You're missing the point.  Did you choose to have homosexual desires?  No, that's why they're called desires.  You couldn't choose in the past to one day say, "okay, I'm not going to have these desires anymore."  Because things don't work like that.

And to try to not be homosexual because you think it's wrong is really going to mess you up in the end.  Those desires will never go away, my friend.  Because they came to you not out of choice, but that's just the way you naturally are.  And who's to say that you can't be attracted to both sexes?  I hope, for your sake, that you're not trying to condition yourself to go against your nature.  It's unhealthy.

We get one chance at life, and we need to do what feels good and makes us happy.  To worry about what other people think is BS.  Life's too short.

I'm not going to quote this time because I'm too lazy to go back and do it. Just because a handgun can be deadlier, doesn't mean it isn't already deadly to begin with. I'm saying one shot CAN kill a person, but a typical handgun would have several rounds in it. If you shoot a person 5 times, will they live? Maybe, maybe not. The chances drastically fall when you put more holes in your target. They die from more than just being shot in the head or the heart.

Also, it doesn't matter if the old man was showing what he "could do" and not everything, or that it doesn't exactly represent a real life situation. The thing is that you trying to find all these flaws in the self-defense with martial arts can also be applied to having a handgun. You have a handgun, they have a handgun. Do you always have a handgun with you? If yes, will you have a handgun out before they do? If yes, will you shoot them? Most likely. Will they die? Who knows, if you're in a situation where you REALLY need one, leaving them there will most likely get them killed if you tried "stopping" them because this person may have little they can do to get help. The old man showed many situations, though, where you can overwhelm a person bigger than yourself. Not every person you go against will also be skilled in the martial arts, but if they are maybe you are screwed. However, if you have a gun against a sharpshooter, will you survive? You probably will die no matter what you have on you.

One shot from a handgun can kill someone. So can multiple shots.

You know what else can kill someone? The martial arts.

So can just kicking someone in the head without training. A customer at my work had their son go into a coma, because he got in a fight with someone, and a 5 foot woman later came up and kicked him in the head while he was down, giving him permanent brain damage and putting him in a coma they weren't sure he'd ever wake up from. He ended up waking up, but had permanent brain damage, was blind in one eye, and is unable to walk or even stand without getting dizzy.


The gulf between guns, knives and bare hand fighting isn't quite as vast as most people think it is.


Generally when someone shoots someone in self defense, i'd expect they would call the police. Additionally, whether someone is a sharpshooter or not really isn't going to have any effect on the situation unless for some reason you are drawing guns at each other from across a large area.

Shooters are trained to shoot for center mass at the center of someones chest. This is actually a shot you'll likely survive from. I'd be more afraid of being shot by some amateur who would try and hit my head, or miss my center mass and hit my heart or something.

Additionally... i'd like to see how the martial artist fares against the sharpshooter. Not well.

The "Anything can happen" issue though is likely why in general statistics show when gun laws are repealed, violent crime and shooting goes down.(even when that repeal is caused by an outside source)

When applied it increases.

Which makes sense... after all, despite some perceptions of criminals just being lurking strangers in the street. The reality is the VAST majority of crimes are committed by people who know you... and these people aren't stupid.

Criminals who carry guns, usually aren't carrying guns to murder you. THEY carry their guns for protection as well... and DON'T want to be in a situation where they have to use them because they don't want to be caught... and shooting someone puts you high on the priority list.

It's a deterrent, not just because they're afraid of being shot, but because they recognize that shooting someone is incredibly dangerous.

Two things you are wrong about. Yes guns are built to kill but that does not make anyone who owns a gun dangerous. And circumcision is proven to reduce risk of contracting STDs, it also is better for hygeine as the foreskin is a breading ground for bacteria and you are at higher risk for infection, also there is evidence that it reduces risk of penile cancer. So when you say it is a barbaric act you are  wrong and it still has practical use. Also can we all agree that uncircumsized penies just look digusting? So do try to sound smart and then back it with inaccurate information. Yes the other points were right but don't try to prove you are an "intelectual" with using wrong information. If you wanted to find the benefits of circumcision you literally can google it. All your other points were right. Except for the circumcision one and your right guns are meant to kill, but that is a meaningless statement. Getting rid of guns will not stop violence, it will just make people be more creative with how they kill. Oh and Chizrum is right, you are tring to sound smart by being a "scientest" although any scientest knows that facts are not used in science, it's what we believe at the time.

Runa, the fact of the matter is there are situations where it is necessary and or appropriate to circumcise for health reasons of the child.  You can argue all you want against it, but if I'm a parent and my son frequently is getting urinary tract infections, or experiences phimosis or paraphimosis he's getting a circumcision if our doctor feels it's necessary.  Your opinion that it's barbaric doesn't matter.

Circumcised men make due.  Yes, uncircumcised men have the added benefit of the foreskin providing sensitivity, but the area where the foreskin once attached in uncircumcised men is equally sensitive.  The glans adjusts.  The human body, in that respect, is amazing.

