See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

1. #401
   On January 5th, 2010 at 3:10 pm, chapoutier said:

   Again, if all gay people were born gay, with no choice, then we would expect 100%, or very close to 100%.

   Pardon me, but says who?

2. #402
   On January 5th, 2010 at 3:11 pm, chapoutier said:

   Like I said, nitpicking a technicality in order to avoid the point. Would you prefer I use “fits a human DNA profile/range?”

   What are the essential genomes that fit into this profile to distinguish us from any other species?

3. #403
   On January 5th, 2010 at 3:18 pm, Trollman said:

   chapoutier said:

   Again, if all gay people were born gay, with no choice, then we would expect 100%, or very close to 100%.

   Pardon me, but says who?

   Basic logic.

   If your sexuality is hardwired into you (as you say), and you have the “gay gene,” then how is it that someone who has the exact same genes, how can they also have this “gay gene” and not be gay?

   How, chap, how?

4. #404
   On January 5th, 2010 at 3:23 pm, chapoutier said:

   And for those who don’t understand what a Kinsey rating is, that does NOT mean that all twin pairs were gay. Fitting right into my beliefs about homosexuality (but not chap’s), all it means that if one twin was gay, then the other twin wasn’t a “hardcore heterosexual” (get your mind out of the gutter, that was the only phrase I could come up with). So whereas one twin was a “hardcore homosexual” (will this get past the filters?!), the other twin was sometimes gay, but sometimes somewhere in between – heterosexual “enough” to self-identify as heterosexual over gay.

   First, you are wrongly equating belief that homosexuality having a genetic basis with the belief that there is no range to human sexuality, that “one is either “hardcore” homosexual or not homosexual at all. That is stupid, and I never claimed anything of the sort.

   Second, you again misinterpret a study. It didn’t ask the participants to self identify at all. It went purely on the scale and a score of 3, which is at least what EVERY SINGLE gay twins shared equally bisexual and homosexual. As in one is both. The fact that one is ALSO attracted to females does not in any way negate the fact that one is attracted to males. They don’t cancel each other out. A person that scores a 3 is homosexual AND heterosexual.

5. #405
   On January 5th, 2010 at 3:24 pm, Trollman said:

   chapoutier said:

   What are the essential genomes that fit into this profile to distinguish us from any other species?

   Am I a geneticist?

   You know what, chap, I yield to your stupidity. Obviously, there are no differences in the DNA of different species, it is all just random. DNA has nothing to do with determining our body structure, etc.

   In fact, why do scientists even bother trying to map the genome of different species? It is all just random. It is like with the profiling of terrorists – there is no pattern whatsoever!

   When my wife and I had children, we dodged a bullet. I was so afraid she was going to give birth to a bird or a caterpillar or an ant or a liberal, but fortunately they both turned out to be human.

6. #406
   On January 5th, 2010 at 3:28 pm, Jeddite said:

   And as Roland has pointed out, many gay people have a vested interest in claiming that they were born that way and can’t help it.

   And there are also many people who have a vested interest in homosexuality being a 100% conscious decision that is actively made on the part of every specific homosexual.

7. #407
   On January 5th, 2010 at 3:30 pm, Jeddite said:

   I’d very much be interested in hearing speculation about my “vested interest in claiming that [I was] born that way and can’t help it.”

   Certainly isn’t financial gain. =|

   …or is it?!

8. #408
   On January 5th, 2010 at 3:31 pm, chapoutier said:

   If your sexuality is hardwired into you (as you say), and you have the “gay gene,” then how is it that someone who has the exact same genes, how can they also have this “gay gene” and not be gay?

   100 people can have the same genetic markers for a lot of things and it will or will not actively manifest itself in 100 of them. This is common.

9. #409
   On January 5th, 2010 at 3:34 pm, chapoutier said:

   Am I a geneticist?

   Apparently not. You claimed a human being was defined by DNA. I asked for one scientific definition to back up this claim. You didn’t/couldn’t provide any. So I figured I’d give you a shot at making up your own. Not my fault you aren’t up to the task of defending your assertions.

   You know what, chap, I yield to your stupidity. Obviously, there are no differences in the DNA of different species, it is all just random. DNA has nothing to do with determining our body structure, etc.

   And in turn, I will yield to your strawman. Especially since I have to step away for a while.

10. #410
    On January 5th, 2010 at 3:35 pm, chapoutier said:

    I’d very much be interested in hearing speculation about my “vested interest in claiming that [I was] born that way and can’t help it.”

    Chicks in college were probably less afraid to change in front of you, weren’t they you sly devil?

11. #411
    On January 5th, 2010 at 3:39 pm, Trollman said:

    chapoutier said:

    First, you are wrongly equating belief that homosexuality having a genetic basis with the belief that there is no range to human sexuality, that “one is either “hardcore” homosexual or not homosexual at all.

    So to be clear, are you actually admitting that some gay people aren’t “forced” to be gay? That some people are gay purely by choice and/or environment?

    chapoutier said:

    Second, you again misinterpret a study. It didn’t ask the participants to self identify at all. It went purely on the scale and a score of 3, which is at least what EVERY SINGLE gay twins shared equally bisexual and homosexual.

