CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Are all people infected with Ebola's disease, born that way?
I mean, would you ever choose to have Ebola's? Of course not. So, isn't not a choice, and, using LOGIC, we conclude that such people are born with the disease.
I prenatally wished to have the Ebola when I was delivered. It, sadly turns out that I tested negative; can I sue the doctor who delivered me for malpractice? They must have don't something wrong to keep me from having my desired infection.
Anyone who knows of a lawyer that specializes in medical suits, or only class action suits of this nature, please let me know.
Maybe you should stop embarrassing yourself? I was asking whether or not Ebola is exclusively transmitted by birth. This has NOTHING to do with where it came from. It's you who is showing a lack of intelligence. I suggest you edit your posts before they're downvoted.
I can tell you where it originated: Africa. So what does this have to do with the debate question?
You don't think Ebola can be transmitted by sex ? I think the opposite is true, and that proves me right in this debate. It's transmitted through bodily contact in the vast majority of cases.
I know it from information that's openly available. Ebola's incubation period is form 2 to 21 days. After that, 90% of the infected die. Most people who died from Ebola, were much older than 21 days. IF ebola was spread exclusively form mother to child, all of those people would never have lived to be 1 year old.
Bodily contact means Ebola is spread through sexual contact. You should take that knowledge of yours to the CDC and the UN. Possibly a humanitarian effort there for you.
I agree with your classification. However, cases 1 and 3 can sometimes collude. Some people subconsciously choose to give in to the circumstances, and that's when things start to go out of control.
There could be other items in that classification - depending on its exact purpose.
Well, yes, most things relate to all three sets. Another form of classification can be used when the specific purpose is given so that the sets are more distinct even while being few.
It gets a bit complex around the nature of being and a deterministic or chaotic universe, though.
But generally, nothing falls perfectly in one set in the universe we seem to perceive (except your genes and government policies).
The statement I'm arguing against, is "everyone who has ever had Ebola, was born with said disease". That statement is false. But such a statement can be produced using LGBT logic. Which means that their logic is faulty.
I didn't say people were never born with Ebola. What I said is that not everyone who has / had Ebola was born with it. Which is obviously true. Most people are infected through bodily contact. It's technically possible to be born with Ebola, but that's not the point.
The LGBTQ has been discriminated against until Barack got into office. Before Barack Obama the LGBTQ could not buy a home , rent an apartment , buy groceries or buy a car?
Well said. I am not anti gay rights but it makes me feel uneasy to extent to which the message "it is okay to be gay" warps all other facts. It is a fact that homosexuals are more likely to have been abused when they were children. This is one of, I suspect, many events in a persons life that can determine their sexuality. The only answer I have got from people that say that all homosexuals are born that way is that gay children some how attract pedophiles. Being that most pedophilia occurs by the father and another close relative I find that very hard to believe. I am also surprised by people suggesting this as it goes against the modern paradigm that it is unacceptable to draw any casual link between the victims behaviour and their abuse.
What I find even more bizarre about this is that the only articles you can find online that even remotely hint at homosexuality possibly being cause by early childhood experiences are those from extremist Christian website: which of course are going to be instantly dismissed by anyone that isn't also a hardcore Christian.
I would like to clarify that I don't consider myself an anti-gay person. I'm disgusted by people who attack gays for the sole reason of them being gay. There are bastards among gays, too - so I would not totally exclude the possibility of fighting a gay. Same goes for Christians.
I support the values of classical liberalism, which were formulated by Locke. The identity policies which are endorsed by the neo-liberals, are actually working against liberalism in its classical sense. This is why I'm targeting all identity policy activism, including LGBT activism.
I think the message that it is okay to be gay is alright. It is fine to be conditioned to be gay through your experience and to act on those tendencies.
People who are looking for a cure should not be distracted by wordplay. Whether something is natural or unnatural is more a matter of opinion. Life and death are not.
