Being gay is definitely just a sexual thing

[CH1YO]

kalel_watercurrent

Their language is based completely on the society around them. What they say and what it means changes based on the group they're with. If you read the link I posted, you would have seen the part about putting the finches into a solitary environment. Their communication is learned socially, with sounds being given meaning based on the other finches around them. If that doesn't satisfy you then please, tell me. What is your definition of a symbolic interaction?

Communication is definitively social, that is a truism rather than a point. I would go by something along the lines of "A mode of communication which allows the exchange of ideas by common property".

kalel_watercurrent

The basis of an impulse is fairly clear. Do you not know the definition? It's a motivating force that causes action or feeling without premeditation. Or do you disagree with the dictionary?

That does not answer my question. You have made the mistake of assuming that I have made an error which disqualifies my inquiry. I am well aware of the basis of impulse, I am asking you who decides the basicity of an impulse?

[Mustache Kitten]

I'm curious, how much anecdotal evidence do you require before you actually begin to acknowledge that fact exists behind it?

Also, I'm interested in your opinion about the factual differences noted in the physical and chemical components between the homosexual and the heterosexual males' hypothalamus?

[kalel_watercurrent]

CH1YO

Communication is definitively social, that is a truism rather than a point. I would go by something along the lines of "A mode of communication which allows the exchange of ideas by common property".

Then how does that not satisfy you? Their communication allows the exchange of ideas, such as warnings of danger or mating calls, that is the common property of all finches involved. If they all share the language and it has significant meaning to every finch involved, how can you still say it isn't a language. At this point I think you're just being obstinate.

CH1YO

That does not answer my question. You have made the mistake of assuming that I have made an error which disqualifies my inquiry. I am well aware of the basis of impulse, I am asking you who decides the basicity of an impulse?

The basis is a mixture of social and individual experience. People define what an impulse is because they've had them and they've talked to people who've had them. You know what an impulse is, yes? You've had them before, right? Sexuality is an impulse, an instinct. Did you sit down and contemplate both men and women, finally deciding you would be interested in just one of them? Or did it just happen, some innate part of you knowing without actually thinking about it? If it's the former, then I guess you did decide your sexuality. If it's the latter then you and I have something in common, a shared experience that we can both describe as instinctual and impulsive.

If you're really asking about who defines what an impulse is then I don't find you a credible person to discuss this topic with. I don't feel discussing why common knowledge is common knowledge is conducive to a legitimate discussion about sexuality. If you'd like, I can detail everything about my personal experience and why I know, as a gay man, that my sexuality isn't something I just decided one day.

[CH1YO]

kalel_watercurrent

Then how does that not satisfy you? Their communication allows the exchange of ideas, such as warnings of danger or mating calls, that is the common property of all finches involved. If they all share the language and it has significant meaning to every finch involved, how can you still say it isn't a language. At this point I think you're just being obstinate.

Neither of those examples is an exchange. A baby can communicate various things which are significantly meaningful and the precise mode of communication will vary by population but they cannot exchange ideas which is why we go to the trouble of learning language.

kalel_watercurrent

The basis is a mixture of social and individual experience. People define what an impulse is because they've had them and they've talked to people who've had them. You know what an impulse is, yes? You've had them before, right? Sexuality is an impulse, an instinct. Did you sit down and contemplate both men and women, finally deciding you would be interested in just one of them? Or did it just happen, some innate part of you knowing without actually thinking about it? If it's the former, then I guess you did decide your sexuality. If it's the latter then you and I have something in common, a shared experience that we can both describe as instinctual and impulsive.

If you're really asking about who defines what an impulse is then I don't find you a credible person to discuss this topic with. I don't feel discussing why common knowledge is common knowledge is conducive to a legitimate discussion about sexuality. If you'd like, I can detail everything about my personal experience and why I know, as a gay man, that my sexuality isn't something I just decided one day.

I have already told you that I know what the basis of impulse is and that it is not what I have asked you. My question remains: Who decides the basicity of an impulse? Please do not describe the basis of impulse or the basics of impulses or anything else that I am not asking for.

