Burn down the Boston Globe

[khad]

Western scientists say that hormone exposure in utero may influence sexual orientation and brain development. The Boston Globe reported their findings. Destroy them for the good of western identity politics!

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2005/08/14/what_makes_people_gay/


Normally, the changes take shape at a key point of fetal development, when the male brain is masculinized by sex hormones. The female brain is the default. The brain will stay on the female path as long as it is protected from exposure to hormones. The hormonal theory of homosexuality holds that, just as exposure to circulating sex hormones determines whether a fetus will be male or female, such exposure must also influence sexual orientation.

The cases of children born with disorders of "sexual differentiation" offer insight. William Reiner, a psychiatrist and urologist with the University of Oklahoma, has evaluated more than a hundred of these cases. For decades, the standard medical response to boys born with severely inadequate penises (or none at all) was to castrate the boy and have his parents raise him as a girl. But Reiner has found that nurture - even when it involves surgery soon after birth - cannot trump nature. Of the boys with inadequate penises who were raised as girls, he says, "I haven't found one who is sexually attracted to males." The majority of them have transitioned back to being males and report being attracted to females.

During fetal development, sexual identity is set before the sexual organs are formed, Reiner says. Perhaps it's the same for sexual orientation. In his research, of all the babies with X and Y chromosomes who were raised as girls, the only ones he has found who report having female identities and being attracted to males are those who did not have "receptors" to let the male sex hormones do their masculinizing in the womb.

What does this all mean? "Exposure to male hormones in utero dramatically raises the chances of being sexually attracted to females," Reiner says. "We can infer that the absence of male hormone exposure may have something to do with attraction to males."On that note,

FIREBOMB THE BBC

May their homophobic ways be cleansed in the righteous flame of PRIDE!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/695142.stm


Scientists from California found that lesbian women have a greater difference in length between their ring finger and index finger than straight women do.

The same pattern was also found for homosexual men - but only when the researchers looked at those males that had several older brothers.

The scientists from the University of California at Berkeley were testing a theory that higher levels of androgen - male sex hormones - in the womb influence both finger length and sexual orientation.

"We think it is inescapable that the mother's body is remembering how many sons she has carried before, and somehow she is then increasing the amount of androgen that each subsequent son sees before birth. So the fascinating questions are: where is the memory being stored in the mother's body and what is she doing to change amount of androgen that each subsequent son sees."

[danyboy27]

you dont need to act like a jerk to make a point you know.
Yea yea, Morales was right and people misinterpreted what he said, and probably on purpose.

[Sam_b]

Didn't Superman work for the Globe?

[kasama-rl]

what is the point? This issue of in utero hormone wash has been explored (but not yet settled). And?

Again: what is the point you are making?

[The Vegan Marxist]

They've said the same shit about tofu & said that Vegans, such as myself, will become homosexual feminine men. Been a vegan for over 2 years & I haven't seen shit from what they've said. Homophobia is a big thing in this country, in this world, & it needs to end soon.

[khad]

what is the point? This issue of in utero hormone wash has been explored (but not yet settled). And?

Again: what is the point you are making?
When a brown man in the Third World says that hormones can cause developmental abnormalities specifically with regards to sex, he is lambasted by pretentious liberals for suspected homophobia.

When the Western Anglo press says it, it's ho-hum medical knowledge.

[danyboy27]

When a brown man in the Third World says that hormones can cause developmental abnormalities specifically with regards to sex, he is lambasted by pretentious liberals for suspected homophobia.

When the Western Anglo press says it, it's ho-hum medical knowledge.

well, perhaps beccause those evil western liberal media gathered scientific facts for their article?

dont get me wrong, i am not full of shit and know the media are biaised, but lets face it, a politician and a scientist dont carry the same amount of credibility regarding health issues.

If Obama would have said that without any backing, well that sure he would have been ridiculed.

[RadioRaheem84]

well, perhaps beccause those evil western liberal media gathered scientific facts for their article?

dont get me wrong, i am not full of shit and know the media are biaised, but lets face it, a politician and a scientist dont carry the same amount of credibility regarding health issues.

If Obama would have said that without any backing, well that sure he would have been ridiculed.

How do you know Morales didn't research on it before making the statements? I am sure he read up on it before making the statement.

[The Gallant Gallstone]

Given the dwindling circulation numbers for newspapers nationwide, firebombing them would probably be doing them a favor... I'm sure they've got plenty of insurance.

[Foldered]

They've said the same shit about tofu & said that Vegans, such as myself, will become homosexual feminine men. Been a vegan for over 2 years & I haven't seen shit from what they've said. Homophobia is a big thing in this country, in this world, & it needs to end soon.
Yeah, someone told me once that men can't eat too much tofu because they get too much estrogen and grow breasts. Hasn't happened to me yet!

This perspective is such a fail though, not that I really ever respected the Boston Globe, but I really hate essentialist views of sexuality (or much of anything really).

EDIT: The way this article is written is just downright insulting. Presenting stuff like "this "biological" argument has gained momentum, polls find Americans - especially young adults - increasingly tolerant of gays and lesbians" is simply fuelling problematic ideas in Western society surrounding sexuality. The "biology" argument isn't necessary at all and I hate that there's pressure to prove that sexuality is biologically determined only to satisfy people's tolerence. "Well, they can't help it, so I guess we should accept that..." Fuck that view. Not only that, but homosexuality =/= "femininity."

