Posted by
admin on
March 10, 2010
Post a Comment
Marcus Brigstocke – ANOTHER Great Religion Rant {ten commandments with funny pictures}
Categories:
Funy Animation |
25 responses
Marcus Brigstocke rants about religion. Not for the faint-hearted! Audio from ‘The Now Show’, Radio 4, Saturday 17 July 2009. Pictures compiled, animated and sequenced by fsmgauss, who also hates religion.
25 Responses to “Marcus Brigstocke – ANOTHER Great Religion Rant {ten commandments with funny pictures}”
Leave a Reply
we recommend
XBOX CHEAT
You sir just made my day
Also, please answer my question from my last post about why Im bi and how it fits with what you have stated. I think you must have somehow missed that part (even tho it was about half the message)
joshuaspolar, are you not getting bored of and frustrated by your own arguments???? I could swear we had the same argument 3 months ago. You shouldn’t let this consume you!!!
@oneeyednarn
no it has not replaced it. Really, neither theory is 100% accurate.
cases like Thomas Beattie prove Nurture is more influential, but cases like David Reimer eliminate the idea of Nurture all together.
The thing is, nature intends for us to be a certain way. We are free thinkers – we exhibit sentience. Nature says we are either guys who need girls, or girls who need guys. Our ability to think for ourselves allows us to deviate from that path. Deviation isn’t always good though
OK, now you’re confusing me, yesterday you were arguing against genetics, now you’re arguing for it?
My point is: complex parts of the human brain/mind, sexuality being one of them, cannot be traced to one single cause, nature ot nurture alone. Both genetic and environmental factors put together add up to make people what they are. “Nature by nurture” has replaced the “nature vs. nurture” controversy of last century’s psychology.
I’m sorry but I don’t understand your logic here.
Nature/Nurture are two different things.
I don’t know if you’re familiar with David Reimer? Basically, he was born a boy but his penis was burned off. Psychologists at the time were trying to prove that Nurture was more influential than Nature – that gender identity was sociological.
No 3rd party factors determined the outcome.
The experiment failed. Despite their efforts to make him female, he knew he was not. There’s a documentary on it
As I said, “genetically influenced” does not mean “genetically determined”. I never said there weren’t non-genetic factors involved, of course there are. Genetic and non-genetic factors put together add up to make people what they are. It’s called “nature by nurture”.
@oneeyednarn
I don’t see how you could still think that, when there are clearly not genetic factors involved.
If it were genetic, in any respect, than identical twins would have the same sexuality. That is not the case, so it can’t be genetic. No matter how you look at it
Being “genetically influenced” isn’t the same as being “genetically determined”. There are both genetic and social factors which add up to define if someone is gay, straight or bisexual.
@qwerty42a000000
The simple fact is it can not be genetic.
There are multiple cases of twins where one is gay and the other is straight. If it were genetic, they would both be the same.
And there could not be the argument that maybe homosexuality follows a different genetic path – genetic twins have the same genes; clearly homosexuality does not fall into the “gene” category.
What I’m saying is that it is not genetic, nor a conscious choice. It is the subconscious response of our upbringing
I grew up in a cattery (breeding pure breed cats) and one more then one occasion we had males that would mount other males but refused to breed with females. admittedly after 12 years and hundreds of cats this only happened… less then 10 times but still happened. also, for your comment that Gay comes from upbringing. My Parents are straight, i’m bi and have one bi sister. Now, my sister has 13 years on me and a different father. my mom is very against gays. if not genetic, why do i like guys?
I’m far from a “word smith” thanks though
Your comment below:
Are you referring to a gay gene? there is none. Numerous cases of genetic twins where one is gay and the other straight have been analyzed.
Now for gay animals:
animals are not gay, they are horny.
My dog humps my stuffed animals, he’s not attracted to them though
they lack the ability to determine right from wrong
Many animals also eat their own kind if they feel threatened or are hungry – that doesn’t make it acceptable for humans
@qwerty42a000000 there are actually many theories. I for one agree with the theory that 2 males can hunt more food and then get best mates. It is actually logical that way.
You mean it would contradict the reproduction aspect of nature. Gay animals are found and i dont just mean humans. Now no one will argue that the purpose of sex is reproduction in the big picture, cause it really is. but to claim it goes against nature is an over statement, as sex also (in the smaller picture) is stress relief and gratification, both of which happen naturally with sex and don’t require it to be heterosexual.
reading several of your posts im starting to think your a word smith
sigh* ok, theres an interview for the guy who found it and reports on further research of it. its not just one source, as i believe i said in my original post referring to it. Yes i only mentioned one source of first finding out about it, but i also mentioned further research. Look for yourself
no, im talking about the gene in humans
yeah that’s true to a stretch. Humans are basically just balls of clay, and we are molded into whatever society makes us.
But putting aside all outside influences, women and men are anatomically different. Women and men need each other to reproduce, so even if society dictates which sexual preferences we have, nature itself intended for man to be with woman. There’s no argument in that.
Nature intends for the survival of a species, not the dying off of. Mass homosexuality would contradict nature
Sexual preference is a social construct. Men are made to believe they are attracted to women and vice versa by their society from birth to adulthood through culture (media, folk tales, etc). There are those who succumb and those who deviate because they haven’t been fed such lies or they oversee the bigger picture of what it is being human.
@joshuaspolar I’m not generalizing much at all. I’m catagorising, it sort of goes in the other direction.
“my type”
well at least you’re not generalizing.
That’s like if I met a black guy who likes chicken, and then I said, “well people I meet ‘like him’ like watermelon and grape drink, so this guy probably does too”
why would nature intend a process that is destructive to its own success?
@RonnieJamesable he’s remarkable commited though, a lot of what I percieve to be ‘his type’ try to run or just beg you to shut up, this guy just got himself stuck in a circle.
I’ve tried to reason with him, and he won’t have it.
@joshuapolar if you need to ‘choose’ to be straight, you’re probably not entirly parallel to that philosiphy.
Also, there is homosexuality in nature, why do you assume that if nature intended people to be homosexual it would not intend OTHER people to be hetero at the SAME TIME.
well to an extent I have to disagree.
When I was younger I used to HATE when the radio or any music was on. It just always bugged me a lot. My family loved music though, and after so many years of subconsciously hearing music in the background, I started to like it. Now I love.
But on the other hand, if my family destroyed all of our radios, I would have never started liking music.
Kind of a weak argument but the same psycho/social elements apply