iNow

Very sorry to hear that. Also, very sorry to point out that security is not the only thing you’ve been inventing since joining this community.

But I’ve narrated nothing. All I’ve done is highlight flaws in your thinking and references to how it’s contradicted by modern science. Okay. Whatever. Good on ya. I accept your concession that you won’t/can’t actually “pointout a series of mistakes made there” in the numerous references and quotes I shared.

“There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged.One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."

Is this a journey of self exploration for you?

Also, I’d like the admins to do an IP check of you and that other reading comprehension problem guy who keeps responding. I’d be willing to bet you’re just sock puppets. Then do so

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environment_and_sexual_orientation Shall I go on, or will you acknowledge that maybe there’s merit in my criticism of your point?

You aren’t giving yourself enough credit. I’m sure you’re capable of being respectful. I showed why your point appears flawed. Try not to take it personally. Which is why I highlighted other data for you. How so? Please be specific. Here’s the reference and relevant bit to make meaningful and relevant response as easy as humanly possible for you: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1529100616637616

This is not an accurate reading of the data on the subject, ESPECIALLY since you refer specifically to child abuse and food as dominant environmental factors. When considering environmental factors of homosexuality, nearly all of it comes from time in the womb. You’re welcome to your opinion, but your conclusion seems flawed. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation#Twin_studies Promise?

Lol. Still absolutely unrelated to my actual point. You’re clearly under no obligation to share or confirm, but perhaps you suffer from some sort of mental handicap that leads to these consistently absurd and ridiculous exchanges every. single. time you post here?

Agreed, and yet this has literally nothing to do with my point. At this point, I can no longer give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you have severe reading comprehension problems. You’re obviously arguing in bad faith.

Irrelevant. Changing the definition of love has zero impact to either the veracity or validity of my challenge. Homosexuality is not disordered. Calling it disordered is a judgement.

Labeling two people who love each other as “disordered” due solely to their plumbing is, in fact, a judgment, and this will remain true regardless of how forcefully or consistently or condescendingly you protest.

Depends on the disorder and my relationship to them, but to reiterate my actual point: homosexuality isn’t a disorder so your reply is moot.

Of course, but I obviously was commenting on your suggestion that they were influenced by desire for rebellion and antisocial behavior. I’m in 100% agreement that flavor preferences are a result of both genetics and experience. Is this another example of your problems with reading comprehension?

Comments like these remind us of how very far we still need to go as a society when discussing topics like homosexuality. There is nothing lacking in the brains or brain structures of nonheterosexual humans. They simply prefer other humans with similar plumbing. On a related note, there’s nothing lacking in the brains of people who prefer cats over dogs. Hard to believe, I know, but true Comments like yours quoted above, however, do suggest a lack in the posters brain, or at least in their empathy and decency.

Or, some people just prefer chocolate while others prefer vanilla. Rebellion and antisocial behavior neither required nor parsimonious.

Perhaps they disagreed with your assessment, reviewed the post you reported and decided it didn’t break site rules or violent standards of civility.

I’m uncertain. Neither of us knows what moderators are and are not seeing. This is why there’s a report post function. It highlights issues to their attention in case they’ve not already witnessed them directly. It’s disingenuous at best to berate the moderators in one breath for not taking action against participants in your threads then to refuse in the next breath to use the mechanism which highlights problematic posts to them or to dismiss such actions as “crying to mommy.” *The comments above include some quotes from other recent threads, but most are from this one within just the past 24 hours

Facepalm

I’m very sorry to hear that. Have you considered reporting my posts?

LOL. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding. I’m happy to acknowledge that. It would be helpful if perhaps you might acknowledge the possibility of misunderstanding on your side, as well (for if this isn’t a simple misunderstanding, then the only other possibility is you’re here arguing in bad faith). By way of example, your OP seemed to highlight gaps in the existing models and frameworks used in modern psychology. Specifically, I was replying to these comments from you: It’s not unreasonable to suggest you’re attempting to highlight gaps in current approaches. Comments like “they simply missed” and “overlooked” led directly to my summary that your OP is highlighting gaps. For convenience, here again is exactly what I said: That’s all. “Hey... if you haven’t already, maybe consider that those gaps are already filled by other phenomena, something like psychopathy.” Yet despite your contention that you’re not miscomprehending, that somehow led to these responses: As you can see, you’ve misunderstood my comment. My mention of gaps had nothing to do with your “theory.” Your misunderstanding is obvious by how you’re responding. A similar exchange too place when I said psychopathy is an identifier. Specifically, I said this: Another way of saying this is that it’s a subtype. However, despite your claims that you’re not misreading me, this is how you responded: I’ll close by highlighting that you’re experience here has been rather consistent across topics and across posters, with some already placing you on their ignore list and other threads of yours getting locked due to bad faith argumentation. It’s certainly your right to believe everyone is out to get you, that they take pleasure in interrupting your threads, and that the moderators are looking past what you see as blatant transgressions of senior members and singling you out for punishment, or... you might consider that you are misreading comments from others, and that the one consistent variable in all of this is YOU. I’m not optimistic you will, but perhaps some self reflection about your current attitude and considerations about your current posting style might provide you and all of us here with a better more enjoyable experience. Even a cursory review of your posts shows how plainly comments like the below are false:

Keep in mind that rather often these cultural identity issues (trans athletes, abortion, guns, etc.) are often being pushed out en masse strategically and on purpose to distract from the larger paucity of policies designed to help people and also to distract from those policies actually harming them (restricted voting rights, failure to expand Medicaid, for example). https://www.vox.com/identities/22334014/trans-athletes-bills-explained

False, though I will claim that if you're not intentionally misrepresenting me then you very much are misunderstanding and failing to properly comprehend me. Also false, as I've clarified for you now repeatedly. We can discuss whether or not it's valid in this context, but not whether or not it's there in this context. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder#Psychopathy Emphasis mine. We're done on this topic as far as I'm concerned. I'm sure your style and approach will surely attract others to participate, though!

Sigh. I must be a sadist for continuing to reply, but I assure you I find none of this pleasant nor sexual. Since you asked so very nicely and with such good faith and good intention... Section III of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) includes a psychopathy specifier. That’s what I said above... it’s a specifier of ASPD... and now I’ve supported my claim and shared my source since I’m not a total douchebag.