. That was my ACTUAL hypothesis years ago, "gay identification is going to stay under 5% but bisexual will go very much up" I came to this conclusion based on seeing research on sexual orientation of many kinds and well as having an 101 on the orthodoxy of the field. If gay identification had gone above 10% (or if ever does without straights being literally bullied into the closet in a bizarre kinda of reversed society) I would/will CONSIDER MYSELF DISPROVED. Pretty simple. Just like Caplan, I won my bet (I didnt bet in any shit but if I had I would have won). This my understanding of sexuality, its etiology and so on. It is fairly in accord with the orthodoxy at the field of empirical research on sexual orientation lol.
Yeah, I actually do know all that about you. You literally put yourself out there in your comments. It's like a tall, black, elderly woman posting her photo on the internet and then claiming other people don't know she is a tall, black, elderly woman.
Everything you are saying here is just mental masturbation that has NOTHING to do with the methodology and results of this research.
Ron: "San Diego is ancient greek for 'a whale's vagina.'"
Veronica: "Actually, it is Spanish for 'Saint Diego.'"
Ron: "Let's agree to disagree."
You're wrong. Plainly wrong. You still can't grasp the methodology even after Caplan and I both explained it to you. You don't get to disagree with it. You're not entitled to your own facts.
till now I assumed you were just a midwit who uses the word "fallacious" incorrectly every other sentence and somehow brings that time you were horny for a tween into unrelated conversations because reasons but then I read some of the shit you said to others here and "How can I determine this over the internet? Your writing demonstrates you are too normal and thoughtful to be part of a supremely aberrant class fixated on their identity and sexual activity" Dude you are also insane and not just a moron omg😭😭😭
First, the number of times I use the word "fallacy" is equal to the number of times you and others make fallacious arguments.
Second, my statement about the young woman was not "unrelated." It was an ANALOGY.
These two points lead directly to the term George Orwell wrote to describe you perfectly:
"Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."
You seem to think you are capable of extraordinary mind-reading when it comes to me to the point of knowing for certain that what im saying is the result of me deeply afraid of crimethink or whatever instead of merely what I think my position is reasonable based on a relatively sincere engagement with the evidence and arguments I have seen (even if you think im wrong). I think to come to this conclusion you'd have to have a model of what I think, right? I mean, how could you be so sure that Im deeply attached to my conclusion that I would refuse to genuinely attempt to think about it? I must have some ideological prior, right? So what is it? What do you think I believe in general about stuff, what are my ideologies, my beliefs and so on. No vague remarks about "sophism" or "crimethink" and not the the beliefs I already explictly exposed, such as the belief in the "born this way" view of sexual orientation. What do I believe? Tell me.
I've already explained this to you. You publicly broadcast who you are and what you think. me merely saying what you already said does not require me to read your mind. You are transparent.
You literally accused me of inappropriately using the word "fallacy" and you criticized my use of an analogy as irrelevant. Your denial of obvious logical errors and refusal to grasp analogies is EXACTLY how Orwell defined Crimestop.
If you show all the signs of schizophrenia, you are a schizophrenic.
If you show all the signs of Crimestop, then you are using protective stupidity.
"Sophism" isn't vague. It refers directly to someone who makes fallacious arguments to convince lightly-thinking minds to accept your conclusions. But I'm school trained and educated to spot logical fallacies. I taught about logical fallacies as a professor in three flagship state universities (U. Illinois, U. Kentucky, U. Cal Berkeley).
Your ideological priors are irrelevant when you pervasively use fallacious arguments. I've explained to you each and every argument you made that was fallacious. You simply are either not smart enough, not educated enough, or in too much denial to recognize your own use of fallacies.
Caplan directly addressed your criticisms. You simply don't understand his methodology, and you don't WANT to understand it. That's Crimestop.
You're just going to go on and on babbling nonsense and taking offense like a Duckspeaker, so you're dismissed.
Insteresting that you think you are capable of knowing someone is straight or (rather, not member of the "supremely aberrant class") based on their arguments but cant infer anything about me beyond me engaging in "crimestop" (which apparently you aint so sure anymore cause now I could just be dumb or uneducated) lol
Anyways, you assume someone doesnt know what an analogy is because they didnt find yours valid? Im so sorry for your alumni. Again: a post-pubescent fourteen year old is not a child, so indeed, not a pedo since thats not the protytypical object of attraction of pedos, I agree, but my examples DID involved the prototypical object of attraction of a homosexual/bisexual person.
