tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post1035684912519473626..comments2024-03-22T08:04:05.869-07:00Comments on 魚之樂: 這是哪門子的回應?--- 評關啟文教授對周一嶽的回應Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger111125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-21265761523952872432014-01-14T04:52:05.892-08:002014-01-14T04:52:05.892-08:00You just said that a kid can have "sexual des...You just said that a kid can have "sexual desire". That is a lie.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-28201452718059447452014-01-13T22:56:15.637-08:002014-01-13T22:56:15.637-08:00Re: 【匿名1/13/2014 9:13 下午】
If “性取向Sexual orientati...Re: 【匿名1/13/2014 9:13 下午】<br /><br />If “性取向Sexual orientation” is the same of “sexual desire”, then why didn't say “sexual desire” and say "Sexual orientation”?<br /><br />//So if when I was a kid, I loved to play with animals, would I grow up to become "戀獸" with sexual desire? Obviously NO.<br />//<br />So if you were a kid and loved to play with animals that's "with sexual desire", then you would become "戀獸";<br />However, if you loved to play with animals was "without sexual desire", then you would not become "戀獸".<br /><br />我相信兒童基本上不會區分animals是雌性還是雄性,therefore “loved to play with animals”根本與“sexual desire”無關,因此你的這個比喻完全是荒謬的fallacy。<br /><br />“Thus so far you have been wasting everybody's time to listen to your preaching of lies.”神洲http://gmue2008.mysinablog.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-44932817037486413732014-01-13T21:13:59.410-08:002014-01-13T21:13:59.410-08:00A lie is a lie is a lie. You have practically defi...A lie is a lie is a lie. You have practically defined your own term "性取向", and during discussion keep changing targets. <br /><br />So if when I was a kid, I loved to play with animals, would I grow up to become "戀獸" with sexual desire? Obviously NO.<br /><br />Thus so far you have been wasting everybody's time to listen to your preaching of lies.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-29244922426796477792014-01-13T13:12:21.856-08:002014-01-13T13:12:21.856-08:00Re: 【匿名1/13/2014 12:19 下午】
//Obviously you don...Re: 【匿名1/13/2014 12:19 下午】<br /><br />//Obviously you don't read carefully and you don't think what other people think before making comments, forcing people to explain and re-explain things. //<br />你這些說話用來批評你自己恐怕是最合適不過了。我說「我記得入讀幼稚園時就已經覺得有異性的性取向,....」,而你竟然可以比喻成“if you had sexual desire to engage in intercourse with another person in your "幼稚園" year....”?<br /><br />你把“性取向sexual orientation”理解為“sexual desire”?還要“to engage in intercourse with another person in your "幼稚園" year”?