[R.M. Schultz]That Axis History Forum Guy Again...

[Stark]

Calm down, Ein. He just flatout ignored pretty much all the responses, so he's not long for this board.

[Stile]

Since I'm a silly, forgetful, little bastard, I forgot about the twin studies regarding homosexuality ....

Are these studies of twins raised separately? If not, then both the genetic material AND the environment are identical, and so we're back to the nature/nurture debate.

Wha????

* 52% of identical (monozygotic) twins of homosexual men were likewise homosexual

Same genetic material

* 11% of adoptive brothers of homosexual men were likewise homosexual

Not same genetic material

Adoptive brothers are less likely to be homosexual than identical brothers.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

To all my friends on Stardestroyer:

Since joining your forum, some twenty-five members have taken the time and trouble to answer my posts. I regret to admit that I have not been able to answer them all. Please keep in mind that I am only one person, with a limited amount of time to spend “goofing off” on the internet, and be assured that I fully intend to answer you all. I have found this discussion quite stimulating and hope that you find it interesting as well. Thank you again for your patience.

Patronizing and politeness will get you nowhere. Answering our points with proper scientific evidence INSTEAD OF ANECDOTES (I'll repeat so you'll get it through your thick skull and preconceived notions) INSTEAD OF ANECDOTES YOU FUCKING ASSHOLE!!!!!, as well as conceding if you are found wrong in logical debate, may just allow you to dig yourself out of this hole you are in.

Until then, your stupidity and malice must be punished.

Since I'm a silly, forgetful, little bastard, I forgot about the twin studies regarding homosexuality ....

Are these studies of twins raised separately? If not, then both the genetic material AND the environment are identical, and so we're back to the nature/nurture debate.

I think in fact it was the 'twins raised separately' thing. As per always, you are fucking wrong. Even if it's not, read this.

Why are you equating 'gay because of nurture' with 'less of an atrocity to torture and mass-murder all gay people'? You are a sick lowlife deserving nothing but contempt.

See you in Hell.

Reposted in case it gets forgotten at the bottom of a thread page; I've seen that happen too many times.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Calm down, Ein. He just flatout ignored pretty much all the responses, so he's not long for this board.

Oh good. Now only if we can figure out how to get the Internet to RL-punch him in the mouth.

[Simplicius]

Yes, Mr. R.M. Schultz, let us return to your inability to defend your 'moral heirarchy of murder'. I among others await your attempts at rebuttal - have at ye.

[Darth Wong]

Since I'm a silly, forgetful, little bastard, I forgot about the twin studies regarding homosexuality ....

Are these studies of twins raised separately? If not, then both the genetic material AND the environment are identical, and so we're back to the nature/nurture debate.

Provide evidence to support your half-assed personal theory, moron. Your penchant for imperiously ignoring some of the most basic elements of the scientific method (ie- that a hypothesis must be tested before it can be taken seriously) is unacceptable. And don't appeal to undocumented "personal experience" as evidence.

[Surlethe]

Lots of reasons. A few might include:

• Self-reporting biases Any survey of sexuality ultimately must be based upon self-reporting and social biases are bound to skew the answers. Women, who often feel that sexuality outside the context of an emotional relationship is “cheap”, are very likely to underreport their experiences, while men, who wish to be perceived as “cocksmen” are just as likely to overstate them, or at least over-state the frequency of coition to enhance their apparent virility.

Just how likely are these apparent biases to show up (supposing, of course, they exist)?

<snip>
Now — given that sex means something different to all of these groups, how is the “sexpert” to come up with a reliable quantitative analysis of them? Do you think any more than a small minority of women is actually going to confess to being non-orgasmic? Do you think that ANY man is going to say sex scares him so much that he would undoubtedly be impotent if he actually had an opportunity to fuck? How many women mistake the intimacy that accompanies sex for actual carnality and would, in perfect innocence, mis-report their experiences?

Let us suppose that a reliable quantitative analysis is impossible because of the breakdowns you presented. This is a self-defeating proposition: you base the conclusion on a quantitative breakdown!.