I went through great lenghts of intellectul charity here, which I value a lot. I seriously attempted to define terms and ask you about your definitions, what you think have and havent changed and so on but you never did it. You never clarified clearly what you even think in the first place. You never bothered to even DEFINE what bisexuality is, you never bother to state clearly what you think happened or didnt happened to the phenomena I describe (like qualias of sexual attraction) and why you think what you do.
Caplan didnt "directly" (sic) "adressed my criticisms" unless he talked about the hypothesis of non-genetic, non-social causes of homosexuality as well as examinations of non-identity based measures of sexual arousal and I, somehow, missed it. This is fine, after all, Caplan didnt respond to my comment, you are the one who did and I am talking to you.
You say you taught logic yet you refuse to the most basic of providing definitions in clear manner. Again, my point was an empirical one about certain patterns of arousal not having changed (or at least there being good reasons to believe so) I provided evidence to why I believe so, you never explained if you even disagree with it. And yes, you provided counter-arguments, but most of them are to strawmen versions of what I believe (which I further clarified). You never engaged with what I actually believe (you say "mere thoughts" when i talked about actual arousal to homosexual stimuli stimuli an analogy involving a non-prototypical example to my examples involving a prototypical ones).
Anyways, this conversation is both dependent on empirical as well as semantic grounds. I tried to lay down some evidence for some of them (behavioural, self-identification, self-report of arousal, physical measures of arousal) some distinct semantic definitions and so on. Whenever someone is having a "does a three that fell makes a sound" discussion, it is nice, for clarity and truth-seeking, to state definitions, and if the discussion may even be more like "did the three feel in the first place? Did someone was there? If someone wasnt there, did it make a sound?" then we definitely need to state clear definitions and then try to argue about those and the empirical facts as clearly as possible.
You claimed I didnt engage with your counterarguments, when in fact, thats what YOU did. Many times you could have defined stuff, made clear your disagreements and so on but you never did. It wasnt even clear what exactly our empirical and semantic differences are because you were more worried with screaming "CRIMETHINK! SOPHISM!" like a midwit teenager who just read Orwell than trying to make clear arguments.
Have you noticed how you never bothered to respond to my clarifications on your non-prototypical analogy or how you misunderstood my point about arousal, and when clarified, you ignored it? Have you noticed how you never gave a clear definition of bisexuality, what related concepts you think changed and which didnt and why? Have you noticed how I referenced a fairly standard measure of sexual attraction that is said to be greatly immune to social desirability bias(!!!!!) and you seemed, somehow, completely uninterested in this? But yeah Mr professor of logic, im the "crimestop" person here, sure. Im seriously sorry for everyone who studied under you and had to suck up to you by making bad arguments to get a passing grade in your classes because you are too much of a dumbass to actually engage with complex arguments without thinking you are dealing with a basic syllogism.
>I'm familiar with a LOT of women from college who had sex with female friends but they are ENTIRELY heterosexual.
No, they're not, if the sex was consensual and pleasant for the woman you're referring to. That's what sexual orientation *is*. There's nothing deeper or more complicated about it. In a person whose primary sexuality is heterosexual, responding positively to any homosexual experience, or having any sort of homosexual desire, makes them bisexual, at least at the time the experience or desire is occurring.
I've phrased this in formal and somewhat medicalized terms, which I don't particularly like, to avoid using faddish or politically loaded language.
That's not "sophistry" my dude, it is a basic correction about a misunderstanding of congeniality on this post lmao, and it is not irrelevant either. The number of people who say they are left-handed have increased TREMENDOUSLY, so did the number of autists and many people with learning disorders. All the obvious of them being identified (by themselves or others) more now than before. It is the more soft (easier to blend or not notice, better hide from a cost/effective) forms of autism that have "increased" similarly it is the bisexuals (who had the better chance of blend) who increased the most, not the gays. This applies too to the ones that were barely known or talked about until recently so they/we wouldn't notice them like the trans. Again, an increase in people calling themselves a thing or being recognise as a thing =/= an increase in that thing in itself. We usually think of the sexual orientation as being the attraction and feelings, not the identity. For evidence that this is pretty consistent with the past: it is fairly common for sexologists to observe self identified "straights" who have engaged in significant amounts of homosexual sex and enjoyed it, as well as those who deny attraction yet show quite pronounced sexual arousal at same sex erotica when measured with objective instruments etc. This is also true about gender dysphoria (many people seem to experience it, even if the distinct IDENTITY isn't there) Mind you, this is quite intuitive for most LGBT people, the resentment over there being a bunch of bisexuals among the straights (cause they fuck the gays occasionally and call themselves straights) as well as a general distrust of bisexuals as being duplicious and so on is a notorious "problematic" meme among gays. The idea that as much of 20% of people experience non heterosexual attraction to some level or at some point would be quite consistent with our research on sexual arousal of people decades ago, there isn't any need to suggest that people have become more lgb (per sexual attraction and arousal, not sexual identity) recently.
