I can prolly help here. I’ve been a member for a little less than three years (Thus the Nov 2k under my name over there).
Panzer lurked the boards because I posted here alot (Crazy stalker boy! 
), hung out in IRC with me on several occasions, and was even dragged to a couple of local Dopefests.
I doubt this has much to do with Brandon, though I’m not sure if that was Panzer’s first post. shrug
(and ladies… right? ahem)
I don’t know why I’m bothering to pick this particular nit. Esprix said:
Sure, we don’t know what’s going in with sexuality. We really only have the faintest of clues about how the brain works, and probably more than half of what we think we know is completely wrong. But it wouldn’t surprise me if–once we have some really good robust models of how the brain functions–we had a pretty good handle on why people have the sexual orientations they do. What exactly that will be is a complete mystery of course, and we have no reason to think such models are even on the horizon.
Other than that I agree with you.
Not even sure what nit you’re picking, but sure, ok, sounds good to me.
Esprix
Hey Panzerfaust, now that you’re done jerking off to your self-imposed “Oh I’m such the oppressed one here, nobody will listen to me and you’ll go deliberately misinterpreting what I say now, Homebrew” opinion, could you please take the extra five seconds* to clean up after yourself?
[sub]*It really isn’t a big cumstain. Just annoying and smelly.[/sub]
Panzerfaust
As you pursue your research, it might be a good idea to have a firm grounding in the difference between science and pseudoscience. Always make certain that any theory you hold is falsifiable. See Science as Falsification. What would you do, for example, given a counter-example for one of your hypotheses?
I’m reminded of something that Noam Chomsky said on this issue some time back (this is Chomsky’s linguistics and cognitive science, not his politics). He believes that, in terms of explaining the way that the mind works and controls human behaviour, things tend to be either so simple and straightforward that there is very little to say about them, or so complex and hard that we may never have have any real understanding of them at all, and will just be throwing out theory after theory.
Given this, I apologize for the insinuation that I made.
I still think your opinions and “theories” and a bunch of shit though.
Given this, I apologize for the insinuation that I made.
I still think your opinions and “theories” are a bunch of shit though.
The only nit is the “never” part. Maybe we’ll never figure out brain function. But it seems wrong to assert that we will never solve a problem simply because it is intractable at this time.
MINE?! I think I’ve stayed pretty neutral here, but if you’re still effed off about it, can I at least get my -own- pitting?
:smack:
I’m sorry, that wasn’t too clear.
What I intended to say is that I apologize for the implication that Panzerfaust was/is a returning troll/sock but I still think his (Panzerfaust’s) views and theories are a bunch of shit.
Okay?
whatami - Of course they’re shit. Haven’t you been paying attention?
Then why persist in them?
Esprix