Epigenetic reason for homosexuality?
With 8 different topics emerging and trolling to contend with I have to prioritize.
Firstly the trolling.
AS you are constantly stigmatizing my persona which ironically leads to hypocrisy and garbage (following a desire to provide yourself with covert humor), I counter troll just to show how pathetic we are... But I won't give you garbage.
Firstly the trolling.
AS you are constantly stigmatizing my persona which ironically leads to hypocrisy and garbage (following a desire to provide yourself with covert humor), I counter troll just to show how pathetic we are... But I won't give you garbage.
My patience for such rambling nonsense is nearly, but not quite, infinite.
What you say occurs as a constant in any interaction, high or not, but understand that being high is on a spectrum, as is intelligence, as is comprehension. I smoke weed to purposely reduce my intelligence
I second Bruce's claim that your empathy is faulty. As evidence, I cite your continued spouting of nonsense.
My patience for such rambling nonsense is nearly, but not quite, infinite.
You seem to have succeeded beyond the wildest imaginations of the abolitionists.
I second Bruce's claim that your empathy is faulty. As evidence, I cite your continued spouting of nonsense.
You seem to have succeeded beyond the wildest imaginations of the abolitionists.
I second Bruce's claim that your empathy is faulty. As evidence, I cite your continued spouting of nonsense.
I admit I am confusing, but it's what happens where topics keep emerging that are important. Bruce has somewhat followed my argument but is being a bit too defensive and too quick in perceiving my expression. MY replies are similarly rushed.
Warning: This next paragraph makes no sense and is wrong.
It is barbaric because in order to progress this line you have to start dipping feet in acid and cutting off tails.
Also you have slipped up greatly, how can you have emphatic intelligence for people in the future who don't exist?
Why assume? Even a cursory investigation into this research would have revealed that the molecule that produced the cherry blossom smell was acetophenone. Why would you assume otherwise? Haven't you ever taken an organic chemistry course? You obviously didn't do even a cursory investigation, so why should anyone pay any attention to your posts at all?
The idea of a proxy is apparent but again I revert to the pace of generational leap to produce such a fine and replicated effect. You would kind of think rats would be super beings by now (maybe they are if it wasn't for that pesky human) if it related to blood odors and not galvanism...
So why include it? Go jerk off somewhere else. If you continue to post gibberish, you will be banned as a spammer.
If it ends human suffering, I could give a rat's ass.
Yet again it has not sunk in that I'm not complaining. I take back 'totally barbaric' however as it was an exaggeration based upon what I perceive to be potential future tests and the insignificant returns relative to humanistic value (keeping in mind ww3)
How can you have empathy for vermin? Have you ever been a vermin being shocked? Maybe you have. And I said nothing about people who don't exist. People are suffering right now who could use a breakthrough. And if I have to electrocute a few mice to get it, we will be having fried mouse for supper.
The humor is the overt method of satisfying the motive.
My actions also fail to be trolling. I am not trying to get a rise out of you. I am trying to mitigate your lack of normal empathy for other posters by telling you directly to stop rambling incoherently; by telling you to actually read up on a subject before sharing your idle speculations; by telling you to actually read materials supplied by other posters before continuing on stubbornly refusing to believe that your idle speculations aren't entirely incorrect.
Empathy is based upon quantity, and the ability to make relative connections from your own viewpoint, and also the ability to extrapolate into unknown areas. I'm not sure how empathy could be faulty, but it could lead to faulty inferences. I do not claim authority though and would not describe other inferences as faulty, I am allowed an opinion however on which connections to accept and reject - or when to emphasize.
Since you seem to have to be told that other people don't like continued nonsense ramblings and like when people actually read supplied reading materials, you are failing to demonstrate empathy. A failure to demonstrate empathy requires either a lack of empathy, or a lack of normal human response to empathy.
The second is more damning, so I am being kind and assuming the first.