You spent an awful lot of words to say that you didn't read the post carefully. Caplan directly addresses your fallacious point about people coming out of the closet. This data comes from a diverse pool of ages/generations. Regardless of whether some 70 year old was gay and repressed back in the 50s, 60s, 70s, he is clearly not repressed TODAY. Nothing would stop him from truthfully answering an ANONYMOUS survey TODAY. This is NOT a time series. It is a contemporary snapshot.
While trans and non-binary are relatively new concepts, the concepts of gay, lesbian, and bisexual are ancient. People in the Traditional generation certainly knew what they were. They could certainly identify or not identify with them based on their own feelings and experiences.
You also argued my point for me. I said that Bisexual was over-estimated because of ambiguity in what Bisexual means. Many survey participants might respond Bisexual merely because they have had sex with both genders and not because of how they identify themselves. I'm familiar with a LOT of women from college who had sex with female friends but they are ENTIRELY heterosexual. It was an experimentation and friendship intimacy thing, not a sexual orientation.
You also fallaciously attempt to pump up representation of fringe sexual classes by claiming many people have had mere THOUGHTS about homosexual sex. Me having a momentary and fleeting sexual attraction to a drop-dead gorgeous, six-foot tall, perfectly proportioned fourteen year old, post-pubescent girl doesn't make me a pedophile; it simply makes me a heterosexual male with natural attraction to certain female forms. It is my human self-discipline and moral sentiment that keeps me from acting on any urges I have. So no, momentarily thinking about gay sex does NOT make you gay, bi, or whatever. Thinking about physically harming someone doesn't make me a murderer or a threat to them.
Unlike Caplan, you are a political hack starting with a pre-determined conclusion and then working backward to justify it. Since Caplan made statements-against-interest in his post, he has revealed himself as having intellectual honesty.
Chil, dude. You dont even know me to conclude all of that. I know he addresses it, I just disagree with him
You are right that thinking about killing people dont make you a murder, murdering is about the act, not the thought. But if you get off on the idea you might be called a "sadist". It is strange that you come up with this silly example then fully understand that having had gay sex once might not mean you are non-straight. I didnt say "had a thought" I said "experienced sexual arousal at the same sex". Indeed, having being attracted to post pubescent teen doesnt make you a pedo lol, but being aroused by a a pre-pubescent one might. In fact, research on offending samples of pedophiles take as a given that measuring (checking how hard someone's peepee get and shit like that) arousal to pedo stimuli (such as seen a LITTLE GIRL or LITTLE BOY or being told stories in the form of pedophilic erotica or in some dubiously ethical ones straight up being showed child porn) gives you an accurate picture of whether or not someone is a pedo, they do this specifically cause pedos won't admit. That's the type of thing I had in mind as well as ACTUAL AROUSAL at the thought of a same sex person as self reported by the person "have you ever felt sexually attracted by an actual adult of the same sex" if the answer is YES than you ain't fully straight by the most strict definition of the word that many zoomers accept. This may be true of as much as 20% of people. And if you show LITERAL GAY PORN to men and try to measure their physiological sexual arousal materially by erections and all (again, the typical method to define who is kinda lying about it when it comes to pedos) you get many self ID straight man HORNY FOR IT. This is considered by many bisexuality and a person like this gets to identify as bisexual. It may as well be true that ZOOMERS and MILLENIALS who identify as bisexual ARE LIKE THIS. If you gonna claim the word doesnt apply, fine. But that's the threshold that gets you the label for them. Again, I am arguing that there is no need to state that the qualia of same sex attraction has been intensified in any way to explain this. If you gonna argue that the people I described ain't really bisexual because that's not what it means or whatever than sure, fine, what I was arguing was that one does need to postulate any change in patterns of attraction to explain this, if zoomers think this counts as bisexual, then they may call themselves that based on it. Simple as. If you agree that there haven't change to qualia than or disagreement is semantic and in my opinion uninteresting. Use words the way you please. If you think the self ID straight man who gets horny at gay porn is straight than call it that, whatever.
