This had better not pass

Hmm, weird, the wiki on it doesnt say anything about "learning" to become left handed as a source. Does talk about genetics and random occurance alot though. But jeez, what do all those studies know, you're smarter than science right linus?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-handed#Causes_of_left-hand edness

And yeah, even if both parents are left handed, doesnt meant the kid will be either. Where have I heard something similar to that.....this thread...maybe?...

/me skips past 6 1/2 pages

leave it to the states. i hate that my party is promoting big government, the same goes for that terry shivo (SP?) crap. the government needs to let the states regulate things like this, if some one lives in a state that allows **edited** marriage, and moves to a state that doesn't then their marriage is voided in that state.

no left handed people cracks, left handed people > no handed people

 

but that's training. point is people have the natural tendency to favor one over the other. not meaning that by saying naturally people as a collective use one over the other. it's that a person will begin to use one as they develop.

by your logic, my mother who was born in a family of all right handed people, two right handed parents and 5 right handed siblings, she should be right handed due to her surroundings. she's left handed despite all that stimuli.


Edited by High Voltage - 08 June 2006 at 4:09pm

I'll have to bring home my psych book tomorrow.

It talk about how one psychologist did a study on a kid where he, through a series of stimuli, ended up making the kid afraid of bunnies, without the bunny doing any actualy physical harm to him.

The parents pulled him out of the study before it could be reveresed.


Can't remember the psychologist name for the life of me. I want to say Carl Jung but I know it's not right. He's intro/extroversion.

Linus wrote: Brihard, WRONG. Just because some test came to the "conclusion" that they are born like that doesnt make it so.

Like you said on page 4.

You make such general statements, Linus, with no backing.

SOME people learn to use their off hand.  SOME amputees learn to cope well.

You have absolutely no foundation whatsoever for your sweeping claims.  You cannot simply disregard facts that are inconvenient to your position.

It is proven beyond any scientific doubt that handed-ness is a biological characteristic, not a learned characteristic.  All you are accomplishing with this insistence to the contrary is making yourself look goofy.

Clark Kent wrote: That's not quite accurate. Issues of justice aside, banning **edited** marriage pretty clearly and directly harms **edited** people. Allowing **edited** marriage directly harms nobody.

For the sake of getting an answer to the bigger question, I let the smaller details go. Looks like its a moot point though, no one wants to step up to the plate and give me a solid answer, or even concede the point.

I think I read through the 1st 2 pages then kinda gave up.  Alot of opinion on this one.

Our lawmakers really dont need to be wasting time on this one, especially at the federal level.  Marriage is a civil union, and should be addressed (if it HAS to be addressed) on a state level.  By no means should the president of the US have wasted anything more than a passing comment on his opinion, then dropped it forever.

Linus wrote: **edited** marriage is one of those topics where it is almost an impossibility to change someones mind on it.

It is only impossible for someone to change thier mind if someone doesnt look at the issues objectively.

Not only is it not impossible to change ones opinion on the topic it happens all the time.

Edited by Hades - 08 June 2006 at 6:20pm

procarbinefreak wrote: so i just skimmed through this last page... and is linus trying to bring classical conditioning into this debate?

Homosexuals can be conditioned into being not-homosexual. I think that is what he is trying.

Maybe, I really cant tell with him.