viola's dead for all i know, prefix is now post and still posts on occasion, drfunk came back briefly and sucked a lot so he left again.

I remember prefix being banned for racism, and Dr. Funk being banned a couple thousand times and never leaving on his own accord.  Unless, of course, if the bans reversed in GW6.

Since you alluded to my educational background, I'm a Statistics student, Graduate, currently studying for my masters degree.

I interpretted "what you were doing" as sarcasm; it's not hard to see it considering that I've been on and off this site for almost six years now.  I entered this debate to defend a certain viewpoint, and I apologize if my "for your sake I'll do it again" comment is too harsh, since I was apparantly as frustrated as Ragnar is back then.  I don't mind if you liked the analogy and that you believed that I was wrong for trying to defend Blitzen's viewpoint; however, you replied to my comment, I contradicted one of your points, and you openly mocked me for it.  In retrospect, I probably should have just ignored the comment, though I can pretty safely say - at least from what I've seen - that not many people on GW would respond to such a comment by saying nothing.

I admit, I don't visit as much nowadays as I used to, so I don't know too much of GW's modern etiquette.  However, I've never remembered not being allowed to debate a point or reply to a post within GW's rules, so I admittedly don't understand what exactly made you so hostile.  If there's something \that was added in the last two years that I didn't pick up on  or if there's something that I did not understand, then I wouldn't mind hearing it instead of being given the words "lurk more" and dismissed.

Since I've already derailing the topic and failing in some way that I don't even realize, I won't pursue this line any further.  I would like to hear what you believe I'm doing wrong, though - perhaps through IRC or through private messege.  If I did somehow sound like an ass though, I'll apologize.  My intent in this thread was originally to defend Blitz's point, not to make enemies of people.

This is good news though, because that means we're getting closer to hitting a studyable patch of ice.

I shall eagerly await this day ​.  I just hope that eventually studying a patch Martian ice will lead to a discovery, though, beyond that of just "the presence of ice."

I guess I can call myself an oldbie, though I joined a little too late to recognize you.  Hello anyway, though.

I understand what you say Azure, but if that was the case, why would psychologist and psychiatrists tell gay people that they don't need to change? most of them agree that it's a trait that shouldn't be changed, because it could cause damage to the person. so even if it isn't evidence that it can't be changed, at least it shows that maybe it's not the correct thing to do.

I have no definitive opinions on the morality of such an operation.  In fact, if I have to pick a side, I would agree with you.  I don't believe that changing a person's behavior is the correct thing to do unless if the person wills it and understands the risks involved, since there's no reason for us to tell someone else to change just because they lead a different lifestyle.  My only argument is that homosexuality is plausibly cognitive in part or whole, not whether "reversing it" is morally right or not.

*whew*

Sorry for being so persistent on a topic that doesn't relate to the thread.

Still he hasn't backed up anything, not even a study that could suggest he is right, we have told him that if his opinion was right, then many gay people would succed in making themselves straight, yet they don't, so his opinion must have a problem right?

I can't debate Blitzen's opinion, since I apparantly don't fully agree with it.  However, I do believe in the possibility of homosexuality being partially cognitive, so I'll base my argument with that point in mind:

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that homosexuality is cognitive.  Now, some cognitive traits are reinforced by chemical ones after the initial "choice," for the lack of a better word (it doesn't have to mean an instantaneous conscious choice; it could be a by-product of other choices or even a by-product of the environment), so it becomes more difficult to change the behavior after a certain period.  I'm not saying that this is actually true per se - but that is certainly a possibility.

Another possibly explaination would be that homosexual people have psychological barricades to changing this behavior.  For an unrelated example used merely to illustrate, consider psychological association.  Once a person learns to associate one thing or behavior with another, Psychology has shown that it is very difficult for an individual to remove the association on his/her own; his body simply associates one with the other, and rehabilitation is required to remove the association.  The explaination could possibly apply to homosexuality in a slightly different manner; once the "choice" (again, for lack of a better word) is made, the brain becomes imprinted with the notion of associating same gender with lust, which is a subconscious quality that cannot be removed without psychological rehabilitation.

Both of the above are conjectures used only to show why it's possible for homosexuality to be cognitive and for those people to not succeed in changing their attraction.


Also, since people seem to hate it when I throw the word fallacy around, I'll link to this interesting little article.  It's not proof or conclusive or anything; it merely discusses psychology's explaination for why brothers and sisters are not attracted to each other, which - in the same light as the other arguments made in the thread - suggests that attraction can also be affected by cognitive reasons.

...