[kalel_watercurrent]

CH1YO

Neither of those examples is an exchange. A baby can communicate various things which are significantly meaningful and the precise mode of communication will vary by population but they cannot exchange ideas which is why we go to the trouble of learning language.

What the hell are you talking about? Both of those examples are exchanges. Birds talking to other birds and dolphins talking to other dolphins is an exchange. Baby-talk isn't considered a language because the sounds it makes only have significance to itself, with minor spillover simply because we as humans understand that crying and laughing are emotional responses to certain stimuli. When an animal talks it talks to other animals, makes sounds that have significance to other members of its community. The dolphins literally knew who they were talking to through the speaker without seeing who it was, could recognize each other through clicks and squeals. They convey ideas to each other, let each other know that specific dangers are lurking about, or that this other dolphin beat him up. They sought revenge! How is that not an exchange of specific, symbolic ideas? I. . . I can't discuss this with you anymore. Your definition of language is so skewed that. . . I can't even comprehend where you're coming from. If you want to go on with your life thinking that your ridiculous definition is what separates you from animals, then I guess that's your prerogative. But there are countless researchers and scientists more qualified in this field of study that disagree with you, and that's probably for a reason.

CH1YO

I have already told you that I know what the basis of impulse is and that it is not what I have asked you. My question remains: Who decides the basicity of an impulse? Please do not describe the basis of impulse or the basics of impulses or anything else that I am not asking for.

Okay, I have to say it. Basicity does not mean what you think it means and doesn't work in this context. It describes the pH levels of a solution. The word you're looking for is basis. If you meant to use basicity the way it's defined, then I have no idea what you're asking me.

If you're wanting to know who decides the basis of an impulse, I answered you with my first sentence. Society at large and the individual. Collectively we decide what an impulse is, what instinct is. It's the culmination of a million individual experiences, coupled with years of study. The definition and what is qualified as an impulse is decided by many people through discussion, as language is malleable and ever-changing as are our understandings of ourselves. Did I answer your question? Can you answer any of the questions I posed now?

[CH1YO]

kalel_watercurrent

What the hell are you talking about? Both of those examples are exchanges. Birds talking to other birds and dolphins talking to other dolphins is an exchange. Baby-talk isn't considered a language because the sounds it makes only have significance to itself, with minor spillover simply because we as humans understand that crying and laughing are emotional responses to certain stimuli. When an animal talks it talks to other animals, makes sounds that have significance to other members of its community. The dolphins literally knew who they were talking to through the speaker without seeing who it was, could recognize each other through clicks and squeals. They convey ideas to each other, let each other know that specific dangers are lurking about, or that this other dolphin beat him up. They sought revenge! How is that not an exchange of specific, symbolic ideas? I. . . I can't discuss this with you anymore. Your definition of language is so skewed that. . . I can't even comprehend where you're coming from. If you want to go on with your life thinking that your ridiculous definition is what separates you from animals, then I guess that's your prerogative. But there are countless researchers and scientists more qualified in this field of study that disagree with you, and that's probably for a reason.

Apparently I'm trying to go too fast so I'll slow it down a little. Are you familiar with the principle that an attentive parent can generally determine the nature of their child's complaint from their cry?

kalel_watercurrent

Okay, I have to say it. Basicity does not mean what you think it means and doesn't work in this context. It describes the pH levels of a solution. The word you're looking for is basis. If you meant to use basicity the way it's defined, then I have no idea what you're asking me.

In chemistry pH describes the basicity of a substance rather than the reverse but that is irrelevant. If the word I was looking for was basis I would have used it in at least one of my last three questions, especially having prompted, clearly it is not. I specifically chose a word with a different etymology as I have no interest in being reminded of irrelevant material.

kalel_watercurrent

If you're wanting to know who decides the basis of an impulse, I answered you with my first sentence. Society at large and the individual. Collectively we decide what an impulse is, what instinct is. It's the culmination of a million individual experiences, coupled with years of study. The definition and what is qualified as an impulse is decided by many people through discussion, as language is malleable and ever-changing as are our understandings of ourselves. Did I answer your question? Can you answer any of the questions I posed now?

