AAAAAAND Say Goodbye to Ben Carson's Bid for the Presidency

[naturalmwa]

Originally posted by jthawk:
Wait-- when did it become okay to criticize an African American politician when you disagree with them? I must have missed the memo!
Posted from Rivals Mobile

Are you new here? It goes on every day for years on HROT.

 

[jthawk]

How do you live with yourself associating with racists here?
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[mstp1992]

Originally posted by jthawk:
Wait-- when did it become okay to criticize an African American politician when you disagree with them? I must have missed the memo!
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Here's a thought experiment that may make clear why I think the continuum idea isn't quite right, even though it certainly has merit.

Imagine sitting in a nice upscale mall or on a beach or something where you get to see a lot of people walk by.

As each person walks by you rate them from 0 to 10 based on how attracted you are to them. Where by "attracted" I mean how desirable you rate them as a sex partner.

So . . . a reasonably attractive 25-year-old chick walks by and you give her an 8. A toddler of any gender comes by and you give out a 0 rating. Your brother walks by and you give him a 0. And so on.

After while a complex patter emerges. For me, women from teen to 50s could rate anywhere from 0 to 10. Definitely some sort of continuum going on with that demographic. Children all rate 0. No continuum there. Almost all grandmothers rate 0, but there will be some exceptions. All men rate 0. Of the 10 shemales who walk by, the ones I recognize as men get a 0 but any who fool me could get any number up to 10. Does that mean there's a continuum for shemales?

So . . . continuum? Not a continuum? Something else?

 

[mstp1992]

Originally posted by What Would Jesus Do?:
Here's a thought experiment that may make clear why I think the continuum idea isn't quite right, even though it certainly has merit.

Imagine sitting in a nice upscale mall or on a beach or something where you get to see a lot of people walk by.

As each person walks by you rate them from 0 to 10 based on how attracted you are to them. Where by "attracted" I mean how desirable you rate them as a sex partner.

So . . . a reasonably attractive 25-year-old chick walks by and you give her an 8. A toddler of any gender comes by and you give out a 0 rating. Your brother walks by and you give him a 0. And so on.

After while a complex patter emerges. For me, women from teen to 50s could rate anywhere from 0 to 10. Definitely some sort of continuum going on with that demographic. Children all rate 0. No continuum there. Almost all grandmothers rate 0, but there will be some exceptions. All men rate 0. Of the 10 shemales who walk by, the ones I recognize as men get a 0 but any who fool me could get any number up to 10. Does that mean there's a continuum for shemales?

So . . . continuum? Not a continuum? Something else?

A continuum doesn't have to be a normal distribution, though. It could just as easily have significant skewness, or multiple peaks.

You're just not thinking 4th dimensionally

 

[NoleandDawg]

I know you guys are quick to jump on Carson mostly because of ideology, but gay for the stay is an actual phenomenon. People incarcerated in prison do go gay while they are in and when they are out they go back. To say that this doesn't exist is naive. Honestly I have never been satisfied with the scientific evidence that homosexuality is solely genetic. If that were the case then why is it that identical twins are not always both gay or both straight?

 

[naturalmwa]

Originally posted by What Would Jesus Do?:
Here's a thought experiment that may make clear why I think the continuum idea isn't quite right, even though it certainly has merit.

Imagine sitting in a nice upscale mall or on a beach or something where you get to see a lot of people walk by.

As each person walks by you rate them from 0 to 10 based on how attracted you are to them. Where by "attracted" I mean how desirable you rate them as a sex partner.

So . . . a reasonably attractive 25-year-old chick walks by and you give her an 8. A toddler of any gender comes by and you give out a 0 rating. Your brother walks by and you give him a 0. And so on.

After while a complex patter emerges. For me, women from teen to 50s could rate anywhere from 0 to 10. Definitely some sort of continuum going on with that demographic. Children all rate 0. No continuum there. Almost all grandmothers rate 0, but there will be some exceptions. All men rate 0. Of the 10 shemales who walk by, the ones I recognize as men get a 0 but any who fool me could get any number up to 10. Does that mean there's a continuum for shemales?

So . . . continuum? Not a continuum? Something else?

When I used that word continuum I was speaking specifically about the spectrum of desires that lay between 100% hetero and 100% homo. From reading your outline here it sounds like you are pretty firm on your belief that only feminine traits are sexually attractive. Don't you ever look in the mirror and think to yourself "I'd want to have sex with me?" If you do, then aren't you a bit closer to the middle on the sexuality continuum? If you don't, then why would you think anyone else should want to have sex with you? Can I get an amen? (Thats a Ru reference for you heteros)

I can look at an attractive female and imagine fun times in bed with her. Its just not my preference if given the option of going to bed with her brother, even if the brother is objectively not as attractive. I think of it like ice cream. I prefer chocolate to vanilla every time. I even prefer cheap store brand off label chocolate to Ben and Jerry's vanilla. But that doesn't make vanilla gross or unpalatable if its the only option. And if I eat vanilla because thats all they serve in prison, that doesn't mean I went gay (or is it straight?) for vanilla and then switched back.