Okay.  If you're that frustrated with the argument, I'll just drop it and say that you win.  It's derailing the thread anyway, and I myself would rather continue the debate than attack/defend certain members as guilty or innocent.

except no one's saying they KNOW how a person can or cannot be a homosexual, besides him! congrats man you figured out the problem here why did it take you so long.
<azurefenrir> oops well that was a waste!!!

Looks like I got caught up in that topic shift.  Sorry.

I for one think that you become a homosexual when you engange in homosexual activity

I am just not one for such fatalistic arguments

Really, my dislike for this theory has little to do with gays and more to do with the ability of one to shape his own psyche and self. It comes down the question that I have heard lots of gays pose, that we "can't change who we are"

I don't think the answer is ever as simple as being "born gay".

No, he didn't.  Now that I read your first post, I don't know why you were so caught up with him.  All of his opinions were clearly denoting that it's his belief and not universal truth, just like:

I'm pretty sure in 1910 they didn't like big breasts that much. In 1800 they also had other standards. In 1600 they also had other standards and so on. It's cultural, not instinctive.

I think there would be a choice as well, only not in the way you're describing it.

And unlike:

what the fuck are you talking about. you're homosexual when you are sexually attracted to the same sex and not the opposite sex.

So I don't know what you mean when you said that Blitzen was the only one who said he knows!!!

Now it turns out that I don't actually agree with Blitzen's views fully, but the fact still remains that he did not say he KNOWs how a person can or cannot be a homosexual

"oh gee he really got me, there's noway i can counter his attack. whatever shall i do? i know, i'll just dismiss it with an internet label"

*sigh* Then why not just drop the flaming and insulting people and argue like mature adults?

You're just using rhetorical questions.

Incorrect.  I answered those questions later in the same argument.  I won't use any terms; rather, quoting incomplete portions of my argument and calling it a fallacy is itself a fallacy.

That's an example of minimisation.

There is no such fallacy.

This is a hypothetical situation.

First, this is not used to support an argument.  Second, it is a situation in relation to I, a reference to myself; therefore, it is not a fallacy.

This is an attempt to sound academic.

...

So now that I've proven your arguments to be invalid I would appreciate if you would quit your debauchery.

I should note that never once in this thread did I insult you or anyone else.  I would greatly appreciate it if you gave me the same level of respect that I give to you, though the only thing you did in this thread is to make snide inflammatory remarks to me.  Tell me, though: what do you want me to do in this thread?  It can't be "remain silent, do not argue, and acknowledge that we're right," can it?

the heck? I don't get why you're so confused about this. I told him that his stance on this matter is not a valid one to have, and I explained why. this isn't about providing proof of the contrary, it's about exposing the holes in an unfounded position.

I reread your argument.  Your first post concluded that Blitzen's arguments does not prove his theory.  I agree with you there - the social/choice side of the argument has no concrete evidence to back its claims.  Your first post also concluded that Blitzen is completely wrong, giving the following argument:

it has nothing to do with being able to change yourself to the extent of being able to choose your sexual orientation. the whole argument you guys are having about WELL DIFFERENT PLACES THINK BEAUTY IS THIS has nothing to do with this shit. differences in the perception of beauty are the result of external influences that become deeply ingrained in a person's mind. and once there, they can't really be removed or OVERWRITTEN as you're suggesting. you gather these perceptions of the world as you're growing up and removing them is most likely impossible. and of course there's no evidence that sexuality is at all the same as perceptions of beauty and suggesting it is is pretty ignorant in itself

The argument stated against Blitzen's support for his theory, which I agree on.  Other than the statement that removing perceptions about the world is most likely impossible (which is also an opinion), you did not invalidate the belief at all.  Therefore, Blitzen's stance has not yet been proven invalid.  Your second post.

blitzen man it's not fate. ugh not being a fatalist doesn't mean you gotta think you can change everything about your mind just with BRAIN POWER. fate is bullshit, but in acknowledging this I also realize BIOLOGY EXISTS and that people have a lot less control over themselves than anyone would like to think. that attitude you have is a very american sort of bootstrapping viewpoint which has been proven inaccurate countless times. no, not everyone can be an astronaut!!

This is an assertion of your opinion, and an attempt to call Blitzen's ideas "american sort of bootstrapping...which has been proven inaccurate countless times."  Since the rest of your arguments are with me, you haven't exposed holes in his position; you merely showed that Blitzen has no concrete evidence for his argument - which no one in this thread currently does.

At least, when I read Blitzen's post, I assumed that he meant that homosexuality may be determined by something that isn't concretely physical (which is what his rhetoric suggested).  If he really did mean "you can choose to be gay at any time," then I have no argument.

um nope?? I came back in 2006/2007, and since I left in 2004 GW as a whole has matured a lot. somewhere along the line we realized that people should be able to back up their claims, and that actual discussion and debate is a lot better than WELL I BELIEVE THIS. seriously I don't know where you've been hanging around because GW hasn't been about mindless spamming of baseless opinions for a long time. are you sure you aren't thinking of RM network???