And for me being "a political hack" having a "working backwardson a pre-determined conclusion" for the first: im a random anon in a comment section, not the local pundit (or as the kids say: sir, this is a wendy's) for the second: this is precisely what I predicted, I didnt work backwards to a conclusion. My hypothesis has been that the qualia of sexual orientation is stable and that the true rate of homosexuality is about 2-5% and that bisexuality (per the above definition)is is much higher, maybe as much as 20%. That was my ACTUAL hypothesis years ago, "gay identification is going to stay under 5% but bisexual will go very much up" I came to this conclusion based on seeing research on sexual orientation of many kinds and well as having an 101 on the orthodoxy of the field. If gay identification had gone above 10% (or if ever does without straights being literally bullied into the closet in a bizarre kinda of reversed society) I would/will CONSIDER MYSELF DISPROVED. Pretty simple. Just like Caplan, I won my bet (I didnt bet in any shit but if I had I would have won). This my understanding of sexuality, its etiology and so on. It is fairly in accord with the orthodoxy at the field of empirical research on sexual orientation lol.
Yeah, I actually do know all that about you. You literally put yourself out there in your comments. It's like a tall, black, elderly woman posting her photo on the internet and then claiming other people don't know she is a tall, black, elderly woman.
Everything you are saying here is just mental masturbation that has NOTHING to do with the methodology and results of this research.
Ron: "San Diego is ancient greek for 'a whale's vagina.'"
Veronica: "Actually, it is Spanish for 'Saint Diego.'"
Ron: "Let's agree to disagree."
You're wrong. Plainly wrong. You still can't grasp the methodology even after Caplan and I both explained it to you. You don't get to disagree with it. You're not entitled to your own facts.
till now I assumed you were just a midwit who uses the word "fallacious" incorrectly every other sentence and somehow brings that time you were horny for a tween into unrelated conversations because reasons but then I read some of the shit you said to others here and "How can I determine this over the internet? Your writing demonstrates you are too normal and thoughtful to be part of a supremely aberrant class fixated on their identity and sexual activity" Dude you are also insane and not just a moron omg😭😭😭
The comedy writes itself.
First, the number of times I use the word "fallacy" is equal to the number of times you and others make fallacious arguments.
Second, my statement about the young woman was not "unrelated." It was an ANALOGY.
These two points lead directly to the term George Orwell wrote to describe you perfectly:
"Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."
You seem to think you are capable of extraordinary mind-reading when it comes to me to the point of knowing for certain that what im saying is the result of me deeply afraid of crimethink or whatever instead of merely what I think my position is reasonable based on a relatively sincere engagement with the evidence and arguments I have seen (even if you think im wrong). I think to come to this conclusion you'd have to have a model of what I think, right? I mean, how could you be so sure that Im deeply attached to my conclusion that I would refuse to genuinely attempt to think about it? I must have some ideological prior, right? So what is it? What do you think I believe in general about stuff, what are my ideologies, my beliefs and so on. No vague remarks about "sophism" or "crimethink" and not the the beliefs I already explictly exposed, such as the belief in the "born this way" view of sexual orientation. What do I believe? Tell me.
I've already explained this to you. You publicly broadcast who you are and what you think. me merely saying what you already said does not require me to read your mind. You are transparent.
You literally accused me of inappropriately using the word "fallacy" and you criticized my use of an analogy as irrelevant. Your denial of obvious logical errors and refusal to grasp analogies is EXACTLY how Orwell defined Crimestop.
If you show all the signs of schizophrenia, you are a schizophrenic.
If you show all the signs of Crimestop, then you are using protective stupidity.
"Sophism" isn't vague. It refers directly to someone who makes fallacious arguments to convince lightly-thinking minds to accept your conclusions. But I'm school trained and educated to spot logical fallacies. I taught about logical fallacies as a professor in three flagship state universities (U. Illinois, U. Kentucky, U. Cal Berkeley).