First I still need to know who decides the basicity of an impulse?

[camberlo12344]

Quote:

I could argue - and probably better than your opposite - that religion is natural and that homosexuality was created by man and is unnatural but that would just be showing off. Expand on your belief and demonstrate it as such.

With this, I have come to the conclusion that CH1Y0 is nothing more than a troll getting a few kicks out of us or just an idiot, and my recommendation to all of you is to just leave and continue to have our simple not-bigot lives and let these moronic imbeciles die out on their own.

[kalel_watercurrent]

CH1YO

Apparently I'm trying to go too fast so I'll slow it down a little. Are you familiar with the principle that an attentive parent can generally determine the nature of their child's complaint from their cry?

The way they determine the complaint is by checking off a list of possible problems, like looking in the diaper, trying to feed it, etc. A person cannot glean the exact reason for a child's cry simply based on the cry. If you've ever taken care of a child you'd be extremely aware of that. A dolphins clicks and body movements are more sophisticated and significant than a baby's cry. If you disagree, then I really don't value your opinion on this specific subject.

CH1YO

In chemistry pH describes the basicity of a substance rather than the reverse but that is irrelevant. If the word I was looking for was basis I would have used it in at least one of my last three questions, especially having prompted, clearly it is not. I specifically chose a word with a different etymology as I have no interest in being reminded of irrelevant material.

[ba·sic·i·ty
/bāˈsisitē/
Noun
The number of hydrogen atoms replaceable by a base in a particular acid.]

"In chemistry"? It's a chemistry term. Its only logical use is when talking about chemistry. If you mean it in the sense of chemistry then I have no idea what you're asking. If you mean it in some other way, then please use another word. Because I obviously am not understanding what you're asking.

And if you want to argue semantics then you're still wrong. pH describes the amount of hydrogen ions in a solution. It doesn't describe basicity, it describes whether the solution is basic or acidic. The basicity is a name ascribed to a smaller presence of hydrogen ions, and acidity is the opposite. Let's drop this, though, because I freaking hate arguing semantics. It usually only leaves me frustrated because people have misconceptions or simply don't understand the words they use.

CH1YO

First I still need to know who decides the basicity of an impulse?

First I'll need to know what you mean by that question. Please, elaborate. Because I've obviously not been able to decipher your question, as is evidence with all of my answers.

[CH1YO]

Lambeflores

Quote:

I could argue - and probably better than your opposite - that religion is natural and that homosexuality was created by man and is unnatural but that would just be showing off. Expand on your belief and demonstrate it as such.

With this, I have come to the conclusion that CH1Y0 is nothing more than a troll getting a few kicks out of us or just an idiot, and my recommendation to all of you is to just leave and continue to have our simple not-bigot lives and let these moronic imbeciles die out on their own.

You probably shouldn't conclude such things, you'll embarrass yourself.

[camberlo12344]

CH1YO

Lambeflores

Quote:

I could argue - and probably better than your opposite - that religion is natural and that homosexuality was created by man and is unnatural but that would just be showing off. Expand on your belief and demonstrate it as such.

With this, I have come to the conclusion that CH1Y0 is nothing more than a troll getting a few kicks out of us or just an idiot, and my recommendation to all of you is to just leave and continue to have our simple not-bigot lives and let these moronic imbeciles die out on their own.

You probably shouldn't conclude such things, you'll embarrass yourself.

^ I rest my case.

[kalel_watercurrent]

Lambeflores

Quote:

I could argue - and probably better than your opposite - that religion is natural and that homosexuality was created by man and is unnatural but that would just be showing off. Expand on your belief and demonstrate it as such.

With this, I have come to the conclusion that CH1Y0 is nothing more than a troll getting a few kicks out of us or just an idiot, and my recommendation to all of you is to just leave and continue to have our simple not-bigot lives and let these moronic imbeciles die out on their own.