I won't question you on this and will simply admit that I'm wrong.  This still leaves us with two sides of the argument, neither of which has concrete support.  No reason to single out Blitzen on his and flame his opinions without questioning the other.

Actually:

Homosexuality is not a choice in the same way pedophilia isnt one either. however acting upon your homosexual impulses is a choice and i think this is what the mildly intelligent homophobes use to support their statement. acting upon your pedophile impulses is also a choise but the latter is a horrible thing to do the former is not bad at all (the former involves two concenting adults)

I don't mean to pick on Marmot (since I do believe that you are allowed to state your opinions on a forum), but Rendar, your post and Marmot's post are examples of people just coming to post their opinions.  I know that I'm arguing by example here; my point is: a forum is meant for a person to post opinions.  If Blitzen has been proven wrong and still maintains that he's right, that's another story.  However, if you can't prove him wrong, then there's no reason that his opinion should be banned any more than yours even if it goes against the rest of the community.  If you disagree with him, prove him wrong; until then, he hasn't done anything to degrade himself, and there's no reason to throw insult.

the problem with Blitzen's stance is that even if in his case he doesn't say that it's a bad thing because it's a choice, it gives others what they need to justify their homophobic claims, if being homosexual is a conscious choice, then all the problems they have because of it can be solved just by stop being gay. why allow them to marry if they can just stop being gay? why stop beating them in the streets? if they don't like it they can always get straight. so if they don't it's  because they like to being treated like subhumans.
see what the problem is?

My apologies if I offended you with my arguments, Cray; I don't mean to sound confrontational or threatening.  However, you can't just dismiss a viewpoint as wrong simply because it gives others what they need to justify their claims.  It's true that there are people that won't accept other peoples' choices, but if science does eventually link a social cause to homosexuality, then that's how the world turns.  Same argument goes for science linking homosexuality to physical means.  Emotions does not justify either side of the argument.

maybe my example wasn't the best, but there are lots of things that aren't fully proven and are somewhat accepted in society, right? what if I took a new theory completely out of my ass and said it was just as valid as the one before? I'm sure no one would agree with me, right?

We're getting a bit off-topic here, but meh.

A lot of things are accepted in society that aren't fully proven.  For that matter, a lot of things are accepted in society that turn out to be opinions or sheerly false, and therefore, they cannot logically be taken into a debate as evidence that the opposing side is wrong.

Well then please explain what kind of environmental factors and "choices" you think causes homosexuality

Here's the two sides of our little debate:
Azure: Believes that it is possible that homosexuality is attributed to factors that are not entirely caused by physical means, and that it can possibly be controlled through psychological measures.
Mince: ??? (This isn't intended to be offensive, but I've never really understood whether your side of the argument is "homosexuality is physical" or something else)

I do not see why I have to even answer that question, especially considering that it's not only too specific for the topic but is also a trap to ignore the actual point and pick cherries from details.  I simply believe that there are external and social factors that may contribute to homosexuality, and your point in the argument (since the burden of proof lies on you) is either to prove me wrong or offer your belief in the matter and prove me wrong on any point that does not agree.

But if you're really looking for an answer: no one knows.  Social factors are complex, and if I can actually give an infallible, provable, and correct answer (or even a highly probably and researchable event), then I would be contacting the Madison psychology department and publishing this in a psychology journal.  I won't be debating on a internet forum.

jesus christ, I hate when people pull the ITS AN IOPINION shit. you can't post horrible 'opinions' that have no basis on reality and expect no one to get pissed and start arguing. in my post, I was explaining to him why his OPINION isn't a valid stance to have. he didn't even post that it'd still be conceivably possible to change your sexual orientation, he flat out stated 'I think you can choose to be gay or straight' in so many words. and no one is supposed to disagree! -azurefenrir

I see.  Since you've been here for longer than I have, let me ask you one question.  When people post a topic on GW, what are the majority of responses to said topic?  Are they all opinions justified by unparalleled and undoubtable facts that leave no doubt to disagreement, or do they simply post opinions?  I think you know the answer to that question yourself.  At least since 2003, people have been posting just opinions that are not backed by concrete facts, and now you're suddenly saying that certain people has no right to post an opinion that isn't backed by unpalleled and undeniable facts even as other regulars do so even in THIS thread?

Note that I did not say that "no one is supposed to disagree" - I merely stated that none of the people that disagreed with him has offered supportive evidence to the contrary, which renders his opinion as valid.  It would be like you saying "I think there's a God," and me saying "No, you're wrong," and you having to GIVE PROOF to back up that statement even though I never proved my dissent.

hey thanks for explaining the difference between correlation and causation again, how about next time you explain the difference between evidence and proof oh wait someone else would be better suited for this.

