Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Question for the people here over 40
Comments
-
Exactly.Sledog said:
Rabbits are scared of more things than sheep.trublue said:Zero
Never heard it told this way. Always been sheep, sheepdogs and wolves.Sledog said:Creep exchanges are always like this. You should know that.
1. I have never started a fight in my life. I had rules from my father to never start one. The other rule was that if some else started it and you couldn't walk away was to finish the fight and win the fight. I followed the rule. I never lost. Yet. Always someone bigger or badder than you but they are usually nice guys in my experience.
2. Fights were over many things in my day sometimes girls sometimes not. Some people are just assholes. Some think they are bullies but really aren't.
3. Tough guys I have known were very well behaved and well liked and respected. They didn't start trouble. They weren't assholes. Older times men were gentlemen and gentlemen knew how to defend themselves. Maybe my cop dad was from that generation.
4. No people didn't always talk shit except your buddies. The reason was as I explained, others wouldn't put up with it and would say something and if really needed do something. How often do we see that these days?
5. No they are in all walks of life normal folks. They weren't bullies. They hopefully all raised men. We're very short of men these days. We have different outlooks, morals and values and upbringing it seems. I have not impugned yours. I like mine better and have taught my children the same way. They were not bullies and they might have one fight between them and it was minor. You appear to be a rabbit person. Not all people are rabbits. Some are sheepdogs. Some are wolves. I didn't raise rabbits.
Never heard rabbits as part of the equation . . . But I get your point.
Which in my view is an expanding class of people by use of media and catalyzed by the pandemic.
It's always been about control. The Corona Bros love being dominated.
-
<
Me? Nothing at all. If someone put a study like that in front of me I wouldn't know what to do with it. My POV is entirely inferential, based largely on the following premise: being gay has almost been in most/ many cultures in most times something that would create varying levels of problems for the person who is gay. When I was growing up it was limiting, at best. It didn't make high school very pleasant, and of course we know in some barbaric cultures today it's a death sentence. It disappoints parents and it seems clear that a lot of people fight it for years before finally giving in to what seems to be their natural make-up. So, against all that, people engage in homosexual acts/relationships, and I infer from that reality that there must be some biologically driven urge to the attraction. If you're getting in on w/ some dude in Afghanistan, where you can basically make any woman be yours and where, if you're caught, you're going to get stoned to death or some shit, then I assume it's something you really want to do.RoadTrip said:
This would make an excellent discussion. What have you witnessed that would indicate homosexuality is genetic? I'd say it is more environmental.creepycoug said:
Nope. Not one. I'm in the camp with Douglas Murray on this one. We are making permanent decisions with kids, and we are managing our culture on the basis of an all-in assumption that trans is like gay: just who you are. Murray (who is gay) says, and I agree, that we don't know much of anything about trans and we should, at the very least, be pumping the breaks on it. He also believes, as do I, that mental illness is likely a big driver, but being the academic that he is, he doens't firmly conclude on that point w/o a study. At least as far as the last talk he gave that I have watched.SFGbob said:Do you recall a single "trans-gender" student during any of your 12 years of primary, Junior high and high school?
Although I am not gay (I swear!) and have no gay children or siblings, I don't agree with the subtle conflation of trans and gay in the public discourse on this issue. And that's on both sides of the debate.
Gay has been with us since the dawn of time, and while I believe there can be some "fashionable" joining of a lifestyle on some occasions for a period of time, it seems that homosexuality is largely a born-in trait. Trans is something else altogether from what I can tell.
Beyond that, there's historical evidence it's been with us throughout time. In ancient Greece, gay relationships were pretty normal and, worse, those relationships between older and younger men were known and tolerated. So much so that there were culturally-imposed rules and expectations that applied to them. I won't go into what those were, but it was the case. There is ancient art that reflects this pretty clearly as well showing a younger man blocking an approaching older guy from grabbing his junk ... a culturally acceptable way of saying, "no, not into it." I guess if there was no blocking gesture that meant he was.
So, all that disturbing (to us) evidence seems to make it clear that homosexuality across the spectrum was common in ancient Greece. I think the academy with Socrates and the others was full on with it. There are lots of other examples.