Your ideological priors are irrelevant when you pervasively use fallacious arguments. I've explained to you each and every argument you made that was fallacious. You simply are either not smart enough, not educated enough, or in too much denial to recognize your own use of fallacies.
Caplan directly addressed your criticisms. You simply don't understand his methodology, and you don't WANT to understand it. That's Crimestop.
You're just going to go on and on babbling nonsense and taking offense like a Duckspeaker, so you're dismissed.
Insteresting that you think you are capable of knowing someone is straight or (rather, not member of the "supremely aberrant class") based on their arguments but cant infer anything about me beyond me engaging in "crimestop" (which apparently you aint so sure anymore cause now I could just be dumb or uneducated) lol
Anyways, you assume someone doesnt know what an analogy is because they didnt find yours valid? Im so sorry for your alumni. Again: a post-pubescent fourteen year old is not a child, so indeed, not a pedo since thats not the protytypical object of attraction of pedos, I agree, but my examples DID involved the prototypical object of attraction of a homosexual/bisexual person.
I went through great lenghts of intellectul charity here, which I value a lot. I seriously attempted to define terms and ask you about your definitions, what you think have and havent changed and so on but you never did it. You never clarified clearly what you even think in the first place. You never bothered to even DEFINE what bisexuality is, you never bother to state clearly what you think happened or didnt happened to the phenomena I describe (like qualias of sexual attraction) and why you think what you do.
Caplan didnt "directly" (sic) "adressed my criticisms" unless he talked about the hypothesis of non-genetic, non-social causes of homosexuality as well as examinations of non-identity based measures of sexual arousal and I, somehow, missed it. This is fine, after all, Caplan didnt respond to my comment, you are the one who did and I am talking to you.
You say you taught logic yet you refuse to the most basic of providing definitions in clear manner. Again, my point was an empirical one about certain patterns of arousal not having changed (or at least there being good reasons to believe so) I provided evidence to why I believe so, you never explained if you even disagree with it. And yes, you provided counter-arguments, but most of them are to strawmen versions of what I believe (which I further clarified). You never engaged with what I actually believe (you say "mere thoughts" when i talked about actual arousal to homosexual stimuli stimuli an analogy involving a non-prototypical example to my examples involving a prototypical ones).
Anyways, this conversation is both dependent on empirical as well as semantic grounds. I tried to lay down some evidence for some of them (behavioural, self-identification, self-report of arousal, physical measures of arousal) some distinct semantic definitions and so on. Whenever someone is having a "does a three that fell makes a sound" discussion, it is nice, for clarity and truth-seeking, to state definitions, and if the discussion may even be more like "did the three feel in the first place? Did someone was there? If someone wasnt there, did it make a sound?" then we definitely need to state clear definitions and then try to argue about those and the empirical facts as clearly as possible.
You claimed I didnt engage with your counterarguments, when in fact, thats what YOU did. Many times you could have defined stuff, made clear your disagreements and so on but you never did. It wasnt even clear what exactly our empirical and semantic differences are because you were more worried with screaming "CRIMETHINK! SOPHISM!" like a midwit teenager who just read Orwell than trying to make clear arguments.
Have you noticed how you never bothered to respond to my clarifications on your non-prototypical analogy or how you misunderstood my point about arousal, and when clarified, you ignored it? Have you noticed how you never gave a clear definition of bisexuality, what related concepts you think changed and which didnt and why? Have you noticed how I referenced a fairly standard measure of sexual attraction that is said to be greatly immune to social desirability bias(!!!!!) and you seemed, somehow, completely uninterested in this? But yeah Mr professor of logic, im the "crimestop" person here, sure. Im seriously sorry for everyone who studied under you and had to suck up to you by making bad arguments to get a passing grade in your classes because you are too much of a dumbass to actually engage with complex arguments without thinking you are dealing with a basic syllogism.
Saint James
>I'm familiar with a LOT of women from college who had sex with female friends but they are ENTIRELY heterosexual.
No, they're not, if the sex was consensual and pleasant for the woman you're referring to. That's what sexual orientation *is*. There's nothing deeper or more complicated about it. In a person whose primary sexuality is heterosexual, responding positively to any homosexual experience, or having any sort of homosexual desire, makes them bisexual, at least at the time the experience or desire is occurring.
I've phrased this in formal and somewhat medicalized terms, which I don't particularly like, to avoid using faddish or politically loaded language.
By the way, I resemble this remark.