[Guerrilla22]

Didn't Superman work for the Globe?

He worked for the Daily Planet.

[danyboy27]

How do you know Morales didn't research on it before making the statements? I am sure he read up on it before making the statement.

i never said he didnt do any reasearch, i said that a politician coming up with a statement like that is bound to be ridiculed beccause they are not scientists. Last time i checked he didnt quoted no research in his speech, something that might have saved his ass from lame critics.

I dont trust fucking politician to tell me the truth, the least they can do is to show actual, factual evidence of their claim, especially stuff like that.


and no khad, i dont fucking care about their skin color.

[Bilan]

When a brown man in the Third World says that hormones can cause developmental abnormalities specifically with regards to sex, he is lambasted by pretentious liberals for suspected homophobia.

When the Western Anglo press says it, it's ho-hum medical knowledge.

Do you know why?
Because a politicised catholic fuck doesn't have the same authority as a scientist. That's why.

Edit: Incidentally, Khad, your characterisation of those who criticised Morales as "racist" or "liberals" is both dishonest and slanderous. The fact of the matter is that Morales didn't use science to back up his assertion; Morales isn't a scientist: he therefore should not be treated as one, or given the same credibility in scientific matters as a scientist, because that is stupid. It has nothing to do with him being "brown" - what kind of fucking stupid thing to say is that? - or being, more specifically, non-white, and has everything to do with him not being a scientist.

[Bilan]

How do you know Morales didn't research on it before making the statements? I am sure he read up on it before making the statement.

Wow, solid evidence there. "I am sure", but no links, no evidence?
No, you're not sure. You're guessing. You have faith in someone, but you have no basis to have that faith.
I have no idea as to whether or not he did the research, but frankly, I don't care, because he is a political leader and not a scientist, and therefor has no authority on matters of science. End of story.

You should also read this more carefully. It says Western scientists say that hormone exposure in utero may influence sexual orientation.
That means that a possible link may exist, but is not confirmed, and that on top of this, it may only influence it, not determine it.

These are all different.

[Glenn Beck]

Wow, solid evidence there. "I am sure", but no links, no evidence?
No, you're not sure. You're guessing. You have faith in someone, but you have no basis to have that faith.
I have no idea as to whether or not he did the research, but frankly, I don't care, because he is a political leader and not a scientist, and therefor has no authority on matters of science. End of story.

You should also read this more carefully. It says Western scientists say that hormone exposure in utero may influence sexual orientation.
That means that a possible link may exist, but is not confirmed, and that on top of this, it may only influence it, not determine it.

These are all different.

You should seriously simmer down with the fucking boldface. Also you're stupid.

[Bilan]

You should seriously simmer down with the fucking boldface. Also you're stupid.

Wow, well done for trolling, dipshit.
Bold was used because apparently some people are too fucking thick to read key words.

Also, prove me wrong or shut your face. Is Morales as credible as a scientist on this matter, or any scientific matters? Do tell. I'm looking forward to this.

[Glenn Beck]

Wow, well done for trolling, dipshit.

Prove me wrong or shut your face. Is Morales as credible as a scientist on this matter? Do tell.

I don't see how thinking Morales is an authority on endocrinology or the etiology of sexual orientation or whatever the fuck is required to think that the outrage over his comments is exaggerated, idiotic, and with very real ethnocentric undertones.

Does it really matter how credible he is if he is saying the same thing as the scientist (i.e. insinuating that hormone exposure can affect sexual orientation)? For the record you can go read the thread yourself and note that he never drew this bizarrely specific relationship between eating chicken and being automatically gay (determined vs influenced, as you said, with boldface preserved and everything). In fact I am pretty damn sure he didn't mean it that way because I'm pretty confident that Morales has eaten processed chicken at least once and knows a few straight men who have as well. Not to mention that he never even mentioned homosexuality, only vaguely said "deviations in manhood". Not to mention that this was pretty clearly a hyperbolic joke playing on the very real phenomenon of endocrine disruption by xenoestrogens in particular and the fact that hormone treated chicken has been controversial for a long time.

It's rather funny for you to call me a troll because I would say your entire interest in this topic, which is quite a non-issue really, is solely for the purpose of trolling people who have even the slightest bit of sympathy for Evo Morales. It's pretty clear that you don't know shit about Evo Morales or Bolivia, nor do you really care about either. You just come in here cussing out and belittling everyone over something that is totally irrelevant using these flimsy and pedantic arguments.

If anyone is a troll, it's probably you. Regardless of whether you're a troll or not though I'm rather confident that you are actually a dipshit, however.

[Sam_b]

Wow, well done for trolling, dipshit.
Bold was used because apparently some people are too fucking thick to read key words.


Yet again, as an admin you sure like flaming, don't you? Perhaps you should re-read the FAQ.

[khad]

what kind of fucking stupid thing to say is that? - or being, more specifically, non-white, and has everything to do with him not being a scientist.

Of course it has everything to do with the fact that he's a non-white target of Western imperialism. The impact of psedoestrogens, especially in utero, has been documented and researched, and here in the West it's common knowledge, to the point where any layman can make a talk about it, and people wouldn't even bat an eyelash, for better or for worse.

