Asexuality

[sylverin]

No, not asexual reproduction. Asexuality is a sexual orientation, albeit in the same way that Atheism is a religious orientation. Asexual people are people that are uninterested in having sex, however, some people of this orientation have sex to only to please their partners. It is not necessarily a distinct difference from being straight or gay. Because you can be straight and still not be interested in sex. Many members of the Asexual community consider themselves genderless, meaning they don't identify themselves as either a man or a woman.

Some quick and somewhat obvious definitions.
Asexual- Not a sexual person.
Aromantic- Not a romantic person.
Demisexual- Isn't especially interested in sex, but doesn't mind it.

Discuss. :D

[Mazhulsage]

This doesn't belong anywhere on this site.

Discuss nothing, pref.

[Mollymog]

No, not asexual reproduction. Asexuality is a sexual orientation, albeit in the same way that Atheism is a religious orientation. Asexual people are people that are uninterested in having sex, however, some people of this orientation have sex to only to please their partners. It is not necessarily a distinct difference from being straight or gay. Because you can be straight and still not be interested in sex. Many members of the Asexual community consider themselves genderless, meaning they don't identify themselves as either a man or a woman.

Some quick and somewhat obvious definitions.
Asexual- Not a sexual person.
Aromantic- Not a romantic person.
Demisexual- Isn't especially interested in sex, but doesn't mind it.

Discuss. :D

No, no discussion. This has nothing, even very peripherally, to do with World of Warcraft.

[sylverin]

This forum is for everything not WoW or Blizzard related.

[Wiglet]

This might be the off-topic forum but this is waaaaaaay off topic.

[semiiramiis]

Not much to discuss, is there? So there are some people who don't have those feelings. (Shrug) Whatever.

[surodat]

Discuss what exactly? You've stated some facts, and then... nothing. The sky is blue. Discuss.

What you are doing, is opening up the floor to a possible hurtful and offensive discussion on personal sexuality. On these grounds I'm reporting this thread and requesting it be closed.

[semiiramiis]

Discuss what exactly? You've stated some facts, and then... nothing. The sky is blue. Discuss.

What you are doing, is opening up the floor to a possible hurtful and offensive discussion on personal sexuality. On these grounds I'm reporting this thread and requesting it be closed.

So far, the forum's response to this thread has been tepid and decidely unhurtful. As long as we're maintaining this level of maturity, I'm going to leave the thread as is. If another moderator decides to remove it at a later time, then that's their perogative.

[Elly]

This topic is fine for this forum. Many topics have the potential to be hurtful and offensive but I'm not going to hold people's hands and filter them out. Everyone (we're all adults here) is given the benefit of doubt to be capable of discussing sensitive or delicate subjects in a civil and respectful manner. One of the mods will have a quiet word with anyone who doesn't.

But to this topic in particular, perhaps Sylverin more than the definition of what it is might have given us food for thought and stimulated a discussion.

I'd think the majority of asexual people are suffering from a hormone imbalance as it's testosterone that drives it. Surely if you have enough of that you'll want to be sexual? Then there are those who have been traumatized in the past but that doesn't necessarily mean they don't get urges, just they can't bring themselves to be intimate. Those who have taken a vow of celibacy, again doesn't mean they don't get the urge, just that they suppress it. Simply boils down to hormones surely.

[TPMdm]

I'll bite:

First a nit pick.... the religious or spiritual analogy isn't really atheist it would be areligious or unspiritual. I first "encountered" asexuality in a discussion about Morrissey and his sexual identity. While I can certainly empathize with people who say they feel no sexual desire I can't say I find it a pleasant alternative. I think we humans have sexuality as a basic part of our nature and missing that isn't.... natural? (I hesitate to use the word normal and abnormal but whatever)

Is this simply a matter of taste and sexual appetite... i.e. everybody likes sex, but what kind, and how much?

[sylverin]

A common misconceptions about Asexual people. Perhaps for some it's a hormone imbalance, but there is too large a sampling for that to be the only case. Around 1 of every 50 people is asexual.

Claim: Asexuals are prudes.
Truth: Most asexuals are aware of sexual interactions, and are in general supportive of others engaging in it, some engage in it themselves to please partners. Compared to the society at large, asexuals often talk more openly about sex and sexual interactions simply because assumed cultural narratives can have very real consequences for an asexual. Compare this to a society at large that has issues with vaccinating a cancer for fearing of admitting that sexual people may have sex, and it is hard to argue that asexuals are MORE sex phobic than the society at large on average.