Show me the science that proves your opinion is correct.  The only credible science that you can provide that remotely supports your opinion would relate to the levels of testosterone and estrogen during fetal development and or during puberty.  And so far, the only evidence supports the levels of estrogen in males being related to environment.  Even in children born with ambiguous genitalia you're often dealing with a hormone imbalance related to environment, not genetics.

Sexual orientation is an incredibly complex area, but some researchers have tried to find a single genetic or environmental cause for homosexuality. This now does not seem to be the case according to the latest findings (June 2008) from the world's largest study of twins.

The work was carried out by Dr Niklas Langstrom and colleagues at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden and the studies were of all adult (20-47 years old) twins in Sweden. Many genetic studies use identical and non-identical twins to tease out genetic and environmental influences. Identical twins share the same genes and environment and non-identical twins share half their genes and all their environment. If there is a greater similarity in trait between identical twins compared to non-identical twins, genetic factors are deemed largely to be responsible. So if scientists observe that same-sex behaviour is more common amongst identical twins, then there must be genetic factors at work.

In this research the scientists asked all participants (same-gender twin pairs) about their sexual orientation and amount of same sex and opposite sex partners they had slept with

They found that genetics accounted for about 35 per cent of the differences between men in homosexual behaviour and non-shared environmental factors about 64 percent.

In homosexual women, 18 per cent of the variation in same-sex behaviour was accounted for by genetics, non-shared environment 64 percent and shared environment about 16 per cent. 

http://www.brighthub.com/science/genetics/articles/7033.aspx

Again, if homosexuality is a learned behavior, which the research strongly suggests than if desired the behavior could be unlearned.  Albeit with great difficulty.  I don't believe it to be an easily unlearned behavior, because once ingrained sexuality is a much stronger force than other behaviors that may be construed as bad.  Sexuality, regardless of the sex involved feels good.  Only when there is a negative associated with a behavior can one develop a need to change it.  And again, you can argue all you want, but the evidience suggest sexuality is largely environmental, therefore it is a behavior that is largely learned not genetic.

No, it isn't racism.  I defined absolutely no race to anything I said.  A stereo-type isn't racist just because a stereo-type largely involves a particular race.  Some people who use stereo-typing to define people may be racist, but a rapper being into gang and or drug culture isn't racist.  It's a stereo-type of a rapper.  There are more rappers that are into drug or gang culture than there are clean stereo-types.  So impressive in the need for rappers to be associated with either that some have actually claimed falsely to be a part of them.

There are lots of people who fail to overcome opinions that other people have.  They succumb to those opinions whether or not they are fair.  Racism may be involved, but whether that person falls prey to racism in that regard or not is an environmental issue, as I said, not a biological one.  This can also happen if they don't have the support structure to excell.  Again regardless of race.  Trust me, I've personally dealt with it in working with teenagers in Scotland.  A very white country where the primary issues are economics, opportunity, parental guidance to steer a kid right.  When more than 50% of a class drops out at 14/15 because no one in their family expects them to do more, to do better, you have an environmental issue.  When a person opts to take benefits over a job, even when they're offered one that would fulfill their economic needs, that's an environmental factor not a race one.  Again, not in the US, still Caucasian. 

As I said, and as you completely ignored, I wasn't speaking to exactly what yo were talking about but rather an environmental issue.  In some cases race may be involved, it isn't the limiting factor, but that doesn't mean race may not influence the limiting factors.

With regard to evolution, I wasn't arguing your point.  I was offering you a means of arguing the point to people who would argue it.  Those people at this point tend to be largely religious people who believe in creationism.  To each your own.  You can attract more flies with honey than you can with vinegar.

The argument regarding Global Warming has moved beyond myth, as most people tend to now argue between Global Warming being man-made or natural (cyclical).  Again, keep trying to attract those flies with vinegar though, I'm sure they'll come.

Nothing I said regarding guns was incorrect.  What a tool was intended for and how it is used are two very different things and the latter is a very valid point.  If a gun is used for hunting, to sustain oneself, than regardless of whether or not it was intended to kill, it doesn't make it a negative thing.  There is a very real benefit to its use. 

I'm neither wrong nor are my points invalid.  Unfortunately you're closed minded to opposing points of view even if they aren't fully contrary to your own.  You'd be sadly mistaken in calling me a zealot.  I'm a moderate Democrat, a progressive on social issues.  Just because my viewpoints don't mesh up with yours doesn't make me a zealot.  You remind of an evangelical minister in a documentary regarding the 2000 election between Bush and Gore, in which he described everyone who had a view point that didn't fit with his, even if they were Republicans as he was, as being Liberal (e.g. a Democrat). 

Just so, your opinion doesn't define me.  I'm a well read individual, who keeps up on the issues and facts.  As much as I possibly can.  Over MY 40 years, I've had the benefit of talking with many people, gay and straight, and learning their personal stories in order to form my own opinions, not to mention the data that has surfaced from research.  Thank you very much! 

This thread really is just everyone giving their opinions on most social discussions. Guns, abortion, sexuality, evolution, climate change. People are even trying to argue about what a gun is for. So weird.