Just like some dudes like certain things in women that I don't particularly find attractive, I guess those preferences can all the way to the other sex.
Just not for me. -
Here's another one. Maybe the history buffs can substantiate. Our old CFO was a West Point guy, and he said they were taught in their military history class that the Athenian and Spartan armies had smaller divisions akin to a "special forces"-type groups. These groups were comprised of homosexual men who were in relationships with one another and, it was thought, would fight even more fiercely because they were fighting for one another.
IDK if that's true, but he was a pretty serious (and straight) guy, and that's what he relayed from his West Point education. Go figure.
The world was and still is a funny place. -
But whatever progressives say, let's stay grounded in objective facts.trublue said:https://www.webmd.com/parenting/baby/news/20190503/study-about-1-in-1000-babies-born-intersex
Of course, progressives have their own definition which expands it to 1.5%.
One in a thousand births are objectively, factually intersex. A very small percentage, to be sure. Yet still, that implies approximately 330,000 Americans. About the same as the population of Cincinnati. -
So that's about 6.8 people at any Seahawks game. Seems reasonable, then, to turn society upside down to accommodate the 1 in 1000, doesn't it?HHusky said:
But whatever progressives say, let's stay grounded in objective facts.trublue said:https://www.webmd.com/parenting/baby/news/20190503/study-about-1-in-1000-babies-born-intersex
Of course, progressives have their own definition which expands it to 1.5%.
One in a thousand births are objectively, factually intersex. A very small percentage, to be sure. Yet still, that implies approximately 330,000 Americans. About the same as the population of Cincinnati.
Or maybe the 1/1000 folks should adapt to the other 999, not the other way around. But you'd rather modify the behavior of 999 people instead of teaching the 1 to adapt and not be an asshole.
No wonder you're a shitty lawyer. -
You obviously haven't been able to follow the conversation. I suspect that's a recurring issue for you.TurdBomber said:
So that's about 6.8 people at any Seahawks game. Seems reasonable, then, to turn society upside down to accommodate the 1 in 1000, doesn't it?HHusky said:
But whatever progressives say, let's stay grounded in objective facts.trublue said:https://www.webmd.com/parenting/baby/news/20190503/study-about-1-in-1000-babies-born-intersex
Of course, progressives have their own definition which expands it to 1.5%.
One in a thousand births are objectively, factually intersex. A very small percentage, to be sure. Yet still, that implies approximately 330,000 Americans. About the same as the population of Cincinnati.
Or maybe the 1/1000 folks should adapt to the other 999, not the other way around. But you'd rather modify the behavior of 999 people instead of teaching the 1 to adapt and not be an asshole.
No wonder you're a shitty lawyer.
Maybe all those beatings you took from your dad didn't do you as much good as you thought. -
Dodge the point. Nice lawyering.HHusky said:
You obviously haven't been able to follow the conversation. I suspect that's a recurring issue for you.TurdBomber said:
So that's about 6.8 people at any Seahawks game. Seems reasonable, then, to turn society upside down to accommodate the 1 in 1000, doesn't it?HHusky said:
But whatever progressives say, let's stay grounded in objective facts.trublue said:https://www.webmd.com/parenting/baby/news/20190503/study-about-1-in-1000-babies-born-intersex
Of course, progressives have their own definition which expands it to 1.5%.
One in a thousand births are objectively, factually intersex. A very small percentage, to be sure. Yet still, that implies approximately 330,000 Americans. About the same as the population of Cincinnati.
Or maybe the 1/1000 folks should adapt to the other 999, not the other way around. But you'd rather modify the behavior of 999 people instead of teaching the 1 to adapt and not be an asshole.
No wonder you're a shitty lawyer.