Claim: Asexuals are closeted queers.
Truth: Well, leaving aside the reality of homoromantic asexuals who are dating or married to homosexual or homoromantic partners, it's also a traditional life step in most asexuals coming of age to assume that they are gay at one time or another. Many young asexuals assume that their lack of attraction towards the opposite sex means that they are repressing a desire towards the same sex and many very carefully examine this possibility even going so far as to attempt sexual activity with a same-sex partner. Again, more asexuals are open to the notion than the mass hordes of lying, lying "straight" people. (Experimentation my bum)


Claim: Asexuals are disturbed, medically broken, abused, coming off abusive relationships

Truth: Again, no more than straight people and no study has been able to demonstrate more than loose correlations to mental disorders or trauma. Many asexuals had remarkably stable and loving upbringings and furthermore, these are the same arguments that were made against queers sixty years ago. Or independent women a hundred years ago.


Claim: Asexuals like to **** sheep, attracted to children, etc...
Truth: No. Sorry, it doesn't really deserve much more of a response than dismissive chortling.


Claim: Asexuals are not fulfilling their proper roles
Truth: There are no "proper" roles for men and women. Sex is not a requirement entered unwillingly because sex is not a bad job, it's something sexual people do for fun. Making it otherwise is an offense against sexual people.


Claim: Asexuals are lonely, bitter people who can't love or will become sex-repressed sociopaths (just see Catholic priests), etc...
Truth: Asexuality is a sexual orientation not a repression of a natural desire. There is no there to repress. Further more, most asexuals find great comfort in friends and family and a number form romantic relationships as well that are full of just as much love as a sexual romantic relationship.


Claim: Asexuals can't feel love
Truth: Love and lust are disparate concepts that are not always shared. Just as you can lust after someone you don't love, so can you love someone you don't lust after. Asexuals are merely the proof of that rule.


Claim: Asexuals are just another face for the Purity Ball virginity fetish crowd
Truth: We're hated by the same crowd, because the "purity" has no use if it's never given away to the proper master. Asexuals who avoid sex do not want to have sex ever and those who do for their partners are no longer "pure" for it. We're not allies, they hate us, because we reveal them as what they are.
Quoted from "http://www.asexuality.org/en/index.php?s=&showtopic=36036&view=findpost&p=1097631"

[surodat]

If discussion on this topic is going to continue I'd like to make some suggestions and comments concerning the discussion.

Definitions:

Asexuality does not equate to a lack of interest in sex. Asexuality is the lack of desire to have sexual interactions with any partner(s). Someone who identifies as asexual does not necessarily have a decreased sex drive or low libedo - just does not feel the need to engage in sex acts with partner(s).

While there are examples of a low sex drive being linked with low testosterone levels, as described above, some asexuals have a perfectly healthy (asexual) sex drive.

Asexuals are also perfectly capable of experiencing in romantic attraction and emotions, and participating in romantic relationships

Negative connotations:

Please take care when using words like natural and normal. I know, I know. Just, take care.

Suppose there was a thread entitled "Homosexuality" which implored that people discuss that particular sexual orientation? Asexuality is a sexual reality, and there are people who self-identify as asexual - 'discussing' this fact without any apparent purpose invites the possibility of inadvertantly hurtful and offensive comments without much gain.

If I had to explicitly define that you can participate in romantic relationship, that you have feelings that a large portion of the population describe as normal, because it was assumed that you didn't, how would that make you feel?

Now I am giving the original poster the benefit of the doubt in assuming their intention to be simple curiosity. Please take care with this thread from here onwards.

I say all this with no ill intentions towards anyone that has commented thus far, just asking for a little caution in such topics on a public board.

Thanks.


Edit:
nvm.

[semiiramiis]

I still don't see what the point is. You're obviously looking for a platform, <shrug>, and the answer is still..whatever. I don't see why you've decided to air this on a gaming site, even on the off topic thread.

[Trakamoocow]

This offtopic post isnt enough about WoW!! oh wai...

Tbh I'd prefer to be asexual most days. Not that intimacy isnt nice, but eh. So much effort over something that isn't so bloody important in the end. Yet we spend so much time/mental energy on it. Do they teach classes for this? ;p.

