Originally posted by dadudemon
Here is how I define that:A genetic predisposition is an inherited risk of developing a disease or condition.
Let me know if I got that wrong, Professor inimalist.
genetic predisposition means that a certain trait or quality is predisposed by a person's genetics.
so, humans are predisposed to learn language, especially between a critical period that seems to end at some point around 10 years of age.
a child that never is exposed to language will never develop language, but the predisposition was still there. A child with a predisposition to ODD may never develop it, it does not mean the predisposition was never there.
not always a risk, not necessarily inherited, not only relevant for diseases or conditions.
Originally posted by dadudemon
No, they are not "pure homo" as some would claim. Just the same as some claiming "pure straight".No, that would be accurate, not faulty. And, yes, it would be a person to person basis. We are the sum of our sexual experiences/thoughts. Our sexuality cannot be clearly defined by a singular instant.
There are likely very few homosexuals on the planet then, using your logic. Just bisexuals who at some point are with only the same sex. I disagree.
But you're saying a singular instance can define someone as bisexual. A man who has only ever been with women except for one homosexual instance would be "bisexual" according to you. The same for a man who's only ever been with men with the exception of one heterosexual instant. I disagree.
Originally posted by inimalist
genetic predisposition means that a certain trait or quality is predisposed by a person's genetics.
I think it means a genetic probability of inheriting certain traits.
I also think predisposition is not the same thing as genetic predisposition. (go back through our conversation and you should see that...I think)
Originally posted by inimalist
not always a risk, not necessarily inherited, not only relevant for diseases or conditions.
This is pretty much my point.
Originally posted by Robtard
There are likely very few homosexuals on the planet then, using your logic.
Not my "logic": Kinsey Institute's research of which you were already aware.
Originally posted by Robtard
Just bisexuals who at some point are with only the same sex. I disagree.
Almost every last human is bisexual with very few exceptions.
Originally posted by Robtard
But you're saying a singular instance can define someone as bisexual.
Yup. Thoughts count, too. Pretend 7 is pure straight and 1 is pure gay. Very few people would fall on 7 or 1. Does that scale look familiar? 🙂
Originally posted by Robtard
A man who has only ever been with women except for one homosexual instance would be "bisexual" according to you.
Yes, that's what I am getting at. Sure, they may be much more straight than gay.
Originally posted by Robtard
The same for a man who's only ever been with men with the exception of one heterosexual instant. I disagree.
You can disagree, but sexuality is not as polar as you would like it to be. It is definitely not this "0 or 1" idea that you have.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Not my "logic": Kinsey Institute's research of which you were already aware.Almost every last human is bisexual with very few exceptions.
Yup. Thoughts count, too. Pretend 7 is pure straight and 1 is pure gay. Very few people would fall on 7 or 1. Does that scale look familiar? 🙂
Yes, that's what I am getting at. Sure, they may be much more straight than gay.
You can disagree, but sexuality is not as polar as you would like it to be. It is definitely not this "0 or 1" idea that you have.
So you're using the Kinsey "everyone's bisexual since there's really no 7's or 1's" mindset. Cool.
But a 6 or 2 would be considered straight or homosexual for practical purposes, if we're not being retards. I don't have a "1 or 0" idea.
Originally posted by Robtard
So you're using the Kinsey "everyone's bisexual since there's really no 7's or 1's" mindset. Cool.
I take it a step further, though, and don't just stick to two poles on sexuality. I include other "dimensions" because some types of sexuality are not defined as "Finding the set of genetically prime women attractive" or "find the set of genetically prime men attractive". Sexuality is more than just those two definitions: even when injecting a sliding scale between the two poles.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I think it means a genetic probability of inheriting certain traits.
in theory, it has nothing to do with inheritance
Originally posted by dadudemon
I also think predisposition is not the same thing as genetic predisposition. (go back through our conversation and you should see that...I think)
Originally posted by inimalist
Dictionary.com:[b]predisposition
-1. the fact or condition of being predisposed: a predisposition to think optimistically.