In fact seedy types in the West even tell you to use that finger length trick (http://steviepua.com/journal/?p=49) as an opener to seduction. Advice like this is all over the internet, with nary an outcry from you revleft types.

However, the moment a scary foreigner like Mr. Morales says a joke hinting at that documented common sense, it becomes an international incident.

Your ability to curse at and verbally abuse members will not cover up the fact that you are applying a hypocritical double standard.

[Bilan]

Yet again, as an admin you sure like flaming, don't you? Perhaps you should re-read the FAQ.

Maybe you should contribute to the thread or sod off?

[Bilan]

Of course it has everything to do with the fact that he's a non-white target of Western imperialism. The impact of psedoestrogens, especially in utero, has been documented and researched, and here in the West it's common knowledge, to the point where any layman can make a talk about it, and people wouldn't even bat an eyelash, for better or for worse.

Do you know what the word presumptuous means? You've made a main allegation, that it has everything to do with him being non-white, and given nothing to prove it. Just. talked. shit.
Well done.





However, the moment a scary foreigner like Mr. Morales says a joke hinting at that documented common sense, it becomes an international incident.


You clearly are unable to discern between criticism of homophobia and chauvinism. 10 points on that one.



Your ability to curse at and verbally abuse members will not cover up the fact that you are applying a hypocritical double standard.

My standard is simple: politicians have no place in science, and their opinions are not valid, worthwhile, and are usually based in prejudice.

You've failed to demonstrate that it wasn't, and just asserted that anyone who disagrees with you is merely scared of 'brown people' from outside the West. Very clever.

[Devrim]

Of course it has everything to do with the fact that he's a non-white target of Western imperialism.

Actually I think it has everything to do with the fact that Morales used what gay people in Bolivia considered to be 'prejudiced language':

http://noticias.universogay.com/gays-de-bolivia-exigen-a-evo-morales-rectifique-su-declaracion__24042010.html

Did it get picked up as an international issue because people wanted to attack Morales? Of course, but it is in no way similar to these reports of scientific research.

Devrim

[khad]

Actually I think it has everything to do with the fact that Morales used what gay people in Bolivia considered to be 'prejudiced language':

http://noticias.universogay.com/gays-de-bolivia-exigen-a-evo-morales-rectifique-su-declaracion__24042010.html

Did it get picked up as an international issue because people wanted to attack Morales? Of course, but it is in no way similar to these reports of scientific research.

Devrim

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJFTFPv_lCw&feature=player_embedded

[Devrim]

UJFTFPv_lCw

YouTube is banned here. I have no idea what you are saying.

Devrim

[khad]

YouTube is banned here. I have no idea what you are saying.

Devrim
It's just a statement from someone who is gay and indigenous and in support of Morales. You pull your sources, and I can pull mine.

[Devrim]

It's just a statement from someone who is gay and indigenous and in support of Morales. You pull your sources, and I can pull mine.

Yes, but I don't think that proves anything. The fact is that Morales' statements were contentious. Gays in that country objecting to them shows that. I don't speak Spanish, so I am not claiming in anyway to interpret them at all.

Nor do I think it is a very interesting issue. That a Catholic politician makes some off the cuff comment about gays is hardly surprising. What I object to is you trying to smear everybody who disagrees with you as a racist, like this:


When a brown man in the Third World says that hormones can cause developmental abnormalities specifically with regards to sex, he is lambasted by pretentious liberals for suspected homophobia.

When the Western Anglo press says it, it's ho-hum medical knowledge.

Devrim

[khad]

Yes, but I don't think that proves anything. The fact is that Morales' statements were contentious. Gays in that country objecting to them shows that. I don't speak Spanish, so I am not claiming in anyway to interpret them at all.
Well, to give you further context in the same speech Morales drew attention to links between ingested hormones and premature breast development among girls. It is more likely than not that Morales was speaking of physical development, and this was how the situation was clarified in the official statement on the matter to the Bolivian gay community.

[Bilan]

I don't see how thinking Morales is an authority on endocrinology or the etiology of sexual orientation or whatever the fuck is required to think that the outrage over his comments is exaggerated, idiotic, and with very real ethnocentric undertones.

Because Morales should shut the fuck up on issues of science, as should Palin, Rudd, and Brown, and any other politician. If you're not a scientist, you can quite frankly, fuck off as your opinion on the matter is not welcome.
Science should be left to scientists. Matters of science should be spoken of by scientists.
And when it comes to a contentious issue like this in particular, this is absolutely crucial, as prejudice gets in the way.
That's why.



Does it really matter how credible he is if he is saying the same thing as the scientist (i.e. insinuating that hormone exposure can affect sexual orientation)?

Yes, it does matter because he doesn't know. He's making an assumption on something that does not have enough evidence behind it - hence why it is a possible link and not a link.
Until it is a link, his opinion, like Khads, is not welcome.



For the record you can go read the thread yourself and note that he never drew this bizarrely specific relationship between eating chicken and being automatically gay (determined vs influenced, as you said, with boldface preserved and everything). In fact I am pretty damn sure he didn't mean it that way because I'm pretty confident that Morales has eaten processed chicken at least once and knows a few straight men who have as well.

Wow, another brilliant argument. "I'm pretty damn sure" but I don't see any evidence.
You two are about as credible as one another.