Everyone has an agenda about sex and that is going to keep them from telling a researcher the whole truth.

Do you have evidence for this claim?

The times themselves influence what sort of sexual questions are asked just as much as they influence the kids of answers given.

And how would this affect a researcher striving to be objective? He wouldn't permit social norms to restrain him, supposing, again, that the "facts" you cited are true.

• Ultimate Subjectivity In researching things like smell or taste, scientists can accurately gage sensations (salty, acrid, etc.), measure neurological responses, and very nearly objectively formulate a theory of taste or smell with universal application.

And you don't think you can measure the basic neurological responses associated with sex, e.g.?

I hope that this list, extensive though not comprehensive, gives you some inkling as to why it has proven almost impossible for scientists, however well intentioned, to generate a truly objective picture of sexuality.

I love how you state this as true with a straight face, completely ignoring the fact it contradicts your whole pretention to a pet theory.

[Darth Wong]

Don't play his game. He's trying to poke holes in the credibility of the evidence for more established theories without providing so much as a shred of evidence for his own interpretation or his many factual claims that rest on nothing more than his own personal authority. Until he provides such evidence, his attacks on the credibility of superior theories are meaningless. Even if those theories are not as reliable as we'd like them to be, they're still far more reliable than his.

[Surlethe]

Don't play his game. He's trying to poke holes in the credibility of the evidence for more established theories without providing so much as a shred of evidence for his own interpretation or his many factual claims that rest on nothing more than his own personal authority. Until he provides such evidence, his attacks on the credibility of superior theories are meaningless. Even if those theories are not as reliable as we'd like them to be, they're still far more reliable than his.

Retarded as he is, his writing (when he doesn't make stupid typos) looks credible, so it's sometimes necessary to remind oneself that he's stating the facts based on nothing more than his personal authority. He almost reminds me of what I've seen of DarkStar: fluent, almost flamboyant writing, and very, very little in the way of substance behind it.

In any case, his argument looked to me like, "Unsubstantiated claim. Non sequitur to conclusion", so I'd like to see him back up his arguments, and then watch him squirm a little bit as I point out that his conclusion completely contradicts his previously stated position.

[Wyrm]

Sexuality is one of life’s great intangibles. “Evidence,” such as it is, is both necessarily subjective and prone to falsification.

Why?

Lots of reasons. A few might include:

<snip bullshit>

Gee, Hans! With the flakiness inherent in all measurement, it's a wonder any progress gets done in the sciences. You think scientists don't know that their data will be biased, stratified, and mushy? They're all too aware of it. That's why they perform careful experimental design and data analysis, to tease out what little information they can from the mushy, noisy data.

I've worked with some very tempermental instruments frustratingly prone to error, both systematic and random. I'm no stranger to noisy data.

Compare that to what you have: Anecdotal evidence, with no careful documentation of the conditions under which they are collected, from a restricted sample of not very well chosen volunteers, and an analysis that falls on its face at even the slightest provocation. (Where do dominant gays, who wouldn't look twice at a submissive woman, fit into your little theory?) This "experimental design" is a joke, and the subsequent "analysis" would get you laughed out of the seminar hall.

[mr friendly guy]

He is not the first person to come to this board just to post in a thread about him. Remember AaronAgassi? However unlike Aaron who actually ran away from a thread after being humiliated, R.M. Schultz seems hellbent on repeating his points again and again. I wonder if he read the board rules and realise that this type of shit won't fly here. But like Stark said, if this keeps up he won't last much longer.

[Darth Wong]

This is Schultz's debate technique so far:

SCHULTZ: "This is how sexuality works."

EVERYONE ELSE: "Got any evidence?"

SCHULTZ: "Personal experience."

EVERYONE ELSE: "You call that evidence? You're full of shit."

SCHULTZ: "Psychology is not hard science, so it could be wrong."

EVERYONE ELSE: "It's a helluva lot more scientific than what you're doing."

SCHULTZ: "Let me go over my previous points, but in more detail."

