Quinto is out of the closet

[chardman]

No, thank you. Seriously.

 

[M'Sharak]

Wow, somehow I knew this was going to turn into a huge debate. I blame the one who insisted that homosexuals do not have a demeanor. They do. If you meet seven guys in a bar, you can always spot the ones who are homosexual. Why? Because of the way they act. Now I am in no way saying that they act "wrong" or "bad" or in some kind of "queer fashion" (no pun intended) But they act different. You can just tell. Now the ones you can't tell are the ones whom are bi, or in denial. You can't tell them apart because they act similar to both hetero and homo sexualities. I think I just invented a word...

It's not obvious to me which word it is that you think you've invented, but I'm almost certain that you're incorrect about the rest.

Further, trying to attach blame to someone else for remarks you made of your own volition is pretty weak. You might want to back up and spend a little time and effort rethinking your approach.

 

[Shatnertage]

"Mastfest" just doesn't look like it's as much fun to say as "sausagefest."

It sounds much more proper and classy.

Dear me, besides the questionable clientele and decor, this sports bar in quite the mastfeast indeed.

As opposed to...

There's way too much cock in this dump.

"Mastfest" would be more appropriate for TWoK, given Nicholas Meyer's nautical-inspired design choices.

Given (my perception of) the quality of the acting in TMP, I'd go for "woodfest" there.

And "mastfeast" just takes it into a totally different direction, but I'm sure that's already been covered in someone's fan fic.

 

[Maurice]

This thread just made my "ignore" list bigger.

The subject here is Quinto's coming out , not evidence for or against various theories about sexual attraction.

 

[Set Harth]

Wow, somehow I knew this was going to turn into a huge debate. I blame the one who insisted that homosexuals do not have a demeanor. They do. If you meet seven guys in a bar, you can always spot the ones who are homosexual. Why? Because of the way they act. Now I am in no way saying that they act "wrong" or "bad" or in some kind of "queer fashion" (no pun intended) But they act different. You can just tell. Now the ones you can't tell are the ones whom are bi, or in denial. You can't tell them apart because they act similar to both hetero and homo sexualities.

If she floats, she is a witch.

Also known as:
"Any one that runs is a VC."
"Any one that stands still is a well-trained VC."

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Nothing I said in my last post could possibly be contested. Chemical interactions are ruled by the physical laws, period.

That very much oversimplifies the situation.

For example, psychiatric drugs do not work identically on all human beings. Why is that? With reasonable quality control the drug is always the same. If dosage is correct, why different reactions?

Biochemistry and particularly psychopharmacology is not 1+1 = 2. There's no real reason to expect the psychological reactions of every human being to chemicals like pheromones to be identical even if basic physiology is the same.

 

[chardman]

That very much oversimplifies the situation.

Hate to say this Dennis, but: "Duh!" The ideas involved are sufficiently complex that anything less than a few hundred pages is oversimplified. This is a bbs after all, where "tl;dr" is a pretty much a law of the land.

There's no real reason to expect the psychological reactions of every human being to chemicals like pheromones to be identical even if basic physiology is the same.

Which is why I never so much as hinted otherwise.

 

[sonak]

That very much oversimplifies the situation.

Hate to say this Dennis, but: "Duh!" The ideas involved are sufficiently complex that anything less than a few hundred pages is oversimplified. This is a bbs after all, where "tl;dr" is a pretty much a law of the land.

There's no real reason to expect the psychological reactions of every human being to chemicals like pheromones to be identical even if basic physiology is the same.

Which is why I never so much as hinted otherwise.

sorry guys, unrelated question: what does "tl;dr" mean?

I've tried to guess, but all I can come up with in context is that the "tl" part might mean "too long?"

 

[F. King Daniel]

"too long; didn't read"

 

[sonak]

"too long; didn't read"

thanks

 

[beamMe]

Sorry MLB, but I'm pretty sure that there's no evidence whatsoever to support the notion that gays respond any differently to female pheromones than straight men do.

No it wouldn't. It would imply that homosexuality doesn't change the laws of biochemistry. Nothing else.

I'm sorry, but this sounds like BS. If the biochemistry of homosexuals wouldn't react differently then there wouldn't be any homosexuals.

If the biochemistry of homosexuals did react differently then it would mean that they aren't following the same physical laws as the rest of reality.

The way chemicals in the body react to one another is not altered by the mind of the of the person that the chemicals are reacting within. A+B=C. Always. Chemistry is pretty much an exact science, and when two chemicals are introduced into the same flask, they will react in a specific way, (regardless of how the flask might happen to feel about it).

Is that your wordy way of saying: "homosexuality is a choice"?

 

[Psion]

Careful, folks. They're on to us.

 

[M'Sharak]

Careful, folks. They're on to us.

That's gold.

 

[chardman]

Is that your wordy way of saying: "homosexuality is a choice"?

No. Absolutely not. Which of your bodily orifices did you extract that from? It's not anything I believe, nor implied by anything I wrote. It seems obvious that orientation is predominantly biological, most likely genetic, in nature, and most certainly NOT a choice.

Careful, folks. They're on to us.

I love The Onion.

 

[Alex1939]

Queering don't make the world go round.

 

[M'Sharak]

Queering don't make the world go round.

Neither does trolling.

Have a warning for same. Comments to PM, please.

 

[beamMe]

Is that your wordy way of saying: "homosexuality is a choice"?

No. Absolutely not. Which of your bodily orifices did you extract that from? It's not anything I believe, nor implied by anything I wrote. It seems obvious that orientation is predominantly biological, most likely genetic, in nature, and most certainly NOT a choice.

Good.

Then why do you think homosexual men react the same way to women as heterosexual men do, on the biochemical level?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

That very much oversimplifies the situation.

Hate to say this Dennis, but: "Duh!" The ideas involved are sufficiently complex that anything less than a few hundred pages is oversimplified.

There are discussions in which simplification generates so little of substantive interest that it's better to just avoid assertions that can't be accurate.

There's no real reason to expect the psychological reactions of every human being to chemicals like pheromones to be identical even if basic physiology is the same.

Which is why I never so much as hinted otherwise.

Let's stick to the physical, which is where the problems with your assertion start:

When exposed to an outside chemical agent, the chemical reactions within the body would be the same...

So, for starts, every human being's liver responds identically to all chemicals?

 

[Kpnuts]

Wow, somehow I knew this was going to turn into a huge debate. I blame the one who insisted that homosexuals do not have a demeanor. They do. If you meet seven guys in a bar, you can always spot the ones who are homosexual. Why? Because of the way they act. Now I am in no way saying that they act "wrong" or "bad" or in some kind of "queer fashion" (no pun intended) But they act different. You can just tell. Now the ones you can't tell are the ones whom are bi, or in denial.

What total utter bullsh*t. If I was with 6 of my straight mates in a bar you wouldn't call me out as gay.

Keep believing that all gay men 'act' and are obviously gay, funnily enough because those are the only ones you notice, but it's still bull.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Is that your wordy way of saying: "homosexuality is a choice"?

No. Absolutely not. Which of your bodily orifices did you extract that from? It's not anything I believe, nor implied by anything I wrote. It seems obvious that orientation is predominantly biological, most likely genetic, in nature, and most certainly NOT a choice.

Good.

Then why do you think homosexual men react the same way to women as heterosexual men do, on the biochemical level?

Didn't we just see a link to a research study that suggests that they DON'T react the same way?