SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the that's-a-silly-name-for-an-AI dept.
Stanford University researchers have used software in an attempt to determine sexual orientation from photos:
"Deep neural networks are more accurate than humans at detecting sexual orientation from facial images" is the title of an article by Stanford University's Michal Kosinski and Yilun Wang, to be published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. The abstract:
We show that faces contain much more information about sexual orientation than can be perceived and interpreted by the human brain. We used deep neural networks to extract features from 35,326 facial images. These features were entered into a logistic regression aimed at classifying sexual orientation. Given a single facial image, a classifier could correctly distinguish between gay and heterosexual men in 81% of cases, and in 74% of cases for women. Human judges achieved much lower accuracy: 61% for men and 54% for women. The accuracy of the algorithm increased to 91% and 83%, respectively, given five facial images per person. Facial features employed by the classifier included both fixed (e.g., nose shape) and transient facial features (e.g., grooming style).
Consistent with the prenatal hormone theory of sexual orientation, gay men and women tended to have gender-atypical facial morphology, expression, and grooming styles. Prediction models aimed at gender alone allowed for detecting gay males with 57% accuracy and gay females with 58% accuracy. Those findings advance our understanding of the origins of sexual orientation and the limits of human perception. Additionally, given that companies and governments are increasingly using computer vision algorithms to detect people's intimate traits, our findings expose a threat to the privacy and safety of gay men and women.
The images and the sexual orientation information were drawn from an online dating site. Note that the study was limited to white people from the United States, because of the relative lack of images of nonwhite gays and lesbians on the site.
Also at TechCrunch, The Advocate, and The Guardian.
(Score: 2, Troll) by jmorris on Monday September 11 2017, @06:55PM (34 children)
A fully operational gaydar isn't the worst problem for them. Wait until they can go prenatal testing. Will the 'gay gene' be as unpopular as downs? How fast will the LGBTQWERTY lobby become teh most stalwart Pro-Life organization in the country?
Sooner or later Science! (praise be to Science!) will answer the nature or nurture question and this current either, neither or both as politically expedient will collapse into knowledge. Any actual answer is going to lead to huggies being filled, just a matter of who is going to be triggered.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Grishnakh on Monday September 11 2017, @07:04PM (22 children)
A fully operational gaydar isn't the worst problem for them. Wait until they can go prenatal testing. Will the 'gay gene' be as unpopular as downs?
Perhaps, but the question here is: why does anyone really care that much?
Not many people want a Downs baby, or a child who's mentally deficient in any way. It makes for a harder life, and frequently means you can never get rid of them, as they need constant supervision, and can never live as an independent adult.
The same isn't true of homosexuals. What they do in the bedroom is their own business (many straight people have some... interesting... practices there too), but otherwise they're just as functional as anyone else, as long as they aren't being actively oppressed by religious idiots. In fact, many of them turn out to be extremely successful, and some industries would probably be far worse off if they didn't exist (such as fashion, theater, etc.). There's even a good evolutionary biology argument for homosexuality: that you don't want the entire population having children (leads to overpopulation), and that it's good for the tribe to have some child-less relatives who contribute in other ways.
Of course, these days with so many parents being religious nuts (as the non-religious people aren't having many kids), I can see how prenatal testing might be popular, but those religious nuts also tend to be anti-abortion so I'm not sure how this would turn out. Most of them still think it's a "choice" after all, so even if the genetic basis (if any) is discovered, these people probably won't believe it anyway.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Arik on Monday September 11 2017, @07:49PM (16 children)
Well not quite. They're considerably less likely to produce grandkids, and that's one particular function that people all around the world seem to care a lot about.
"There's even a good evolutionary biology argument for homosexuality: that you don't want the entire population having children (leads to overpopulation), and that it's good for the tribe to have some child-less relatives who contribute in other ways."
That argument works fine, if the parents already have tons of kids anyway. If you're talking about their first and only? Not so much.
"Most of them still think it's a "choice" after all, so even if the genetic basis (if any) is discovered, these people probably won't believe it anyway."
If you genuinely believe there are no choices involved in homosexual behavior and homosexual identity, you really believe it's all just a genetic switch that goes one way or the other and you have no choice but to follow... well I'm afraid you're going to be very disappointed.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 3, Informative) by Grishnakh on Monday September 11 2017, @08:01PM (12 children)
Well not quite. They're considerably less likely to produce grandkids, and that's one particular function that people all around the world seem to care a lot about.