Which encryption algorythm did you use to encode your message? It's areally good one, because it's forming a combination of English words (which of course don't make sense when put together).
No it is not. My message is that the gay agenda "logic" is flawed. I have proven this to be true by giving a counterexample.
This: "Everyone who sounds like you is distracted by word play. Doesn't that bother you?" is idiotic bullshit. If you can't stay on topic, shut the fuck up.
You compared a viral infection to changes in brain chemistry. You have office that you don't want to be in the discussion. The cure for gay people is to eradicate people like you. I hope you don't really support the gay cure.
You compared a viral infection to changes in brain chemistry. First of all there is no proof whatsoever of homosexuality being caused by "changes in brain chemistry". The punk pseudo-scientific garbage spouted by your MSM actually goes against science. They never quote actual research which proves what you said, because there is no such research.
You resemble our Putinist "patriotic" nutters, who also buy everything that's sold to them by our propaganda.
Secondly, due to your bias, you totally missed the point of this debate. I was not directly comparing homosexuality to Ebola disease. Ebola was just an example, I could have been speaking about any other condition which people do not choose to have.The point was to show that the simplistic rubbish which LGBT activists present as "logic", has nothing to do with logic. Even if they were defending a just cause (which is not true), they are still liars and the methods they use in their propaganda are risible. In fact, the neo-liberalist identity politics has been injecting a whole new method of pseudo-logical discourse. This has created whole generations that are unable to think properly and are not even aware of that fact.
The cure for gay people is to eradicate people like you Yep, you would have made quite a career in Putin's Russia, and also in communist Russia. Of course, people that criticize the officially accepted narrative (enemies), should be eradicated.
I hope you don't really support the gay cure. I really do support psychological counseling aimed at eliminating the root causes of homosexuality. It's possible because male homosexuality is a result of psychological conditioning which affects the subconscious. It's an acquired trait and, in terms of genetics, adaptation, not evolution. The "help" which is being offered by LGBT agenda to these people, is actually toxic.
I really do support psychological counseling aimed at eliminating the root causes of homosexuality. It's possible because male homosexuality is a result of psychological conditioning which affects the subconscious. It's an acquired trait and, in terms of genetics, adaptation, not evolution. The "help" which is being offered by LGBT agenda to these people, is actually toxic.
Is this supposed to be some sort of metaphor for claiming that Gays are born that way and do not choose to be Gay?
Whatever. Sorry, your example here does not work at all. It actually makes very little sense as well.
First: Ebola is a virus. It is acquired the same way all viral infections are: the virus enters your body, either via injection or inhalation or ingestion, and then enters a cell and begins "hijacking" the cells DNA so it can replicate.
If course nobody would choose to have ebola, as it is probably the most gruesome virus out there with a very high mortality rate.
But you need to read my OP on being Gay and if its a choice or a genetic pre-disposition. I laid it all out pretty well and accurately. The answer, BTW, is "both." A person can be born with a genetic tendency that inclines them to favor homosexual behavior, or they can indeed choose to engage in homosexual sex. And a person can also be bisexual. There are gradations of "gayness." Shades. It is not a black or white, yes or know, Gay or straight thing all of the time.
Also, know that gay women, your lesbos, are far more likely to have simply chosen to be a dyke than to be born with the genetic disposition, as is usually but not always the case with Gay men.
hope this helps, as you sound way confused, amigo.
Is this supposed to be some sort of metaphor for claiming that Gays are born that way and do not choose to be Gay?
Congrats on totally missing the point. This debate is a refutation of the so-called "logic" used by the LGBT in their propaganda. "Could you choose to be gay? -> No? -> So we didn't choose to be straight -> So we were born that way". This bullshit needs to be confronted.
I have shown that the same logic in a different situation, produces an incorrect statement. Therefore the logic itself is flawed. If you didn't choose to be affected by a certain condition, it doesn't mean you were born with that condition.