Not to mention that he never even mentioned homosexuality, only vaguely said "deviations in manhood".

I'm sorry that's not clear enough for you.



It's rather funny for you to call me a troll because I would say your entire interest in this topic, which is quite a non-issue really, is solely for the purpose of trolling people who have even the slightest bit of sympathy for Evo Morales. It's pretty clear that you don't know shit about Evo Morales or Bolivia, nor do you really care about either. You just come in here cussing out and belittling everyone over something that is totally irrelevant using these flimsy and pedantic arguments.

I'm going to be honest with you: I frankly do not care that if you have sympathy for Evo Morales. Do. Not. Care. That is not what I am talking about, and to me, that is not of concern when it comes to this. Evo Morales is just as unreliable, and should be mocked just like every other politician if he dares puts his fingers in the realm of science. That's right, mocked.

There are certain scientific findings which politicians can comment on, but probably shouldn't, as it's not relevant (such as evolution), but these are confirmed, definite findings: evolution is definite. This is not. That is a big difference.

And in the case that an issue does arise, and that the link is definite, than the solution should come from (you'll never guess who!) scientists.

Edit: I should point out, the sheer arrogance of you and your cronies is utterly despicable. You've made no attempt to discern genuine critiques of Morales position and chauvinistic ones, and painted them both with the same brush, and portrayed yourselves as the "lone guard", standing up for truth and what not. What utter shit.
Instead of using your brain, and thinking critically about "leaders" of the left say, you just wash away all criticism. That is nothing more than faith.
You replace "back-tracking" with "clarifying", which from all seeable evidence, does not appear to be the case.
Yet, you struggle on. That is pathetic. You are standing in the way of holding people accountable for their actions and their positions, and you should be fucking embarrassed.

[Sendo]

I am no scientist, Bilan, so does that I'm not allowed to mention that a poor diet can lead to colon cancer? I suppose you don't care what my opinion is. Citing scientific theory in an argument is inappropriate, certainly.

If I say that Cuba should be commended for ending child hunger because child hunger causes children to forever lose chances for adolescent growth, then I am mixing politics with sciences. I should fuck off.

[danyboy27]

I am no scientist, Bilan, so does that I'm not allowed to mention that a poor diet can lead to colon cancer? I suppose you don't care what my opinion is. Citing scientific theory in an argument is inappropriate, certainly.

If I say that Cuba should be commended for ending child hunger because child hunger causes children to forever lose chances for adolescent growth, then I am mixing politics with sciences. I should fuck off.

you are not a political figure, the impact of what you will say will be verry slim, you dont represent a whole country.

[Bilan]

I am no scientist, Bilan, so does that I'm not allowed to mention that a poor diet can lead to colon cancer? I suppose you don't care what my opinion is. Citing scientific theory in an argument is inappropriate, certainly.

If I say that Cuba should be commended for ending child hunger because child hunger causes children to forever lose chances for adolescent growth, then I am mixing politics with sciences. I should fuck off.

Learning from science = good.
Utilising science to improve an individual or collective situation = good.

You have clearly missed the point.
We all use science, and the breakthroughs of science all impact on our lives.
I have no objection to that.

However, if you intend to project your opinion and veil it in scientific rhetoric, or appeal to yet-to-be-confirmed information, then yes, you should fuck off. Science isn't about opinions.

That is the key difference. Utilising science, and understanding it is a good thing. Opinions are not. Especially when they're very uninformed opinions.

[RadioRaheem84]

Wow, solid evidence there. "I am sure", but no links, no evidence?
No, you're not sure. You're guessing. You have faith in someone, but you have no basis to have that faith.
I have no idea as to whether or not he did the research, but frankly, I don't care, because he is a political leader and not a scientist, and therefor has no authority on matters of science. End of story.

You should also read this more carefully. It says Western scientists say that hormone exposure in utero may influence sexual orientation.
That means that a possible link may exist, but is not confirmed, and that on top of this, it may only influence it, not determine it.

These are all different.


I suggested that as being a head of state that he may have had a word with the Ministry of Science or something before making such a bold claim instead of just pulling it out of his ass. I asked how did dannyboy know that Morales didn't check up on such a bold claim before making it, being in such a high position?

So what the hell are you on about? The man can make the claim but it's not like we're supposed to believe it, I agree. But you're acting as though because he is not a scientist that he cannot say it. So even if he was right and did the research, you wouldn't care because he is not a scientist?

Listen, I know you're trying to get your point across diligently by bolding and underlining some of your words, so I do not want to diminish the little you've built up for yourself in your post, BUT I never said that I believed in what he was saying just that the international media threw a shitstorm over it. In fact, I thought he was referring to physical deviations not sexual (and even then I was skeptical, still am). I don't even think that these articles share a link with what Morales was saying. Just that the Western Press is hypocritical in their condemnation of Morales for fucking misrepresenting what he was saying.


Jeez, why are there so many Left Coms as moderators on this forum?

