“It is more pertinent to say that you can easily disprove belief, however they shall not listen.“

One of the most useful definitions of belief I have ever encountered is this:

An attitude of acceptance or assent toward a proposition without the full intellectual knowledge required guaranteeing its truth.

There are many other definitions of a similar variety. The point of which is that disproving anything can only be done to people who listen. If they’re not listening, I’m not going to be able to disprove anything to them.

James

I’ll admit to being frightened by the STD fearmongering. I know they are real and scary, but some people are paranoid to the point of ineffective inhibition. Not to mention how insulting the prejudices against gay and bisexual men implied by so many health resources out there are. But that, too, is another post entirely.

Now, the 1970s …

No AIDS. Lots and lots of sex and drugs.

And even androgyny was appreciated.

Not that nowadays aren’t nice. But STDs seem such nuisances. And nancy boys are a forgotten sexual ideal.

I was unfortunately not around for the 60’s. Sounds like I might have had a smashing good time. :)

You said: While there is little point in adding to this pissing contest, I feel I must clarify something. The post of mine that was linked here is the first of about twenty posts intended to formulate a complete argument; an argument which I myself have admitted is not wholly made.

I don’t intend to be pissing on anything with this post (though I do sometimes intend to piss on snow in the winter because I enjoy doing so). This post of mine is a complete argument. I thought you’d rather enjoy the challenge I could hopefully offer. I disagree with you, but I don’t disrespect you. You’re actually one of the only people I’ve ever even remotely met that seems to think in the ways I do. I’m a little fascinated by you, I must admit, and fascinated at how you could have come to hold such diametrically opposed opinions as I do.

I am still struggling with the conclusion.

May I politely offer the suggestion that you consider the possibility that you are still struggling with the conclusion because the evidence you are gathering is, largely, inconsequential and irrelevent to your argument? It does not matter what biology, morality, or any other measure you can research may ultimately lead you to believe if you are still going to be stuck on the notion that the results of such research will lead to the conclusion of inherent unqualified superiority of one thing over another simply due to its nature.

That is a flaw in methodology, it is not a lack of research results.