I admit I am confusing, but it's what happens where topics keep emerging that are important. Bruce has somewhat followed my argument but is being a bit too defensive and too quick in perceiving my expression. MY replies are similarly rushed.
Again I am not dismissing the idea EVEN IF it was a single molecule, but it only makes it less likely for blood debris to cross to a gamete relative to my own idea of plausibility.
Knowing basic biology means nothing if these advanced persons describe it as a mystery. I keep trying to make and reinforce my point but it does not seem to register.
As much as I enjoy being referred and increasing my knowledge, banning me would probably be beneficial for me so I can choose more rapid avenues. But I'd want someone to ban me from other things aswell otherwise I may miss the opportunity for this sort of interaction.
These pursuits are balanced by capatalism and along the way will only benefit those who can afford its benefits.
The authors didn't call it "cherry blossom smell" in their paper. They only called it acetophenone, a well-known odorant. Nobody that I cited called it "cherry blossom smell". Wiki called it "an odour that resembles cherry blossoms". Scientific American, which they cited, referred to "acetophenone, a chemical the scent of which has been compared to those of cherries and almonds". Medical press called it "an odor resembling that of cherry blossoms". So once again you have grasped at straws, because that's all you have the ability to grasp at, and you have come up empty.
That's already known to occur, and the fact that it is a single molecule has absolutely nothing do to with it. It's not the acetophenone molecule that is thought to be responsible for the effect on the gametes.
By that logic, not knowing basic physics doesn't preclude you from commenting on the utility of string theory since the mechanism of quantum gravity is still considered a mystery by the most advanced persons. Your so-called points are all incoherent babel.
String theory must therefore hold relative comprehension to basic physcis, I am claiming that this blood debris theory does not meet simpler logics aswekk as galvanism/Hindu logics on bio memory. Not knowing basic physics would prelude you from talking about anything, aswell as just generally mobilizing in order to meet a goal i.e eating a banana.
Commentary is not always formulated via social constructs of mathematical/verbal language. This is due to the brain being molded by already existing external patterns which it is confined to follow, so it calculates a higher ratio of correct solutions via wrong conclusions being impossible to be expressed. Like when solving 2+2=4 - the shape of the brain does not have 1,3,5 available to it. Which proves my first sentence in this paragraph.
Gravity is not a mystery past anything else being a mystery, and that being the covert component that exists as a relative object to all objects.
So you are requesting to be banned then? As long as you have the opportunity to be banned for everything you would like? Get it all out in your next post, and I'll be more than happy to ban you for all that you wish. I will submit permanent documentation of all you are being banned for.
So what? Do the wealthy deserve to suffer any more than the non-wealthy? What are you a communist now? Should we not have invented cars or televisions or air conditioning because at first only the wealthy could afford them?
Firstly your motive wasn't covert, but it might had been if I was wrong. The humor is not really tangible, but I can stigmatize your history from it fairly accurately to an average baseline. Humor is only overt when someone shares it with you, your motive is for others than me to share it. I.e I say this from remembering such quotes as 'ppl are s******ing at me right now'
I know what you are mitigating, again I do not agree with your stigmatic presumptions of me and find the amount of authority you conceive to hold is causing me to develop sympathies.
Replace feelings with experience and I agree. The problem with this word empathy is that it distinguishes emotions from other processes, and we have to go down a huge semantic chain to prove that emotions are not anything definable. As emotions are mostly causative of stimuli and constructed ideas, empathy is also in understanding this. For you understand something better from understanding its cause. This is probably why you are a psychologist, because you seek emphatic gain.
It is not supplied, the only link related to commercial journalism, which means little to me without the full data sets.
Again you are claiming authority and I disagree with your stigmatic presumptions. I am getting the feeling you have been responsible for other peoples liberty to a more than average extent, there are many catalysts for this cognitive process probably in your history. I do not wish to cause people to get upset, I have been trying rather hard, so if you had empathy you would not respond to your humor motive. Or is that just some payback for me wronging you by writing words on the internet?
