Mercury causes homosexuality

Originally posted by Eladar
No, that's not what I'm saying at all, at least with today's understanding.

I accept the fact that genetic diseases have existed for a very long time. Just because a person is born with a genetic screw up does not mean it is not a genetic screw up. I'm just saying that environmental toxins can mess things up too.

Homosexuality is a genetic deviation...but that doesn't necessarily mean it's a defect. You use the term "genetic disease"...but homosexuality has no ill affects on the person, unlike actual genetic diseases.

Until you can show that homosexuality causes some harm to the individual, calling it a "disease" has no basis.

Originally posted by vivify
Homosexuality is a genetic deviation...but that doesn't necessarily mean it's a defect. You use the term "genetic disease"...but homosexuality has no ill affects on the person, unlike actual genetic diseases.

Until you can show that homosexuality causes some harm to the individual, calling it a "disease" has no basis.

I guess that all depends on how one views homosexuality. If you see nothing wrong with it, then circular reasoning tells you no ill affect.

In other words, no ill affect depends on one's unproven assumptions concerning reality. Pushing one view or the other down another person's throat is immoral.

Originally posted by Eladar
I guess that all depends on how one views homosexuality. If you see nothing wrong with it, then circular reasoning tells you no ill affect.

In other words, no ill affect depends on one's unproven assumptions concerning reality. Pushing one view or the other down another person's throat is immoral.

I guess that all depends on how one views curly hair. If you see nothing wrong with it, then circular reasoning tells you no ill affect.

In other words, no ill affect depends on one's unproven assumptions concerning reality. Pushing one view or the other down another person's throat is immoral.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I guess that all depends on how one views curly hair. If you see nothing wrong with it, then circular reasoning tells you no ill affect.

In other words, no ill affect depends on one's unproven assumptions concerning reality. Pushing one view or the other down another person's throat is immoral.

I have no problem if you believe curly hair is immoral. There is nothing wrong with that. Your response is just more typical condescending libtard euro trash talk.

Actually have a point that doesn't require bowing down to your belief structure. In Europe lock step belief is important. For true Americans, freedom is more important than lock step belief.

Originally posted by Eladar
I guess that all depends on how one views homosexuality. If you see nothing wrong with it, then circular reasoning tells you no ill affect.

In other words, no ill affect depends on one's unproven assumptions concerning reality. Pushing one view or the other down another person's throat is immoral.

My opinion on homosexuality is irrelevant. It's a fact that having a homosexual gene causes no harm to the individual; therefore, it's a fact that being gay is not a disease.

Discussion over.

Originally posted by Eladar
I have no problem if you believe curly hair is immoral. There is nothing wrong with that. Your response is just more typical condescending libtard euro trash talk.

Actually have a point that doesn't require bowing down to your belief structure. In Europe lock step belief is important. For true Americans, freedom is more important than lock step belief.

Ignoring your vacuous sloganeering for the moment (and the following moments), I disagree with you that there is "nothing wrong" with the notion that having curly hair is "immoral." There's a lot wrong with that. I'll give you a moment to reflect upon the stupidity of such a notion, after which you can consider why it is equally stupid to find being gay "immoral."

Originally posted by sonhouse
So you figure some scientists touting an opinion is going to stop the ice melting all over the world? You figure these scientists will be able by just venturing an opinion, able to stop the rise in sea levels? Or the loss of bio-diversity? Just business as usual, don't rock the boat, we WANT the world to go to hell in a handbasket because we already have ou ...[text shortened]... on, WE will be on top and will be the ones calling the tunes.

Is that about it, metallic one?

"So you figure some scientists touting an opinion is going to stop the ice melting all over the world?"

It is not melting all over the world. It is increasing in Antarctica and other places. Sea level increases are steady and far from alarming, but I'm sure you will continue to ignore that fact and keep sounding the alarm like a fool.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
"So you figure some scientists touting an opinion is going to stop the ice melting all over the world?"