How many kids you create isn't anyone's business but your own (and your spouse's).
That argument works fine, if the parents already have tons of kids anyway.
In ages before contraception was invented, parents having tons of kids was the norm.
If you genuinely believe there are no choices involved in homosexual behavior and homosexual identity, you really believe it's all just a genetic switch that goes one way or the other and you have no choice but to follow... well I'm afraid you're going to be very disappointed.
Citation needed. Are you one of those religious nuts that really thinks people can "choose" to be straight?
Sure, the behavior is a choice, just like being celibate is a choice. But that doesn't explain *why* someone should make that choice. Again, what people do in their bedrooms is their business alone. Do you not agree? Or are you an insane religious fool?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Arik on Monday September 11 2017, @08:17PM (2 children)
Your parents might have something to say about that as well, particularly in the context where we're talking about the potential for parents to screen at the fetus stage for genes that might lead to homosex ahead of time.
"In ages before contraception was invented, parents having tons of kids was the norm."
Yes, but we live in a different time now.
"Citation needed."
Citation needed the other way as well. There have been at least dozens if not hundreds of related studies and they don't always agree. But the naïve genetic determinicism you seem to be endorsing is certainly incorrect. There's no gene that makes you "identify" as a "homosexual." That's every bit as nutty as any religious tract you want to point to. Humans in our current form have been around for about a quarter of a million years, 'identifying as homosexual' is a very new meme, perhaps a century or so old.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 12 2017, @03:37PM (1 child)
There are homosexual animals, that should be a major clue for you. Generally every person is on the spectrum between pure homosexuality and heterosexuality. You can argue all you want but you'll still be wrong, and likely your subconscious is causing you grief since you won't acknowledge the times when you feel some mild attraction toward a man. Its ok, humans die off at pretty reliable intervals so with any luck we won't be burdened with ignorance forever.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday September 12 2017, @04:05PM
Its ok, humans die off at pretty reliable intervals so with any luck we won't be burdened with ignorance forever.
Wrong, at least if by "forever" you mean "as long as the human race exists". We keep breeding new idiots. Just look at the idiocy in Charlottesville: many of the neo-Nazis were fairly young, and the murderer was only about 20. It's a fallacy to think that young people are so much more enlightened than old people; after all, who's having all the kids these days? Mostly religious conservatives.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by looorg on Monday September 11 2017, @08:21PM
"In ages before contraception was invented, parents having tons of kids was the norm."
That is how you create free labor for your farm or business. Not to mention that you make X babies and hope that at least a few of them survive until adulthood so they can support you when you grow old. So it's wasn't all about how they loved children back in the day and couldn't get enough of them. It's a poor persons survival strategy.
(Score: 2) by tfried on Monday September 11 2017, @08:24PM (6 children)
I'm not sure not of the GP's intentions, but he does have a point: What will modern-day western parents answer when confronted with a dialog of "Your child is going to be homosexual. Are you okay with that? Continue - Cancel (Abort)" And further the question isn't what should they do, but what will they do. Here GP's points are very valid: This is likely to be one of a select few kids of the parents, the parents are looking for immortality aka grandchildren, too - and the parents are the ones in control.
That said, I do appreciate your objection against GP's use of the word "choice". But I'll re-word GP's sentence for you: "you really believe it's all just a genetic switch that goes one way or the other and your child will be guaranteed to follow... well I'm afraid you're going to be very disappointed." Very likely, genetically, homosexuality is not a binary switch indeed, but more like a bias of - yet - unknown magnitude. The nurture side, I firmly believe, is not much about "choice", either, but much about coincidence, and messy interactions (such as: the kid is genetically disposed to think outside the box and distrust conventional knowledge - he/she is prone to become homosexual if - and only if - subjected to a society where gender roles are strictly defined).
(Score: 2) by Arik on Monday September 11 2017, @08:52PM (5 children)
Well said, that is indeed exactly the line of thought I was advancing.
"Very likely, genetically, homosexuality is not a binary switch indeed, but more like a bias of - yet - unknown magnitude."
I think it's more than likely there are actually *numerous* genes that, for one reason or another, are going to be statistically correlated here. That doesn't mean there's a causal relationship. In fact, it seems quite unlikely that there could even in theory be a gene that has a direct causal relationship over which social constructs individuals choose to identify with.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Monday September 11 2017, @09:46PM (4 children)
It seems like there is a significant acculturation factor, too, no matter what the ultimate determination of genetic causality is shown to be. Western society has become much more accepting of female-female relationships in the last 20 years, with lesbian assignations having become a staple of popular culture. The same might become true of gay relationships as well.