I would actually like to see her argue that. So far, burden of proof has been on everyone else. And she doesn't accept anything you show her in the long run anyway, so it's sort of pointless.

[camberlo12344]

kalel_watercurrent

Lambeflores

Quote:

I could argue - and probably better than your opposite - that religion is natural and that homosexuality was created by man and is unnatural but that would just be showing off. Expand on your belief and demonstrate it as such.

With this, I have come to the conclusion that CH1Y0 is nothing more than a troll getting a few kicks out of us or just an idiot, and my recommendation to all of you is to just leave and continue to have our simple not-bigot lives and let these moronic imbeciles die out on their own.

I would actually like to see her argue that. So far, burden of proof has been on everyone else. And she doesn't accept anything you show her in the long run anyway, so it's sort of pointless.

I rather go talk with people who actually try to see the proof and understand they are wrong and at the same time people who show me proof and make me realize I am wrong just not by using fancy words who they think confuses people and makes them look smart.

[CH1YO]

kalel_watercurrent

The way they determine the complaint is by checking off a list of possible problems, like looking in the diaper, trying to feed it, etc. A person cannot glean the exact reason for a child's cry simply based on the cry. If you've ever taken care of a child you'd be extremely aware of that. A dolphins clicks and body movements are more sophisticated and significant than a baby's cry. If you disagree, then I really don't value your opinion on this specific subject.

I'll take that as a negative. Are you familiar with the principle that babies, like lots of other things, respond differently to different stimuli?

kalel_watercurrent

[ba·sic·i·ty
/bāˈsisitē/
Noun
The number of hydrogen atoms replaceable by a base in a particular acid.]

"In chemistry"? It's a chemistry term. Its only logical use is when talking about chemistry. If you mean it in the sense of chemistry then I have no idea what you're asking. If you mean it in some other way, then please use another word. Because I obviously am not understanding what you're asking.

It should be self-evident really: Basicity; how base something is.

kalel_watercurrent

And if you want to argue semantics then you're still wrong. pH describes the amount of hydrogen ions in a solution. It doesn't describe basicity, it describes whether the solution is basic or acidic. The basicity is a name ascribed to a smaller presence of hydrogen ions, and acidity is the opposite. Let's drop this, though, because I freaking hate arguing semantics. It usually only leaves me frustrated because people have misconceptions or simply don't understand the words they use.

Don't worry, I'm very forgiving but I agree that this is going to go nowhere useful.

kalel_watercurrent

First I'll need to know what you mean by that question. Please, elaborate. Because I've obviously not been able to decipher your question, as is evidence with all of my answers.

Who is it who decides how base - relatively speaking of course - an impulse is?

[CH1YO]

Lambeflores

CH1YO

Lambeflores

Quote:

I could argue - and probably better than your opposite - that religion is natural and that homosexuality was created by man and is unnatural but that would just be showing off. Expand on your belief and demonstrate it as such.

With this, I have come to the conclusion that CH1Y0 is nothing more than a troll getting a few kicks out of us or just an idiot, and my recommendation to all of you is to just leave and continue to have our simple not-bigot lives and let these moronic imbeciles die out on their own.

You probably shouldn't conclude such things, you'll embarrass yourself.

^ I rest my case.

It is indeed advised to fold when someone calls one's bluff.

[CH1YO]

kalel_watercurrent

Lambeflores

Quote:

I could argue - and probably better than your opposite - that religion is natural and that homosexuality was created by man and is unnatural but that would just be showing off. Expand on your belief and demonstrate it as such.

With this, I have come to the conclusion that CH1Y0 is nothing more than a troll getting a few kicks out of us or just an idiot, and my recommendation to all of you is to just leave and continue to have our simple not-bigot lives and let these moronic imbeciles die out on their own.

I would actually like to see her argue that. So far, burden of proof has been on everyone else. And she doesn't accept anything you show her in the long run anyway, so it's sort of pointless.

Now, now, lets be fair. I only very rarely burden people, it is terribly uncouth.

If you make enough silly posts eventually I'll make you a similar silly offer and by all means you can hold me to it.