<br /><br />你這樣做是不是“ It is as if you have made up your mind in what is to appear on the text even before actually seeing the actual words. Therefore your major actions have been creating more and more logic loops and subplots, rather than trying to narrow the gaps between people of different opinions. Plus your "generic" statements that don't necessarily happen in real life.”???<br /><br />正如你自己所講“ So don't waste my time.”<br /><br />你自己去看吧:<br />http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/guidelines.aspx<br /><br />神洲http://gmue2008.mysinablog.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-56179894544878045212014-01-13T12:19:05.165-08:002014-01-13T12:19:05.165-08:00神洲,
Obviously you don't read carefully and yo...神洲,<br /><br />Obviously you don't read carefully and you don't think what other people think before making comments, forcing people to explain and re-explain things. i.e. It is as if you have made up your mind in what is to appear on the text even before actually seeing the actual words. Therefore your major actions have been creating more and more logic loops and subplots, rather than trying to narrow the gaps between people of different opinions. Plus your "generic" statements that don't necessarily happen in real life.<br /><br />Obviously you don't have 1st hand knowledge to show me new and interesting thoughts or evidence, I don't understand why you keep on a dying thread of discussions. <br /><br />It would be wonderful if you had sexual desire to engage in intercourse with another person in your "幼稚園" year, then that "might" be used as evidence to prove that your "性取向" could really be identifiable in "幼稚園" year. (I use the word "might" because I cannot exclude the chance that you might have grown up in a very unethical family.) Otherwise, your term "性取向" must carry a very different meaning than mine. <br /><br />And if homosexual and bisexual people's "性取向" is the same as when they were in "幼稚園" year, i.e. without any sexual desire for intercourse and without any intercourse involved, that they would get my strong support. Otherwise, please show me more new & interesting evidence to convince me that their "性取向" was genes- or hormone-driven, then we may continue the discussion from there.<br /><br />The contents of your replies have been way out of the topic of this blog post.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-19513354406708793702014-01-13T11:12:50.971-08:002014-01-13T11:12:50.971-08:00Re: 【匿名1/12/2014 9:49 下午】
