Originally posted by Ushgarak
Err, I think that probably IS what they mean. Doesn't change anything, does it? Does not make it the MOST important, as Adam wanted to have us believe it said, when he said they were saying it was primarily down to genetics. There is no evidence for that at all.
No, I am with you on it not stating that it is the primary factor (also for clarification, that does not mean that it is not the primary factor, it just doesn't state that).
Indeed so. And as I said, they heavily imply that they don't know what the primary factor is, if indeed such a concept even really exists.
My anger was that Adam attacked Regret for trying to twist that into being a justification for saying "It is learned." It is simple hypocrisy to make that accusation and then yourself state that they were saying it was primarily genetic.
Main Entry: sig·nif·i·cant
Pronunciation: -k&nt
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin significant-, significans, present participle of significare to signify
1 : having meaning; especially : SUGGESTIVE <a significant glance>
2 a : having or likely to have influence or effect : IMPORTANT <a significant piece of legislation>; also : of a noticeably or measurably large amount <a significant number of layoffs> <producing significant profits> b : probably caused by something other than mere chance <statistically significant correlation between vitamin deficiency and disease>
Using the definition from the dictionary, it would seem the APA was merely saying biology/genetics is a cause and maybe a greater cause than others, but not the only cause.
Still though, have to wonder why they chose to single genetics as "significant" and not other casues as such...
Originally posted by Ushgarak
That's pretty facile. A man can believe the Moon is made of cheese and another man that it is made of rock, but to make the two views equivalent is idiocy. The man who thinks it is made of cheese is obviously the one in the wrong.I don't have to think anything. I KNOW he is wrong and anyone who disagrees is simply being unreasonable.
Word for word, this is an Adam_PoE post. The two of you are more alike than you want to admit. That's why he irritates you and you irritate him. I don't care which one of you is right or wrong. That's not my point. Surely you figured that out.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Err, I think that probably IS what they mean. Doesn't change anything, does it? Does not make it the MOST important, as Adam wanted to have us believe it said, when he said they were saying it was primarily down to genetics. There is no evidence for that at all.
Originally posted by Robtard
Main Entry: [B]sig·nif·i·cant
Pronunciation: -k&nt
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin significant-, significans, present participle of significare to signify
1 : having meaning; especially : SUGGESTIVE <a significant glance>
2 a : having or likely to have influence or effect : IMPORTANT <a significant piece of legislation>; also : of a noticeably or measurably large amount <a significant number of layoffs> <producing significant profits> b : probably caused by something other than mere chance <statistically significant correlation between vitamin deficiency and disease>Using the definition from the dictionary, it would seem the APA was merely saying biology/genetics is a cause and maybe a greater cause than others, but not the only cause.
Still though, have to wonder why they chose to single genetics as "significant" and not other casues as such... [/B]
Originally posted by Ushgarak
My anger was that Adam attacked Regret for trying to twist that into being a justification for saying "It is learned." It is simple hypocrisy to make that accusation and then yourself state that they were saying it was primarily genetic.
[list=1][*]Regret deliberately misrepresented a statement by the American Psychological Association to suit his argument. He minimized the role of biological factors while maximizing the role of environmental factors.
[*]I did not state that according to the statement by the American Psychological Association, the primary cause of sexual orientation is biological factors.
I stated that according to the statement by the American Psychological Association, it would appear that the primary cause of sexual orientation is biological factors. Following this statement, I explained the inference.
[*]You deliberately misrepresented a statement by the American Psychological Association to suit your argument. You deemphasized the term significant to suggest a meaning contrary to what the statement denotes.
Considering this, for you to accuse me of “simple hypocrisy” is grand hypocrisy.[/list]
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Significant doesn't imply primary.
I did not state that the term significant specifically implies the term primary.
I stated that it can be inferred from the use of the term in the context of the article that biological factors are the primary cause of sexual orientation in that while the article states that "sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors," it only cites biological factors when referencing which factors appear to play a significant role in regards to "considerable recent evidence."
Originally posted by AllianceWhich is why it's in speech marks...
phenotype implies a direct and entirely genetic characteristic based on a single gene, hence a VERY wrong word for sexuality.
Besides that's a relatively limited definition of phenotype, a phenotype need not refer to a single gene trait nor is it unaffected by environmental influences.