Maybe all those beatings you took from your dad didn't do you as much good as you thought. -
Thanks and all of that is factually true but I still don't see how being gay is something one is born into. The attributes you find attractive in women were most likely influenced by environment not a predisposed attraction. If you were Scandinavian or Asian, you would have most likely been attracted to attributes of those ethnicities but not because it was genetic. It's just my opinion homosexuality is not genetic and is more influenced by environment.creepycoug said:<
Me? Nothing at all. If someone put a study like that in front of me I wouldn't know what to do with it. My POV is entirely inferential, based largely on the following premise: being gay has almost been in most/ many cultures in most times something that would create varying levels of problems for the person who is gay. When I was growing up it was limiting, at best. It didn't make high school very pleasant, and of course we know in some barbaric cultures today it's a death sentence. It disappoints parents and it seems clear that a lot of people fight it for years before finally giving in to what seems to be their natural make-up. So, against all that, people engage in homosexual acts/relationships, and I infer from that reality that there must be some biologically driven urge to the attraction. If you're getting in on w/ some dude in Afghanistan, where you can basically make any woman be yours and where, if you're caught, you're going to get stoned to death or some shit, then I assume it's something you really want to do.RoadTrip said:
This would make an excellent discussion. What have you witnessed that would indicate homosexuality is genetic? I'd say it is more environmental.creepycoug said:
Nope. Not one. I'm in the camp with Douglas Murray on this one. We are making permanent decisions with kids, and we are managing our culture on the basis of an all-in assumption that trans is like gay: just who you are. Murray (who is gay) says, and I agree, that we don't know much of anything about trans and we should, at the very least, be pumping the breaks on it. He also believes, as do I, that mental illness is likely a big driver, but being the academic that he is, he doens't firmly conclude on that point w/o a study. At least as far as the last talk he gave that I have watched.SFGbob said:Do you recall a single "trans-gender" student during any of your 12 years of primary, Junior high and high school?
Although I am not gay (I swear!) and have no gay children or siblings, I don't agree with the subtle conflation of trans and gay in the public discourse on this issue. And that's on both sides of the debate.
Gay has been with us since the dawn of time, and while I believe there can be some "fashionable" joining of a lifestyle on some occasions for a period of time, it seems that homosexuality is largely a born-in trait. Trans is something else altogether from what I can tell.
Beyond that, there's historical evidence it's been with us throughout time. In ancient Greece, gay relationships were pretty normal and, worse, those relationships between older and younger men were known and tolerated. So much so that there were culturally-imposed rules and expectations that applied to them. I won't go into what those were, but it was the case. There is ancient art that reflects this pretty clearly as well showing a younger man blocking an approaching older guy from grabbing his junk ... a culturally acceptable way of saying, "no, not into it." I guess if there was no blocking gesture that meant he was.
So, all that disturbing (to us) evidence seems to make it clear that homosexuality across the spectrum was common in ancient Greece. I think the academy with Socrates and the others was full on with it. There are lots of other examples.
Just like some dudes like certain things in women that I don't particularly find attractive, I guess those preferences can all the way to the other sex.
Just not for me. -
If it was genetic, they would have found the gene and then the gays would be screaming about parents either aborting gay babies or genetically altering kids to turn off the gay gene. Sort of like some deaf people have a problem with curing deaf people. I think its largely environmental.RoadTrip said:
Thanks and all of that is factually true but I still don't see how being gay is something one is born into. The attributes you find attractive in women were most likely influenced by environment not a predisposed attraction. If you were Scandinavian or Asian, you would have most likely been attracted to attributes of those ethnicities but not because it was genetic. It's just my opinion homosexuality is not genetic and is more influenced by environment.creepycoug said:<
Me? Nothing at all. If someone put a study like that in front of me I wouldn't know what to do with it. My POV is entirely inferential, based largely on the following premise: being gay has almost been in most/ many cultures in most times something that would create varying levels of problems for the person who is gay. When I was growing up it was limiting, at best. It didn't make high school very pleasant, and of course we know in some barbaric cultures today it's a death sentence. It disappoints parents and it seems clear that a lot of people fight it for years before finally giving in to what seems to be their natural make-up. So, against all that, people engage in homosexual acts/relationships, and I infer from that reality that there must be some biologically driven urge to the attraction. If you're getting in on w/ some dude in Afghanistan, where you can basically make any woman be yours and where, if you're caught, you're going to get stoned to death or some shit, then I assume it's something you really want to do.RoadTrip said:
This would make an excellent discussion. What have you witnessed that would indicate homosexuality is genetic? I'd say it is more environmental.creepycoug said:
Nope. Not one. I'm in the camp with Douglas Murray on this one. We are making permanent decisions with kids, and we are managing our culture on the basis of an all-in assumption that trans is like gay: just who you are. Murray (who is gay) says, and I agree, that we don't know much of anything about trans and we should, at the very least, be pumping the breaks on it. He also believes, as do I, that mental illness is likely a big driver, but being the academic that he is, he doens't firmly conclude on that point w/o a study. At least as far as the last talk he gave that I have watched.SFGbob said:Do you recall a single "trans-gender" student during any of your 12 years of primary, Junior high and high school?