你試圖用//some scientist(s)...Re: 【匿名1/12/2014 9:49 下午】<br /><br />你試圖用//some scientist(s) "說謊"//來否定其他研究人員或醫生的研究結果,這應該也是一種“fallacy"吧?<br /><br />你擔心或認為“if he/she were artificially & experimentally put to grow up in a uni-sex environment”會出現 "性別認知障礙",<br />有沒有人做過這樣的試驗我不知道,但可以設想:<br /><br />一群猴子,有雄性也有雌性“put to grow up”在一起生活,它們沒有衣著打扮,沒有任何可分辨雌雄的飾物,也沒有可分別性別的名字或稱呼,也沒有分開“男/女洗手間”,可以說,所有environment都是uni-sex的;<br /><br />你認為那群猴子會出現 "性別認知障礙"嗎?會搞不清雌雄而同性交配嗎?<br /><br />由此可以想像,如果那群猴子真的有猴子出現“同性交配”的話,那麼肯定是與uni-sex environment無關,而是由那隻猴子本身的“性取向”所決定的,而不是因為外部環境的uni-sex environment而改變或影響了猴子的性取向。<br /><br />//when did you know your "性取向"? //<br />我的性取向不是同性戀者,也覺得同性行為“核突”,我只是認為不應該因為性取向不同而歧視他/她們,就算同性性取向是精神病,那對病人也不應該歧視吧?<br /><br />//From my 1st-hand personal experience, I wasn't aware of any major "性取向" alert till teenage time. And that is "hormone" time.Then how come some people could argue that they knew their "性取向" since the time they could remember? If it is hormone at play, then the so-called "性取向" could also flip to a different direction at different time. (Should our laws cater for such flip-flop behaviors due to hormone-driven mechanism? Should our laws be cater for people who wants to 變性.變性.再變性?//<br /><br />可能你的記憶力不太好,teenage time之前的事忘記了。<br />我記得入讀幼稚園時就已經覺得有異性的性取向,當然那時不知道那些名稱,但知道不是對同性感興趣。<br />所以我覺得性取向很大可能是先天的,當然也不排除有人天生會是“中性”心理,會有你所說的“flip-flop”可能。<br /><br />“變性.變性.再變性”有些像“整容.整容.再整容”那樣,但做變性手術之前我相信醫生會比整容有更加嚴格的評估,不會輕易給你做手術的。<br /><br />我當然不會要求你同意我的想法,就如不應該強迫性取向不同的人硬要改變性取向一樣,我只是認為不應該以宗教的原因去歧視其他/她人罷了。<br /><br />神洲http://gmue2008.mysinablog.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-56909703732770688882014-01-12T21:49:07.625-08:002014-01-12T21:49:07.625-08:00神洲,
Your mentioning of "這是一種「攻其一點,否定全盤」的狡辯術...神洲, <br /><br />Your mentioning of "這是一種「攻其一點,否定全盤」的狡辯術" in a discussion is already a logical fallacy. (Remember the Korean cloning scandal? & Go check the long list of logical fallacies.)<br /><br />Your throwing a so-called "authority paper/book" into a discussion could have committed a logical fallacy. (I don't have as much time as you on lingering on issues that you don't understand. Or reading any thick article to point out logical problems for you. Thus I cannot conclude if you have committed another logical fallacy. Obviously you have the same set of [your so-called] "evidences" always in front of you to throw into every discussions relating to homosexuality across the internet, as you are so well-prepared to present your "evidence".)<br /><br />"性別認知障礙", "異裝癖" and "性取向" are three separate terms. It is you who got them mixed to create confusion.<br /><br />If one said to have "性別認知障礙", and yet if he/she were artificially & experimentally put to grow up in a uni-sex environment, do you think such person would know the difference of sexes? Do you think such person would feel not belonging to his/her current body but a body of an opposite sex? So obviously something / logic is wrong here. One possibility is that someone could be lying.<br /><br />About "性取向", when did you know your "性取向"? What is your current "性取向"? (I guess you should "伸利" if you want to continue such meaningless way of "discussions".)