Freud has been proven wrong for quite a while, but even so, how can you jump from this:
To this:
What you quoted basically says that Freud's theory is that there is psychic energy that cannot be destroyed, merely transferred depending on what the mind is doing. That has NOTHING to do with with what you said.
And then you jump from this:
To this
First off, let's forget that Freud was completely wrong. Second, where did you get the word "primeval"? That wasn't in there at all. You added it. Thirdly, you got his wrong hypothesis wrong! The libido can be controlled by conscious thought! It says so it the first quote you posted:
I get it from the Oxford Dictionaries.
primeval
of the earliest time in history: mile after mile of primeval forest
(of emotion or behaviour) strongly instinctive and unreasoning: a primeval desire1
Where it affirms that it can be consciously controlled?
This energy fueled the thought processes, perception, imagination, memory, and sexual urges.2
Fueled is not equivalent of
controlled.
Fuel
a thing that sustains or inflames passion, argument, or other intense emotion: the remuneration packages will add fuel to the debate about top-level rewards1
Forth, where the hell did you get "libido can also
be fixed in a special object and it will persist during the entire life of an
individual"? Again, you missing your own first quote completely when it says that the libido is simply psychic energy that gets transferred depending on what the mind is doing.
A characteristic of the libido which is important in life is its mobility, the facility with which it passes from one object to another. This must be contrasted with the fixation of the libido to particular objects, which often persists throughout life. (Sigmund Freud: An Outline of Psychoanalysis, 1938.)3
I did not miss the first quote. It is correct and it do not contradict any another quote.
Also, you are basing this entire stance on a hypothesis is that has been wrong, and further, have completely got the wrong conclusions from a hypnotesis that has been wrong for a years!
.....poison, or snake oil?
All right. What better theory do you have to support your
basic attraction example?
Poison.
Really? So we have a universal time limit to find scientific discoveries. If in ten years we don't prove something, give up.
Sorry, science doesn't have a time limit. Oh, wait. Let me rephrase that:
Sorry, science doesn't have a natural time limit.
Yes, really.
Let's look at what you said:
and then in the next paragraph:
Looks like one little gene in one little fruit fly did something to them. I'll agree that it's not a definitive proof that one gene can influence human sexual orientation, but it does show that one gene can influence sexual behavior. If one gene can do that, think of what a combination of genes can do. Maybe a combination of genes that haven't been altered can cause influence in human sexual behavior. They'd have to study more and see how a group of genes (and maybe other factors) can influence human sexual orientation.
There it is a gene in the Drosophila Melanogaster. It has nothing to do with the Homo Sapiens genetic code.
Oh wait. Those findings came out a few years ago. They've only got now...what...five more years to research this?
'Sides, if an altered gene made a fruit fly go after members of their own sex, that means the flies had no choice, did they?
Yes, the flies did not have choices inside a vial of laboratory.
Do you like to compare the instinct of a fly with the intellect of a human?
Further, you do know that altered genes, in other words, mutations, are natural. They have to mutate (or alter) in order for evolution to work.
In another words, artificial intervention.
The research did not present any conclusion about the evolutionary process of the specie and its gene mutation.
A) You missed my point completely. I was giving an example of scientific research that took hundreds of years to prove. According to your rules, we should've given up looking for planets outside our solar system decades ago.
and
B) You are being a hypocrite. You yourself tried to use math to show that homosexuality is not natural.
Try to use numbers in language de-construction is not equivalent to compare astronomy with failed researches of homosexual behaviour.
Behavior, no, I'll go along with that. Behavior can change. But basic desires never ever changes.
If a person had a
basic desire for children during its childhood, that person will be attracted to children forever?
You know, I didn't agree that it was exclusively brain placisty. That's your view, and it hasn't been proven that it is. My view is that it's a culmination of several factors. You are resting your view on one thing only and that hasn't been proven.
What has not been proven? Brain plasticity?
Maybe a person who was homosexual has started behaving heterosexually. That doesn't mean that person's basic desires changed, it only means that the person is acting in accordance to a behavior that is preferable to that person (whatever the reasons are), but it does not change the basic desire for the same gender.
Brain plasticity proves that behaviour can change.
The behaviour is the reflection of a person's desires.
You say that looking at animals performing homosexual behavior does not prove that the animal has a sexual desire for the same gender. Fine. I'll go along with that provided that you have to admit that you cannot prove that a homosexual person, doing heterosexual behavior after some kind of treatment, does not still have a sexual desire for the same gender.
I will not admit anything under your terms.
Oh sure, they may claim that they are heterosexual now. But do you really know that they are or are they claiming that because their desire to fit in or whatever is so strong that they are lieing to themselves and the world How do you know?
How do I know what?
Hey, if you can't prove that two animals having homosexual sex don't really desire the same gender, you can't prove that two humans having heterosexual sex don't really have desire for the opposite gender either.
Your conclusion is fallacious because you are comparing
animals instincts with
human emotions.