Although I am not gay (I swear!) and have no gay children or siblings, I don't agree with the subtle conflation of trans and gay in the public discourse on this issue. And that's on both sides of the debate.
Gay has been with us since the dawn of time, and while I believe there can be some "fashionable" joining of a lifestyle on some occasions for a period of time, it seems that homosexuality is largely a born-in trait. Trans is something else altogether from what I can tell.
Beyond that, there's historical evidence it's been with us throughout time. In ancient Greece, gay relationships were pretty normal and, worse, those relationships between older and younger men were known and tolerated. So much so that there were culturally-imposed rules and expectations that applied to them. I won't go into what those were, but it was the case. There is ancient art that reflects this pretty clearly as well showing a younger man blocking an approaching older guy from grabbing his junk ... a culturally acceptable way of saying, "no, not into it." I guess if there was no blocking gesture that meant he was.
So, all that disturbing (to us) evidence seems to make it clear that homosexuality across the spectrum was common in ancient Greece. I think the academy with Socrates and the others was full on with it. There are lots of other examples.
Just like some dudes like certain things in women that I don't particularly find attractive, I guess those preferences can all the way to the other sex.
Just not for me. -
I think many are just real loser, ugly people that can't seem to land a chick. Had a fair amount of experience as a world renowned gay hook up spot was in the city I worked. A lot of these guys just couldn't get laid and ended up there out of desperation. I could never get that desperate. It was possibly the most disgusting place on the face of the planet. Most have little interest in relationships just sex. If they have relationships the majority are short lived with constant rotating new partners.creepycoug said:Here's another one. Maybe the history buffs can substantiate. Our old CFO was a West Point guy, and he said they were taught in their military history class that the Athenian and Spartan armies had smaller divisions akin to a "special forces"-type groups. These groups were comprised of homosexual men who were in relationships with one another and, it was thought, would fight even more fiercely because they were fighting for one another.
IDK if that's true, but he was a pretty serious (and straight) guy, and that's what he relayed from his West Point education. Go figure.
The world was and still is a funny place.
A lot of domestic disturbance calls at gay couple homes. A lot of suicide attempts etc. Most are not the many mentally stable people you will meet.
Amazing what lonely drives people to do. -
And, honestly, that could very well be. I really don't know.RoadTrip said:
Thanks and all of that is factually true but I still don't see how being gay is something one is born into. The attributes you find attractive in women were most likely influenced by environment not a predisposed attraction. If you were Scandinavian or Asian, you would have most likely been attracted to attributes of those ethnicities but not because it was genetic. It's just my opinion homosexuality is not genetic and is more influenced by environment.creepycoug said:<
Me? Nothing at all. If someone put a study like that in front of me I wouldn't know what to do with it. My POV is entirely inferential, based largely on the following premise: being gay has almost been in most/ many cultures in most times something that would create varying levels of problems for the person who is gay. When I was growing up it was limiting, at best. It didn't make high school very pleasant, and of course we know in some barbaric cultures today it's a death sentence. It disappoints parents and it seems clear that a lot of people fight it for years before finally giving in to what seems to be their natural make-up. So, against all that, people engage in homosexual acts/relationships, and I infer from that reality that there must be some biologically driven urge to the attraction. If you're getting in on w/ some dude in Afghanistan, where you can basically make any woman be yours and where, if you're caught, you're going to get stoned to death or some shit, then I assume it's something you really want to do.RoadTrip said:
This would make an excellent discussion. What have you witnessed that would indicate homosexuality is genetic? I'd say it is more environmental.creepycoug said:
Nope. Not one. I'm in the camp with Douglas Murray on this one. We are making permanent decisions with kids, and we are managing our culture on the basis of an all-in assumption that trans is like gay: just who you are. Murray (who is gay) says, and I agree, that we don't know much of anything about trans and we should, at the very least, be pumping the breaks on it. He also believes, as do I, that mental illness is likely a big driver, but being the academic that he is, he doens't firmly conclude on that point w/o a study. At least as far as the last talk he gave that I have watched.SFGbob said:Do you recall a single "trans-gender" student during any of your 12 years of primary, Junior high and high school?