<br /><br />From my 1st-hand personal experience, I wasn't aware of any major "性取向" alert till teenage time. And that is "hormone" time.Then how come some people could argue that they knew their "性取向" since the time they could remember? If it is hormone at play, then the so-called "性取向" could also flip to a different direction at different time. (Should our laws cater for such flip-flop behaviors due to hormone-driven mechanism? Should our laws be cater for people who wants to 變性.變性.再變性? These are questions that our law systems should get public consensus, but not by the knowledge and experience of a handful of judges, as no one should have any of these kinds of experience before. Yet obviously the general public hasn't been given all information, and our law system like to "play God" and bypass public consensus.) So obviously someone is lying, or some logic is wrong, and something isn't right.<br /><br />Obviously you want me to agree with you on this matter. But sorry, you simply don't have convincing evidence yet. So don't waste my time.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-76046519130084124602014-01-12T16:49:06.683-08:002014-01-12T16:49:06.683-08:00神洲,
你好!謝謝回覆。
關於「普世價值」一點可能有點誤會。我說的「普世性」,正確一點應是「全球...神洲,<br /><br />你好!謝謝回覆。<br /><br />關於「普世價值」一點可能有點誤會。我說的「普世性」,正確一點應是「全球性」。如果這份立場書的對象是全球性的話,第一,似乎應是世衛本部發出,而不是轄下某地區辦公室;第二,立場書引用的是美洲條約,似乎也顯示出立場書的地區適用性;第三,立場書內提到的不人道治療方法早已為先進國家/地區所棄。所以,我的結論是,這份立場書的呼籲對象應主要是美洲某些同性戀仍是不合法的國家,而非全球性。<br /><br />為何我會留意這份泛美洲的立場書呢?因為香港有同運組織不斷拿這些專業組織的立場書/聲明打壓自願尋求輔導離開同性戀生活的同性戀者及提供輔導的專業人士。但如果大家留意,各專業團體(包括這份泛美洲立場書)所持的理據全都指向2009年APA出的那份Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation報告。(http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic-response.pdf)然而,專業團體都只片面引述報告的內容便全盤否定reparative therapy,請聽受打壓的康醫生解釋,他說的正是APA 2009年那份報告:<br /><br />//康醫生指出,美國心理學協會(APA)的立場已經改變,首先,她不再全然否定“Sexual Orientation Change Effort” (SOCE)的有效性,只說是“unlikely to be successful”,也不再說是必然有害,而是“involve some risk of harm”;其次,APA承認了有一群人,因為強烈保守及宗教背景,而尋求SOCE的幫助;還有第三點:<br /><br />「最重要的是,他們鼓勵成員,提供一種合宜和肯定性的介入:appropriate affirmative intervention,不再提gay affirmative。……後面說得很清楚:“without imposing a specific sexual orientation and identity outcome”, 很明顯,APA的立場已經比之前開放了,開始尊重後同的人權,即是他們自決和尋求治療的權利。我歡迎APA與時並進的改變。我認為SOCE縱使有風險,我們可坦誠告訴尋求改變者有甚麼風險、成功率及失敗率有多高,讓他們自己決定。……如果有個癌症治療方法有百分之十至二十的機會可以幫到你,我可以馬上說機會太少,副作用可能好多,所以不容許你選擇這種治療方式嗎?這樣不是沒有尊重那人的人權嗎?我覺得APA在尊重人權和宗教自由上已有進步,但很可惜有些組織仍然沿用全盤排斥後同的進路。其實同性戀及性別認同等課題已經很政治化,任何立場與政治正確的立場不同,也會遭受同運的攻擊,而醫療人員、輔導員等都已經受到政治干預,不再是客觀的醫學或心理學課題。如果要發出不同的聲音,那些人會面對巨大壓力。」//<br />(http://kwankaiman.blogspot.hk/2013/07/blog-post.html)<br /><br />康醫生所說的,正與之前Cummings的證詞內容不謀而合。同運的議題已變得非常政治化,已不是單純的科學專業。試想想,在加州,剛剛生效,向18歲以下青少年提供reparative therapy改變性傾向的專業輔導是犯法的,縱使是自願或家長要求;但十一、二歲的年紀卻要「專重」他們有自決的權利做改變性別的手術!!這些決定背後根據的,不就是所謂的「專業意見」嗎?我真不願見香港步向「常識已死」的後塵。<br />Shannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-82864880765791896432014-01-12T14:31:03.264-08:002014-01-12T14:31:03.264-08:00Re: 【匿名1/11/2014 10:15 下午】