Besides:
"Because we know that performance on these cognitive tests depends on the integrity of specific brain regions, the differences implicate robust differences between the brains of homosexual and heterosexual men and women and suggest that hormonal factors early in development (probably during the 1st trimester of pregnancy) produce these differences." - Interview, Irish Examiner, Mar. 25, 2003 -Qazi Rahman, PhD
What every neuroscientist knows: the brain changes with its use.
The hormonal factors are already refuted:
The maternal immune hypothesis (MIH) argues same sex attraction (SSA) results from maternal immune attack on fetal male-specific brain structures and involves the previous biological influence of elder brothers. One of the surveys supporting this is shown to be based on an unsuitable sample and to contain some strong contrary evidence. The hypothesis relies on at least four speculative ideas and there is evidence against each.4
"There is no one 'gay' gene. Sexual orientation is a complex trait, so it's not surprising that we found several DNA regions involved in its expression.
Our best guess is that multiple genes, potentially interacting with environmental influences, explain differences in sexual orientation.
Our study helps to establish that genes play an important role in determining whether a man is gay or heterosexual." - Jan. 27, 2005 - Brian S. Mustanski, PhD
What is your guess? My guess is that homosexual genes do not exist.
I'll post the reference later.
Please, a reference to anyone read and verify the methodology of the research.
But she's attracted to men, more often would be with men. So is she bi or slightly bi or a little bi or...?
I do not know. It is your girlfriend. Ask her.
So if touch the male with the intention of turning on my girl more, which in turn turns me on more, then...? But if it's to help the guy stay aroused, so that he continues to do what he's doing to my girl, which turns me on more, then it's...?
Appears that you are a voyeuristic, not a homosexual.
Nope. It has been shown that Freud was wrong. There is no such thing, except for Freud's wrong hypothesis, as "libido oriented".
All right. Freud was wrong. Which better scientific model you have to support your
basic attraction hypothesis?
....basic attraction, huh?
No.
I would have to eat the bananas to prevent starving of course, that doesn't mean I'm going to actually like them. I will tell everyone around, though, that I love bananas because they keep you fit, they have potassium, they are good in foods like...banana bread and sing it's praises.
But I would not ever enjoy them. Given the chance to get my hands on some grapes, I'd drop the bananas in heartbeat.
What if a person which do not like to eat bananas, it like grapes?
A person which do not like to eat bananas (sexual desire) is equivalent to an asexual. But an asexual have the absence of sexual desire. That means the person do not practise sex at all (to eat bananas). It not like to eat bananas (sexual desire) at all, but it like grapes (?). What the grapes mean?
What would be the another sexual desire of a person which do not have a sexual desire at all?
If they want to survive, they'd do what I said above. If they'd rather die, then they'd stave to death.
The point is that the behavior may change, I may grow to tolerate bananas, but I would never ever desire them. My basic likes do not include bananas, even if there was nothing else.
So
basic likes include more than just one option?
In your analogy,
hunger is equivalent to
sexual desire or
sexual orientation?
Pre-natal fluids were already refuted.
No, you just dismissed it without a dispute.
Dispute:
The maternal immune hypothesis (MIH) argues same sex attraction (SSA) results from maternal immune attack on fetal male-specific brain structures and involves the previous biological influence of elder brothers. One of the surveys supporting this is shown to be based on an unsuitable sample and to contain some strong contrary evidence. The hypothesis relies on at least four speculative ideas and there is evidence against each.4
Neurons are wired after birth.
That's wrong.
Neurons are wired after birth is wrong? Are you affirming that neurons are not wired after birth?
I disagree with you.
A brain is not a computer. The brain begins working long before it is finished. And the same processes that wire the brain before birth also drive the very rapid growth of learning that occurs immediately after birth. At birth, a baby’s brain contains 100 billion neurons, roughly as many nerve cells as there are stars in the Milky Way. Before birth, the brain produces trillions more neurons and “synapses” (connections between the brain cells) than needed. During the first years of life, the brain undergoes a series of extraordinary changes. Then, through a process that resembles Darwinian competition, the brain eliminates connections that are seldom or never used.5
I did not understand your contradiction:
Neurons are wired during birth as well.
They just don't instantly connect when a baby is born.
So
neurons are wired during birth but
don't instantly connect when a baby is born?
No combinations of genes exist for human sexual behaviour.
That statement hasn't been proven.
Not also the negative statement. The burden of proof stay on the hypothesis theorized: combinations of genes exist for human sexual behaviour?
If has not been proven true, it do not exist.
It has been proven true?
The environmental factors are the only explanation with a solid scientific base.
That statement hasn't been proven either.
Brain plasticity have solid scientific bases in neurology.
The last three statements are just assertions. Nothing in the last three statements, especially since the first one is out and out wrong, has no conclusive evidence to it.
Where are yours conclusive
evidences?
References:
1 Oxford Dictionaries - http://oxforddictionaries.com/
2 The Libido, or Psychic Energy, in Freud - http://www.victorianweb.org/science/freud/libido.html
3 Sigmund Freud - Life and Work - http://www.freudfile.org/psychoanalysis/libido.html
4 An Antiboy Antibody? Re-examination Of The Maternal Immune Hypothesis - http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=1359088
5 Brain Development - http://extension.umaine.edu/publications/4356e/