Now you're just trolling.

But you say you believe it is influenced by choice.

My apologies for using the word "genetics."  Anyway, you misinterpretted my conclusion.  I NEVER said that homosexuality was due to a conscious, direct, immediate, and apparant choice - that is, unless if you define choice to include indirect choices due to our environment and lifestyle; if you do, then we're back to square one.  How do you know that someone didn't become homosexual because some choices and environmental factors influenced them?  How do you know if that decision was made once or subconsciously during some point of their lives and then forgotten?

You don't, not to mention that you've made an unsupported argument.  My argument never was "oh, they must have said 'henceforth I shall love my own gender' and that was the cause of it."  My argument was that homosexuality can be caused or affected by a non-physical factor, such as environment, upbringing, social influence, or even as a result of other choices.

So If I say the big bang theory is as much valid as "I think a giant barney dinosaur made the world by defecating it" are just as valid? neither of them has been proven, but there are several studies pointing in one direction, so I have to disagree with your point.

You're mistaking "correlation" with "evidence."  A correlation is when the change in one factor correlates with the change in another - i.e. hemisphere sizes with gender preferences or drug use with death rate.  An observed evidence is a piece of data that increases the likelihood of a conclusion, such as an observation that an object dropped from the air accelerates at the gravatational constant.  Observations are data, which are the central points of statistics: multiple observation of Hubbe's law concluded expandable space, which supported the big bang theory if you work backwards through the equations.  Expandable space and the big bang theory are NOT correlations.

Of course, that brings into question the validity of Quantum Physics, which I'm not going to go into.

Do you know anyone who became homosexual by choice?

No.  Do you know anyone who unquestionably became homosexual because of genetics?  I'd be quite surprised if you did, since that would mean that you're ahead of scientists and must immediately write a paper and publish it for $$$.

That question is not an argument.  We're debating the scientific validity of a person becoming homosexual partially/fully due to social and unknown personal factors; whether I know anyone who became homosexual by choice is not even answerable by current technology.  I can't look into a person's subconscious.

So, someone sum this up because I'm pretty dumb.  Does this test prove that people are born into specific ways of thinking?

Because there's a couple of guys I want dead and if I get caught this test proves that I'm a natural born killer and should be let off the hook.

It proves very little.  It only proves that there's a correlation between comparitive hemisphere size (and the size of certain factors, apparantly); it doesn't conclude whether homosexuality is by birth or even directly caused by/causes the difference.

you're right, it's not a proof, but so far we have this, on one side we have certain studies that indicate some relations between sexuality and biological traits, nothing conclusive, but enough to at least be open to the possibility, while on the other side there is nothing, blitzen has just said his opinion without anything more than "I think that.." that's the main difference.
And at least I'm not attacking anyone, and I hope my opinions haven't sounded too harsh or anything, I'm just trying to debate.

I have said this before, though; I could prove a very positive correlation between a lot of things, and they would not really make the other side wrong.  For example, in a recent experiment that I did for a stat class, I found that there's a negative correlation between smoking/drinking and death in dialysis patients.  It certainly doesn't mean that smoking makes you live longer; it simply meant (which I found out after diagnostics) that more young people smoke and if you're a young person right now, you will be more likely to live for 30 more years than if you're a 100-year old man.

A possibility is not closed until some correlation comes into light.  Correlation itself is also NOT evidence, and assuming so is a logical fallacy.  Certainly, the study shows correlation between comparitive hemisphere size and gender preference; however, until proof can be made, this does not support your opinion or count as evidence for your side (as the paper itself clearly states).  In the end, both sides are arguing with intuition and beliefs, which makes none of them justified in attacking the other side.

What I don't agree with him is that most gay people didn't want to be gay at the begining, do you honestly think no one tried to NOT be gay? we all did, we all have been there, and failed miserably. So now you're telling us that we didn't try hard enough?

It's fine to disagree, but it doesn't change the fact that without evidence, his opinion is as valid as yours.  As for your last few questions, appeals to emotion is not a good way to argue, nor is misinterpreting my argument.  I'm not implying that you're not trying hard enough; I merely believe that homosexuality may not be entirely hereditory.

this is actually a great analogy. this article provides evidence for homosexuality being a brain problem, blitzen said sexuality is probably mostly conditioning or taste, seemingly ignoring the article.
if homosexuality is a brain abnormality like schizophrenia then conditioning techniques won't work too well, that's why cognitive behavioural therapy works like crap on schizophrenics and they just dose em up.