//It is proven that so...Re: 【匿名1/11/2014 10:15 下午】<br /><br />//It is proven that some scientist(s) "說謊"....//<br />這是一種「攻其一點,否定全盤」的狡辯術,你不妨指出WHO泛美機構的文件有哪些地方是"說謊"?<br /><br />//I already said that "(記憶中)曾有心理案例說男當事人自少愛穿女裝,有"性別認知障礙"。......//<br />你混淆了異裝癖與性取向這兩個不同問題。<br />"性別認知障礙"是一個混淆的說法:如果是指生理上的性別(生殖器官)與心理性別不一樣的話,這就往往不是“認知”問題而是性取向的問題。<br /><br />而異裝癖通常是指那些的變裝不是基於對自己生殖性別的不認同,而是純粹迷戀該等服飾之功能以求達到滿足自身性欲幻想之目的,這類異裝癖並沒有你所說的所謂"性別認知障礙";<br /><br />而你所說的“男當事人自少愛穿女裝”則很有可能不是異裝癖問題,而是他很可能認為自己的心理性別和他的生理性別(生殖器)不一樣,這不是通常所指的“異裝癖”,而是他的性取向導致了他尋求變裝而不是"性別認知障礙"。<br /><br />神洲http://gmue2008.mysinablog.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-57028033769456329642014-01-12T10:59:29.293-08:002014-01-12T10:59:29.293-08:00Shan,
同性戀是否可以改變大概不能夠一概而論,相信是因人而異的。因為不排除有些人的性取向會有「...Shan,<br /><br />同性戀是否可以改變大概不能夠一概而論,相信是因人而異的。因為不排除有些人的性取向會有「顯性」與「隱性」兩者同時存在(例如有的男同或女同,對異性未必堅決抗拒或有某程度的接受),這一類的人有可能通過心理誘導/治療,會使「隱性性取向」變為「顯性性取向」,「顯性性取向」變為「隱性性取向」,從而出現性取向的改變。但並不代表所有同性戀者都具有這種特性。<br /><br />無論如何,正如閣下所說:「......但大前提應是尊重個人自決吧」。<br />重要的是社會不應該歧視他/她們。<br /><br />泛美特別是北美相比於亞洲或中東等地相信是一個比較更開明或開放的社會,不那麼諱忌公開討論/探討性取向問題,所以WHO的泛美機構會公開發表其見解。是不是所謂「普世價值」相信乃是見仁見智,就如人權自由民主等,相信在某些國家或地區例如北韓,也不會被視為「普世價值」一樣。<br /><br /><br />神洲http://gmue2008.mysinablog.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-61103331771656035442014-01-11T22:15:20.000-08:002014-01-11T22:15:20.000-08:00Re: 神洲
抱歉沒仔細閱讀上文,只是剛見閣下列出這份世衛泛美洲地區辦公室的立場書,也來「八一八(...Re: 神洲<br /><br />抱歉沒仔細閱讀上文,只是剛見閣下列出這份世衛泛美洲地區辦公室的立場書,也來「八一八(掛)」。<br /><br />立場書的對象似乎是針對泛美洲地區社會而發出的。首先,假若立場書的對象是普世性的,應由世衛總部發出,而不是豁下某個地區辦公室;第二,立場書簡介的第三段提到:<br /><br />「證據顯示,在一些美洲國家,有人透過所謂的『診所』或私人『治療師』,持續地去宣揚一種旨在『治療』非異性戀性傾向,而被稱為『性向修復療法』或『性向轉換療法』的服務。令人憂慮的是,這些服務不僅在公眾關注的領域外提供,而更是透過隱藏的方式下提供。它們代表著無法解釋的做法,而本著專業道德精神,以及受地方性和普世性條例和公約所保障的人權原則,如《美洲人權公約》和它的《附加議定書 (聖薩爾瓦多議定書)》,應予以譴責和受到相應的制裁。」<br /><br />簡介只提到美洲國家,所援引的亦是美洲條約,顯示了立場書的地區性;再加上立場書內提及的治療方法早已為已發展地區所棄,有理由相信,這份立場書是針對泛美地區,那些仍保留對同性戀者不人道的治療方法的地區而發出的。立場書內又提到一些非自願接受更正治療的青年人作證時指出:<br /><br />「受害人被軟禁和被剝奪他們的自由,有時甚至會被隔離長達數個月。在這些見證詞中,包含了對有辱人格的待遇﹑極端羞辱﹑肢體暴力﹑電擊或催吐劑性厭惡性反射條件療法﹑以及甚至性騷擾﹑和尤其發生在女同性戀例子中的『修復性強姦』的描述。這類療程不僅侵犯了受害人的尊嚴和人權,而且事實是這類療程的『治療』效果是零,或者甚至有反效果。」<br /><br />十分明顯,這不是香港或大部份先進國家的情況。雖然主流的專業團體均不主張修正治療,但他們亦強調要尊重個人自決的意願。<br /><br />以下提到一位美國心理學會(American Psychological Association, APA)前會長上年在法庭宣誓作證,他不單指出性傾向可以改變,更批評性傾向的心理治療及輔導已經變得高度政治化;而且,將改變性傾向的治療,定性為「不道德」的做法,是侵犯了求助者的選擇權,並干預當事人的治療方向。<br /><br />上年5月,著名心理學家,前美國心理學會(APA)會長康明斯(Nicholas Cummings)向美國新澤西州的最高法院提交宣誓書(affidavit)(http://www.consciencedefense.org/contents/media/Nicholas_Cummings_Declaration.pdf),指出他和其同事在任職的南加州凱薩醫院(Kaiser Permanente),治療超過一萬八千名同性戀者。