A person can be born with a genetic tendency that inclines them to favor homosexual behavior What is a genetic tendency? If you mean genetic trait, well yes, some genetic traits could probably turn the odds against a person in resisting environmental influence, which leads them to homosexuality. But that's very far from "genetic predisposition". Society plays a decisive role in this conditioning.
I know quite well that women often simply choose to be lesbian, rather than being conditioned by the environment. The reason is that male homosexuality is directly linked to the primal archetypes of domination and submission, but female homosexuality is not.
In Biology and genetics we often specify between the two terms regarding somebody being born with a genetic trait or a tendency. As they are not the same thing.
Rather, they are gradations, or, say, slight genome variations that each imbue differing levels of physiological or psychological impact.
If you're born with a full-on trait, like, say, blue eyes or obesity, then your inherited genes from one or both of your parents "coded" for that physical trait. That is, you have it. Period.
But in the case of a tendency, that means your genetic pre-disposition was such that chances were more favorable than not that you would at some point in your life acquire that trait. At which point you would "have it" just the same as somebody who acquired it "full-on" at birth.
IOW: the person with the "genetic tendency" does not have that coded trait "etched in stone." Or "hardwired" if you prefer. To go the electrical metaphor one better: instead of a hardwired fully-connected circuit, your "wires" were laid in place and connected with loose, barely-touching connections in that circuit, and the electricity (in the case of nucleotides) may or may not ever get "switched on."
This is why the "tendency" to engage in homosexual behavior, or bisexual behavior, instead of being full-on Gay.
So...OK, that was a brief and very-generalized and layman-termed synopsis on my own words. Here is a bit more on this if you are interested.........
You're totally on the wrong track here. Can't you see that this is sarcasm aimed against the "born this way" rhethoric?
And your post is irrelevant because the debate is asking whether or not EVERYONE who ever had Ebola disease, was born with it. It's not in refference to a subset, but to the whole set. Google set theory in your free time.
Still wrong, but at least you've tried...What I was saying is that not every person who has/had Ebola, was born with it. That's obviously true, because Ebola is transmitted through direct contact with the infected person.
And you're on the wrong track because this whole debate is really not about Ebola. It's about the flawed "logic" of the LGBT agenda.
Yes, no one's arguing with that. But some of the infected people were NOT born that way. That's the point of this debate. If you didn't choose to have a certain condition, it doesn't follow that you were born with it. So, even if some people didn't "choose" to be gay, it doesn't mean they were "born that way".
No, what I mean is that the logic "I did not choose to be ..." - > "I was born with ..." is flawed. If you didn't choose to be affected be some condition, it doesn't mean you were born with it.
Specifically, homosexuality can be caused by certain kinds of experience in life. In such cases, it isn't a choice but people aren't born woth it either.
That depends on the sensitivity and coping strategy you are born with.
Bad childhood experiences can lead to many things. The relation between genetics, epigenetics and brain development is not a simple and obvious one. (It is, but not as much as you expect it to be.)
It's not a fact that people are born with any "coping strategy".
Plus, the relation between genetics, epigenetics and brain developement is, at this point, a total unknown. Biologists can only speculate about these issues.
Every paper which claims to contain proof of some correlations, always uses the "may have" clause. No statistical hypothesis have been proven in this area.
The only part of science that has been able to come up with a coherent model of how homosexual orientation is formed,- is psychology. Genetics cannot produce even that.
They are provable, but the ethical activists won't let such experiments being conducted. For good reasons, of course. Would you like to give children for an experiment on how they differently react to exactly the same traumas?
So yes, you wouldn't technically be wrong if you call most of it as speculation. The final results depend on neuroscience and genetic biology, both of which aren't really developed fields. It will even solve the problem of free will.
I see. Anyway, people born with Ebola deserve to be treated equally in society, but with certain restrictions. They certainly should not be told that their condition is "wonderful" and that they should embrace their ilness as an identity. Instead, doctors should be working on a cure. Those who forbid treatment of Ebola, should be put in prison. Sounds fair?
