Function

When I'm, for example, standing in a long hallway, and someone I was going to meet is entering the hallway from the other side, I feel uncomfortable looking at them all the way until they reach me lol

Like "should I say 'hi' now? or now? or perhaps now?"

Not sure on the "picture group", but here's something on people thinking in words by voice:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3870271/

An excerpt:

"Prominent models of AVHs have suggested that the experiences arise when an internal mental event is misattributed to an external or non-self source. For example, Frith (1992) suggests that, if inner speech is not recognized as self-initiated, it may be experienced as an AVH. Many models have assumed that the raw material of AVHs is a kind of inner speech (Bentall, 2003; Fernyhough, 2004), although definitions of inner speech have varied, from simply ‘thinking in words’ (McGuire et al., 1995, p. 596) to ‘the overlapping region of thought and speech’ (Jones and Fernyhough, 2007a, p. 148), the latter of which highlights that not all thought processes necessarily take place as inner speech."

I never liked history in high school.

Several studies show that in promiscuous species homosexuality is more frequent. The same gene that makes one relative promiscuous, with several partners and a lot of children, makes the other relative homosexual.

 

The other kind of homosexuality is that related to gender non-conformity. A highly masculine father and a highly feminine mother are very successful individuals. When these traits are inherited to the opposite sex child they make for a gender non-conform child and when inherited to a same sex child they make for a very successful one. The successful child continues to procreate and inherit the gene, while the gender non-conform child becomes homosexual. Stress and diet increases gender non-conformity by sending hormones to their extremes.

 

It is similar to other diseases. Regarding the unassisted reproduction: In Afghanistan, where there is almost no medical assistance during pregnancy and after, the death rate during childbirth is only 1 in 100 births.

 

Medicine identifies the situations when it needs to intervene as diseases, disorders and the patient accepts that she/he has that disorder and asks for help. While homosexuals consider themselves totally healthy and still ask for help from medicine (or from other individuals like surrogates) for reproduction.

Considering the promiscuity: we were told it was the other way around, that homosexuals were more prone to promiscuity and this promiscuity is a necessary condition for the conservement of a healthy relationship in lots of cases.

The next paragraph is a very dangerous one. For lots of reasons. Please provide peer-reviewed articles supporting your statements there.

Again, homosexuality is not a disease. Stop suggesting so. Concerning the child mortalities alone: please do compare with developed countries.

Per conclusion, your view on the need for medicine is very old-fashioned, lacks progressiveness (which is obligatory nowadays) and just plain wrong. Again: stop suggesting homosexuality is a disease, or just get out.

 

Heterosexual sex is a prerequisite for non-assisted reproduction. Medicine can assist reproduction artificially, like it does for many other dysfunctions, but it has a health and financial cost for the persons involved and it may not be possible in poor countries. Reproduction is not necessary to have a meaningful life, but it makes a good life even better. That's why many homosexuals adopt children or have biological children through artificial means.

Medicine assists in "natural" reproduction too. Imagine the child and mother mortality rates otherwise.

If medical intervention is your criterium for excluding reproductions as "non-assisted", then you should exclude most pregnancies and births and reproductions in most developed countries. What about medical help with subfertility or infertility? This still applies to heterosexuals, too, and is an assisted form of reproduction. I suggest you exclude all reproductions in which medical help is involved to any degree, end up with only a few reproductions, and check what the mortality rates are there.

It is impossible to exclude medicine from modern reproduction. Reproduction is no longer equal to the old-fashioned image you may have of it, we are way ahead ot that. We do no longer live in the ancient times you recall without medical help, without assisted reproductions, and without homosexual reproductions.

Additionally, do you have arguments against surrogacy? That's quite "natural" (in your definition) and can still be the product of love between 2 homosexuals and the natural help of a third. Would that be unnatural?

Your attempts to blackguard homosexuality in the evolutionary sense keeps failing in my opinion. I'm sure there will be others here totally agreeing with you, but your thoughts prove a certain lack of progressiveness, which is essential in a science forum.

There's this critical question, stating that if homosexuality has nothing but disadvantages in an evolutionary sense, then why wasn't it eradicated over the last millions of years? If it wasn't present from the beginning, why would it randomly occur and persist to occur from a certain point on, if it were so unnatural and disadvantageous to evolution? I'm asking you to give me a convincing answer to that question, staying loyal to the ideals you have made clear before.

"Nothing is broken"? One of the main functions of every living organism is reproduction and the brain of persons unable to have heterosexual sex is missing this function . At the population level it does not create problems as long as it is isolated to a few members.

Heterosexual sex is no prerequisite for reproduction. Above all, lots of heterosexuals do not reproduce, whereas a fair amount of homosexuals do reproduce, albeit mostly not in a manner involving sexual intercourse.

Sex is no requirement for reproduction and we have luckily enough evolved to a situation where this thought pattern can be eradicated. I hope you will follow and leave behind your - forgive me - narrow-minded thoughts.