[TPMdm]

Not to change the subject too far from the OP but while I partially agree with maz this could be a partially disguised troll I think we actually might be able to have a discussion about the topic. If you don't want to look at the bag of chips then don't open this thread again.

On to discussion:


Asexuality does not equate to a lack of interest in sex. Asexuality is the lack of desire to have sexual interactions with any partner(s). Someone who identifies as asexual does not necessarily have a decreased sex drive or low libedo - just does not feel the need to engage in sex acts with partner(s).

I'd like this explained.

Does the asexual essentially not care about sex? It's something for other people which they don't have a personal concern for? I understand there isn't a phobia or aversion that would be antisexual.

BTW no offense is meant in my use of the phrases normal or natural and in themselves do not carry a negative connotation. Please realize that while it is acceptable and I certainly don't give two winks for what anybody does with their sexuality (assuming consenting adults of course or nobody in this case) if humanity was normally asexual (or homosexual for that matter) we would soon be a nearly extinct species.

[sylverin]

Not to change the subject too far from the OP but while I partially agree with maz this could be a partially disguised troll I think we actually might be able to have a discussion about the topic. If you don't want to look at the bag of chips then don't open this thread again.

On to discussion:



I'd like this explained.

Does the asexual essentially not care about sex? It's something for other people which they don't have a personal concern for? I understand there isn't a phobia or aversion that would be antisexual.

BTW no offense is meant in my use of the phrases normal or natural and in themselves do not carry a negative connotation. Please realize that while it is acceptable and I certainly don't give two winks for what anybody does with their sexuality (assuming consenting adults of course or nobody in this case) if humanity was normally asexual (or homosexual for that matter) we would soon be a nearly extinct species.

Asexual people generally don't like sex. Telling an asexual person to have sex is sort of like telling a child to eat it's least favorite food, and in a way, antisexual people do have an aversion to sex, however, some extremist antisexuals consider themselves a superior sexuality, which is arrogant and ignorant. You are right, if it wasn't for heterosexual people, the world would die out very quickly.

For some asexual people, you could use this statement. They don't have sex for recreation, they have it for procreation.

PS: No offense is taken. :)

I honestly don't understand the point of this thread being left open anymore especially now. It's like saying "There's a bag of chips on the fridge I haven't touched in years, don't know why I'm still keeping them up there.", so what? What's the point? There is none, it's just apparently for "knowledge"? If so, it's now done, and there's no point to continue the thread.

If it's to cause problems (Which IMO that would be the only reason to bring something like this up, for example if someone opened up a thread explaining gay people I'm sure there'd be plenty of angry discussion and that would be the reason that they created the thread, not to cause "awareness" as that's already well known.) then it's going to work, and the thread needs to be closed before people come in here and attack this.
The problem is, there is next to no awareness of asexuality. And we can keep this intelligent and not sink down to flaming, everybody so far has been reasonably polite. I ask that we ignore any trolls/flamers.

[Elly]

I still don't see what the point is. You're obviously looking for a platform, <shrug>, and the answer is still..whatever. I don't see why you've decided to air this on a gaming site, even on the off topic thread.

Because this forum isn't a gaming forum. This is a general discussion forum for members of worldofwar.net who fancy talking about other issues with people they wouldn't otherwise get to. If you find the subject matter of no interest I respectfully suggest you stop viewing it, much less commenting in it.

[surodat]

I find myself back here repeatedly posting despite my earlier protests. Perhaps I am a tad bit hypocritical. :D

To return to my larger post, and to expand a bit on the question raised earlier concerning TPM's confusion, perhaps I can help clarify by explaining some issues:

People who self-identify as purely homosexual or heterosexual can point to approximately half of the population that they define themselves as sexually attracted to. Yet within that population, there are specific examples of individuals that they are attracted to, and individuals that they are not attracted to.

When it comes to bisexuality the divisions are more relaxed, and can be represented as a gradient, with some bisexuals more inclided to heterosexual relationships, and some to homosexual relationships. Yet, there are still individuals, even within the preferencial "pool" of sexual parters, that bisexuals are not attracted to. (With perhaps the only exception of a bisexual who is attracted to everyone sexually.)

This is basically the long way of saying that there are people in the world that you're sexually attracted to, and some that you are not. The size or scope of this variable is completely different from person to person.

