Originally posted by Regret
😆 Define homosexuality without referencing any covert (thoughts etc.) overt (observables) or physiological responses, all of which are forms of behavior. Sexuality is only defined by some form of behavior whether overt, covert or physiological.
Try to devise an argument that does not commit the logic fallacy of Equivocation. 🙄
Originally posted by Regret
No, I am trying to explain that behaviors as complex as sexuality evolve through a long series of events and experience. Describing the entire chain of events leading to the homosexual behavior that currently exists is similar to describing the entire series of evolutionary steps from bacteria to man.
This argument commits the logic fallacy of False Analogy as it attempts to draw a comparison between two things that are relevantly disimilar.
A multicellular organism may be the result of a process that began with a single-celled organism, but it is not in fact, the same organism.
Even if we presume that homosexuality is the result of a series of events and experiences, he is still the same person.
Originally posted by Adam_PoEI addressed these claims. First, the studies, that I am aware of, are lacking in validity due to the methods used in sample selection combined with sample sizes. Thus their statistical credibility is severely compromised. Second, the studies that are credible admit the lack of conclusive evidence in their studies.
I love the way that you selectively ignore studies that you cannot argue. How do you explain the fact that the inner-ear structure and fingerprints of homosexuals are different than those of heterosexuals? Did homosexual behavior alter the structure of those as well? Remember, fingerprints are fully developed in a fetus before the 17th week and do not change thereafter.
Originally posted by Regret
I addressed these claims. First, the studies, that I am aware of, are lacking in validity due to the methods used in sample selection combined with sample sizes. Thus their statistical credibility is severely compromised. Second, the studies that are credible admit the lack of conclusive evidence in their studies.
So lacking in statistical credibility that they were all published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. 🙄
Originally posted by Adam_PoE😆 Explaining the shaping of behavior behavior is directly comparable to and follows nearly the exact same pattern as evolution. A comparison is only a fallacy if the comparison is in error. The comparison is valid. Behaviors that result in a preferred consequence survive, while behaviors that do not eventually disappear. Directly comparable to the evolutionary concept of physiological aspects that lead to survival and reproduction surviving, while aspects that do not eventually die out.
This argument commits the logic fallacy of False Analogy as it attempts to draw a comparison between two things that are relevantly disimilar.A multicellular organism may be the result of a process that began with a single-celled organism, but it is not in fact, the same organism.
Even if we presume that homosexuality is the result of a series of events and experiences, he is still the same person.
Originally posted by Regret
😆 Explaining the shaping of behavior behavior is directly comparable to and follows nearly the exact same pattern as evolution. A comparison is only a fallacy if the comparison is in error. The comparison is valid. Behaviors that result in a preferred consequence survive, while behaviors that do not eventually disappear. Directly comparable to the evolutionary concept of physiological aspects that lead to survival and reproduction surviving, while aspects that do not eventually die out.
You are attempting to draw a comparison between a process the explains how one organism directly descends from another organism, and a process that explains how one organism adapts but remains the same organism; False Analogy.
Furthermore, what is truly laughable is your belief that homosexuality is learned despite extensive research by the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychoanalytic Association, and the American Psychological Association that sexual orientation is not a learned. Apparently, you know better than every reputable mental health organization, and over 35 years of exstensive scientific research; Slothful Induction. 😆
Originally posted by Adam_PoEThey are observable by the individual. Covert behaviors are behaviors, anyone but the individual simply cannot speak conclusively of them due to their inability to observe them, but this does not change the fact that they are behaviors.
Attraction and emotion are behaviors in the sense that they are responses to internal and external stimuli. They are not behaviors in the sense that they are a set of observable actions.
Originally posted by Regret
They are observable by the individual. Covert behaviors are behaviors, anyone but the individual simply cannot speak conclusively of them due to their inability to observe them, but this does not change the fact that they are behaviors.
This does not change the fact that your argument commits the logic fallacy of Equivocation.
Originally posted by Adam_PoEFirst, psychoanalysis is a crap field, blatantly erroneous in its claims. Second, psychiatrists are trained in pharmaceutical medicine emphasizing in behavior modifying pharmacology, not psychology or physiology. Third, none of these groups claim that homosexuality is either learned or genetic, individuals within each organization have varying opinions based on the subject. Forth, you obviously know little of the overall research on the subject and have only accepted the studies that support your claims. Given a split in the literature, the subject has not been decided by the scientific community, a stance I hold. It is only my opinion, as I have stated, earlier that sexuality is learned, but I recognize the inconclusive stance science currently has.
You are attempting to draw a comparison between a process the explains how one organism directly descends from another organism, and a process that explains how one organism adapts but remains the same organism; False Analogy.Furthermore, what is truly laughable is your belief that homosexuality is learned despite extensive research by the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychoanalytic Association, and the American Psychological Association that sexual orientation is not a learned. Apparently, you know better than every reputable mental health organization, and over 35 years of exstensive scientific research; Slothful Induction. 😆
Lastly, I am not debating the fact. You claim these logical fallacies due to your ignorance of behavioral principles. The fallacies you claim are either due to my inability to present the information adequately or due to your lack of understanding, but the arguments are long standing and have held up to strong scrutiny.
Originally posted by Regret
First, psychoanalysis is a crap field, blatantly erroneous in its claims. Second, psychiatrists are trained in pharmaceutical medicine emphasizing in behavior modifying pharmacology, not psychology or physiology.
I did not realize that you belong to the only reputable field of the study of mental health.
Originally posted by Regret
Third, none of these groups claim that homosexuality is either learned or genetic . . .