在這些求助者之中,部分尋求性傾向的改變,康明斯和其同事見證數百名人士成功改變性傾向。康明斯在2003年獲得美國心理學基金金獎,這是心理學實踐方面的終身成就獎。他一直為同性戀者爭取人權,並在1973年有份參與將同性戀剔除在精神病列之外;不過,他認為同性戀是可以改變的,並且病人有權自決接受改變治療。<br /><br />康明斯作證時指出:在今日,性傾向的心理治療及輔導已經變得高度政治化,同性戀運動成功遊說公眾相信同性戀是天生及不能改變(證詞第25段,下同)。令到康明斯感到沮喪的是,某些具有規模的精神科團體,包括美國心理學會在內,未有反駁這種沒有科學證據支持的說法。不過,在不斷出現的證據下,美國心理學會似乎有軟化原本立場的跡象(26)。<br /><br />他又批評將改變性傾向的治療,定性為「不道德」的做法,是侵犯了求助者的選擇權,並干預當事人的治療方向。(28)對於一些專業團體,例如美國心理學會,阻止求助者尋求性傾向改變,也是「不道德」的。(29)<br /><br />康明斯進一步指出,抨擊向已得到(有關治療的)充分資訊的求助者提供性傾向改變治療的專業人士為欺詐並不正確。這種批評技倆只會抹黑專業人士及侮辱求助者。同性戀者尋求性傾向的改變,不應受到政治議程的阻止,他們有權選擇決定怎樣。(30)<br /><br />總結而言,強迫人改變性傾向是不道德的,而且,經驗顯示,改變不容易(但非不可能,要看個別人士的意願與意志),但大前提應是尊重個人自決吧。<br />Shannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-61939573627155872642014-01-11T22:15:04.745-08:002014-01-11T22:15:04.745-08:00You are biased and is dragging the topics into you...You are biased and is dragging the topics into your direction serving your purpose instead of seeking the truth. <br /><br />It is proven that some scientist(s) "說謊" when writing academic articles for a purpose. On the other side, when subjects in an experiment "說謊", even truly "professional" professionals could be misinformed and misled. Then the resulting reports would also be misleading.<br /><br />I already said that "(記憶中)曾有心理案例說男當事人自少愛穿女裝,有"性別認知障礙"。試問若該男子若從未教之何為男裝、何為女裝,又或者男、女裝都是同式同款,又或是他是盲的,又如何會有"性別認知障礙"?所以該當事人的"性別認知障礙"一定是後天形成。或受衣料顏色、款式影響,或受其他人的穿衣飾而偏向喜歡女裝。"<br /><br />This shows that someone (the examiner or the subject) isn't doing a good job in seeking (or providing) the truth in locating the source of "性別認知障礙" in an unbiased manner.<br /><br />You have been wasting time by continuing a thread which you do not present any new information.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-34840893163553257862014-01-11T21:23:50.429-08:002014-01-11T21:23:50.429-08:00謝謝王教授留言,王教授所言甚是。
其實反對方也有難處,傳媒文化人是左翼居多,反對方的聲音很難傳出去...謝謝王教授留言,王教授所言甚是。<br /><br />其實反對方也有難處,傳媒文化人是左翼居多,反對方的聲音很難傳出去,有時反對方向報章投稿,聞說是遭「投籃」的多。而且受篇幅所限,只能蜻蜒點水,點到即止。像關教授十多年前已開始著述反對性傾向歧視立法的理由,可惜到今天,真正了解他論點的人不多。<br /><br />根據現有的四條歧視法,香港預期中的性傾向歧視法會是很辣的平等法,已包括類似外國煽動仇恨罪的中傷罪及嚴重中傷罪,還包括使人感到被冒犯已可觸犯的騷擾罪。其實是一條透過懲罰強制不能差別對待同性戀者而迫使市民認同同性戀的「惡法」,嚴重影響不認同同性戀人士的基本自由,而且影響深遠。在一個民主社會,要限制社會人士自由來立一條保護某特定群組的法例必須有充份理據,同性戀者受歧視的情況已嚴重到有必要立一條限制別人自由、逼使人認同同性戀的法例來保護嗎?可是,香港社會仍欠缺有關討論──總之現在同性戀者有被歧視,一定要立歧視法,反對的都是歧視人的混蛋!感性支持代替理性討論,似乎並非香港之福。<br /><br />關於性傾向歧視法欠缺法理基礎及社會討論,若王教授或其他網友有興趣,請參張達明律師的文章:〈探討性傾向歧視法例的法理基礎〉http://news.sina.com.hk/news/20130522/-6-2974907/1.html<br /><br />另一方面,關教授是一位認真的學者,多年來已著書立說解釋他反對立SODO的理據,分別是《是非曲直──對人權、同性戀的倫理反思》及刊於《平權?霸權?審視同性戀議題》的文章。遺憾的是,罵他的人不少,卻暫未見有人就著當中論點正式回應。另外,關教授寫了五萬字論證同性婚姻不是人權,刊於他的網誌:http://kwankaiman.blogspot.hk/2012/11/blog-post_22.html<br />也希望與對真理有堅持、執著的人切磋討教。