Now, imagine for a moment that the pool of people that you are not sexually attracted to was to grow to such an extent that it encompassed everyone. If you're purely heterosexual, imagine a world of entirely the same sex; if homosexual, a world entirely the opposite sex; if bisexual with a tendancy towards feminine characteristics, a world of entirely masculine characteristics; if only attracted to Chuck Norris, a world without Walker Texas Ranger.

This is where we begin to encounter asexuality.

Sex drive doesn't enter into it. An asexual person could very well have an extensive masturbatory sex life, as an orgasm is not dependent on sexual attraction, or they could have little or no interest in masturbation. This same range of behavior is observable in each of the above defined sexual "orientations".

So, generally, we can see sex drive and sexual orientations as operating on two different scales.

Sex Drive can be measured from non-existant to hyperactive.

Sexual Orientation can be measured from Non-Discriminating Bisexuallity (being sexually attracted to everyone) to Asexuality.

Mix and combine in any proportions and you get the human race.

Does that help?

Edit: As already commented earlier, gratz on the tone and delicacy that the replies have exibited.
Can someone invite Dan Savage to the forum? :P

[elsegundo]

so people who dont like to have sex most of the time are labeled by many as asexual.

ok. wikiworldofwar ftw.

[Mazhulsage]

Okay, so, wtf? My post was deleted for what reason? I state a simple fact and it gets deleted? Real nice mods, guess it goes to show that we can't say "Someone will come in here and purposely offend others" without getting it deleted I guess... Pathetic.

[Mollymog]

Okay, so, wtf? My post was deleted for what reason? I state a simple fact and it gets deleted? Real nice mods, guess it goes to show that we can't say "Someone will come in here and purposely offend others" without getting it deleted I guess... Pathetic.

That really is. I didn't find the original post offensive so much as pointless. Everyone here in this forum has a sex life of some sort. Each chooses that life on the basis of personal preference and available opportunities. I just don't get the point of discussing what is someone's particular choice. Does it come as a big revelation to any of us that some choose to be asexual? I don't think so. :ponder:

[MrBCorp]

Does it come as a big revelation to any of us that some choose to be asexual? I don't think so. :ponder:

Is it a choice? Or is it like being gay?

[elsegundo]

Is it a choice? Or is it like being gay?

this is arguable.

[Mazhulsage]

Both are a choice, I don't see why you said that.

[Mollymog]

Is it a choice? Or is it like being gay?

Like so many human behaviours, the reasons are complex. I doubt you can attribute it to any one reason.

[MrBCorp]

Both are a choice, I don't see why you said that.

Being gay isn't a choice according to science.

Is the whole asexuality thing a choice, like choosing what foods you eat? Or is it like being of Asian or Indian decent (ie not a choice)?


Like so many human behaviours, the reasons are complex. I doubt you can attribute it to any one reason.

Sometimes it really is an easy reason. We just choose to justify it with complexity.

[ptarn]

Sexual orientation is something that's in your genes to start with. But, all through life, experiences can (slightly) change someone's outlook on their sexuality. For instance, we're seeing loads of presumed heterosexuals, who've gotten married, finally 'come out' and be honest about their orientation. I'm not saying they started out gay, became straight and then became gay again, but sometimes gay people (women or men) can choose to not act on their sexual preference and remain married and no one will be any the wiser about it.

But, as said, that's a conscious choice. Sometimes people can get traumatized in such a way that they 'change' their orientation so as to not to have to face their trauma again. For instance, gay boys (used to?) get beaten to badly, that they either repressed their 'gayness' or 'learned to love' the other sex. In most of those cases you can probably argue that maybe they weren't fully gay, but rather bisexual.

It can also go the other way. Someone's who's essentially straight, can, by positive experiences, learn to appreciate same-sex, eh... sex. Again, you can argue that they probably were (a little bit) bisexual to start with, as one of my teachers used to say. He said that there aren't people who are one hundred percent straight, gay or - for that matter - asexual. It varies from 99/1 to 50/50 ('true' bisexual) to 1/99. I for one can say that many women I know sometimes think about how it would be to be intimate with another woman. Among men these feelings are, according to general opinion, less apparent.

Anyway, back to the original topic. Asexuality is something lots of people have trouble understanding, because in their experience you always, at some point in your life, are sexually attracted to someone. They confuse love with lust and vice versa, while these things can be mutually exclusive. You can love someone with all your heart and still don't have a shred of lust in your whole body and the same goes the other way around.