 

[dandh]

Originally posted by What Would Jesus Do?:
Here's a thought experiment that may make clear why I think the continuum idea isn't quite right, even though it certainly has merit.

Imagine sitting in a nice upscale mall or on a beach or something where you get to see a lot of people walk by.

As each person walks by you rate them from 0 to 10 based on how attracted you are to them. Where by "attracted" I mean how desirable you rate them as a sex partner.

So . . . a reasonably attractive 25-year-old chick walks by and you give her an 8. A toddler of any gender comes by and you give out a 0 rating. Your brother walks by and you give him a 0. And so on.

After while a complex patter emerges. For me, women from teen to 50s could rate anywhere from 0 to 10. Definitely some sort of continuum going on with that demographic. Children all rate 0. No continuum there. Almost all grandmothers rate 0, but there will be some exceptions. All men rate 0. Of the 10 shemales who walk by, the ones I recognize as men get a 0 but any who fool me could get any number up to 10. Does that mean there's a continuum for shemales?

So . . . continuum? Not a continuum? Something else?

You're on the continuum, you're just on one end of it. The continuum runs from purely heterosexual to purely homosexual. People can fall all along it, and as another poster mentioned, it's not a standard distribution. It's skewed toward the heterosexual end.

 

[downtown hawk redux]

Originally posted by dandh:

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by What Would Jesus Do?:
I wonder how many men who spout the "being gay is a choice" meme do so because they have personal experience of "choosing" to be gay? For a while. Or from time to time. And then "choosing" not to be gay. For a while. Or from time to time.

I'm guessing quite a lot of them.

Which is to say that they probably are gay but since they have both indulged and denied themselves this preference they have convinced themselves that it must be a choice.

Bi? I like the sexuality as a continuum model myself.

This is the only explanation that's ever made sense to me. Some people are nearer the ends of the spectrum, some are in the middle. It allows for some people to be "temporarily" gay while in prison, yet revert to heterosexual status when they have a choice. That's right - I said choice. Some people do choose which team to play on, while others could not play on the other team regardless of how hard they try. .

I think because it's prison, you have no choice. You want sex, it's going to be with a man -- unless somebody is planning for a co-ed prison.

 

[swagsurfer02]

Originally posted by downtown hawk redux:

Originally posted by dandh:

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by What Would Jesus Do?:
I wonder how many men who spout the "being gay is a choice" meme do so because they have personal experience of "choosing" to be gay? For a while. Or from time to time. And then "choosing" not to be gay. For a while. Or from time to time.

I'm guessing quite a lot of them.

Which is to say that they probably are gay but since they have both indulged and denied themselves this preference they have convinced themselves that it must be a choice.

Bi? I like the sexuality as a continuum model myself.

This is the only explanation that's ever made sense to me. Some people are nearer the ends of the spectrum, some are in the middle. It allows for some people to be "temporarily" gay while in prison, yet revert to heterosexual status when they have a choice. That's right - I said choice. Some people do choose which team to play on, while others could not play on the other team regardless of how hard they try. .

I think because it's prison, you have no choice. You want sex, it's going to be with a man -- unless somebody is planning for a co-ed prison.

I thought about a co-ed prison once

 

[lucas80]

Originally posted by NoleandDawg:
I know you guys are quick to jump on Carson mostly because of ideology, but gay for the stay is an actual phenomenon. People incarcerated in prison do go gay while they are in and when they are out they go back. To say that this doesn't exist is naive. Honestly I have never been satisfied with the scientific evidence that homosexuality is solely genetic. If that were the case then why is it that identical twins are not always both gay or both straight?

And, here's the 22 percent I spoke of.

 

[Speedway1]

Originally posted by CarolinaHawkeye:

Originally posted by LuteHawk:
Carson and Huckabee are former Fox News
contributors who are exploring their options
as potential GOP Presidential candidates.

They both have as much of a chance to win
the nomination as Brian Williams returning to
the NBC Nightly News anchor job.

Hopefully Huckabee doesn't have that much chance. I'm willing to give Ben a pass.

At least Ben doesn't lie. Unlike our current POTUS and all his ilk.

 

[Arbitr8]

The OP is obviously jealous Ben Carson is not only 10 times smarter than he but much more successful than the OP's family tree combined.

 

[slieb85]

Originally posted by Arbitr8:

The OP is obviously jealous Ben Carson is not only 10 times smarter than he but much more successful than the OP's family tree combined.

Lol. It's good that the former director of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins thinks that being gay is a choice.

I thought all you guys were about separating intelligence from education? Or does that not apply when your intelligent/educated people make idiotic comments?

 

[naturalmwa]

Originally posted by Speedway1:

Originally posted by CarolinaHawkeye:

Originally posted by LuteHawk:
Carson and Huckabee are former Fox News
contributors who are exploring their options
as potential GOP Presidential candidates.

They both have as much of a chance to win
the nomination as Brian Williams returning to
the NBC Nightly News anchor job.

Hopefully Huckabee doesn't have that much chance. I'm willing to give Ben a pass.

At least Ben doesn't lie. Unlike our current POTUS and all his ilk.