I forgot how many times I quoted the same line in the ORIGINAL PAPER, but for your sake I'll do it again:

The present study does not allow narrowing of potential explanations, which are probably multifactorial...

The paper provides evidence that there is a correlation.  The article provides no conclusions about causality.

For your reading pleasure.  Go nuts.

Starting over since my computer crashed in the middle of writing the post.  I'm not defending every one of Blitzen's points; I merely agree that it's still up for debate and it's very possible for homosexuality to be partially social or by choice simply because it's my belief, as well.

Blitz it's because we don't really have control over certain things, if you were schizophrenic you could take medicines but you would still remain schizophrenic, you can't learn to be it or learn to not be it. You can't learn to be gay or to stop being it either.

This is a big false analogy.  Schizophrenia is not related to homosexuality or attraction by any means.

blitzen let me know the moment you are able to control 100% who you're attracted to. you talk about attraction as if it's a strictly conscious choice which is clearly not true!

Not being 100% able to flexibly and instantaneously control who you're attracted to (and by the way you define 100% it seems to be that you can change your preferences at a snap) does not imply that no part of attraction is cognitive, social, or by choice.  This argument is a fallacy of composition.

But it's still basic primal instincts, so for the majority, eh.

I've yet to see a culture where big breasted women with large hips aren't the symbol of beauty

Ancient China.  The part (modern first world) does not hold true for the whole.

you have nothing to back up your opinion, where on the other side, even though there is no PROOF there are several things that seem to point at the fact that there are biological and physical differences between straight and gay people.

Correlation does not imply causation.  For that matter, correlation is not even strong evidence for causation; if we're allowed to give that line of argument, I could site the decrease in pirates and the increase in global warming, draw a graph with massive statistical significance, and imply that this obviously silly argument is supported by "some evidence."

I change the physical functions of my brain with will, I can also grow a third arm on my chest by conditioning, and will my eyes into sprouting stalks.

Now you're just trolling instead of makign a proper debate.  GG Raven2k.

I mean, you don't just go, OH SHIT THIS CHICK TOTALLY HAS THIS AWESOME HEREDITARY TRAIT IM GONNA TAP THAT SHIT SOOOO HARD. I mean, it's not something you inherently think about it, it's just there.

You also don't just go, "oh shit the guy is being hung on a pole and mutilated hmm I'm going to check the laws of western ethics and conclude that the action is barbaric" or "oh shit he is eating dogs dogs are pets give me a while and let me use logic to draw a conclusion."  Those are things that you don't inherently think about, but if you make the argument "it's just there," tons of cultures and people will disagree with you.  Short reaction time can very well be a result of environment and habitual behavior, not just NATURAL.

I don't think this is much of a stretch considering its been theorized the reason humans don't have a baculum (penis bone) like other mammals is because of sexual selection from females causing us to lose them. By removing the baculum, human males rely on blood pressure, and thus gives human females a way to determine how healthy their mate is. I believe sexuality is something completely based in birth and instinct.

It's a hypothesis and is currently unproven.  The selection could very well be correlative or accidental, and even if it is a result of selection by some off-chance, you still can't generalize it to other modes of attraction OR to modern times.  In the end, what you proposed is still only a hypothesis and an opinion - nothing more than what Blitzen has given.

If I read the article correctly, this particular researcher believes that his findings occur during the development of the fetus.  If there is any substantial scientific evidence to back this it would effectively rule out your suggestion that sexual orientation is not a predetermined default.

My reply is ignored =/.  The researchers implied nothing because of post hoc ergo propter hoc; in fact, it explicitly warned that such conclusions cannot be drawn, and it's only a random professor who has nothing to do with the research that made the comment (and, thanks to media bias, ended up on the news article).  This makes your next statement petitio principii and thus invalid in discrediting Blitzen's position.

What about them? People can be different, but I'm talking about the overwhelming majority, which obviously exists because if the majority didn't like big breasted & big hipped women, they wouldn't be worshipped.

Addressed before, but besides attempting proof by example, this is an argumentum ad populum.  How would you justify that the overwhelming majority of people throughout time indeed possess the same attraction specifications that you specified?  (Note that popular opinion is not statistical evidence).

I guess you really want to believe that it's a choice to be gay (which is what you're saying, believe it or not!), but there's absolutely no way you can prove or even test this. you just don't know how other people's minds work, regardless of how much LOGICAL REASONING and pseudopsychology you toss around. as is, you're just telling everyone how weird you think gay folks are and how much you want to believe that they don't have to be gay if they didn't want to, even though there's absolutely no evidence to back this up and you're really just giving yourself a bad image

Steve, BLITZEN is not the one that is trying to forcefully present his beliefs.  This is what I saw from the thread's progression:

• Topic starter presents BBC article.  Some people agree with the article's implicit conclusion, and some people abstains.  People offer their opinions
  
• Blitzen offered an opinion that contradicts the majority of the population.  Blitzen offers his opinions
  
• People attack Blitzen's belief and start a debate.  People debate Blitzen's opinions.
  