What I don't get, is why 'we' always make problems where there are none. As long as people procreate, either because they really love the opposite sex or out of a feeling of 'obligation' to the species as a whole, it doesn't really matter. As long as people try not to hurt each other and be honest in affairs of the heart and stop judging each other, I don't see the problem.

And yes, of course I know it's VERY easy to say all those things on a forum, easier said than done and all. But still, even thinking about stuff like this goes a long way to understanding and hopefully, eventually, acceptance of such things.

And now I'll go lurk again...

[clevins]

What I don't get, is why 'we' always make problems where there are none. As long as people procreate, either because they really love the opposite sex or out of a feeling of 'obligation' to the species as a whole, it doesn't really matter. As long as people try not to hurt each other and be honest in affairs of the heart and stop judging each other, I don't see the problem.

This. I'd add more, but that paragraph says it perfectly.

And now I'll go lurk again...

Post more! That was well thought out and... um.. what's the word? reasonable!

[Mazhulsage]

Lol, actually sexuality genes are in you, absolutely, but things in your life are 99.99% of the reason why you become the sexual orientation you are. Scientists may be right on most things, but I could name quite a few things they're incorrect about that is the supposed "right thing" that scientists back up that are wrong.

[ptarn]

I really don't think that if you orientation is straight, things in your life can happen that will actually make you be gay or the other way around. Being straight or gay or some other orientation is something that's inside of you and even though some things can influence that to some degree, I really don't think that they are of such grave influence that you can make an almost 180-degree turn so to speak. In other words, you cannot be 'cured' of being gay if that's what you are by undergoing certain experiences or upbringing and you cannot suddenly become gay just because you've either had (very) negative experiences or are brought up by gay parents. And of course you can substitute 'gay' for 'asexual' in my text.

And clevins, thank you for your compliment! I'll reconsider my return to lurking, hehe.

[Anrina]

I thought asexuality is temporary health problem when there is no sexual feeling(for example very small children or very old people).

[Mollymog]

I thought asexuality is temporary health problem when there is no sexual feeling(for example very small children or very old people).

No, we are born with sexual feelings and have them always. How we use them changes. For many elderly people it is a lack of a partner altogether. It could also be a lack of an interested partner or one who is willing to explore variations on sexual activity (physical limitations may necessitate this).

[TPMdm]

(snipped good stuff)
Does that help?

Edit: As already commented earlier, gratz on the tone and delicacy that the replies have exibited.
Can someone invite Dan Savage to the forum? :P

Indeed it does help. So, completely aside from the question of sexual appetite an asexual is simply not sexually attracted to......anybody? And that too is completely aside from questions of romance, love and affection?

[Mazhulsage]

Ahh, I see, opinions other than "politically correct" will be shot down with facts fed to you from day 1 from all sorts of sources, gotcha.

I'll make sure I stay out of this thread, I disagree with most people and I'll obviously be banned or suspended if I "speak out of turn" so to speak.

[clevins]

You could provide facts versus your own ignorant opinion. Oh, right, the actual science contradicts what you're saying. You can pooh-pooh the science, but PROVIDE FACTS. No one really gives a damn if you believe the science... your denial doesn't matter unless you can provide real, factual reasons for it. Simply put, saying "I believe X" doesn't make X true and repeating it over and over again doesn't strengthen the argument.

And quit being such a hypocrite - you started off wanting this thread to be closed, yet you continue to post here.

[sylverin]

Indeed it does help. So, completely aside from the question of sexual appetite an asexual is simply not sexually attracted to......anybody? And that too is completely aside from questions of romance, love and affection?
Sexual Romantics are attracted to the person both romantically and sexually.
Asexual Romantics are attracted to the person romantically only.
Asexual Aromantics aren't attracted to said person at all.

[MrBCorp]

Ahh, I see, opinions...will be shot down with facts

Lol, oh dear, that's hilarious. Sorry.

Yeah, I don't see much of a point to this thread turning into a debate as it seems to be able educating people about asexuality.

[Mazhulsage]

Oh yeah, sorry, forgot to put "facts" like that, since the supposed facts are lies fed to you from birth, there. Better.