It may be that in the not too-distant future people born with genetic pre-disposition for exclusive same-sex relationships will obtain, but many other people might become much more sexually fluid given that society no longer thinks it's a big deal who you sleep with.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Arik on Monday September 11 2017, @11:41PM (3 children)
Western society has become much more accepting of same sex relationships, but I'm not sure that the last 20 years is a good time frame to show that - in fact depending how you measure it very well might show the reverse.
I think it makes more sense from a slightly longer timeline though. If we go back to the roots of western civilization, looking particularly at Greek antiquity for example, homosexual acts were well known, and often discussed, sometimes lauded, sometimes derided, depending on the writer, but certainly the acts were well known, they happened and probably no less often than today. But one huge piece of our modern world view is completely missing - this notion of a *homosexual person* rather than person who sometimes performs homosexual acts.
The acts were well known in antiquity and ever since. In some times and places they were horrible crimes, in others normal and expected, but in no case were they considered evidence of a new and different sort of person.
The modern innovation was to turn this into an identity. And doing that is actually contradictory to our liberal ideal of 'it's not a big deal.' If this is a core of your identity it most certainly IS a big deal! It's probably the biggest deal, now isn't it?
So I think we can have one or the other but not both. If it's not a big deal, we as a society need to quit acting like it is.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Mykl on Tuesday September 12 2017, @02:57AM (1 child)
Well put. Anything that you put your identity to is obviously a big deal to you, and is used by yourself as an indication of 'tribe membership' or a point of difference to others.
I had never really thought of it that way, but it does seem incongruous to say that it's not a big deal when you're basing your whole identity on it. Having said that, most of the gay people I know usually only bring up their sexuality in a contextual conversation, not as a form of introduction. I think I would tire of someone that continually advertises their sexual preference, political affiliation, or veganism in all conversations.
By the way, the above post in no way means to compare homosexuals to vegans. I would never insult homosexuals like that.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Tuesday September 12 2017, @03:52AM
That's my experience as well - for the most part. People that I know personally, friends? Yeah, they just want to be treated like everyone else, get a fair shake at work, get a paycheck and go home and enjoy it their own way on their own time, just like everyone else. But the people that call themselves 'activists' or 'leaders' these days, not people I know personally but public figures, that seems to be a group with quite a different profile, with completely different goals and means.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday September 12 2017, @03:40PM
The modern innovation was to turn this into an identity.
I think the reason for this is fairly simple: it's a reaction to most of society pushing heterosexuality as the only acceptable practice, with a large dose of religiosity behind that. This has been the case, really, since Christianity and other Abrahamic religions rose to normalcy. Anyone who didn't toe the line (following the correct religion, having the correct sexual orientation) was a "deviant" and had to be severely punished or killed. If it wasn't a big deal, then it wouldn't be an "identity"; it'd be more like the Greek days (though even there, they had certain gender roles and expectations; they could have male lovers, esp. in the military, but were still expected to marry and have children).
Also, note the Kinsey Scale (a relatively modern invention), which does posit that humans are generally not 100% homo or hetero, but somewhere in-between, though frequently in practice they tend to adopt one side or the other. But it's not uncommon for "hetero" people to do homo acts in secret sometimes (like the infamous Sen. Larry Craig (R) of Idaho), probably because they're really in the middle somewhere and not able to act on the homo desires because of social consequences.
And doing that is actually contradictory to our liberal ideal of 'it's not a big deal.'
That's the ideal; modern society isn't there yet, so that's why people are making a big issue out of it I think. Basically, if the conservatives would either die out or drop the anti-homosexual stance, and it really did become "no big deal" across society, then I don't think you'd see any more activism or making it one's identity (after a generation or so), as there'd be no need.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday September 11 2017, @09:10PM
Genetic/epigenetic interventions performed on the children are the parents' business. They might not have to reveal the changes made at all. And if it's embryo selection for specific traits, the parents can tell their kids with a straight face that they are unaltered, 100% natural humans. While brushing aside how many embryos were screened out before little Timmy was selected.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 5, Funny) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday September 11 2017, @08:35PM (2 children)
Buddy, if being gay were a choice, every woman on the planet would be a lesbian. Don't kid yourself. The fact under 2% or so of us are really dyed in the wool gold-star-toting gay is the strongest possible argument that we don't choose our sexuality. And damn if I don't feel luckier and luckier every day to have hit that 2% chance.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Arik on Monday September 11 2017, @09:52PM (1 child)
No, every woman wouldn't be gay, not even close. Though there is a very real and fairly common phenomena sometimes called the 'college lesbian' you might want to look into.