[General Zod]

Don't play his game. He's trying to poke holes in the credibility of the evidence for more established theories without providing so much as a shred of evidence for his own interpretation or his many factual claims that rest on nothing more than his own personal authority. Until he provides such evidence, his attacks on the credibility of superior theories are meaningless. Even if those theories are not as reliable as we'd like them to be, they're still far more reliable than his.

Retarded as he is, his writing (when he doesn't make stupid typos) looks credible, so it's sometimes necessary to remind oneself that he's stating the facts based on nothing more than his personal authority. He almost reminds me of what I've seen of DarkStar: fluent, almost flamboyant writing, and very, very little in the way of substance behind it.

In any case, his argument looked to me like, "Unsubstantiated claim. Non sequitur to conclusion", so I'd like to see him back up his arguments, and then watch him squirm a little bit as I point out that his conclusion completely contradicts his previously stated position.

I've found that people who spend far too much time on long winded responses for what should be a simple answer are bullshitting, regardless if they sound like they may be credible. Especially when they refuse to cite anything but personal experience.

[Surlethe]

He is not the first person to come to this board just to post in a thread about him. Remember AaronAgassi? However unlike Aaron who actually ran away from a thread after being humiliated, R.M. Schultz seems hellbent on repeating his points again and again. I wonder if he read the board rules and realise that this type of shit won't fly here. But like Stark said, if this keeps up he won't last much longer.

There was also EugenicHarmony, the guy who thought the US was communist because it wasn't libertarian enough for him to masturbate to. Ahh, good times -- these guys who come to post in threads about themselves are some of the best to mock, because they're so full of themselves.

[Surlethe]

I've found that people who spend far too much time on long winded responses for what should be a simple answer are bullshitting, regardless if they sound like they may be credible. Especially when they refuse to cite anything but personal experience.

That's a good observation. In any case, guys like Schultz make good practice for critical reading: it's good exercise to go through his long-winded bullshit and condense it down to a sentence-long argument (i.e., "Claim, because fact fact fact").

[Darth Wong]

One method I used many years ago against a Trekkie who called himself "Gothmog" was to simply quote each paragraph and then translate it into plain English, by removing all of the superfluous rhetorical antics. It's funny how some arguments virtually destroy themselves if you merely translate them into plain English.

[General Zod]

One method I used many years ago against a Trekkie who called himself "Gothmog" was to simply quote each paragraph and then translate it into plain English, by removing all of the superfluous rhetorical antics. It's funny how some arguments virtually destroy themselves if you merely translate them into plain English.

Another fun little technique I've found is to simply boil it all their multi-paragraph essays down to one easy to read point and demand a simple yes or no answer. Which I suspect is similar, except it doesn't necessarily address all of their points, it simply gets to the meat of the subject. Always fun to watch them hem and haw, and continue claiming that there is no yes or no answer when you've explicitly showed that there actually is one.

[Big Orange]

What gets me about R.M. Schultz (apart from his reams upon reams of BS) is his unforgivable hypocrisy when it comes to the unlawful persecution, imprisonment and murder of different minority groups - he somehow assumes that killing homosexuals is somehow not as evil as killing Jews. Worse still he thinks the Nazis were giving homosexuals an easier time by "re-educating" them into hetrosexuals and although the Nazis were killing Jews with no mercy or exception with no chance of "re-education", in earlier times anti-Semites were "re-educating" Jews into Christians (should they be excused as well?).

[Darth Lucifer]

Retarded as he is, his writing (when he doesn't make stupid typos) looks credible, so it's sometimes necessary to remind oneself that he's stating the facts based on nothing more than his personal authority. He almost reminds me of what I've seen of DarkStar: fluent, almost flamboyant writing, and very, very little in the way of substance behind it.

Lords, no wonder my brain hurts so badly.

[Darth Wong]

What gets me about R.M. Schultz (apart from his reams upon reams of BS) is his unforgivable hypocrisy when it comes to the unlawful persecution, imprisonment and murder of different minority groups - he somehow assumes that killing homosexuals is somehow not as evil as killing Jews. Worse still he thinks the Nazis were giving homosexuals an easier time by "re-educating" them into hetrosexuals and although the Nazis were killing Jews with no mercy or exception with no chance of "re-education", in earlier times anti-Semites were "re-educating" Jews into Christians (should they be excused as well?).