They also used to say (Scientific people back then, and just regular people) that thoughts of the same sex in any way other than friendly or below meant you were mentally ill, and were stoned to death. Perhaps jumping on the bandwagon back then was a great idea too? You can go ahead and take your lies from science (Which are just like the evolution theory, just a theory in other words, AKA not proven.) and go ahead and go take anti-cancer pills too, since you would believe that if science fed that to you too.

Enjoy, g'bye.

[elsegundo]

From what i've gathered, Maz is a very sensitive person.

[surodat]

15-09-2008, 09:50 AM
It's funny. Maz walks into a thread, says something controversial, misreads the responses, gets angry, and leaves. I've seen it happen about three times now. Watch for it, I'm certain it'll happen again.

I win! 890

[ptarn]

Maz, I don't know if you'll read this, but come on... You cannot possibly compare the beliefs people had hundreds of years ago (belief = NOT based on any fact at all) with the PROVEN theories (and be careful: a scientific THEORY doesn't mean it's not proven or based on facts, I mean, the THEORY of gravity is very much proven, even at this moment, by everyone who's reading this) that came later when science grew and became widely accepted instead of shunned, because it didn't 'agree' with the Bible and such?

Belief = Something that cannot be proven by facts, it can only be felt. That's not to say it's WRONG, just that it cannot be proven by any means.
Fact = Something that can be proven by repeated tests that have the same consequent outcome.
Theory = A scientific concept or idea based on FACTS gained from repeated TEST with the SAME OUTCOME and as such is accepted by other scientists.

Theories will never change entirely, just be fine-tuned. People used to believe that gods made rainbows. Now we KNOW that rainbows are caused by how light refracts in rain drops. My mother taught we at an early age how rainbows came about. Does that mean that it's a lie? Or do you refer to other 'lies' that I've been 'fed' ever since my childhood? Like being nice to animals, because they have feelings too? That's something that's only been PROVEN in the last hundred years or is that a lie? Or is gravity a lie? Is the fact that stars are lightyears away from Earth a lie? Or how my body works, with blood cells that transport oxygen, is that a lie?
No, seriously, I'd really like to know what LIES I've been fed. That people with other sexual orientations are normal? Is that a lie? Or that people with different BELIEFS or religions are just like you and me? Is that a lie too? I thought we were living in the 21st century, but apparantly I'm ever so wrong...

[Trakamoocow]

Lol, actually sexuality genes are in you, absolutely, but things in your life are 99.99% of the reason why you become the sexual orientation you are. Scientists may be right on most things, but I could name quite a few things they're incorrect about that is the supposed "right thing" that scientists back up that are wrong.

Lol, planes can fly, but 99.99% of the reason they do is because Earth has an atmosphere.

See I can make trite statements with made up percentages too. Obviously, external effects have a bearing on your sexuality. The Nature vs Nurture argument. I'll lean towards the people that have done years of research on the topic though, and go with the Science.

Always considered it about half/half perhaps, but thats only subjective opinion. You can be raised to think homosexuality is wrong and suppress it, but that doesn't make you not. And it is a 'sliding scale' from what I've heard. Some lol99percent straight and some the other side of the scale, but noone a hundred percent either way.

In the end, who cares? People are what they are and we've bigger problems to worry about that who sleeps with/loves whom. Asexuality.. I can see the benefits. But true asexual behaviour instead of suppressing your desires, not sure. I'd guess a 'bit of both' again, but I could see how environment and time could have a significant impact as well. It would seem more unnatural (ie your body is made to procreate) and hence perhaps more a mental thing/choice, but again not necessarily so. Perhaps some chemical imbalance/difference?

[elsegundo]

Always considered it about half/half perhaps

Homosexuality is not a choice... unless you're a girl.


that explains why its half/half. lol


/joke.

[MrBCorp]

Oh yeah, sorry, forgot to put "facts" like that, since the supposed facts are lies fed to you from birth, there. Better.

Interesting viewpoint. But are all facts lies or only certain ones? If all facts are lies then does that mean their opposites are always true?

Don't get me wrong, it's good to have a healthy cynicism, but where does it stop and who do you believe? Yourself? Science? Politicians? (ok that last one was laughable:tongue:)

They also used to say (Scientific people back then, and just regular people) that thoughts of the same sex in any way other than friendly or below meant you were mentally ill, and were stoned to death.

I'm also fairly sure there have been periods in the past where homosexuality has been considered acceptable (or more so).