Above all, and more important, we, as self-conscious human beings, have evolved into organisms able to fill in the meaning of life and its goals ourselves, not letting them be dictated by others or so-called evolutionary postulations. If we decided for ourselves that indeed, our only main goal would be reproduction and conservation of our species, then we should ask ourselves what the general purpose of that would be. If we have no other meaning than reproduction and conservation, we could all hang ourselves because our intrinsic life would have no purpose.

I have never said that; go see again .

To my question asking you whether a choice exists in sexual orientation, you answered "yes very much so."

yes it is natural The homosexuality way way back in time was forbidden because it would slow down the reproduction of human on earth but it is natural feeling for an other person .

Stating this, how could you ever say in post #41 that there is a choice involved in the development of sexual orientation?

I am saying that loving a person of opposite sex is natural.

It is. Loving a person of the same sex is natural, too. Everything that happens must be natural.

Which could bring us back to an old discussion asking whether our clothes are natural or not.

We had one or two people here that wanted to be straight and looking for some sort of medical intervention.

Psychotherapy is more in its place then.

Poignant how people can be made into thinking that they, or what they believe in or stand for, is not natural and should be fixed. Poignant how even the most modern societies can be cruel to minorities.

Roger Dynamic Motion, might I, a bit off-topic, enquire your views on transsexualism and transgenderism?

what do you mean; <<Your quote]Don't you think that if I had a choice, I'd be sexually attracted to women?

You say that choice is involved in the development of sexual orientation. My dear friend, it is not. If it were, I'd choose to be attracted to women. For a multitude of reasons.

Some homosexuals want to become heterosexual because society discriminates them, but others may want to become heterosexual because they want to have biological children the natural way. As long as artificial reproduction methods are ethical, reparative therapy should be so either. It is a different way of achieving fertility.

It can have side effects, like any other therapy. The benefit has to exceed the costs for it to be ethical.

"Reparative therapy", pardon me? Nothing is broken, nothing has to be repaired. Trust me, the examples you give are whatsoever destructive for the mental well-being of the homosexual. They do not inherently 'want' to become heterosexual, they think they do because they are forced into believing they must. These lines of thought are no natural thought patterns and are mere results of public opinion and its religious influences on sexual orientation and are - plain wrong.

 

Then we are done here. I wish no longer to discuss this fragile and delicate matter with such narrow-mindedness.

 

And forgive me to say that, but you're on a forum which agrees that we are already a bit further in understanding sexual orientation than it being a "choice" whatsoever.

 

Don't you think that if I had a choice, I'd be sexually attracted to women? Lots more choice (forgive me the sexist tone here, didn't mean it like that) and less taboo. An overall easier life, if you'd ask me. But warning: biased.

Your quote]Don't you think that if I had a choice, I'd be sexually attracted to women?

 

it seem to be a misunderstanding here !

 

Explain to me our misunderstanding, please.

piece of shit!!!

 

son of a bitch

 

SHIT FUCKED

 

FUCK ALL

 

FUCK YOU, you motherless fuck!

This must be the most productive post in these whole forums.

yes very much so . The homosexuality way way back in time was forbidden because it would slow down the reproduction of human on Hearth .

Then we are done here. I wish no longer to discuss this fragile and delicate matter with such narrow-mindedness.

And forgive me to say that, but you're on a forum which agrees that we are already a bit further in understanding sexual orientation than it being a "choice" whatsoever.

Don't you think that if I had a choice, I'd be sexually attracted to women? Lots more choice (forgive me the sexist tone here, didn't mean it like that) and less taboo. An overall easier life, if you'd ask me. But warning: biased.

Nature do not decide or dictate the feeling of a human been . for a man or woman.

Are you insinuating the existance of choice in sexual orientation?

As long as there are ego-dystonic homosexuals, and homosexuality averse cultures, there is a market for this research.

It would be unethical of providing these "markets" with research data allowing the mto influence the outcome of sexual orientation of their progeny.

Egodystonic homosexuals are not to be taught how to "solve" the origin of their 'egodystonia' (which would then be their homosexuality); this would only force them into things they believe would be healthy, slowly destroying their mental well-being without them even knowing it on long term. The environment, society, in which egodystonic homosexuals grow up are, as far as I'm concerned, the true cause of the dystonia. That problem should be addressed. Not the 'cause' of their sexual orientation.

sexual orientation doesn't know any dependence .

Can you clarify this please?

I do not have statistics for the arabs, but I live in a culture with some similarities to the arab countries. Before the 90's we lived in very poor conditions, with little electricity. I had never seen or heard of a homosexual, transgender until I was 15 years old. I learned it from the western media.

In my opinion, homosexuality is oppressed in the arab countries because it is rare, not vice versa. When a behavior is rare, and is not beneficial, it is frowned upon, why not oppressed.

It's a vicious circle.