<br />Shannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-68893948275066392682014-01-11T20:49:32.984-08:002014-01-11T20:49:32.984-08:00如果你不是醫生,又不是研究人員,你當然不會知道醫生或研究人員怎樣作出判斷。即如你身體不適去看醫生,醫...如果你不是醫生,又不是研究人員,你當然不會知道醫生或研究人員怎樣作出判斷。即如你身體不適去看醫生,醫生經檢查/檢驗後說你是患了什麼病,你同樣也可以說或懷疑那是醫生的「主觀意見」,你也可以用同樣理由不相信所有醫生。<br />這類病人可能常見於精神科,他們通常可能會反指醫生有病。<br /><br /><br />神洲http://gmue2008.mysinablog.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-44853497746841898102014-01-11T20:11:19.713-08:002014-01-11T20:11:19.713-08:00REPEAT :
"說謊" 在耶教中,是一種 「心靈之罪」,亦是 "...REPEAT :<br /><br />"說謊" 在耶教中,是一種 「心靈之罪」,亦是 "萬罪之源"。<br /><br />咁 "同性戀" 會否天生? 現有的心理學研究都有一個共同疑點,就是研究人員有否被他們的主觀意見影響研究結果? (是否中肯? 有否「櫃中人」?)另一疑點是當事人有否"說謊"的動機、研究人員怎知當事人有否"說謊"?<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-43421616821067371952014-01-11T14:59:34.679-08:002014-01-11T14:59:34.679-08:00謝謝留言。我只是就關教授這篇文章的內容來評論,假如他希望讀者對此文有多一點同情的理解,便有責任交代前...謝謝留言。我只是就關教授這篇文章的內容來評論,假如他希望讀者對此文有多一點同情的理解,便有責任交代前因後果,像閣下這聊聊一兩段便夠了。W. Wonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07161244576570372004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-86537517907026606272014-01-11T09:36:06.489-08:002014-01-11T09:36:06.489-08:00PLEASE READ THIS:
“CURES” FOR AN ILLNESS THAT D...PLEASE READ THIS: <br /><br />“CURES” FOR AN ILLNESS THAT DOES NOT EXIST<br /> (World Health Organization)<br /><br />http://www.paho.org/hq/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_view&gid=17703<br /><br />神洲http://gmue2008.mysinablog.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-27948749198611416352014-01-11T08:27:47.680-08:002014-01-11T08:27:47.680-08:00Read all the posts carefully and THINK. The answer...Read all the posts carefully and THINK. The answers are all there.<br /><br />Whether "宗教信仰明顯係後天", or whether "stupidity" is "後天" or "先天" is irrelevant to the current topics.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-88382711626801199422014-01-11T03:42:06.848-08:002014-01-11T03:42:06.848-08:00Saying that they have been answered, is not the sa...Saying that they have been answered, is not the same as answering them. You reiterated that they have been answered, but did not answer them.<br /><br />>> 既然 同性戀及雙性戀性行為是後天而或的,其他人便有權不認同此等行為。這不算是歧視<br /><br />宗教信仰明顯係後天嘅,咁係咪我哋可以歧視其他人嘅宗教信仰?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-37213307438824889592014-01-10T21:59:17.986-08:002014-01-10T21:59:17.986-08:00All those questions already have been answered. Re...All those questions already have been answered. Re-answering them is stupid. Re-asking them is also stupid.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-85139678804451445082014-01-10T16:29:33.454-08:002014-01-10T16:29:33.454-08:00>> Obviously you are not a careful reader.