My actions also fail to be trolling. I am not trying to get a rise out of you. I am trying to mitigate your lack of normal empathy for other posters by telling you directly to stop rambling incoherently; by telling you to actually read up on a subject before sharing your idle speculations; by telling you to actually read materials supplied by other posters before continuing on stubbornly refusing to believe that your idle speculations aren't entirely incorrect.
Not even close. Empathy is the ability to recognize and understand the feelings of others. It is usually associated with some amount of enjoyment of others having positive emotional responses, and a distaste for others having negative responses.
Since you seem to have to be told that other people don't like continued nonsense ramblings and like when people actually read supplied reading materials, you are failing to demonstrate empathy. A failure to demonstrate empathy requires either a lack of empathy, or a lack of normal human response to empathy.
You aren't confusing at all. You just don't know what you are talking about and refuse to learn enough to communicate in a sensible manner, yet continue to type. That is clear evidence of lack of empathy. If you cared even the slightest little bit about other human beings, you'd feel a strong need to stop.
Firstly your motive wasn't covert, but it might had been if I was wrong. The humor is not really tangible, but I can stigmatize your history from it fairly accurately to an average baseline. Humor is only overt when someone shares it with you, your motive is for others than me to share it. I.e I say this from remembering such quotes as 'ppl are s******ing at me right now'
The motive is the feelings that you are acting in a subpar manner and worthy of disrespect and derision.
I know what you are mitigating, again I do not agree with your stigmatic presumptions of me and find the amount of authority you conceive to hold is causing me to develop sympathies.
Replace feelings with experience and I agree. The problem with this word empathy is that it distinguishes emotions from other processes, and we have to go down a huge semantic chain to prove that emotions are not anything definable. As emotions are mostly causative of stimuli and constructed ideas, empathy is also in understanding this. For you understand something better from understanding its cause. This is probably why you are a psychologist, because you seek emphatic gain.
Emotions don't cause stimuli. Ever. At all. Not even once.
It is not supplied, the only link related to commercial journalism, which means little to me without the full data sets.
You do know the article was written by a leading genetic researcher, not some journalist, right? Here is the article in full: http://neuron.illinois.edu/sites/def...pigenetics.pdf
Here is the article that OP cited:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/...igin=JSTOR-pdf
Kindly return with a thorough understanding of both before rambling more about your understanding of genetics.
Again you are claiming authority and I disagree with your stigmatic presumptions. I am getting the feeling you have been responsible for other peoples liberty to a more than average extent, there are many catalysts for this cognitive process probably in your history. I do not wish to cause people to get upset, I have been trying rather hard, so if you had empathy you would not respond to your humor motive. Or is that just some payback for me wronging you by writing words on the internet?
There is no presumption on my part. You babble incoherently on subjects you don't understand and refuse to learn anything new on the subject. Removal of the stigma would require you to behave differently. Until you do, the stigma remains. It is your stigma, and you should wear it proudly and without shame. Own the stigma. Be the stigma.
I already told you what my motive was. Several times. I can assure you that I wasn't lying and it isn't particularly difficult to understand. Also, again, humor is not the motive. It isn't the motive in any way or sense of the word in any possible universe ever dreamed of by the mind of any person living or dead or yet to live, nor in the imaginations of any possible person imagining possible universes. Was that clear enough for you to understand?
Do you know how to analyze "full data sets?" You do realize that you don't, right?
You do know the article was written by a leading genetic researcher, not some journalist, right? Here is the article in full: http://neuron.illinois.edu/sites/def...pigenetics.pdf
You do know the article was written by a leading genetic researcher, not some journalist, right? Here is the article in full: http://neuron.illinois.edu/sites/def...pigenetics.pdf
Parental olfactory experience influences behavior and neural structure in subsequent generations
Paraphrase what you think I am mitigating to demonstrate your comprehension.
None of that is correct.
Emotions don't cause stimuli. Ever. At all. Not even once.
Do you know how to analyze "full data sets?" You do realize that you don't, right?