• Blitzen defends his belief's validity while maintaining that it is HIS OPINION.  Blitzen defends the validity of his belief
  
• People get angry and harshly debates Blitzen's opinions.

So, Blitzen is simply offering an opinion like many other people are, and a bunch of people tell him that his opinion is incorrect, so he defends his opinion.  In this case, burden of proof falls on the attackers; they are trying to justify Blitzen's belief as being incorrect, while he's maintaining the stance that it's stimply his opinion.  I don't see why he would need proof simply to hold an opinion in a completely open-ended topic where no one has concrete evidence to support their side, or why he's giving himself a bad image for stating an opinion.  Does not agreeing with the majority suddenly make you have a bad image?

blitzen man it's not fate. ugh not being a fatalist doesn't mean you gotta think you can change everything about your mind just with BRAIN POWER. fate is bullshit, but in acknowledging this I also realize BIOLOGY EXISTS and that people have a lot less control over themselves than anyone would like to think. that attitude you have is a very american sort of bootstrapping viewpoint which has been proven inaccurate countless times. no, not everyone can be an astronaut!!

Even in the end, Blitzen's statement is this:

I don't think the answer is ever as simple as being "born gay".

No one is saying that you can instantaneously change your behavior; unfortunately, no conclusive proof is offered to the contrary, so you cannot simply say "being homosexual is physical and cannot be changed even through psychological conditioning and all that!!"

Do you really think that something wrong IN THE BRAIN, which by the way is where your self and psyche comes from, can be fixed by some training program? Will this require a Rocky Balboa montage of people saying I CANT DO IT as "Push It To The Limit" plays in the background?

The present study does not allow narrowing of potential explanations, which are probably multifactorial...Whether they may relate to processes laid down during the fetal or postnatal development is an open question.

The research (not Dr. Rahman, who has nothing to do with this) makes no conclusions about causality.

The paper is a really interesting read.  The correlations are pretty sound, though it would be a bit nicer if they revealed their sampling methods.  25 heterosexuals of each gender and 20 homosexuals/gender leaves quite a bit of room for bias errors given the population size.

The paper, however, does not conclude this:

"As far as I'm concerned there is no argument any more - if you are gay, you are born gay," he said.

Especially since the paper itself gave this little disclaimer:

The present study does not allow narrowing of potential explanations, which are probably multifactorial...Whether they may relate to processes laid down during the fetal or postnatal development is an open question.

My apologies if I didn't cite the paper correctly.  Either way, how the heck did BBC draw the "gay from birth" argument when the paper itself clearly states that no such conclusions were made is beyond me.  Expert opinion from a Dr. Qazi Rahman?  That's still just conjecture - there is still no official citation that shows statistical evidence that this correlation is indeed before birth, during early stages of development, during the childhood years, or even during their adult years due to some nervous process.

It's pretty strong evidence that being homosexual is related to your body structure.  It still leaves a bit of skepticism - namely, the development could be related to non-genetic causes, but it's still good to wait to see how the scientific community follows this development.

Good to know that BBC still card-stacks, though =/.

The forum has a lot of topics about the popular shounen series: Bleach, One Piece, Gurren Lagann, etc., so I thought it might be a good idea to start a topic about series that aren't regurgitated on 4chan every other second, no?


So, Denno Coil.  The anime is about children living in a futuristic world, and in my opinion, it's one of the better anime series to come out in the last few years.

The show is set in a pseudo-futuristic world.  No, people don't live in domes, and there's no spaceships going to Mars or anything to that effect.  Instead, the world is pretty similar to our own modern cities - suburban houses, skyscrapers, normal buildings, and people walking around in T-shirts and khakis.  The only difference is that microtechnology has reached a new height, and people wear conveinent glasses that are basically miniature computers.  These glasses display a perfect virtual world on top of their own, and facilitates many of their everyday activities.  For example, if a man is going somewhere and needs to check his schedule book, he can make a virtual display pop up in front of him that displays their version of Outlook, and if he needs to type a document, a virtual keyboard and a virtual word processor screen will simply pop up in front of him.  In the end, despite being a science fiction anime, Denno Coil as a whole feels very modern, and very relatable to our current world.