During WW2 the Catholic Church was offering to smuggle Jews out of Germany on the condition that they converted. I guess they weren't worth saving if they didn't convert. Just like homosexuals.

[Big Orange]

What gets me about R.M. Schultz (apart from his reams upon reams of BS) is his unforgivable hypocrisy when it comes to the unlawful persecution, imprisonment and murder of different minority groups - he somehow assumes that killing homosexuals is somehow not as evil as killing Jews. Worse still he thinks the Nazis were giving homosexuals an easier time by "re-educating" them into hetrosexuals and although the Nazis were killing Jews with no mercy or exception with no chance of "re-education", in earlier times anti-Semites were "re-educating" Jews into Christians (should they be excused as well?).

During WW2 the Catholic Church was offering to smuggle Jews out of Germany on the condition that they converted. I guess they weren't worth saving if they didn't convert. Just like homosexuals.

That's just appalling. What in titty fucking Christ is R.M. Schultz thinking?!

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

What gets me about R.M. Schultz (apart from his reams upon reams of BS) is his unforgivable hypocrisy when it comes to the unlawful persecution, imprisonment and murder of different minority groups - he somehow assumes that killing homosexuals is somehow not as evil as killing Jews. Worse still he thinks the Nazis were giving homosexuals an easier time by "re-educating" them into hetrosexuals and although the Nazis were killing Jews with no mercy or exception with no chance of "re-education", in earlier times anti-Semites were "re-educating" Jews into Christians (should they be excused as well?).

During WW2 the Catholic Church was offering to smuggle Jews out of Germany on the condition that they converted. I guess they weren't worth saving if they didn't convert. Just like homosexuals.

That's just appalling. What in titty fucking Christ is R.M. Schultz thinking?!

Probably thinking that it's completely ok to kill gays but knows we know it is completely not ok. Hence his attempt at making a double standard.

In short, he has not only no excuse, but LESS than no excuse.

[Darth Wong]

That's just appalling. What in titty fucking Christ is R.M. Schultz thinking?!

Who knows? What a lot of people forget is that Mel Gibson's brand of anti-semitism (which he inherited from his father) was actually pretty much standard Catholic doctrine in the early 20th century. Back then, they tried to distinguish between acceptable anti-semitism (the desire to eradicate the Jewish religion) with unacceptable anti-semitism (the desire to eradicate the Jewish race). It may seem like hair-splitting to you but to the Catholic Church, it was righteousness.

[Wyrm]

Probably thinking that it's completely ok to kill gays but knows we know it is completely not ok. Hence his attempt at making a double standard.

In short, he has not only no excuse, but LESS than no excuse.

I expected no less. As soon as he said "My two best friends are gay," I knew that what you say is exactly Schultz's position. It's a classic sign of a closet homophobe.

[Big Orange]

Who knows? What a lot of people forget is that Mel Gibson's brand of anti-semitism (which he inherited from his father) was actually pretty much standard Catholic doctrine in the early 20th century. Back then, they tried to distinguish between acceptable anti-semitism (the desire to eradicate the Jewish religion) with unacceptable anti-semitism (the desire to eradicate the Jewish race). It may seem like hair-splitting to you but to the Catholic Church, it was righteousness.

That could explain R.M. Schultz's warped morality on things, since he's a Catholic himself. Due to his prejudices, he thinks homosexuals choose their sexual orientation and therefore they're "deviants" out of free will and deserve punishment for their "wrong doing". That is what he essentially insinuated over at Axis History Forum, when he scorned the Nazis for evicting Jewish scientists but not making a big fuss about Alan Turing being convicted for anti-sodomy laws (when it was similar act of wasting scientific talent because of bigotry).

I expected no less. As soon as he said "My two best friends are gay," I knew that what you say is exactly Schultz's position. It's a classic sign of a closet homophobe.

It's the same kind of pathetic shield that anti-Semites use when they profess that "some of my best friends are Jewish!", before launching into their tirade.