Anyway, people born with Ebola deserve to be treated equally in society, but with certain restrictions.
Restrictions doesn't sound like equal.
They certainly should not be told that their condition is "wonderful" and that they should embrace their ilness as an identity.
That would make sense if there wasn't the identity of never having Ebola. Not really equality if we say only the people who identify as never being infected are allowed to discuss their identity.
Instead, doctors should be working on a cure.
If getting cured doesn't fix the identity issue then it doesn't really matter does it.
Those who forbid treatment of Ebola, should be put in prison.
No, we need to imprison the people who attack those that have been cured
Sounds fair?
Well, not really. Putting people in jail for not being treated for Ebola is kind of a lose lose situation.
Restrictions doesn't sound like equal. Restrictions always apply, even in the most equal of societies. Blind people are not allowed to drive, e.t.c. This is not way of oppressing blind people, it's simply recognition of reality.
That would make sense if there wasn't the identity of never having Ebola.
Why are you not addressing the first part of the sentence: "They certainly should not be told that their condition is "wonderful"? It's by far the most important part.
Regarding identity, the only reason there is an "identity" of never having Ebola, is because some nutters have conjured up an "identity" of having Ebola and being proud of it. So, this has nothing to do with equality. Discussions of "Ebola" go hand-in-hand with endorsement of "Ebola is wonderful" slogans, which are a menace to society. The same is true for "Chlorine trifluoride is wonderful" type of slogans.
Furthermore, identity politics created by neo-liberals are a affront to classical liberalism founded by Locke. So, they don't matter all that much.
If getting cured doesn't fix the identity issue then it doesn't really matter does it. The identity issue is made up. The disease is real.
No, we need to imprison the people who attack those that have been cured
Totally true and totally irrelevant. Did I say people that have been cured, need to be attacked? And why isn't it a crime to forbid treatment of a lethal disease?
Putting people in jail for not being treated for Ebola is kind of a lose lose situation.
This is irrelevant to what I said: people who forbid treatment of Ebola should be put in prison. You do see there's a difference, don't you? I never said people should be put in jail for not being treated from Ebola.
because some nutters have conjured up an "identity" of having Ebola and being proud of it.
Bullshit. After centuries of being shamed for simple having been infected
with something you can't control you don't become a nutter for saying you aren't going to let people out you down for it.
So, this has nothing to do with equality.
One group is consider nutters for thinking something beyond their control should not be used against them, and the other group is considered perfectly normal for being proud that they weren't infected which isn't an accomplishment. That very much does have to do with equality.
Discussions of "Ebola" go hand-in-hand with endorsement of "Ebola is wonderful" slogans, which are a menace to society. The same is true for "Chlorine trifluoride is wonderful" type of slogans.
But it beats the hell out of the endorsement of "kill Ebola patients" slogans.
Furthermore, identity politics created by neo-liberals are a affront to classical liberalism founded by Locke. So, they don't matter all that much.
Unfortunately, we are talking about identity politics created by conservatives.
The identity issue is made up. The disease is real.
Made up by the people who were never infected.
Did I say people that have been cured, need to be attacked?
Have you addressed the people who have said it?
And why isn't it a crime to forbid treatment of a lethal disease?
when the treatment that is being forbidden doesn't cure Ebola. It shouldn't be a crime in those situations.
I never said people should be put in jail for not being treated from Ebola.
It is more than likely that the people who will forbid treatment will be infected with Ebola.
That's not true. We all born in the same way, with a healthy body. Ebola is a disease with an unhealthy way to be in. Patient may survive from Ebola but wit a small chance, it doesn't come from our mom or dad
It's still inconclusive as to whether people are born gay. Either way, comparing to Ebola is also saying that people can suddenly become gay, which is also inconclusive. We've basically seen that it's a combination of both nature and nurture. If we leave it to this, either way, it's still not a choice to be gay.