"The fact under 2% or so of us are really dyed in the wool gold-star-toting gay is the strongest possible argument that we don't choose our sexuality."
Really? You don't think anyone would willingly choose to be in such a small minority, for any reason?
That's fascinating. And I can tell you without a doubt it's incorrect. Jews are approximately 1.4% yet there are still conversions happening every day.
"And damn if I don't feel luckier and luckier every day to have hit that 2% chance."
That looks an awful lot like a reason you would want to put yourself in that group - a motivation to make that choice.
Now let me be clear, I'm not in any way implying that there is not SOMETHING very important in all this that is beyond conscious choice, possibly even beyond environmental influence as well. I don't doubt that for a moment. But we're talking about a lot more than that. We're not talking about the urges of the flesh, we're talking about an *identity* - a social construct. And since it's not one you were born with, the only logical possibility is that it's one you have chosen to wear. It might be a very easy choice to make, because of other things, things you did not choose, but there's still clearly a choice involved.
There's been a real movement to deny this and it seems to be motivated by the idea that it's easier to convince fit-sitters that you shouldn't be discriminated against if you can convince them there are no choices involved, I get that. But it's generally bad policy to advance false positions for short term tactical gain.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday September 12 2017, @02:13AM
I don't think I've ever seen quite that much self-serving bullshit in one post before. That is...impressively wrong, and what isn't wrong is only not-wrong because it's entirely opinion.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by looorg on Monday September 11 2017, @07:57PM (4 children)
Why would anyone care? Does it really matter why? When we know that they will. The why only matters if we think we can somehow change their decision which I doubt we can. Since fetal selection is already a thing, it might be some sort of defect such as downs syndrome or it might just be that the fetus has the wrong gender compared to their preference. Technology in that regard will just give people more options to make selections out of.
As noted most people want "the best", whatever that is, for their offspring. They want them to have a normal life. We know that being a homosexual or being abnormal in some other fashion isn't exactly going to be smooth sailing. They, the parents, might be okay with their offspring being gay but large parts of society won't. It will be a thing they might want to adjust. Just like they might sooner or later be able to design their babies in other fashion such as why would anyone want a fat baby, or a baby that will grow up bald, or stupid or any kind of disease or defect etc. Then there might be the completely egotistical reasons such as them one day wanting to have cute little grandchildren. It's not like gay people can't produce that but it might not be the same for them since it's not done in the "normal" way. Not to mention the factor of "what will other people think!". A lot of factors beyond just the baby clearly influence or could influence the decision.
So they won't even have to be religious nutters, they might just have a desire for making things easy for their offspring. It they are nutters they probably don't even have issue with aborting or tweaking the fetus. It's all down to God, if he didn't want them to abort defective fetuses he wouldn't have made humans invent the technology to do it. I'm sure they can rationalize all their decisions if they just try hard enough.
Overall tho the story is odd, first of all there isn't a 100% sure answer. So the gaydar clearly have wiggle room. There is a massive slant in the testing images, only white american people cause they couldn't find enough images of gay people of other nationalities and races. All images from dating sites. One could perhaps assume that people there are trying to make themselves attractive to the kind of people they want to hook up with. Which might just enforce certain stereotypes. But over all computers are slightly or somewhat better at guessing then humans, humans seemed to have it down to about 3/5 while the computer brought it up to 4/5. It's not really a massive endorsement of the technology to just be slightly better then a human at guessing. Not sure if humans became better at guessing if it was more images, the computer became about 10% better if it got multiple images.
I recon one could even gay-it-up for a picture if one wanted to. It seems proper grooming is a factor, some makeup, proper lightning and such you might look totally gay (or not gay) in the eyes for the machine if you just wanted to.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday September 11 2017, @08:13PM (2 children)
They, the parents, might be okay with their offspring being gay but large parts of society won't.