[Andropov]

EDIT: The way this article is written is just downright insulting. Presenting stuff like "this "biological" argument has gained momentum, polls find Americans - especially young adults - increasingly tolerant of gays and lesbians" is simply fuelling problematic ideas in Western society surrounding sexuality. The "biology" argument isn't necessary at all and I hate that there's pressure to prove that sexuality is biologically determined only to satisfy people's tolerence. "Well, they can't help it, so I guess we should accept that..." Fuck that view. Not only that, but homosexuality =/= "femininity."
Im not sure what you are trying to say here?
Are you actually saying that scientific research should be abandoned because of peoples prejudices and insecurities?

[Andropov]

However, if you intend to project your opinion and veil it in scientific rhetoric, or appeal to yet-to-be-confirmed information, then yes, you should fuck off. Science isn't about opinions.
Bilan do you think that anyone in a position of influence should not comment on Scientific findings yet to be confirmed?
Or is it just Politicians?
And if it is just politicians how do they differ from other people of influence?

[RadioRaheem84]

Because Morales should shut the fuck up on issues of science, as should Palin, Rudd, and Brown, and any other politician. If you're not a scientist, you can quite frankly, fuck off as your opinion on the matter is not welcome.
Science should be left to scientists. Matters of science should be spoken of by scientists.
And when it comes to a contentious issue like this in particular, this is absolutely crucial, as prejudice gets in the way.
That's why.



Yes, it does matter because he doesn't know. He's making an assumption on something that does not have enough evidence behind it - hence why it is a possible link and not a link.
Until it is a link, his opinion, like Khads, is not welcome.



Wow, another brilliant argument. "I'm pretty damn sure" but I don't see any evidence.
You two are about as credible as one another.



I'm sorry that's not clear enough for you.



I'm going to be honest with you: I frankly do not care that if you have sympathy for Evo Morales. Do. Not. Care. That is not what I am talking about, and to me, that is not of concern when it comes to this. Evo Morales is just as unreliable, and should be mocked just like every other politician if he dares puts his fingers in the realm of science. That's right, mocked.

There are certain scientific findings which politicians can comment on, but probably shouldn't, as it's not relevant (such as evolution), but these are confirmed, definite findings: evolution is definite. This is not. That is a big difference.

And in the case that an issue does arise, and that the link is definite, than the solution should come from (you'll never guess who!) scientists.

Edit: I should point out, the sheer arrogance of you and your cronies is utterly despicable. You've made no attempt to discern genuine critiques of Morales position and chauvinistic ones, and painted them both with the same brush, and portrayed yourselves as the "lone guard", standing up for truth and what not. What utter shit.
Instead of using your brain, and thinking critically about "leaders" of the left say, you just wash away all criticism. That is nothing more than faith.
You replace "back-tracking" with "clarifying", which from all seeable evidence, does not appear to be the case.
Yet, you struggle on. That is pathetic. You are standing in the way of holding people accountable for their actions and their positions, and you should be fucking embarrassed.

But scientists do not make policy, Bilan. They only influence it. If a politician were making the case to ban certain foods, he would need to appeal to people by using data provided to him by scientists. And the science he claims should be fact checked.

Secondly,I swear you're either fifteen fucking years old or the dumbest person I have ever seen on this forum, seriously.

The point was that the Western Media was being hypocritical by denouncing Morales and probably misrepresenting what he said, while it published similar stuff in their papers. No one here is apologizing for Morales or trying to make it seem like he is an expert on science and shouldn't be questioned.

So get.off.your.high.horse.you.fucking.unimaginable.p rick. (bold enough for you)
"Instead of using your brain, um thinking critically, utter shit, blah blah".
What arrogance!

[Devrim]

Jeez, why are there so many Left Coms as moderators on this forum?

Er.. checking the list there are 2 left communist moderators Leo, (politics, Turkçe) and Malador (Español) from 32, and 2 left communist moderators Leo and Bilan from 13.

Devrim

[Devrim]

The point was that the Western Media was being hypocritical by denouncing Morales and probably misrepresenting what he said, while it published similar stuff in their papers. No one here is apologizing for Morales or trying to make it seem like he is an expert on science and shouldn't be questioned.

No the point was that anybody who questioned Morales was a racist:


When a brown man in the Third World says that hormones can cause developmental abnormalities specifically with regards to sex, he is lambasted by pretentious liberals for suspected homophobia.

When the Western Anglo press says it, it's ho-hum medical knowledge.

Devrim

[Sam_b]

The truth must hurt.


Excessive flaming is not permitted on RevLeft. While we understand that many issues discussed here are controversial and emotionally charged, we also understand that emotional responses can get out of hand. This means that posts containing little but personal insults, name-calling and/or threats are not permitted.

Repeated flaming in posts containing nothing of substance except flames will result in warning points, and incorrigible offenders may be banned at the discretion of the CC. In some cases threads which degenerate into "flame wars" will be locked with the participants prohibited from reviving them in any form.



Last time you did this, it was apparently a 'justified' response to my supposed 'trolling'. In this thread you don't have the luxury of such an inane excuse. It appears that when somebody challenges you in any way at all you throw ridiculous obscenities at them until they grow tired of your attitude. Perhaps even a cynic would suggest that if this is the way you relate to the class no wonder your grouping is so small and irrelevant!

Maybe you should get off your high horse and start acting like a decent admin, and explain why you are immune from the rules of flaming. I should add that hurling more insults doesn't justify as an answer, or your usual 'little boy' and 'sonny' buzzwords.

