Replies

You provided references to two studies but you've never taken the time to read either study. I have along with many more. Go ahead and read the study now that you're familiar with the snowball effect.

Not a single study supports your position that genes play a huge role. Not one. What's really sad are the only times such claims are made is when they are made by those who did not understand the study or are misrepresenting the study, many times to push an agenda.

Every single professional interpretation of this study I've ever read by psychologists, supports the interpretation I stated. I tend to trust their judgement over that of someone on the Internet, since I see no credible evidence that they are trying to push an agenda. However, I'll look into the study itself when I can, to see whether what you said is correct.

There are no studies to support your statement that genes play a huge role.

It might have been someone else, but I believe you said that it is a combination of genes and envioronment. That's how I think it is. If genes don't play a role, then it can't possibly be a combination of genes and environment.

That tells me you play games and waste time.

Hardly. What I said was that I don't see a need to waste precious time on explaining something when the other person is familiar with the evidence or when the other person lacks the understanding to contest my point even if I don't state it as elaborately as I can. It's not a matter of playing games, it's a matter of the economics of debate.

From what you've said about purposely irritating people you'll apparently say anything to detract from the real issue.

Wrong. I don't say anything unless I believe it's true, whether it be positive or negative about the other person. If someone avoids answering a post by making personal attacks or unsubstantiated statements about my posts, I might question his motives by asking whether he is saying that to dodge this issue. Personal attacks should not go unanswered.

Here at FreeRepublic we don't appreciate somebody wasting our time. You call it fun but we call it trolling and it will get you banned. In that same post you said you don't have an infinite amount of time and neither do we. Please don't waste our time. We only have so much of it and want to spend it wisely.

It is debate that is quite amusing, not wasting people's time. There are few things I enjoy more. As for wasting your time, I believe you made the choice to re-enter this thread ('waste [my] time' in your own words) after a few days in which the only real debate was between me and DelphiUser.

If you believe this is wasting your time, then why did you respond? Why did you search my debate with DelphiUser for 'incriminating' evidence? Why did you ping your list? To waste their time? It doesn't make sense.

You found a reference to a study and from what you've said you're weighing your odds that I don't know what I'm talking about. Unfortunately for you I demonstrated you've done nothing but obfuscate, misdirect and thrown out many logical fallacies.

I very much encourage you and anybody to read the study you referenced. It doesn't support your position that genes play a huge role. Bailey and Pillard would be the first to tell you that so stop mirepresenting their study.

As I've previously said, you are demonstrating a profound ignorance on this subject. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. And I want everybody who follows this issue to see you for what you are: a time waster and game player.

Every single professional interpretation of this study I've ever read by psychologists, supports the interpretation I stated. I tend to trust their judgement over that of someone on the Internet, since I see no credible evidence that they are trying to push an agenda.

Once again, stop and think about that rock. If they want to be taken seriously then Bailey and Pillard should not have been snowballing their study. For anybody using the snowball effect is demonstrating a blatant disregard for scientific principles. You said Kinsey did not use a valid sample so to follow your logic, neither did Bailey and Pillard. Out of ignorance you're pushing the Bailey and Pillard study as valid.