2. Medicine/Medical . tendency to a condition or quality, usually based on the combined effects of genetic and environmental factors.
predispose
1. to give an inclination or tendency to beforehand; make susceptible: Genetic factors may predispose human beings to certain metabolic diseases.
2. to render subject, susceptible, or liable: The evidence predisposes him to public censure.
3. to dispose beforehand.
4. Archaic . to dispose of beforehand, as in a will, legacy, or the like. [/B]
Originally posted by dadudemon
This is pretty much my point.
except that you said:
Originally posted by dadudemon
A genetic predisposition is an inherited risk of developing a disease or condition.
in which 3-4 points within your definition are wrong, and what you quoted was me pointing that out to you
🙂
Originally posted by dadudemon
I take it a step further, though, and don't just stick to two poles on sexuality. I include other "dimensions" because some types of sexuality are not defined as "Finding the set of genetically prime women attractive" or "find the set of genetically prime men attractive". Sexuality is more than just those two definitions: even when injecting a sliding scale between the two poles.
Where are you on the Kinsey scale?
Originally posted by inimalist
in theory, it has nothing to do with inheritance
Wah?
Please tell me you're joking. It has everything to do with inheritance. There are things called genotypes and phenotypes. I think you are aware of this.
To your requote of the same thing you already posted:
"I like that 'combination of genetic and environmental factors' definition, the most."
I would never define, with just "predisposition" something that was actually a "genetic predisposition". Maybe I would if I had first defined "genetic predisposition" in the writing. But just calling it a "predisposition" is not accurate.
Originally posted by inimalist
except that you said:in which 3-4 points within your definition are wrong, and what you quoted was me pointing that out to you
🙂
Errm.
No?
Nothing you said is following, logically.
This:
"A genetic predisposition is an inherited risk of developing a disease or condition."
Is in no way contradictory to this (a modified version of what you stated):
"Genes are not always a risk, not necessarily inherited, and not the only relevant element that determines diseases or conditions."
Please rephrase your point but actually make your point.
Originally posted by Robtard
Where are you on the Kinsey scale?
If 7 is perfect "straight", I would probably be a 6.9.
I can't say that I am perfectly straight because I cannot claim to know all facets of my sexuality: I have not experienced every circumstance possible to properly determine a perfect 7.
However...I'm pretty dang straight.
Originally posted by dadudemon
If 7 is perfect "straight", I would probably be a 6.9.I can't say that I am perfectly straight because I cannot claim to know all facets of my sexuality: I have not experienced every circumstance possible to properly determine a perfect 7.
However...I'm pretty dang straight.
"Almost every last human is bisexual with very few exceptions."
0.1, lol, dude.
Originally posted by inimalist
inheritance is a common mechanism of genetic predisposition, but is not necessaryotherwise, that seems like, at best, semantic gibberish that I have no desire to argue with you about for pages
I am reading your point as "you cannot genetically inherit a genetic predisposition in some instances." That..........may be true of some known mutational problems? There's so much stuff involved with making absolute statements and I wish to avoid them.
But what about all that other stuff?
Originally posted by dadudemon
I am reading your point as "you cannot genetically inherit a genetic predisposition in some instances."
allow me to clarify then:
Inheritance, as in, the genes you get from your father's sperm and mother's egg, is a common way that genetic predisposition occurs. Probably the most common. Therefore it is a mechanism of the phenomenon.
However, they are not the same thing. In theory [edit] inheritance is not really related to genetic predisposition, aside from the fact that it is a common mechanism that produces it. Sure, appealing to inheritance probably explains many of the predispositions we see, but that isn't the same as inheritance being a definitional quality of genetic predisposition.
Think of it like evolution. Genetics provide the mechanism for it, but they aren't really related in theory [edit]. The relation is one we ascribe because of the explanatory power, however, in theory, there is nothing that necessitates the two concepts being related to one another.