To the contrary, it is the official position of the mental health organizations I listed that homosexuality is a.) not learned and b.) fixed and unchangeable.
Originally posted by Regret
. . . individuals within each organization have varying opinions based on the subject.
There will always be individuals with dissenting opinions, e.g. in this instance, you are one of these individuals.
Originally posted by Regret
Forth, you obviously know little of the overall research on the subject and have only accepted the studies that support your claims.
By all means, cite a study that has been published in a reputable, peer-reviewed scientific journal that indicates that homosexuality is a learned behavior.
Originally posted by Regret
Given a split in the literature, the subject has not been decided by the scientific community, a stance I hold. It is only my opinion, as I have stated, earlier that sexuality is learned, but I recognize the inconclusive stance science currently has.
No, you continually cite the lack of conclusive evidence that homosexuality is innate to support your belief that homosexuality is learned; Argument From Ignorance.
Originally posted by Regret
Lastly, I am not debating the fact. You claim these logical fallacies due to your ignorance of behavioral principles. The fallacies you claim are either due to my inability to present the information adequately or due to your lack of understanding, but the arguments are long standing and have held up to strong scrutiny.
No, I claim the logic fallacies in question, because your arguments are poorly constructed, and commit the logical fallacies in question. It is pointless to argue the truth or falsity of your premises when they do not prove your conclusion.
Originally posted by Adam_PoEI belong to the APA. And to the Association for Behavior Analysis (ABA).
I did not realize that you belong to the only reputable field of the study of mental health.
I am sorry, but I am not going to go to the effort of adequately research the subject. I have been in the field for a long time and attend the majority of APA and ABA conferences, the APA does not have an absolute stance on the subject.
Here is an excerpt from a paper published by the APA's magazine:
Our erotic personalities are as unique as our fingerprints
TORI DeANGELIS
Monitor on Psychology Vol. 32 Number 4 April 2001New empirical findings also challenge the notion that sexual orientation begins at a young age and doesn't change, Garnets added. There's considerable evidence that some people's attractions toward both women and men can change over time. Both those who identify as bisexuals and those who don't can experience these changing gender attractions. Women who have had exclusively heterosexual experiences, for example, may develop attractions to women at any point in their lives.
In addition, research shows, strictly biological, genetic, social or familial explanations rarely explain how each of us develops a particular sexual orientation, she said. For instance, only four studies to date have examined brain differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals, and each has different results. There are gender differences in such findings as well, Garnets said. While some evidence points to a possible genetic link for homosexuality in men, no such evidence exists for women. Similarly, women appear to be more fluid in their propensity to change their feelings about which gender they're attracted to.
And now, the APA's answer to the question:
What Causes a Person To Have a Particular Sexual Orientation?The APA recognizes that a role is played in determining sexuality. This does not mean that a persons genetics decide sexuality, it means a predisposition may be, and probably is present. The term "significant" is used, significant is not an absolute.There are numerous theories about the origins of a person's sexual orientation; most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors. In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age. There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality. In summary, it is important to recognize that there are probably many reasons for a person's sexual orientation and the reasons may be different for different people.
The term "shape" refers to a behavioral process, and use of the term in a statement by the APA is not by chance.
The answer is that the APA's stance is this:
Sexuality is the result of some complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors. But, we just plain do not know (read the "in summary" statement.)
Originally posted by Regret
I am sorry, but I am not going to go to the effort of adequately research the subject.
In other words, you can make an authoritative claim, but cannot be bothered to substantiate it.
Originally posted by Regret
And now, the APA's answer to the question:The APA recognizes that a role is played in determining sexuality. This does not mean that a persons genetics decide sexuality, it means a predisposition may be, and probably is present. The term "significant" is used, significant is not an absolute.
The term "shape" refers to a behavioral process, and use of the term in a statement by the APA is not by chance.
The answer is that the APA's stance is this:
Sexuality is the result of some complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors. But, we just plain do not know (read the "in summary" statement.)
sig·nif·i·cant adjective
[list=1][*]important in effect or meaning
[*]fairly large
[*]too closely correlated to be attributed to chance and therefore indicating a systematic relation
[*]rich in significance or implication[/list]
It would appear that the American Psychological Association primarily attributes the cause of sexual orientation to "biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors," not excluding the influence of environmental factors.
Quite different than your argument, "Homosexuality is learned."
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
In other words, you can make an authoritative claim, but cannot be bothered to substantiate it.[b]sig·nif·i·cant
adjective
[list=1][*]important in effect or meaning
[*]fairly large
[*]too closely correlated to be attributed to chance and therefore indicating a systematic relation
[*]rich in significance or implication[/list]It would appear that the American Psychological Association primarily attributes the cause of sexual orientation to "biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors," not excluding the influence of environmental factors.
Quite different than your argument, "Homosexuality is learned." [/B]
Whilst that is a change from what he said, you have twisted it just as badly. In no way does the relevant piece say that genetics is the primary factor. The term 'signifcant' here clearly just means it is one that is enough to have an effect, but what they are clearly saying is that it is one of several signifcant factors.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Whilst that is a change from what he said, you have twisted it just as badly. In no way does the relevant piece say that genetics is the primary factor. The term 'signifcant' here clearly just means it is one that is enough to have an effect, but what they are clearly saying is that it is one of several signifcant factors.
"There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality."
"There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a[n] important role in a person's sexuality."
"There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a fairly large role in a person's sexuality."
"There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a . . . role in a person's sexuality [that is] too closely correlated to be attributed to chance and therefore indicating a systematic relation."
"There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a . . . role in a person's sexuality [that is] rich in significance or implication."
"Just enough to have an impact," indeed. 🙄