Depends on the society. Large parts of urban American society really don't care, and in fact homosexuals are very well accepted there. (Of course, those places probably aren't producing many kids on their own...)
It's not like gay people can't produce that but it might not be the same for them since it's not done in the "normal" way.
From what I've read, it's not that unusual for homosexuals to have children in the "normal" way. Many times, they do want kids, so if they're female, well it isn't exactly hard to get a female pregnant if you can find a willing male.... And it's a whole lot cheaper than an artificial clinical approach. (Obviously, this doesn't work for gay men, who would have to adopt unless they can find a willing egg donor + surrogate.)
It will be a thing they might want to adjust. Just like they might sooner or later be able to design their babies in other fashion such as why would anyone want a fat baby, or a baby that will grow up bald, or stupid or any kind of disease or defect etc. Then there might be the completely egotistical reasons such as them one day wanting to have cute little grandchildren.
Now this part is a little worrying. What other factors are choosy parents going to select against? I foresee a future where everyone genetically selects their kids to be extroverted sports stars and socialites, and within a generation there's not enough competent people left to keep society's technology going, and disaster ensures.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Tuesday September 12 2017, @04:02AM (1 child)
Don't look now, but we're there already, without needing designer babies. Social programs and state schools did that job just fine all on their own.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday September 12 2017, @03:02PM
Don't be ridiculous. We have plenty of people going into STEM programs (maybe not as many as some would like...), and the pace of software development, as one example, certainly isn't slowing down. And there's plenty of people going into trades work (again, not as many as some would like) to do the hands-on work needed to keep things running. So no, we're not there yet.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday September 12 2017, @11:08AM
Given that the dataset they were using seems to be exactly 50/50, that isn't slightly better, that's very much better.
A coin-toss would be 50% accurate, a human is only 10% better than coin toss, but a computer is 30% better than coin toss. Another way of seeing how different these are is to view their being correct in terms of fair odds - the human has 3:2-on odds (which should cause a number like 1.5 to appear in your mind), and the neural net 4:1-on odds (which should cause a number like 4 to appear, 4 being very different from 1.5).
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 4, Funny) by tfried on Monday September 11 2017, @07:42PM (1 child)
Good question, indeed. But also, how fast will Southern Baptists and others become pro-choice?
Yeah, but what if that knowledge just happens to be "both" (as I think it probably will be)?
(Score: 1, Troll) by jmorris on Tuesday September 12 2017, @02:25AM
Lots of lulz all around, no argument on that.
That would be my best guess as well. But when we reach a point where you get a report of probabilities for various outcomes, it will be interesting to see what happens when "gay" hits 50-50 probability since it is all downside. Gay gets ya lower odds of grandkids, higher chance of disease, higher rate of other mental issues, higher rates of suicide. Of course what happens when some of those issues are also broken out as line items. And what if you get "70% chance of gay, 80% chance of +2SD Intelligence"? Abort, retry or ignore?
We are heading for uncharted territory. And as others have mentioned, what happens when we throw in prenatal treatment options? If you get a 75% gay diagnosis how many would pay $X for a treatment that promises to cut those odds in half? Or what about something like bipolar, what would be big pharma's profit maximizing price for a treatment option? And what would those Pro -Life Southern Baptists do about these options that aren't abortion? What if they have a risk of death of the fetus?
This is a rabbit hole that doesn't really have a bottom.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 11 2017, @07:59PM
> A fully operational gaydar isn't the worst problem for them. Wait until they can go prenatal testing. Will the 'gay gene' be as unpopular as downs? How fast will the LGBTQWERTY lobby become teh most stalwart Pro-Life organization in the country?
I'm more concerned about janitors that'll have to clean up the headsplosions the religious fanatics will experience when they have to choose between Science! and gay.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday September 11 2017, @08:32PM (6 children)
> How fast will the LGBTQWERTY lobby become teh most stalwart Pro-Life organization in the country?
> Any actual answer is going to lead to huggies being filled, just a matter of who is going to be triggered.
Go to Hell. These are human lives we're talking about here, God damn you. They're not talking points for your sociopathic amusement (now let's see if you respond the way I predict...).
I hope to fuck you reincarnate gay, black, poor, and female, preferably somewhere in the Sudan. It'd serve you right.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday September 11 2017, @09:40PM (4 children)
Let's say (hypothetically) that rather than abortions or embryo selection, the cure is a single pill. Gays and lesbians can choose to take one single pill and turn 99.999% straight. Not very realistic, but whatever.
