If you're going to scrutinize a post I made, do me the favor and encapsulate every comment in an individual post.
Quote: Jim Jackson said: Well, please forgive the field of Psychology if they decide not to heed the words of a guy barely, if at all, into legal adulthood.
More misplaced conviction. Mensa has let five 3 year olds in its ranks over the past 35 years. If an admonishment of your judgmental attitude towards people younger than you trying to argue your POV from me won't do any good, I'm sure you'll trust them if they say your standard of youthful ignorance isn't at all a universal constant.
By the by, is this constant age knee-jerk an example of you taking out your pent up anger, from the Pete Townshend jokes, on me? I hope you realize I never bothered with that running gag.
Quote: Experimental psychology does rely on the experimental method so as to remove "pure assumption from every angle."
And that's the thing, it's impossible for any "experimental methods" to interpret the human mind with such conclusivity. The fact that scientists haven't actually established any sort of wide-spread standard for percieved homosexual behavior, as they thought they could, proves that. Individuals are too unique for any tests to dictate accuracy on why and/or how a person is gay. They shouldn't be speaking with such absolutes--It's patently fallacious to do so.
Don't get me wrong Jim, I have much respect and competence in the field of psychology. However, this isn't just about interpreting certain past complexes or syndromes, they're trying to interpret how the body communicates with the mind based on unsubstantiated ideas regarding diversly formed brains. Perhaps that'd be enough if it wasn't for their inability to create a re-occurring pattern from brain to brain--The ones they assume to be of homosexual nature.
Quote: Jim Jackson said: If YOU do it, it's ok. There's no harm, no moral violations.
Hey, I could quote a bigger more smarter organization than I regarding the ideal averages for moderate smoking habits. I mean the Tobbacco Companies have a tightly wound organization with a lot of middle-aged people, who I'm sure went to college and such a such. It's funny how they'd prolly say it's just as safe to smoke a bit more frequently than I do (Board of Health would prolly concur with them to some extent). Anyway, you missed my initial point and took that statement out of its context. I find that the orthodox means of ingestion, injection, and inhalation of most medicine and drugs makes my case as well as adressess your "moral violations" comments very efficintly.
Quote: Well, your understanding is misinformed. Trust me. OK, just trust me. "One session" does not mean the end of your sphincter and the life of your colon, ok.
I didn't say that. I did, however, say that the assault of smoke on the body from one smoking session doesn't quantify in terms of damage as much as a session of sodomy does.
Quote: And I haven't heard you rail against driving despite the hundreds of people who die in car crashes daily.
Now this all goes back to my conversation with Uschi regarding the intent to hurt one's self or another.
Quote: Jim Jackson said: Keep in mind, grasshopper, that the United States is not a Christian theocracy.
And I was never trying to say it was/is or should be, I was merely explaining to her why I wasn't apathetic to my prophesied future under the influence of casual sex and sodomy. I'm going at length to explain my convictions and try to inform you of what I find to be a grave mistake because it's in my Christian nature to do so. Just because I said that, it does not mean that I'm telling everyone else to be Christian or adopt Christian habits.....I encourage it though!
