Why Homosexuality MUST Be Recriminalized! Part 7

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
Oh dear, reduced to pedantry already?

I'll alter my quote to take that into account:

How do you "know" that an accuser is telling the truth or not telling the truth? You say it's very easy to know by inference.

Explain how.

Once again, let me know if you ever get around to actually reading what I wrote. So far, you've not dealt with it.
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
Once again, let me know if you ever get around to actually reading what I wrote. So far, you've not dealt with it.
Nah. You either explain this bit of word salad or don't:

When you know that what an accuser is telling is the truth, it's very easy to know by inference therefrom that he/she is telling the truth.

When you know that what an accuser is telling is not the truth, it's very easy to know by inference therefrom that he/she is not telling the truth.


Let's face it, you won't.
 

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank

OK, so you flat out refuse to actually read and try to deal with what I wrote. Very well. Like a child, you're capable of figuring out how to quote what I wrote, yet unlike an adult, you are incapable of actually reading and trying to deal with the very content you've quoted.

You either explain this bit of word salad or don't:

When you know that what an accuser is telling is the truth, it's very easy to know by inference therefrom that he/she is telling the truth.

When you know that what an accuser is telling is not the truth, it's very easy to know by inference therefrom that he/she is not telling the truth.


Let's face it, you won't.

LOL @ Play-Doh asking Plato to explain something as elementary as what Play-Doh has not even read and is chagrinedly calling "word salad".

You first actually read what I wrote, and then if you have an actual question about it, I'll be more than happy to explain it to you.

Let's face it, you won't.
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
OK, so you flat out refuse to actually read and try to deal with what I wrote. Very well. Like a child, you're capable of figuring out how to quote what I wrote, yet unlike an adult, you are incapable of actually reading and trying to deal with the very content you've quoted.



LOL @ Play-Doh asking Plato to explain something as elementary as what Play-Doh has not even read and is chagrinedly calling "word salad".

You first actually read what I wrote, and then if you have an actual question about it, I'll be more than happy to explain it to you.

Let's face it, you won't.
So, as predicted, you can't even explain your own post.

Let me clue you in. It's not always easy to ascertain whether someone is being truthful or not so your inference stuff is just garbage. Someone could be telling you the truth about a certain matter and be highly convincing. Someone could also be lying to you regarding the same and also be highly convincing. Sometimes, the reverse and gradients within can also come into play. Are you familiar with the importance of body language, tone/intonation of voice, expressiveness, gestures/signals etc?

Now, if you want to delve further into this on an adult level then I'm up for it. If you wanna continue with this lame as play doh stuff then nah. Your call.
 

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
How do you "know" that an accuser is telling the truth or not telling the truth? You say it's very easy to know by inference.

Explain how.

What a stupid question.🤣

Every accuser is telling the truth or not telling the truth. Do you disagree? So, as long as you know that so and so is an accuser, you can easily know by inference that he/she is telling the truth or not telling the truth. Duh!

But you needed to have that explained to you!🤣🤣🤣

Unfortunately for you, your question is not about what I actually wrote, and which you've thus far refused to read.
 
Last edited:

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
So, as predicted, you can't even explain your own post.

Let me clue you in. It's not always easy to ascertain whether someone is being truthful or not so your inference stuff is just garbage. Someone could be telling you the truth about a certain matter and be highly convincing. Someone could also be lying to you regarding the same and also be highly convincing. Sometimes, the reverse and gradients within can also come into play. Are you familiar with the importance of body language, tone/intonation of voice, expressiveness, gestures/signals etc?

Now, if you want to delve further into this on an adult level then I'm up for it. If you wanna continue with this lame as play doh stuff then nah. Your call.

Like I said, Play-Doh, first go and actually read what I wrote, and after you've done so, if you actually ask me a question about it, I'll be happy to answer it.😀

The ball's in your court.🏀👨‍🦼
 

Idolater

"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
Plenty of folk are just gay Idolater.
I nEvEr argued that. Of course they are.
If you think there's some psychological cause ...
for it then good look finding it. That line was abandoned in the 70's and with good reason.
100% political and not 100% medical. Partially medical and completely political.
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
I nEvEr argued that. Of course they are.