Although I am not gay (I swear!) and have no gay children or siblings, I don't agree with the subtle conflation of trans and gay in the public discourse on this issue. And that's on both sides of the debate.
Gay has been with us since the dawn of time, and while I believe there can be some "fashionable" joining of a lifestyle on some occasions for a period of time, it seems that homosexuality is largely a born-in trait. Trans is something else altogether from what I can tell.
Beyond that, there's historical evidence it's been with us throughout time. In ancient Greece, gay relationships were pretty normal and, worse, those relationships between older and younger men were known and tolerated. So much so that there were culturally-imposed rules and expectations that applied to them. I won't go into what those were, but it was the case. There is ancient art that reflects this pretty clearly as well showing a younger man blocking an approaching older guy from grabbing his junk ... a culturally acceptable way of saying, "no, not into it." I guess if there was no blocking gesture that meant he was.
So, all that disturbing (to us) evidence seems to make it clear that homosexuality across the spectrum was common in ancient Greece. I think the academy with Socrates and the others was full on with it. There are lots of other examples.
Just like some dudes like certain things in women that I don't particularly find attractive, I guess those preferences can all the way to the other sex.
Just not for me. -
Sexual orientation appears to be heavily influenced by biological factors, some of which are prenatal.
-
The slobberer: My mommy made me a homosexual.HHusky said:Sexual orientation appears to be heavily influenced by biological factors, some of which are prenatal.
The dazzler: If I bought her the yarn, could she make me one too? -
"Prevailing scientific opinion is that an individual's sexuality is determined at a very early age and that a child's teachers do not really influence this.” - St. Ronald
-
This would send the pro choice crowd into an absolute tailspin.WestlinnDuck said:
If it was genetic, they would have found the gene and then the gays would be screaming about parents either aborting gay babies or genetically altering kids to turn off the gay gene. Sort of like some deaf people have a problem with curing deaf people. I think its largely environmental.RoadTrip said:
Thanks and all of that is factually true but I still don't see how being gay is something one is born into. The attributes you find attractive in women were most likely influenced by environment not a predisposed attraction. If you were Scandinavian or Asian, you would have most likely been attracted to attributes of those ethnicities but not because it was genetic. It's just my opinion homosexuality is not genetic and is more influenced by environment.creepycoug said:<
Me? Nothing at all. If someone put a study like that in front of me I wouldn't know what to do with it. My POV is entirely inferential, based largely on the following premise: being gay has almost been in most/ many cultures in most times something that would create varying levels of problems for the person who is gay. When I was growing up it was limiting, at best. It didn't make high school very pleasant, and of course we know in some barbaric cultures today it's a death sentence. It disappoints parents and it seems clear that a lot of people fight it for years before finally giving in to what seems to be their natural make-up. So, against all that, people engage in homosexual acts/relationships, and I infer from that reality that there must be some biologically driven urge to the attraction. If you're getting in on w/ some dude in Afghanistan, where you can basically make any woman be yours and where, if you're caught, you're going to get stoned to death or some shit, then I assume it's something you really want to do.RoadTrip said:
This would make an excellent discussion. What have you witnessed that would indicate homosexuality is genetic? I'd say it is more environmental.creepycoug said:
Nope. Not one. I'm in the camp with Douglas Murray on this one. We are making permanent decisions with kids, and we are managing our culture on the basis of an all-in assumption that trans is like gay: just who you are. Murray (who is gay) says, and I agree, that we don't know much of anything about trans and we should, at the very least, be pumping the breaks on it. He also believes, as do I, that mental illness is likely a big driver, but being the academic that he is, he doens't firmly conclude on that point w/o a study. At least as far as the last talk he gave that I have watched.SFGbob said:Do you recall a single "trans-gender" student during any of your 12 years of primary, Junior high and high school?