I win! 890

LOL

Belief = Something that cannot be proven by facts, it can only be felt. That's not to say it's WRONG, just that it cannot be proven by any means.
Fact = Something that can be proven by repeated tests that have the same consequent outcome.
Theory = A scientific concept or idea based on FACTS gained from repeated TEST with the SAME OUTCOME and as such is accepted by other scientists.

Yeah, you can trust facts. And science is always right. Potatoes and avocadoes were bad for you. Avocadoes are full of fat. Potatoes are full of starch. They were bad. Woops, now they are good, eat them. And what about red wine, is that still good for you, are you supposed to have 1 glass a night? Or is alcohol bad? I'm not sure. What does science tell us today? And why exactly does light behave as both waves and particles?

Yeah, facts and science are always right.

Fact = Something that can be proven by repeated tests that have the same consequent outcome.

Doesn't work on humans. I walked up to a guy and punched him in the guts. Nothing. Next day I did the same thing and he swung back. Ok that's a clumsy example, but you get the picture (I hope).

[odinsnephew]

that thoughts of the same sex in any way other than friendly or below meant you were mentally ill, and were stoned to death.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spartan_pederasty

[TPMdm]

anthropogenic global warming is a lie accepted as fact by many

But how this topic got so far from the OP is a bit of a mystery..... oh wait, it was maz who did it.

[MrBCorp]

anthropogenic global warming is a lie accepted as fact by many

Ok, I'll bite, what exactly is "anthropogenic global warming"? (yeah I did a quick google search but it got too confusing and I didn't see any quick, solid explanation).

But how this topic got so far from the OP is a bit of a mystery..... oh wait, it was maz who did it.

Meh, it's not like it was going anywhere.

Maybe someone should start a new thread for all this.

[surodat]

I think he just means human-caused global warming.

From wiki: Anthropogenic effects, processes or materials are those that are derived from human activities, as opposed to those occurring in natural environments without human influence.

Though, personally I would modify to definition to exclude the word natural. Remember, I hate that word, since its definition is so changeable.

[TPMdm]

man made global warming vs. natural temperature fluctuations

Nobody I think can sanely argue the world hasn't gotten warmer over the last 100 years (though by only 1 degree and the earth has been "cooling" for about 8 years by about a 1/4 degree). The argument is whether or not this is due to man's activities.

I don't really want to debate much of it as I am not 100% sure where I land on the "debate" but just ask yourself this question:
Which is a more likely source of global warming man's carbon footprint or that big ball of nuclear explosions (which is 1.3 million times the size of the earth) that we call the sun?

[surodat]

Putting aside the debate, I still think that excessive pollution and consumption of resources is a problem for the planet. So if people decide to be scared of global warming, and consume less because if it, to me, that's fine.

[elsegundo]

I think i want to make a topic about being Ambidextrous, or Ambidexterity in general. give a quick definition on what it is and what its not and let people blow it up.

ahhh.. internet forums. =]


back to topic, you guys have been very interesting to read!

[MrBCorp]

Putting aside the debate, I still think that excessive pollution and consumption of resources is a problem for the planet. So if people decide to be scared of global warming, and consume less because if it, to me, that's fine.

Yes, I must agree with that sentiment. Sadly, I don't think it has fully soaked in yet. While most people are at least aware of things, they are a long way off actually doing anything useful. I think also people are not aware or not doing the right things. Their attention is focused on the wrong spot(s).

[TPMdm]

Putting aside the debate, I still think that excessive pollution and consumption of resources is a problem for the planet. So if people decide to be scared of global warming, and consume less because if it, to me, that's fine.

I'd rather they consume less for the right reasons. Personally I find modifying people's behavior with misleading or false information is rarely the proper course of action (masturbation causes hairy palms or blindness?).

No doubt pollution ("excessive pollution" should be reported to the Department of Redundancy Dpt.) has had an effect on local and possibly global eco systems, I just highly doubt it's effects on global warming (notice it is now vogue to call it "climate change", afterall the planet isn't warming anymore). Don't forget also that "carbon footprint" is the thing folks are concerned about not so much pollution (as it relates to climate change). If you boil it down far enough you realize that exhaling will soon be classified as pollution (carbon dioxide is a contributor to climate change afterall).

[Shellar]

There was a time when I used to think of myself as an asexual being.

I was wrong.