100% political and not 100% medical. Partially medical and completely political.
There were then and still are now plenty of professionals in the Psychology/Psychiatry ranks who are undecided on this. As you can expect, their voices are not welcome in the public dialogue, among the easily controlled mob.
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
There were then and still are now plenty of professionals in the Psychology/Psychiatry ranks who are undecided on this. As you can expect, their voices are not welcome in the public dialogue, among the easily controlled mob.
A similar dialogue is occurring among the professional ranks regarding pedophilia, which is estimated to be of the order of 6 to 10 times more prevalent than homosexuality
 

annabenedetti

like marbles on glass
That abstract isn't starting out scientifically, it sounds polemical.

The two currently prevailing opinions on the causes and dynamics of homosexuality1 are first, that they are “genetic,” and second, that they are “still unknown, but probably inborn.” Both views have been advocated for some decades now by the proponents of the gay ideology, supported by a stream of like-minded ideas and interpretations in professional periodicals. These views have penetrated everywhere, including the Christian and academic world. They serve as the pseudo-scientific rationale for the successful “discrimination” argument. For there is a strong belief that if some people are just “that way” by their biological makeup, it would be unjust to deny them “equal rights,” and inhumane to expect them to suppress their nature or try to change. By and large, however, we are confronted with a modern mythology masquerading as science.​



Reading on...


Edited to add: There's nothing after the abstract except references (some to his own work).
 
Last edited:

annabenedetti

like marbles on glass
Okay, looked up the author, because reading through this overlong abstract, he sounds very old-school Freud.

And it seems he is. Gerard J.M. van den Aardweg is a psychotherapist, and notably, sits on the board of NARTH. He thinks homosexuality stems, in part, from adolescent self-pity. And it goes downhill from there.
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
He thinks homosexuality stems, in part, from adolescent self-pity.
And apparently you don't?

You don't think that teen experimentation wrt homosexuality could have similar roots as teen suicide? You don't see the similarities between homosexuality and suicide? A destruction of self, the cessation of your genetic line?

"I didn't ask to be born, my parents hate me, I'm going to strike back at them by denying them the thing they want most, my development into a successful adult, the production of grandchildren"
 

Idolater

"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
Last edited:

Idolater

"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
What’s the science? Did you read past the abstract and access the entire paper?
Yes.
From where and how did they produce the sample?
Homosexuals were interviewed.
What was their methodology? Discussion? Limitations?
The percentage of homosexuals who were basically raped when children is far higher, among both men and women, than non-homosexuals. It suggests and is consistent with but does not prove, that such exposure during youth can distort the normal development of the drive to marry and have children.

As the Catechism of the Catholic Church says though:

2357 [Homosexuality's] psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. ...
 

annabenedetti

like marbles on glass
Yes.

Homosexuals were interviewed.

The percentage of homosexuals who were basically raped when children is far higher, among both men and women, than non-homosexuals. It suggests and is consistent with but does not prove, that such exposure during youth can distort the normal development of the drive to marry and have children.

As the Catechism of the Catholic Church says though:

2357 [Homosexuality's] psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. ...
Please provide citations from each section.
 

Idolater

"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
Please provide citations from each section.
I'll do you one better, I found a link with the full study.


"One of the more salient findings of this study is that 46% of homosexual men and 22% of homosexual women reported having been molested by a person of the same gender. This contrasts to only 7% of heterosexual men and 1% of heterosexual women reporting having been molested by a person of the same gender. ..."

I still remind: "2357 [Homosexuality's] psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. ..."
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
What a stupid question.🤣

Every accuser is telling the truth or not telling the truth. Do you disagree? So, as long as you know that so and so is an accuser, you can easily know by inference that he/she is telling the truth or not telling the truth. Duh!

But you needed to have that explained to you!🤣🤣🤣

Unfortunately for you, your question is not about what I actually wrote, and which you've thus far refused to read.
A lot of smileys but no answers again I note. Yes, of course an accuser is either telling the truth or not telling the truth. You claim that you can easily know by inference whether the accuser in question is doing either but won't explain as to how. I've already shown how ascertaining whether someone is being truthful or not is hardly so easy to gauge as you seem to think.

So, once again, do explain how "you can easily know by inference that he/she is telling the truth or not telling the truth".
 
Top