...>> Obviously you are not a careful reader.<br /><br />This is not a point that others can discuss, can you substantiate it?<br /><br />By the way, beware of argument from fallacy.<br /><br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy<br /><br />http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2014/01/06/_the_adventures_of_fallacy_man_existential_comic_explains_why_it_s_not_enough.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-50861805408518692572014-01-10T07:07:43.010-08:002014-01-10T07:07:43.010-08:00似乎已錯過了跟王教授交流的機會!十分抱歉,剛看到王教授的文章,未知現時請教會否失禮,如王教授仍看到這...似乎已錯過了跟王教授交流的機會!十分抱歉,剛看到王教授的文章,未知現時請教會否失禮,如王教授仍看到這留言,請不吝指教,先行謝過!<br /><br />之前已有很多討論,但快速看過一遍,似乎是關於同性戀的討論居多,似乎未有人就著王教授的文章發表過意見。<br /><br />我想回應「關教授對周一嶽的回應仍然是不公允的」這一點。<br /><br />其實雙方的討論是有一些根源的,事緣周主席自上年四月上任以來態度對同運一方甚偏頗,對反對方的意見充耳不聞,漠視反對方向他提出的意見,反稱反對方「以為連家庭管教也會規管」、「反對同性婚姻的理據是恐怕人類會絕種」!令人以為反對方都是頭腦閉塞的遠古化石!簡而言之,周主席對同性戀議題的偏頗態度早已令反對立法的人士甚為不滿,我想這也是為何關教授的語氣略欠沉實的原因。<br /><br />明白了雙方的「恩怨」,也許王教授可以對關教授的文章有多點同情理解。當然,就算是同運更常將「把同性戀與…戀童或…病態性行為相提並論」,也不等於周主席不應該批評「明光社成員」將「把同性戀與…戀童或…病態性行為相提並論」。所以,關教授文章其實是隱含了批評周主席立場偏頗的意思,大概並非真的要替那位不知是否真有其人的「明光社成員」辯護。他的意思應是指周有「大鱷唔打打蝦毛」,從而反映出周主席的立場偏頗。不過,的確要有一定的背景資料才容易明白關教授的意思。<br />Shannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-12512534672370368212014-01-04T21:40:47.125-08:002014-01-04T21:40:47.125-08:00Please think before you post & don't waste...Please think before you post & don't waste my time. Obviously you don't know the history of any legal system. And obviously you are not a careful reader.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-12479889795117848912014-01-04T21:38:00.380-08:002014-01-04T21:38:00.380-08:00Please think before you post & don't waste...Please think before you post & don't waste my time. Obviously you are not a careful reader. Which should explain why you continue to ask questions that has answered in my post, or ask irrelevant / incorrect questions.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-46380957868876649582014-01-04T17:46:11.235-08:002014-01-04T17:46:11.235-08:00>> 蔡志森及明光社成員說的 「罪」,是 "道德"上的「罪」,和法律...>> 蔡志森及明光社成員說的 「罪」,是 "道德"上的「罪」,和法律上的 「罪」,不是同一樣的東西。周一嶽把它們混為一談,是在嚴重扭曲及誤導。<br /><br />蔡志森及明光社成員說道德上的「罪」,和香港的立法討論有咩關係?<br />周一嶽強調同性戀的相關行為不是法律上「罪」,有何不當?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com