It is not melting all over the world. It is increasing in Antarctica and other places. Sea level increases are steady and far from alarming, but I'm sure you will continue to ignore that fact and keep sounding the alarm like a fool.

"the scientist who published the ice gain data said he knew deniers would jump on this"

and they did, with both feet. Anything to keep the status quo, keep up the golden parachute, screw the grandkids.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/11/04/nasa-scientist-warned-deniers-would-distort-his/206612

Originally posted by sonhouse
"the scientist who published the ice gain data said he knew deniers would jump on this"

and they did, with both feet. Anything to keep the status quo, keep up the golden parachute, screw the grandkids.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/11/04/nasa-scientist-warned-deniers-would-distort-his/206612

We have been though all of this before and I proved you wrong. Do you have dementia?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
We have been though all of this before and I proved you wrong. Do you have dementia?

You never prove anyone wrong, both because you fail to grasp what proving something actually requires,
and because you are almost invariable wrong.

Simply stating someone is wrong, or posting a link to a fellow conspiracy nut saying the same thing
does not prove anything.

I can go on the internets and find someone making just about any claim you care to make up, that does
not make those claims true.

In this instance, we have the vast majority of experts in a field over a multi decade [at the very least] period
of time across all nations agreeing on a problem... And a few dissenters who are almost always funded by people
who stand to loose out if action is taken to solve this problem and who's work is almost always found to be deeply
flawed and/or wrong.

In such circumstances only a fool would make plans assuming that the dissenters are right.

Originally posted by vivify
My opinion on homosexuality is irrelevant. It's a fact that having a homosexual gene causes no harm to the individual; therefore, it's a fact that being gay is not a disease.

Discussion over.

You are so caught up in the correctness of your beliefs that you are unable to view your personal belief as anything other than fact. It is sad, but very common.

For that reason a discussion can never take place. All we can have is one point of view being forced on others who disagree. Typical European moral structure. It is not different than having an official State Religion.

Originally posted by googlefudge
You never prove anyone wrong, both because you fail to grasp what proving something actually requires,
and because you are almost invariable wrong.

Simply stating someone is wrong, or posting a link to a fellow conspiracy nut saying the same thing
does not prove anything.

I can go on the internets and find someone making just about any claim yo ...[text shortened]... g.

In such circumstances only a fool would make plans assuming that the dissenters are right.

I prove you wrong all the time. You are just in denial of it.

https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum

Originally posted by Metal Brain
I prove you wrong all the time. You are just in denial of it.

https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum

You have just scored an own goal with that link:

I take it you haven't even bothered to read even just the first paragraph of that link? As you so often idiotically do when searching for relevant links, you just read the title and idiotically thought that's good enough? Either that, or you moronically pretend the very first paragraph doesn't say what it does.

Here is what that first paragraph of your own link actually says:

"...Antarctica and the Arctic are two very different environments: the former is a continent surrounded by ocean, the latter is ocean enclosed by land. As a result, sea ice behaves very differently in the two regions. While the Antarctic sea ice yearly wintertime maximum extent hit record highs from 2012 to 2014 before returning to average levels in 2015, both the Arctic wintertime maximum and its summer minimum extent have been in a sharp decline for the past decades. Studies show that globally, the decreases in Arctic sea ice far exceed the increases in Antarctic sea ice.
..." (my emphases)

-thus, if anything, your link clearly implies evidence of global warming and definitely NOT global cooling.
You have yet again stupidly scored an own goal. No wonder nobody here ever takes you seriously!

Originally posted by humy
You have just scored an own goal with that link:

I take it you haven't even bothered to read even just the first paragraph of that link? As you so often idiotically do when searching for relevant links, you just read the title and idiotically thought that's good enough? Either that, or you moronically pretend the very first paragraph doesn't say what it does ...[text shortened]...
You have yet again stupidly scored an own goal. No wonder nobody here ever takes you seriously!

-and I have no idea what any of this has to do with "Mercury causes homosexuality"