But you don't answer my question. You state that it's a multifactorial being. Dependent of environment, that is. There is no reason to believe that other cultures have less homosexuals than more developed, progressive cultures, unless you have data to show so (which would be, however, strongly biased: statistics in arab countries will be lower due to possible prosecutions and kafkian feelings). If this is true (which cannot be proven), then there is no reason believing that homosexuality is multifactorial.

It is therefore impossible to state that homosexuality is, or isn't, environmentally influenced.

To me, it's not.

 

Genes interact with modern diet and stress to cause homosexuality. I refer to this in the study and explain that by changing the "environment" the person can change his partner preference, although his genes (hence inclination for homosexuality), will not change. It is well known in medicine that phenotype is a result of the interaction of genes with the environment.

I dare you to state that the homosexuality genes in strict muslim countries is stronger than those in more progressive countries, given the strict anti-gay mentality in let's say the whole community there and probable punishes, also given the contradictory prevalence of homosexuality, there.

Gay people do exist in those countries, probably as much as here, and let's be honest: the environment there is not in favour of homosexuality. Which, according to your statement, must mean that the genetic predisposition for homosexuality there and here should be different. Which is, imo, most obviously not the case.

Gay people may be oppressed there and may force themselves in fake straight partnerships to evade prosecution.

Can you please provide an article (peer-reviewed), backing-up your statement?

Sounds amazing when coming to an absolution studying for the exam coming up Friday

 

 

Well, we call it cancer because it can't trigger apoptosis and its DNA is damaged. And it is unrepairable. Second thing, there is a thing already named "Chemotherapy" for prevent uncontrolled proliferation of cancer cells.

In fact, lots of chemotherapeutic agents aim to damage DNA and block DNA repair mechanisms to force even malign cells into apoptosis.

(Radiation therapy works in a comparable way)

You give us a reference from 2001 (for those who are still aghast by hearing from another point of view: 16 years ago). In a domain such as oncology, that's way outdated. Oncological research is evolving so fast that you'd at least need a reference from the last 5 years. On the same subject.

If not, forget about it. It's unthinkable that no other person with time, money, and the task to do so, has already thought about it and researched it.

Old articles (yes, 2001 is old) may provide you some general concepts and insights in the fundamentals of oncology. But when it comes especially to genetics, and whole protein families, you can't rely on something that old for researching something new.

Yes I do but why is clinical relevance important?

Justified distribution of resources.

Where in Belgium do you live?

It can get 33°C today, where I live.

About in the centre of East-Flanders. Not having a thermometer right here, Google indicates 32 °C atm.

How about making "fake modified T-cells", which have CCR5, like original one, but everything else in them is disabled.

So once they are introduced to human body (drip), they are capturing majority of viruses from blood.

Later they can be identified by unique part on surface (due to modification), and expelled from human body.

Not possible: the virus will replicate incredibly fast, whether it be real or bait T-lympho's (BTL). How were you planning on extracting each and every BTL from the body without even leaving one infected one?

Moreover, the virus will still bind to CCR5's on regular, real T-lympho's, there's no way in directing the virus towards the BTLs, unless you would inject more BTLs than we would have regular T-lymho's, and have thousands, if not millions of CCR5s be expressed on their cell surface.

I just think extra scientific knowledge is always a good thing. Without this topic ( and another concerning this subject) I would not have looked into this matter.

This is where most of my science related knowledge comes from. I always look into the subject matter of a thread....Most of my knowledge (which is very limited ) comes from Wikipedia, pubmed and arxiv.

 

I found an interesting link.

-In women, diabetes 1 can cause (indirect) a drop in testosterone.

-Pregnant women(I suppose the diet is an important issue) can create Gestational Diabetes .

"Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM), or high blood sugar during pregnancy, used to be relatively rare, occurring in about 3 percent to 4 percent of pregnancies. But in recent years, the rate has doublednow, up to 6 percent to 8 percent of moms-to-be are diagnosed with this prenatal complication"

https://www.fitpregnancy.com/pregnancy/pregnancy-health/sugar-shock

See the difference? Those things are clinically relevant.

I think it's interesting (pure scientific) to know that modern diet can increase (or decrease) the chance of homosexuality via prenatal stress. But it indeed doesn't really matter. Homosexuality is not a negative effect. There are lot of negative effects caused by modern diet+lifestyle.

Hadn't seen you're from Belgium, too!

"Interesting (pure scientific)" ... But why? Why would you - physics aside - want to know something that doesn't matter in the end and of which trying to change it would pose great ethical problems?

A professor of ours who taught us principles of scientific methodology always said that he has 1 favourite question he always asks at the defence of Master's theses, after the "defendants" have concluded their results:

"So what?"

Implying the need for relevance.

Knowing that modern diet or stress would influence the outcome of sexual orientation in a foetus, a child, an adult - what's the point?

I'm not saying that we should live peacefully forever in ignorance, but why should we waste resources on pointless research?