Your most controversial view?

And as I said, some disease may carry an evolutionary benefit (like cystic fibrosis and sickle-cell anaemia).


Posted from TSR Mobile

Homophobic attitudes and bigoted views should be OUTLAWED!

#It's2015

By your logic, you can call anything a disease. Android users have a disease because they get less sex than iPhone users. They may have the side-effect of owning a better device, but clearly they've got a disease because their reproductive rates have been compromised.

Well yes, the key is where to draw the line between normal variation and abnormality. I edited my post, see point about Asperger's syndrome.
Posted from TSR Mobile

But why? They're not all **** drivers. In fact, I've come across much worse younger drivers.

Homophobia is pathological.

But unless they're in a braindead state (cf the Terri Schiavo case), they're still rational beings capable of thought and contributing via other means?

So you're like me, who has hardly any empathy whatsoever.

Homophobia is pathological.

Firstly, nobody has established a definitive cause for either disorder (I'd definitely be interested in your sources for ASD because I'd never heard of that before) and secondly, so what? I'm sure if you investigated lots of human factors that you could come up with some obscure cause. We could argue that white skin is a disability because it makes you more vulnerable to skin cancer.

HS2 is more likely to imake the other major cities a satellite for London, benefiting London much more than the major cities.

What other means would that be?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathizing%E2%80%93systemizing_theory#Fetal_testosterone

(Wikipedia, I know, but it's a well-referenced article)

And you're arguing that white skin is a risk factor and not a disability in itself. Of course it's not a significant one in modern times and in Europe. But in the past in Africa, having white skin may be such a significant risk factor that it would be considered as a disease.


Posted from TSR Mobile

But we don't need everyone entering uni and coming out with a degree. And uni isn't for everyone.

The paper is on a correlation between fetal testosterone and Baron-Cohen's "Empathy Quotient". This is a very contentious area of work and there are a lot of people who completely disagree with this. I definitely wouldn't call that an indisputable fact.

Global warming is entirely natural and not man made. Those that say it is man made have been manipulated through the education system to believe that is the case with the content of lessons pushing a man made global warming agenda.

From NASA's Earth Observatory:
"As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming."

It's more of the "don't do to someone what you are punishing them for" argument. Although that doesn't mean excuse the crime

Global warming is entirely natural and not man made. Those that say it is man made have been manipulated through the education system to believe that is the case with the content of lessons pushing a man made global warming agenda.

Ok there isn't a well-defined causal relationship, but there is somewhat of a link. In the same way, there isn't a well-defined causal relationship between low fetal testosterone and male homosexuality (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3296090/), but it does have a role. What I'm trying to make out of this is that both these 'conditions' result in changes away from normal behaviour that disrupt normal function. How can one be called a disorder and another one not?


Posted from TSR Mobile

Global warming is entirely natural and not man made. Those that say it is man made have been manipulated through the education system to believe that is the case with the content of lessons pushing a man made global warming agenda.