You do know the article was written by a leading genetic researcher, not some journalist, right? Here is the article in full: http://neuron.illinois.edu/sites/def...pigenetics.pdf
Here is the article that OP cited:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/...igin=JSTOR-pdf
Kindly return with a thorough understanding of both before rambling more about your understanding of genetics.
Here is the article that OP cited:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/...igin=JSTOR-pdf
Kindly return with a thorough understanding of both before rambling more about your understanding of genetics.
Ok.
The bolded part was not English. It had some English words in it. It failed to form a coherent thought though. You should work on that.
Was that clear enough for you to understand?
That was a general article about epigenetics. The paper with the mice from Nature Neuroscience can be downloaded for $5 for 48 hours, but I was able to print it from that. Some of the graphs didn't print right. When I tried to save it to a pdf, it wouldn't open in Sumatra, but maybe it would work in Acrobat Reader. Apparently you can buy it for $10. You may have to lie your ass off about who you are to get a copy.
Parental olfactory experience influences behavior and neural structure in subsequent generations
Parental olfactory experience influences behavior and neural structure in subsequent generations
http://www.nbb.cornell.edu/neurobio/...ub/manella.pdf
Hmmm, that was easier.
Yes, now I can see the data sets. I will learn things so I can interpret, and return once I have made an appraisal.... but I want it repeated in extent over the same short generational gap without using electric stimulus regardless of outcome before I accept my theory is a load of crap.
It has to be relevant somehow in bi-product, if it is relevant in the offspring but not in the non-manipulated rat.
This is very tempting, like asking god for strength in a prayer I could give you total power in issuing this nomination on my behalf. This trips me because all methods of motivating self improvement are powerless unless you allow it power. It is the unavoidable social harm my ego would suffer at being banished which is off-putting but the dissonance loop of knowing I can do better things is actually a fortunate thing to happen- just not now- it has to happen first.
Nope. Try again.
Try. It will be good exercise for your brain.
Then behave differently. Generally, if you find that everyone is treating you the same (dismissive, telling you that you are FOS, telling you to write more clearly, telling you that your ideas don't make any sense - all examples from here), that is a sign that it is your behavior that is problematic and requires changing.
Please do so. You will find it more pleasant, and we will as well.
If you behaved differently, you would not have this problem.
The second to last sentence there made no sense. Emotions don't cause stimuli even if you type it twice in two separate posts.
Clarify. What types of data sets can you analyze? B
I linked the other article as well. Should be just above this one.
I actually meant that you should read all of them and understand them before writing more.
dictionary.reference.com
Where you say "empathic comprehension" I think the word you are looking for is "telepathic."
You would be correct in saying that I am not telepathic. No one is. That is why it is imperative that you write clearly and concisely using words in standard ways.
Transitive?
You have declared it many times now, but before you took more overt and humorous methods, I do not wish to paraphrase it.
At least some of it is correct, I admit that most of it is me playing your game of claiming authority. I am speaking in mild riddles for I don't want this line of conversation to go on much longer. It's a bit personal.
Please do so. You will find it more pleasant, and we will as well.
I meant to say 'caused by'... apologies. There is this weird thing that happens when I spend too little time with my attention on something that peripherally it gets replaced by a best fit when I fail to retrieve the original. I'll work on it, but note that trolling and expanding topics and larger depths of need:information cause me to make mistakes from haste to get it out the way with. ALso, emotions only don't cause sitmuli in a world of sociopaths or people with a certain kind of autism. Laughter is contagious- you hope.
The second to last sentence there made no sense. Emotions don't cause stimuli even if you type it twice in two separate posts.
Depends on the data set.
Ok.
I actually meant that you should read all of them and understand them before writing more.
You lack skills in emphatic comprehension. This won't make sense to you, for I have to use the empathetic concept to replace other things which I don't know the word of. I need a reverse dictionary or something.
Where you say "empathic comprehension" I think the word you are looking for is "telepathic."