[The Gallant Gallstone]

I see the treatment of Morales at the hands of the American media as an attempt to make him look backwards and ridiculous. Is race a factor? Almost certainly. Is it the only factor? No. I think this story made the papers because it was a chance to demonstrate the "silliness" of foreign, non-allied leadership.

Contrary to some in here, I don't see khad as painting those who disagree with him as racist. Is Morales perfect? Of course not. But I'd prefer him running things in La Paz to a US client.

[khad]

No the point was that anybody who questioned Morales was a racist
Oh come now, Dev, this pattern of behavior is really unbecoming. The last guy (http://www.revleft.com/vb/kyrgyzstan-govt-overthrown-t132677/index.html?p=1715050#post1715050) you chose to defend against reprimand for racism was banned (not by me) for being a good ol' foaming at the mouth racist.

Is it anxiety over your positionality? Because even the racial dynamic in this thread is plain as day.
You know, you really shouldn't mislead people and make them think you're Turkish.
(http://www.revleft.com/vb/legacy-eugene-debs-t133964/index.html?p=1731741#post1731741)

Contrary to some in here, I don't see khad as painting those who disagree with him as racist. Is Morales perfect? Of course not. But I'd prefer him running things in La Paz to a US client.
Of course it's not racist to simply disagree with Morales. However, when that disagreement arises from a ridiculous double standard that the Western media is not held to, you can draw your conclusions.

[Devrim]

Oh come now, Dev, this pattern of behavior is really unbecoming. The last guy (http://www.revleft.com/vb/kyrgyzstan-govt-overthrown-t132677/index.html?p=1715050#post1715050) you chose to defend against reprimand for racism was banned (not by me) for being a good ol' foaming at the mouth racist.

Yes, I think that was pretty similar. There is a difference between making an ignorant comment and being a racist, and actually I think I pointed it out first if you look back. Implying somebody is racist is something that constantly comes up instead of argument on here.

[/URL]

[URL="http://www.revleft.com/vb/legacy-eugene-debs-t133964/index.html?p=1731741#post1731741"]You know, you really shouldn't mislead people and make them think you're Turkish. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/legacy-eugene-debs-t133964/index.html?p=1731741#post1731741)


I don't think I do. I have stated numerous times on here that I am an Irish, British, and Lebanese national, born in Northern Ireland, which to be honest is a lot more information than most people give, and I think most people are aware of it, but do I have to bring up my nationality every time the country is mentioned? Also a reasonable number of posters on here, particular UK ones, actually know who I am.
(http://www.revleft.com/vb/legacy-eugene-debs-t133964/index.html?p=1731741#post1731741)


Of course it's not racist to simply disagree with Morales. However, when that disagreement arises from a ridiculous double standard that the Western media is not held to, you can draw your conclusions.

I am not at all interested in what Morales said though obviously some gay people in Bolivia took exception to it has been previously pointed out that some gays there did take offence whereas there is nothing that was offensive at all about those articles.

What I object to is the tendency to shout racist all the time.

Devrim

[Nosotros]

Of course it has everything to do with the fact that he's a non-white target of Western imperialism. The impact of psedoestrogens, especially in utero, has been documented and researched, and here in the West it's common knowledge, to the point where any layman can make a talk about it, and people wouldn't even bat an eyelash, for better or for worse.

In fact seedy types in the West even tell you to use that finger length trick (http://steviepua.com/journal/?p=49) as an opener to seduction. Advice like this is all over the internet, with nary an outcry from you revleft types.

However, the moment a scary foreigner like Mr. Morales says a joke hinting at that documented common sense, it becomes an international incident.

Your ability to curse at and verbally abuse members will not cover up the fact that you are applying a hypocritical double standard.So Evo morales made a joke but what he said is actually biologically true? You really are desperate, if anyone is waiting to pounce and point fingers it's you. What Morales said was bigoted at worst and dumb at best, he's the president of Bolivia, he should know better. Your just attempting- pointlessly- to protect the image of you're reactionary ideology. You need to get a life and start living in the real world.

[khad]

So Evo morales made a joke but what he said is actually biologically true? You really are desperate, if anyone is waiting to pounce and point fingers it's you. What Morales said was bigoted at worst and dumb at best, he's the president of Bolivia, he should know better. Your just attempting- pointlessly- to protect the image of you're reactionary ideology. You need to get a life and start living in the real world.
He never said anything explicitly about homosexuality. What he said was "deviations in manhood." If you want to take that literally, he is merely referring to physical developmental problems associated with ingesting pseudoestrogens, which is medically documented. This is an interpretation also supported by the fact that in the same speech Morales drew attention to links between ingested hormones and premature breast development among girls.

In fact, those WESTERN news articles I've linked are worse, because they specifically mention hormone exposure as a factor for homosexuality. I'm not about to be browbeaten and baited by your hypocritical indignation and hostility. Maybe when you firebomb the BBC office you'll have some credibility to talk smack, but as is all you're now doing is flapping in the wind.

[Glenn Beck]

Because Morales should shut the fuck up on issues of science, as should Palin, Rudd, and Brown, and any other politician. If you're not a scientist, you can quite frankly, fuck off as your opinion on the matter is not welcome.
Science should be left to scientists. Matters of science should be spoken of by scientists.
And when it comes to a contentious issue like this in particular, this is absolutely crucial, as prejudice gets in the way.
That's why.