The glasses are a handy technology, and of course, the children are the first to delve into this technology and make it a part of their everyday lives.  When the main character, a sixth-grade girl named Yuko Okonogi (Yasako), moves into her new home in Denkoku City, she is pretty quickly acquainted with and pulled into the "Coil Cyber Detective Agency," which is a group of kids that goes around trying to find glitches ("metabugs") in the virtual world and remodeling them into "tags" that can create walls in the cyberworld, mess up traffic lights, etc.  The Coil Cyber Detective Agency is hostile to another gang of kids called the Daikoku Hackers, and they would often compete with each other to find more metabugs, starting war games, and sometimes even hacking into the other groups' glasses and filling them with popups and spam.  All in all, it's a bunch of children having fun with their games, and the show is very clear about this.

The plotline is not about Yasako outdoing the other group.  Instead, there is another girl, Yuko Amasawa (Isako), who is trying to forcibly open a pathway to the "other side" of the cyberworld in search of her brother, who she believes to be lost in the cyberworld.  Amasawa is an expert hacker, and is currently attempting to find larger glitches ("kirabugs") in order to accomplish her task.  Eventually, as the show goes on, various childish urban legends about the cyberworld emerges, such as the story of "Miss Michiko," a supposed entity with many horrifying rumors behind her (such as how she grants people wishes in exchange for a child as a sacrifice). 

One of the most amazing things about Denno Coil is its realism.  The show's children, unlike those of fantastical shounen anime, do not act like benevolent and peerless heroes; instead, they have the feel of normal children with no exaggerations.  The show's atmosphere is very mellow and believable, and the childrens' views on technology are true to their age - they grew up within this virtual-interlaced environment and, much like MMORPG items to a gaming addict, they assign personal importance to their activities, their hacking and war games, and the world within their glasses.  It's as important to them as our games and our collection of stamps, and even through the fantastically animated war-games with digital items and data walls, the show makes its story seem natural and normal, as if it could easily be a part of our own childrens' lives.

More importantly, like Haibane Reimei, Denno Coil is an exploration of life.  The main storyline is about a phenomenon where a person's cyber essence - their consciousness, if you well - is transported to the "other world," leaving their bodies in a lifeless state.  As Isako continues to try to unwind this mystery and Yasako slowly entering this journey, this concept develops into a story about what is real and what isn't real to a child, about a child's mindset, and about whether digital, intangible objects could be as important to a person as a real object.  In the end, the hero doesn't suddenly gain an answer and scream some pseudo-philosophical dribble to the antagonist (I assure you, there is one); instead, a series of events occur within the childrens' lives, they mature, and in the end, life goes on.

Oh, yeah, and just in case if I forgot to mention it, the setting is amazing.  The glasses makes it akin to a science fiction world, and yet, the skyscrapers, the houses, and pretty much everything else evokes a modern feel.  The technology isn't presented as something pretentiously complex or convoluted like Moonlight Mile - the first six episodes do a very good job of explaining the basic setting.  It's one of the best "cyber-world" adaptations that I've seen from Japan, if not the best and most effective setting that I've seen.  The art and animation is equally great, and really serves to enhance the setting.


(Disclaimer: This image is a screenshot from Denno Coil.  I did not make this.  Copyright Madhouse blah blah)

Wikipedia Article: Denno Coil
THEM Review: Denno Coil

Overall, Denno Coil is very different from the "UBER-MOE LOLOLOLOLLL" and the "ZOMG MOAR FIGHTING" crap that seems to be pouring out of Japan at an alarming rate.  Though it's a show about children, it doesn't have a shred of dependence on cuteness, nor does it display a hint of the glaring fanservice that you see in so many other shows.  It doesn't have a philosophically profound plot, but it's similar to Haibane Reimei - it's one of those special shows that focuses on life and realism.  I would highly recommend this anime, especially if you want a stop to the rampant Gainaxing or giga pewpewlaser cannon train.


So, now that I'm done with that wall of text, what did you think of this show?

I have tried both the manga and the anime, and have concluded that the anime was funnier.

On the other hand, it's humor lies in its ridiculous characters most of the time, thus making it Excel Saga set in high school (except without the annoying hyper-paced speech of Excel).  The anime is average to decent - its humor is hit and miss and often depends on the viewer's tastes, so you'd have to really be otaku-like in personality to enjoy it from start to end, and unlike other humor shows like Honey and Clover and Azumanga Daioh, it doesn't have that realistic layer behind it that makes you feel happy for the characters once the show ends.  The characters are caricatures; the show knows it and doesn't even try to make you feel anything for them.

It's something to watch once or twice for the laughs and forget about.  Nothing really special about it.

Ugh, putting the words "realistic" and "romance" together in any TV show, anime or not, pretty much narrows the playing field to almost nothing.