I think, and this is just my idea on it, the better analogy would be, if I was born with brown eyes but wanted to be green eyes instead. Sure I can change the color of my eyes with contacts but I have a genetic predisposition to have brown and eventually I should come to accept that, changing the color by contacts doesn't change the fact that I still have brown eyes.. Being gay isn't a choice like choosing color contacts though, so I think that's where the analogy ends. Ebola is a transmitted disease, not exactly the best comparison for being LGBT.
Their logic is indeed flawed if they are in fact saying that. It implies that homosexuality is a disease, it is not. And that it communicable....it is not.
It doesn't mean that you weren't either. We still don't know what causes it, we can argue left and right until we are blue in the face but that doesn't mean we are right until we actually find the reason.
Well, I can't disagree with what you're saying. However, in science the burden of proof lies on those who are making the claim. So far, what LGBT activists have been doing is pure propaganda. They have no right to indoctrinate children with their propaganda, claiming that it's backed up with science and logic, when it actually isn't.
Well. We are still not 100% sure that the Big Bang happened yet it is taught in schools. We are also not 100% sure that the dinosaurs were killed off by asteroid or volcanic explosion or the combination of the two but that's still taught. Our understanding of our own history is constantly changing due to finds such as those in Gobekli Tepe. It's simply more likely than not.
I don't think it's legit to compare the "born that way" hypothesis, with Big Bang. Big Bang hypothesis has at least some science behind it, though it's not really very sound. "Born that way" is a pure speculation with absolutely no scientific evidence in favor of it.
But that's not my main objection. The real problem is that LGBT narrative pushed onto young children, is capable of directly influencing their perception of their own reality, and affect their decision making in ways that can turn out to be harmful. IF homosexuality is learned behavior, then teaching kids that the are "born with it" is little different from sexual predatory.
Out of total sheer curiosity, don't answer it if you don't want to, do you feel the same about religion? That is certainly capable of directly influencing their perceptions and is capable of changing their decisions. But then. So is everything else we grow up with. Political parents, Religious parents, life styles, sexism, and so on...homosexuality isn't a learned behavior like those factors I previously stated and I think it's really easy to judge someone in the LGBT community for being different and wanting to claim they chose that life, if you don't really know how it feels or understand it.
Out of total sheer curiosity, don't answer it if you don't want to, do you feel the same about religion? To a certain extent, yes. Not all religion is healthy, and I'm not talking about different denominations. Some forms of "Christianity" can be detrimental. Being brought up in Islamic religion is usually (not always) a very bad influence.
One important aspect of this, is that the religious imprint can be "undone" (or modified in a good way) by a person later on in life. It could be much more difficult to "undo" male homosexuality, because it's a sexual habit and a way of life. It's possible, though, as proven by the numerous ex-gays, but that transition can take many many years of life - taken away. Is it worth it? I don't think so.
Religious parents, life styles, sexism, and so on...homosexuality isn't a learned behavior like those factors I previously stated It's quite likely learned behavior, in many cases, as suggested by psychological studies.
My main thesis is, if something isn't broken, don't fix it. There's no need to introduce the LGBT sex-add, it's more likely to create more problems than fix them.
it's really easy to judge someone in the LGBT community for being different and wanting to claim they chose that life, if you don't really know how it feels or understand it.
I'm not judging the LGBT community for their lifestyle, I'm judging gay agenda activists for their propaganda. And many of these people are not gay.
See, you think it is a learned behavior so you stick to that. I think it isn't a learned behavior, and I stick to that. But we are capable of have rational discussions on that and respecting each other's opinions on the matter even if we don't agree. More people should be like that in my opinion but sadly we only really hear of the (I hate to use the word because I use it for higher examples like murdering in the name of God but i can't think of a better word) extremists. At one point in time people thought "if something isn't broken then don't fix it" towards the rights of blacks and the rights of women, but through time and understanding we are ....dear god it's so slow but it's better than before...extending basic civil rights towards the two. We don't know exactly what causes a person to fall in love with the same gender so we can't have the right answer until we do.