You would be correct in saying that I am not telepathic. No one is. That is why it is imperative that you write clearly and concisely using words in standard ways.
Again, I disagree with your stigmatic presumptions. Comprehension is two way. Expressive and transitive.
Originally Posted by BTM
Nope. Try again.
Transitive?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitivity_(grammar))
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valency_(linguistics)
specifically note: In functional grammar, transitivity is considered to be a continuum rather than a binary category as in traditional grammar (this has relations to left/right brain orientation)
This ability is very important, and this is why I deem your comprehension to be weak, you only understand single and more literal links between ideas. I admit direct links are superior, and I would think like this 100% consistently if I could, but I can't. Call me intellectually disabled and troll me for it if you will, but i measure it as a positive value rather than negative.
Clarify. What types of data sets can you analyze?
Transitive relation is also how one can understand things without necessarily requiring all of the direct links. There are many languages or definitions of objectified phenomena, when I have missing knowledge of a:b - I fill the gap using other information, it can also be used to jump great distances and to build artificial bridges where the real ones aren't available- which is where I get conclusions from, which of course means that sometimes you end up in the unrelated middle of nowhere due to plotting your co-ordinates wrong, however I think I have developed strong platforms for this in my cognition and often due to a lack of current knowledge, the co-ordinates are unrelated and int he middle of nowhere anyway. I.e Quantum mechanics, and this mystery of the information travelling to gametes.
Emotions don't cause stimuli even if you type it twice in two separate posts.
Where you say "empathic comprehension" I think the word you are looking for is "telepathic."
I am currently not high, I wonder if it makes a difference.
Still don't get what you could possibly mean.
specifically note: In functional grammar, transitivity is considered to be a continuum rather than a binary category as in traditional grammar (this has relations to left/right brain orientation)
The distinction is interesting, but...
This ability is very important, and this is why I deem your comprehension to be weak, you only understand single and more literal links between ideas. I admit direct links are superior, and I would think like this 100% consistently if I could, but I can't. Call me intellectually disabled and troll me for it if you will, but i measure it as a positive value rather than negative.
Transitive relation is also how one can understand things without necessarily requiring all of the direct links.
Telepathic is worse for it is done without any kind of overt information, telepathy is discovering covert information without using any overt information. I would love to understand the correct terminology, but it fits anyway with a progressive idea of what 'empathy' actually is.
Saying that telepathy is fine under x circumstances is like saying that riding unicorns is fine as long as you aren't menstruating.
I am currently not high, I wonder if it makes a difference.
Two-year anniversary
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...&postcount=133
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...&postcount=133
I was on a forum where anyone could ask questions, but to answer you had to be a pre-qualified expert, kind of like qualifying to post on marketplace. If anyone else tried to answer a question or give advice, they got banned. That worked quite well.
That's what happens when your landlord is a fecophiliac.
I still have no idea why you would say that communication is two way, expressive and transitive.
I know why you have no idea. And generally people suffer when their liberty is in control of those who don't get it.
Why do i feel like i'm getting e-bullied.... this is getting too circular and I really see little progress, as much I feel compelled to increase BTM's comprehension, and learn by making bizarre statements to evoke higher volumes of information into my brain, I will save all of you qualified experts from distress and take leave from SMP.
Ciao. Farewell.
If i post again in SMP that isn't a LC thread, then just insta ban me. Full permission. Unless hell freezes over and people cry out for my return.
I know why you have no idea. And generally people suffer when their liberty is in control of those who don't get it.
Why do i feel like i'm getting e-bullied.... this is getting too circular and I really see little progress, as much I feel compelled to increase BTM's comprehension, and learn by making bizarre statements to evoke higher volumes of information into my brain, I will save all of you qualified experts from distress and take leave from SMP.
Ciao. Farewell.
If i post again in SMP that isn't a LC thread, then just insta ban me. Full permission. Unless hell freezes over and people cry out for my return.
Halleluja!
Feedback is used for internal purposes. LEARN MORE