Erm, yeah.  Honey and Clover is a good bet; it tries to be funny (and succeeds IMO), but the characters there are quite three-dimensional and not just the stereotypical Kimagure Orange Road spinoff.  Bokura no Ita is also a pretty real and effective portrayal, though it focuses more on the aftermaths of a relationship rather than the relationship itself.  SaiKano is entirely serious, mature, and cheese-free, though its situation may be a bit too idealized for you to enjoy.  Ashiteruze Baby has a slightly different focus than love - that of a former playboy brother suddenly having to deal with the responsibility of taking care of a child - though there are romantic, well-portrayed elements within the show.  Koi Kaze is real almost to a fault; it's about a incestrous relationship between a grown man and a sixteen-year old daughter, though it's one of the most realistic and accurate anime I've seen in a while.  Hanbun no Tsuki ga Noboru Sora and Spice and Wolf are what you'd call entirely serious anime, though the romance is not actively portrayed and only hinted by the progressively friendly relationship between the male and female leads.  The melodrama series mentioned earlier (and Rumbling Hearts) are okay if you're into that kind of excessive drama, and - er, I don't think I have anything else to add.

Also, never watch the last episode of School Days.  You will never watch another anime again if you do so.

I was pretty biased against the series from the start, but since I apparently need a reason to hate it.. it involved CLAMP

Fixed.

On to the discussion, though, the first episode was pretty poor.  The series should not be confusing in any way (if you're actually confused by it, then go back to watching DBZ and Yumeria), though as much as I loved the series, it does have many, many flaws.  Firstly, the coincidence factor is quite excessive at times, especially with Euphie's death; it seems really contrived how the most important plot point in the entire series boils down to a random coincidence.  It's like...representative of Kanon or KimiNozu or something.  If Euphie needs to die, it would be much better if Lelouch consciously decided that his revenge is more important than his sister/lover.  I shouldn't need to mention the other instances where coincidence ruins everything.

Second, the story's pacing is only average.  Mao was completely unnecessary, episode 6 with the cat is horribly placed, and even the critically acclaimed episodes 24 and 25 feel like random scenes moving about in a 1 hour time frame.  The interactions there were rather unnecessarily forced, not to mention that V.V.'s appearance is not only unexplained, but fely completely wrong and unnecessary no matter what explaination they might end up giving 20 episodes later in the second season.

Third, the series should have ended at around 30 episodes.  Lelouch's rebellion is the centerpoint of the story; a second season where he's brainwashed and starts back from the beginning is not needed, and so far, the episodes within the second season are not much different from the first, excepting the Emperor's GEASS and explainations.  Adding the trouble of rescuing Nunnaly also adds nothing to the premise of the show and is used entirely to add rehashed episodes and production value.  LOL cash cow.

Fourth, Rolo sucks.  Period.

Fifth (does that even make sense), Karen's character gets worse by the minute (I think I remember one of the anime review sites parodying the "Lelouch, tell me the truth" scene with the caption "Lelouch, I will be your sex slave."  Strangely, that complete misquote is not entirely off basis given that Karen's quote in that episode was basically "Lelouch, did you use your Geass on me?  Oh, you're laughing uncontrollably at me and seemingly belittling my freedom.  Well, I guess that's okay, since you did say something amazingly inspirational to one of my comrades.  I would love to continue to serve as your sex slavepawn.").  Many of Lelouch's minions were great in the first season because of how fresh their personalities are, and yet, by the second season, Deidrich's insane desire to see the world change is no longer fun to watch.  Lelouch's uber-pwn landscape-included uber-complex cless-like strategies are no longer fun to watch.  Todo never was much of a character in the first place, and the Japanese peoples' unconditional will to gather outside of the execution scene and scream in support of Zero just shouts "WTF" to me.

So why do I still love GEASS even given the above reasons?  It's simple - Lelouch and Suzaku are awesome.  Lelouch is a perfect representation of an imperfect hero with a partially selfish, partially emphasizable, and humanistically flawed and scrambled dream, and is willing to go above and beyond to achieve it.  Suzaku is a hypocritical version of the conventional anime hero, with his "I will do this without bloodshed.  I will change everything from the inside and ignore the fact that without Zero, I would have been dead.  I will stop war without caring about the peoples' pride.  I will bow down to Euphemia and serve her hand-on-foot and pile all of my freedom and dignity on her shoulders and let her change the world and thus gain momentum with my argument of changing Britannia from the inside.  I will oppose Zero because he kills soldiers, and my ideals are justified just because I tell people to put down their weapons before every battle.  If they actually have pride then they deserve to die and my ideals of still stopping the war without bloodshed will still be upheld," which NO anime that I've seen so far will even dare portray.  If it was not for these two main chars, then Code GEASS would be just another Samurai 7 with fanservice and random silliness.

Indeed.  Excel talked way too quickly.  Trying to decipher her speech pretty much ruined any amound of comedy that she could have potentially delivered.