Although I am not gay (I swear!) and have no gay children or siblings, I don't agree with the subtle conflation of trans and gay in the public discourse on this issue. And that's on both sides of the debate.
Gay has been with us since the dawn of time, and while I believe there can be some "fashionable" joining of a lifestyle on some occasions for a period of time, it seems that homosexuality is largely a born-in trait. Trans is something else altogether from what I can tell.
Beyond that, there's historical evidence it's been with us throughout time. In ancient Greece, gay relationships were pretty normal and, worse, those relationships between older and younger men were known and tolerated. So much so that there were culturally-imposed rules and expectations that applied to them. I won't go into what those were, but it was the case. There is ancient art that reflects this pretty clearly as well showing a younger man blocking an approaching older guy from grabbing his junk ... a culturally acceptable way of saying, "no, not into it." I guess if there was no blocking gesture that meant he was.
So, all that disturbing (to us) evidence seems to make it clear that homosexuality across the spectrum was common in ancient Greece. I think the academy with Socrates and the others was full on with it. There are lots of other examples.
Just like some dudes like certain things in women that I don't particularly find attractive, I guess those preferences can all the way to the other sex.
Just not for me. -
BS. You have no proof of a gay gene existing and never will. You can blame your parents for how ugly you are not for being born with a hatred of women.HHusky said:Sexual orientation appears to be heavily influenced by biological factors, some of which are prenatal.
-
You can read and reread what I said and you still won't find the word "gene" or "genetic".RoadTrip said:
BS. You have no proof of a gay gene existing and never will. You can blame your parents for how ugly you are not for being born with a hatred of women.HHusky said:Sexual orientation appears to be heavily influenced by biological factors, some of which are prenatal.
Genetics may explain why you're a moron, but that's a different subject. -
Meltdown underway.HHusky said:
You can read and reread what I said and you still won't find the word "gene" or "genetic".RoadTrip said:
BS. You have no proof of a gay gene existing and never will. You can blame your parents for how ugly you are not for being born with a hatred of women.HHusky said:Sexual orientation appears to be heavily influenced by biological factors, some of which are prenatal.
Genetics may explain why you're a moron, but that's a different subject. -
Turd's out of ammo.TurdBomber said:
Meltdown underway.HHusky said:
You can read and reread what I said and you still won't find the word "gene" or "genetic".RoadTrip said:
BS. You have no proof of a gay gene existing and never will. You can blame your parents for how ugly you are not for being born with a hatred of women.HHusky said:Sexual orientation appears to be heavily influenced by biological factors, some of which are prenatal.
Genetics may explain why you're a moron, but that's a different subject. -
Meltdown escalating.HHusky said:
Turd's out of ammo.TurdBomber said:
Meltdown underway.HHusky said:
You can read and reread what I said and you still won't find the word "gene" or "genetic".RoadTrip said:
BS. You have no proof of a gay gene existing and never will. You can blame your parents for how ugly you are not for being born with a hatred of women.HHusky said:Sexual orientation appears to be heavily influenced by biological factors, some of which are prenatal.
Genetics may explain why you're a moron, but that's a different subject. -
Turd's out of ammo.TurdBomber said:
Meltdown underway.HHusky said:
You can read and reread what I said and you still won't find the word "gene" or "genetic".RoadTrip said:
BS. You have no proof of a gay gene existing and never will. You can blame your parents for how ugly you are not for being born with a hatred of women.HHusky said:Sexual orientation appears to be heavily influenced by biological factors, some of which are prenatal.
Genetics may explain why you're a moron, but that's a different subject.
sureTurdBomber said:
Meltdown escalating.HHusky said:
Turd's out of ammo.TurdBomber said:
Meltdown underway.HHusky said:
You can read and reread what I said and you still won't find the word "gene" or "genetic".RoadTrip said:
BS. You have no proof of a gay gene existing and never will. You can blame your parents for how ugly you are not for being born with a hatred of women.HHusky said:Sexual orientation appears to be heavily influenced by biological factors, some of which are prenatal.
Genetics may explain why you're a moron, but that's a different subject.