    Unless I remember incorrectly, in the one study, they were asked to self-identify as hetero or homo. However it was precisely determined, in 50% of the twin pairs (with at least 1 gay twin), the twin was not gay.

    chapoutier said:

    As in one is both. The fact that one is ALSO attracted to females does not in any way negate the fact that one is attracted to males.

    No, but it does negate that both are homosexual, which is my point, and is harmful to your point.

    chapoutier said:

    They don’t cancel each other out. A person that scores a 3 is homosexual AND heterosexual.

    How can someone be homosexual and heterosexual? Are not scores of 2-4 generally considered to be bisexual?

12. #412
    On January 5th, 2010 at 3:42 pm, chapoutier said:

    How can someone be homosexual and heterosexual? Are not scores of 2-4 generally considered to be bisexual?

    What the hell do you think “bisexual” means?

    Heterosexual: A person sexually attracted to persons of the opposite sex. Or a person who has sexual relations with the opposite sex.

    Homosexual: A person sexually attracted to persons of the same sex. Homosexuals include males (gays) and females (lesbians).

    The term “homosexual” can also be an adjective.

    No where does it say “exclusively attracted.”

13. #413
    On January 5th, 2010 at 3:50 pm, Trollman said:

    chapoutier said:

    You claimed a human being was defined by DNA. I asked for one scientific definition to back up this claim. You didn’t/couldn’t provide any.

    If there is no such thing as “human DNA,” why is it that humans always give birth to humans only? If there is no such thing as “chimp DNA,” why is it that chimps only give birth to more chimps?

    What is it that parents pass on to their children (besides the house, maybe some cars, and their bad habits)? They pass on their DNA. And couples consisting of the same species always give birth to a member of the same species. Why is that, oh mysteries of mysteries?!

    If chap wants to pretend there is no difference between the DNA of species, even if he won’t admit it, I trust everyone else will see the absurdity in him. This time, I really do yield to his stupidity.

14. #414
    On January 5th, 2010 at 6:25 pm, zeroangel said:

    Trollman:

    If you read the Bible, you’ll know that God did that, too

    Babbling nonsense. Every god that ever existed did the same.

    100 zygotes with a 3% success rate vs. one toddler, what is your answer?

15. #415
    On January 5th, 2010 at 7:06 pm, chapoutier said:

    If chap wants to pretend there is no difference between the DNA of species,

    Boy you are trying to prove with every post that you certainly are not a geneticist, aren’t you. DNA is DNA is DNA from species to species to species. It is simply Deoxyribonucleic acid. That doesn’t change whether you are a human or a humpback whale. Nor is our chromosome count unique.

    The information (in the form of base sequencing) that DNA holds is different from species to species, but also different from individuals within that species. That is why it is dumb to say there is “human DNA.” Now, there may be certain patterns within that DNA that are common to all humans, which is what I have asked you to provide, and which you have said you cannot. And, no doubt, exactly which patterns are significant in defining our species would certainly be up for heated debate. But the point is that I have never seen, nor have you been able to provide a definition of “human being” that is capable of relying solely on DNA.

16. #416
    On January 5th, 2010 at 9:11 pm, right4life said:

    this is STILL going on???

    trollman, you are casting pearls before swine.

    and you’re talking about DNA with chappy?? the person who said ‘evolution is the mechanism for evolution’??

    wow.

17. #417
    On January 5th, 2010 at 9:22 pm, zeroangel said:

    O high R4L

    FU2

18. #418
    On January 5th, 2010 at 9:24 pm, right4life said:

    oh ZA go F yourself you fat piece of sh**

19. #419
    On January 5th, 2010 at 9:24 pm, right4life said:

    oh yeah ZA hope you rot in hell…burn baby burn!!!

20. #420
    On January 5th, 2010 at 9:35 pm, chapoutier said:

    It just wouldn’t be a psychosis-addled r4l post without the good old “pearls before swine.”

    I swear, we could solve the deficit in 4 years if we just taxed r4l a shiny nickel every time s/he used that phrase.

21. #421
    On January 5th, 2010 at 9:36 pm, right4life said:

    On January 5th, 2010 at 9:35 pm, chapoutier said:

    glad it bothers you so!!!

22. #422
    On January 5th, 2010 at 9:40 pm, chapoutier said:

    glad it bothers you so!!!

    Who said it bothered me? It’s a warm, familiar feeling. Like the yearly visit to that crazy, rambling uncle that smells like formaldehyde you have known your whole life.

23. #423
    On January 5th, 2010 at 9:43 pm, right4life said:

    Who said it bothered me?

    you wouldn’t have brought it up.

    ever figure out the mechanism for that atheist fairy tale known as evolution?

24. #424
    On January 5th, 2010 at 9:45 pm, chapoutier said:

    ever figure out the mechanism for that atheist fairy tale known as evolution?

    I think I was waiting on your explanation of radiometric dating.