You're glad to be a lesbian and wouldn't have it any other way today. But there may have been some moment earlier in your life where social/peer pressure, anxiety, or teenage confusion would convince you to take the pill.
That's the nature of the upcoming existential threat to the gay and lesbian communities. Society's pressure to conform combined with a working biological intervention. Some people underwent dark age style conversions or aversion therapy willingly and it drove them to suicide. If something that is safe and effective comes along, I guarantee that people will jump on it.
Then you have the parents. They are going to be presented with a lot of attractive designer baby options in the coming decades. Parents will have the ability to control or at least influence eye color, hair color, skin color, height, physical attractiveness, intelligence, athletic ability, and other traits. Using simple embryo selection, parents already have the ability to eliminate Down syndrome [soylentnews.org] and other genetic disorders. Who's to say that homosexuality won't be put on the list? All that's required is evidence that certain genes are likely to lead to homosexual behavior. Genetic population studies are getting much bigger. For example, the UK wants to sequence 100,000 genomes [genomicsengland.co.uk]. It's entirely possible that these studies could identify clusters of homosexuals without the need for these people to reveal their own sexual orientation to researchers. Thank the pattern-finding capabilities of machine learning.
While it is funny to think about pro-life conservatives grappling over aborting gay embryos/babies, gene editing may offer them an option that they are willing to stomach. Many other parents may readily choose to skip the ~2% of "aberrant" embryos even if they aren't wildly anti-gay elsewhere in life. Because embryo selection or gene editing is a literally life-altering decision that they will probably hide from everyone else anyway - including the kid(s).
If epigenetic factors are to blame for homosexuality instead of genetics, it might be a little more complicated. But I doubt that the "syndrome" will go "uncured" forever.
So jmorris has it about right. LGBT organizations will probably have strong feelings on this subject. If they don't become pro-life, they will at least try to legislate away designer babies. And if that happens, parents will just go to China, South America, Sudan, or wherever has the loosest standards in order to get the procedures done. The whole thing will look a bit like the cochlear implant debate [time.com], only turbocharged.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday September 12 2017, @02:19AM (3 children)
By around adulthood I came to the conclusion that, to put it informally, "haters gonna hate." Even as a child I could tell most people were more full of shit than a bloating septic tank in August. But thanks for second-guessing me! That TOTALLY doesn't get old!
And no, J-Mo does not have it right, because he's just sitting here reveling in the idea of people, any people, suffering. There's no depth, no consideration, no humanity to it; the man is a stone-cold psychopath and he delights in others' pain. Peruse his post history for proof.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday September 12 2017, @03:01AM
Who's hating on whom? All I said is that you or anyone else could have had a moment in their vulnerable teenage years where they could be swayed by a sexual orientation "cure". A lot of people question their identity or orientation early in life. And it's entirely relevant to the topic: cures or prevention of homosexuality. Facial gaydar today, genetic screening tomorrow.
I'd rather respond to the actual ideas in the comment, which I did in part, not the user's entire posting history and a psychological profile.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Mykl on Tuesday September 12 2017, @03:09AM (1 child)
Azuma, I don't think that jmorris (in this particular instance) was actively wishing pain and suffering on anyone. That honor falls to you in this thread.
He was simply speculating on the mental gymnastics that may be required of some people when they encounter a position that may make them hypocrites. I can absolutely see a scenario where someone is OK with aborting a baby with a particular gene (Down Syndrome), yet is not OK with aborting a baby with another particular gene ('likely gay').
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday September 12 2017, @10:05AM
Yeaaaah, no, sorry, but when someone gleefully posts about people "getting triggered," filling their diapers, etc, that's wishing pain on them, and for the express purpose of enjoying it. Again, read the man's post history; this is not a well-socialized human being we're dealing with. I don't know where this zero-sum or worse view of humanity he has comes from, and at this point I don't care anymore.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 4, Informative) by Phoenix666 on Monday September 11 2017, @09:51PM
Uhh, I don't know if you know this but that part isn't so unappealing to people who are straight males in this lifetime.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday September 11 2017, @09:08PM
Isn't the popular theory that epigenetics is the cause of the gay?
Another angle is that an early intervention (prenatal or during infancy) rather than abortion could influence brain development and prevent homosexuality. A so-called cure for gayness. That's what happens down the line when you pin your identity on biological factors "out of your control".
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]