Yes, it does matter because he doesn't know. He's making an assumption on something that does not have enough evidence behind it - hence why it is a possible link and not a link.
Until it is a link, his opinion, like Khads, is not welcome.



Wow, another brilliant argument. "I'm pretty damn sure" but I don't see any evidence.
You two are about as credible as one another.



I'm sorry that's not clear enough for you.



I'm going to be honest with you: I frankly do not care that if you have sympathy for Evo Morales. Do. Not. Care. That is not what I am talking about, and to me, that is not of concern when it comes to this. Evo Morales is just as unreliable, and should be mocked just like every other politician if he dares puts his fingers in the realm of science. That's right, mocked.

There are certain scientific findings which politicians can comment on, but probably shouldn't, as it's not relevant (such as evolution), but these are confirmed, definite findings: evolution is definite. This is not. That is a big difference.

And in the case that an issue does arise, and that the link is definite, than the solution should come from (you'll never guess who!) scientists.

Edit: I should point out, the sheer arrogance of you and your cronies is utterly despicable. You've made no attempt to discern genuine critiques of Morales position and chauvinistic ones, and painted them both with the same brush, and portrayed yourselves as the "lone guard", standing up for truth and what not. What utter shit.
Instead of using your brain, and thinking critically about "leaders" of the left say, you just wash away all criticism. That is nothing more than faith.
You replace "back-tracking" with "clarifying", which from all seeable evidence, does not appear to be the case.
Yet, you struggle on. That is pathetic. You are standing in the way of holding people accountable for their actions and their positions, and you should be fucking embarrassed.

That's a whole lot of ranting to justify a totally sophomoric and uncritical attitude towards the authority of sources and perspectives labeled scientific, kind of ironic really. Weren't you a student of sociology or something? your professors must be doing a pretty bad job.

I've got no problem with holding people politically accountable, I just happen to disagree with both the interpretation and emphasis you lot, echoing the imperialist press, are pushing out. And I'm pretty peeved at the manipulation, the unfairness, and the shrill and utterly unjustified indignation with which certain sectors have addressed this (non)issue. If this little sound-byte actually had some far-reaching political implications outside of its use as rather predictable and classic media warfare you may have some kind of point, but frankly it doesn't matter a damn and it isn't worth shit and anyone who says it does is either pushing an imperialist agenda or is a useful idiot of the former. I can't really break it down any further, I mean, just given how much you seem to care about this even though as previously stated you neither know nor care about Bolivia or its head of state you are obviously pursuing this out of an animus against people with views you happen not to share. That's pretty clearly a form of trolling. I don't think I need to explain that "troll" and "forum administrator" are mutually incompatible portfolios.

[Bilan]

The truth must hurt.



Last time you did this, it was apparently a 'justified' response to my supposed 'trolling'. In this thread you don't have the luxury of such an inane excuse. It appears that when somebody challenges you in any way at all you throw ridiculous obscenities at them until they grow tired of your attitude. Perhaps even a cynic would suggest that if this is the way you relate to the class no wonder your grouping is so small and irrelevant!

Maybe you should get off your high horse and start acting like a decent admin, and explain why you are immune from the rules of flaming. I should add that hurling more insults doesn't justify as an answer, or your usual 'little boy' and 'sonny' buzzwords.

Why are you still here?

[Bilan]

That's a whole lot of ranting to justify a totally sophomoric and uncritical attitude towards the authority of sources and perspectives labeled scientific, kind of ironic really. Weren't you a student of sociology or something? your professors must be doing a pretty bad job.


It's not "uncritical" of science, it's recognising that science is critical of itself, and if weren't, it would not, and could not function properly.




I've got no problem with holding people politically accountable, I just happen to disagree with both the interpretation and emphasis you lot, echoing the imperialist press, are pushing out. And I'm pretty peeved at the manipulation, the unfairness, and the shrill and utterly unjustified indignation with which certain sectors have addressed this (non)issue. If this little sound-byte actually had some far-reaching political implications outside of its use as rather predictable and classic media warfare you may have some kind of point, but frankly it doesn't matter a damn and it isn't worth shit and anyone who says it does is either pushing an imperialist agenda or is a useful idiot of the former.

So basically, you don't care. Why are you posting in here as well? And on top of that, why are you having a go at me for doing what appears you yourself are doing?



I can't really break it down any further, I mean, just given how much you seem to care about this even though as previously stated you neither know nor care about Bolivia or its head of state you are obviously pursuing this out of an animus against people with views you happen not to share. That's pretty clearly a form of trolling. I don't think I need to explain that "troll" and "forum administrator" are mutually incompatible portfolios.

I care about people being accountable. I never said it's about attacking people who's views I don't share. I said I don't care that it's Morales, the point is it doesn't matter who it is - which politician, that is - they should all be held accountable for it.

[Glenn Beck]

It's not "uncritical" of science, it's recognising that science is critical of itself, and if weren't, it would not, and could not function properly.

You're extremely naive. I won't go into this because it'd be completely off topic.


So basically, you don't care. Why are you posting in here as well? And on top of that, why are you having a go at me for doing what appears you yourself are doing?