I think the best solution for intellectuals described in OP is to stop exchanging ideas and to close their minds to any kind of alternative opinion. The reason I'm saying this is that the type of intellectual in OP, from my experience, is unable to thwart falsehoods using logic but would revert to "My opinion is better than yours", and since that really never works with mindless sheep, will only attract more falsehoods that can't be thwarted.

For such intellectuals, there truly is no hope for humanity. To him, most people have invalid opinions that are senseless and braindead. It would be a pity for the intellectual of OP to intermingles with such mindless drones, what a waste of grey matter. People of the masses are senseless, that's a known fact (as far as I understand from OP), and really there's nothing to learn from them on any topic.

The intellectual in OP is unable to handle viewpoints that challenge his, and that don't bow to his "higher knowledge", especially those that he considers cases closed.

As such that kind of intellectual must block all access to opinions that contradict with his and should do so as soon as possible so as to avoid further burdening. The first thing I would prescribe to such an intellectual is to stay as far away as possible from online topics that deal with controversial issues. This can range from topics on religion, to sexual orientation, to evolution, to business and even video games. It goes without saying that such an individual should stay as far away from political assemblies as possible, and should be vigilant not to enter public debates. I say this for their own well-being.

The faster such an individual leaves the general mass of "i am stupids", the sooner his burden will be lifted, and the more entrenched in his intellectualism he will be. By surrounding himself with like-minded individuals who don't challenge the status-quo, a huge burden will be lifted off his shoulders and he will suddenly feel like the world is an okay place to live in. I highly recommend that for them. The masses aren't ready for such beautiful minds, and I don't think it's fair to the masses to be exposed to such brilliance. At the same time, should the intellectual be so burdened? I don't think that, once aware of the remedy, the trend should continue, it's not a fair thing for the individual. My take is that the intellectual as described in OP should isolate himself at all costs from the general community so as to maintain his sanity and purity.

For anyone ascribing to that description, best of luck.

Now let's try another solution, shall we?

How about something a little more fruitful. Try these thought patterns and test them out, see how far they can bring you.

. People aren't as stupid as I might think. Some people, even though not scientists, may have a good insight on matters of morals and values.

. Not all topics on morality require a background in rocket science.

. If I can't convince people, maybe I might be wrong. It's just possible after all.

. Am I really as superior as I think I am? What if they are right and I was wrong all along?

. If I fail at something, does that really mean I should give up? What if I'm not doing it right?

. Am I really an intellectual, or is there something more to it that I'm missing?

. Why do I hate people so much and have so much aggression?

. Is religion really all that crazy? What if good things happened in the name of religion? Are there smart religious people out there?

. etc.

Which between this post and the last seems more promising? Make your choice "intellectuals", and choose wisely.

Sorry about the delayed response, but I do have some small points to discuss about circumcision since some people seem insistent on its debatable benefits.

The point I was trying to make is that there is no CONCLUSIVE evidence supporting the benefits of circumcision. Yes, there certainly are reports that support the theory that circumcision prevents the spread of HIV and other STD's, as well as infection and penile cancer. However, there are ALSO reports to the contrary. This isn't like climate change where it's like 99% of all scientists in agreement that we are causing it, this is a 50/50 debate, and even the reports that do claim a correlation between circumcision and lower infection rates agree that the risk is still minimal.

Basically, since it's so close down the middle, with equal reports on both sides and no clearly defined, proven links (remember, scientists are pretty divided over the issue, there is no strong lean one way or another), and the potential benefits are tiny (like less than 1% decrease in transmission rates), it is evident that Circumcision basically boils down to personal preference. The potential benefits are infinitesimal, but the downsides are all but guaranteed. See, while the benefits are debated, it's almost unanimously agreed upon that an exposed glans decreases sensuality and does expose the penis to additional infections. The benefits are debated, but the setbacks and issues are pretty clear.

That leaves only society and religion as a reason to get cut at birth. Neither of which can really be argued. if everyone was getting cock piercings, would you think it 'right' to do it to your kid just to force him to fit in? Besides, nobody is gonna see his penis until he's at least of puberty age (ideally), and by then he should be able to decide for himself.

Also, as an additional middle finger aimed directly at those who support circumcision, a point to consider: HIV and other STD's don't just crop up from nowhere. you have to have sex or otherwise engage in some sort of activity with someone who has it...if you're stupid enough to not wear a condom, the TINY benefits are not gonna do much to save you. if you're having unprotected sex with someone with an STD, you deserve to transmit it, and you deserve to have your name immortalized in the Darwin Awards.

As for infection, it takes next to no energy to pull the skin back and clean it daily.

There are no good arguments to force circumcision on a child. If he wants to get it cut later in life, he can make that choice for himself, after all, he shouldn't be doing anything with his dick until he's old enough to know better anyway, and it's a human's rights violation to take that choice away from him and permanently alter his junk just because your god told you to or because it worked for you.

Urgh, there was so much stupidity in this thread...

Especially when BenVTrigger called runa out for being uncientific while not arguing any better himself made me frown.

But seriously, Runa, just dig up the scientific studies about all of your points and throw the facts in their faces, it will save much pointless discussion time. You can do it, I believe in you!