25. #425
    On January 5th, 2010 at 9:48 pm, right4life said:

    I think I was waiting on your explanation of radiometric dating.

    oh here you’ll get a kick out of this…

    Ancient muscle tissue extracted from 18 million year old fossil

    Scientists have extracted organically preserved muscle tissue from an 18 million years old salamander fossil. The discovery by researchers from University College Dublin, the UK and Spain, reported in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B shows that soft tissue can be preserved under a broader set of fossil conditions than previously known.

    link

    18 million years?? sure…

26. #426
    On January 5th, 2010 at 9:56 pm, chapoutier said:

    Oh silly sad little r4l. Even if that was soft tissue, which is more than up for debate, the fact that you think that proves Genesis is either cute in the way that a toddler thinks I have stolen his nose when I grab his face and crook my thumb a certain way or really really really really really really pathetic.

    I am leaning toward the latter.

    But hey, all they have to do to prove you right or wrong is use radiometric dating on the fossil from which it came. How does that work, exactly?

27. #427
    On January 5th, 2010 at 9:58 pm, right4life said:

    Oh silly sad little r4l. Even if that was soft tissue, which is more than up for debate

    who says its up for debate? where do you come up with these little fantasies at??

    ut hey, all they have to do to prove you right or wrong is use radiometric dating on the fossil from which it came. How does that work, exactly?

    about as well as your ‘explanations’

28. #428
    On January 5th, 2010 at 10:00 pm, right4life said:

    here’s another one..

    Oldest Dinosaur Protein Found — Blood Vessels, More
    John Roach
    for National Geographic News
    May 1, 2009
    The fossilized leg of an 80-million-year-old duck-billed dinosaur has yielded the oldest known proteins preserved in soft tissue—including blood vessels and other connective tissue as well as perhaps blood cell proteins—a new study says.

    The research was led by the team behind the controversial 2007 discovery of protein from similar soft tissues in 68-million-year-old Tyrannosaurus rex bones.

    link

    80 million years…yeah sure…so much for you dating!!

29. #429
    On January 5th, 2010 at 10:02 pm, chapoutier said:

    who says its up for debate? where do you come up with these little fantasies at??

    It’s called “the google” you should try it sometime.

    about as well as your ‘explanations’

    What, exactly, do you dispute about radiometric dating?

    I’d love to engage you more, r4l, but my dance card for tards is full tonight.

30. #430
    On January 5th, 2010 at 10:04 pm, right4life said:

    It’s called “the google” you should try it sometime.

    uh yeah right…post your sources!! lets see what ya got…it should be good for some laughs!

    What, exactly, do you dispute about radiometric dating?

    I’ll speak s l o w l y for you….soft tissue does not last that long…therefore the dating is suspect.

    get a clue.

31. #431
    On January 5th, 2010 at 10:04 pm, right4life said:

    I’d love to engage you more, r4l, but my dance card for tards is full tonight.

    don’t go, I’m bored, I need a few laughs!!

32. #432
    On January 5th, 2010 at 10:05 pm, chapoutier said:

    80 million years…yeah sure…so much for you dating!!

    You are right. So much for me dating. I am married now.

    If you mean so much for MY dating…how do you think they placed the age at 80 million years in the first place?

    You know… when all of the liberals and right around half of the conservative commenters here think you are about the biggest tool around (which…psssst they do) maybe you should take the hint and go peddle your inanity elsewhere.

33. #433
    On January 5th, 2010 at 10:05 pm, right4life said:

    now that I’ve blown your dating to hell…why don’t you explain the mechanism for evolution to me…

34. #434
    On January 5th, 2010 at 10:07 pm, right4life said:

    If you mean so much for MY dating…how do you think they placed the age at 80 million years in the first place?

    I don’t know…radiometric dating? or do you think they just pulled a number out of thin air, because they need long ages to support darwinism?

    and you really think soft tissue can last for all that time??? sure.

    You know… when all of the liberals and right around half of the conservative commenters here think you are about the biggest tool around (which…psssst they do) maybe you should take the hint and go peddle your inanity elsewhere.

    why? when its so much fun making you look stupid, not that you need any help…

35. #435
    On January 5th, 2010 at 10:09 pm, right4life said:

    chappy…still waiting for those google sources of yours…don’t ya know how to to use the link button??

    don’t worry, sonny boy, I won’t hold my breath!!

36. #436
    On January 6th, 2010 at 9:15 am, zeroangel said:

    R4L:

    oh ZA go F yourself you fat piece of sh**

    Yah, I’ve put on a pound or two since my tour in Iraq, but I was rail thin then anyhow. In any case, I’d rather be overweight (I’m not) then a bumbling idiot who no one likes.

    Chap nailed it here:

    You know… when all of the liberals and right around half of the conservative commenters here think you are about the biggest tool around (which…psssst they do) maybe you should take the hint and go peddle your inanity elsewhere.

    You are an utter fool. A total and complete moron. If you weren’t also such a nasty, vindictive, petty fool, I might even pity you.