Your reading comprehension is abysmal. I don't care about what Morales said but for precisely that reason I do care about the ignorant and politicized fuss around what he said. Your inane trolling and lightweight attempts to bully people (abusing your administrative position to flame and goad with impunity) are an extension of that reaction which irritates me.


I care about people being accountable. I never said it's about attacking people who's views I don't share. I said I don't care that it's Morales, the point is it doesn't matter who it is - which politician, that is - they should all be held accountable for it.

Oh that's so cute. You think you can talk out of your ass whenever you feel like it with feigned indignation without being accountable for having any awareness whatsoever of the specifics or context of the situation, or any degree of proportionality between your reaction and the gravity of the perceived offense. Just precious :wub:

[Revy]

It just seems people who are critical of Morales on here want to make him look terrible and believe the absurd distortions of what he said. The real context of what he said was "deviations in being men, such as baldness".

Anyway, Evo responded to a letter about it by saying that he supports gay rights and that he would never think of saying what he was interpreted as saying. After all, the Constitution of Bolivia enacted under Morales bans discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. If he was so crazy and homophobic, why didn't he ban non-organic chicken? :rolleyes:

What this is, is a desperate attempt to attack a leftist, environmentally conscious (and supportive of gays!) and indigenous leader. They always like to make these new leftist leaders look like bigots. The ADL thinks that Chavez is an anti-Semitic fascist (seriously). Chavez said something that was falsely interpreted as "those Jews killed Christ" but he didn't say anything about Jews at all.

[danyboy27]

It just seems people who are critical of Morales on here want to make him look terrible and believe the absurd distortions of what he said. The real context of what he said was "deviations in being men, such as baldness".

Anyway, Evo responded to a letter about it by saying that he supports gay rights and that he would never think of saying what he was interpreted as saying. After all, the Constitution of Bolivia enacted under Morales bans discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. If he was so crazy and homophobic, why didn't he ban non-organic chicken? :rolleyes:

What this is, is a desperate attempt to attack a leftist, environmentally conscious (and supportive of gays!) and indigenous leader. They always like to make these new leftist leaders look like bigots. The ADL thinks that Chavez is an anti-Semitic fascist (seriously). Chavez said something that was falsely interpreted as "those Jews killed Christ" but he didn't say anything about Jews at all.
i didnt know being bald was a deviation from manhood.

[Hoggy_RS]

Oh god this is too good. Seeing Bilan back peddle and throwing a hissy fit.

[Glenn Beck]

i didnt know being bald was a deviation from manhood.

baldness is caused by testosterone depletion

[danyboy27]

baldness is caused by testosterone depletion
i have a lot of my relatives who are bald, and they dont give me the impression that they are les manly.

[Robocommie]

i have a lot of my relatives who are bald, and they dont give me the impression that they are les manly.

Testosterone levels shouldn't be interpreted to have anything to do with manliness. Manliness is an extremely vague term, it's non-scientific and entirely subjective.

If a woman chops wood for two hours, does that make her twice as manly as a man who chops wood for only one? What is the metric by which one determines "manliness"? It's entirely based on cultural norms.

[Bilan]

You're extremely naive. I won't go into this because it'd be completely off topic.


PM me if you feel it's necessary. I'm all ears.
And if you feel it's necessary to realise that science hasn't always been critical enough of itself, I am quite aware of that. By and large, however, with modern science, this is not the case.
It is not perfect - and no scientist would tell you it was - but it's a lot better than other fields.



Your reading comprehension is abysmal. I don't care about what Morales said but for precisely that reason I do care about the ignorant and politicized fuss around what he said. Your inane trolling and lightweight attempts to bully people (abusing your administrative position to flame and goad with impunity) are an extension of that reaction which irritates me.


I would accept the last criticism had I done something validate your position. Have I gone around dishing out infractions to you or khad because you're being as aggressive? or anyone?
If I'm acting aggressively and you are too, I'm not going to use my position to punish you. Never have, never will.

No one in this thread has been punished for flaming. Not by me or anyone else. And something tells me that they wont be. I'm not going to get the other admins/mods to come in and punish people because a/ they wouldn't b/ because that would be an unreasonable request.
Your ridiculous characterisations and assumptions are just irritating.



Oh that's so cute. You think you can talk out of your ass whenever you feel like it with feigned indignation without being accountable for having any awareness whatsoever of the specifics or context of the situation, or any degree of proportionality between your reaction and the gravity of the perceived offense. Just precious :wub:

Presumption after presumption. It never ends, does it?

[danyboy27]

Testosterone levels shouldn't be interpreted to have anything to do with manliness. Manliness is an extremely vague term, it's non-scientific and entirely subjective.

If a woman chops wood for two hours, does that make her twice as manly as a man who chops wood for only one? What is the metric by which one determines "manliness"? It's entirely based on cultural norms.

okay then manhood is an entierely subjective thing then.

so nobody can affirm that if something fuck up your testostérone, it make you less manly.

[Robocommie]

okay then manhood is an entierely subjective thing then.

so nobody can affirm that if something fuck up your testostérone, it make you less manly.

Yeah, but that doesn't change what Glenn Beck said about testosterone depletion. The associations of behavior with gender roles, ie "manliness" and the actual physical changes that can manifest from hormone levels (which is what Morales was talking about, and anyone who refuses to see that at this point is being disingenuous) are two different things.