Sarah Sanders says she was thrown out of Virginia restaurant because she works for Trump

[Unidentified 2,930]

5 hours ago, IDWAF said:

Allow me to summarize for you...

sex·u·al o·ri·en·ta·tion

noun

1. a person's sexual identity in relation to the gender to which they are attracted; the fact of being heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual.

 

And it can change, as a person wishes, or as they mature.

 

Happy birthday!  Hope you have an awesome one!

 

 

 

Yeah, going into google and typing in "definition of sexual orientation" and get the definition from google is not enough to gain knowledge. That's not research, you haven't even clicked past google at that point. 

Edited June 26, 2018 by Unidentified

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

4 minutes ago, bcking said:

That would be bisexual.

 

It's not day to day. It's an enduring pattern. If you are fluid and go back and forth, you're bi.

Not in all cases. I have known some non bisexual women to take one for the team 

[bcking 3,157]

3 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

Not in all cases. I have known some non bisexual women to take one for the team 

"Take one for the team"

 

 

That does not change your sexual orientation. See - "enduring pattern"

 

Not to mention you can "take one for the team" without a real physical attraction (and certainly without an emotional one). 

4 minutes ago, Unidentified said:

Yeah, going into google and typing in "definition of sexual orientation" and get the definition from google is not enough to gain knowledge. That's not research, you haven't even clicked past google at that point. 

In another thread I questioned whether the internet has really made people, as a population, more or less intelligent.

 

Still not sure. Anyone can pretend to be an "expert" without actual time, effort or understanding.

Edited June 26, 2018 by bcking

[Unidentified 2,930]

9 minutes ago, bcking said:

In another thread I questioned whether the internet has really made people, as a population, more or less intelligent.

 

Still not sure. Anyone can pretend to be an "expert" without actual time, effort or understanding.

Well they have scientifically proven that we have gotten dumber the last decade or so, internet could definitely be a factor considering a lot of people seem to think EVERYTHING you read on the internet is true. They don't realize you have to have a critical mind and fact check what you're reading and check who the source is. 

[bcking 3,157]

44 minutes ago, Cyberfx1024 said:

So apparently the owners didn't stop when they refused to serve Sarah Sanders but they actually followed her into the next restaurant to harass her more.

 

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5885663/Mike-Huckabee-says-liberal-Red-Hen-owners-harassed-daughter-more.html

It actually states they followed her family, after she and her husband went home. To me that's even worse. The person they were upset with wasn't even there.

 

Of course I'd like a source OTHER than her father...but if we assume it's true then that's pretty bad. Refusing service in your own establishment is your prerogative. Taking to the streets to spontaneously protest/harass a small group of people is wrong (probably not illegal, but still wrong in my books).

Edited June 26, 2018 by bcking

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

8 minutes ago, bcking said:

It actually states they followed her family, after she and her husband went home. To me that's even worse. The person they were upset with wasn't even there.

 

Of course I'd like a source OTHER than her father...but if we assume it's true then that's pretty bad. Refusing service in your own establishment is your prerogative. Taking to the streets to spontaneously protest/harass a small group of people is wrong (probably not illegal, but still wrong in my books).

Yeah I had to read it a couple times to make sure I read it right. You are completely right that I can see it being ok to ask someone to leave your establishment. But to follow them to another place is completely BS.  I think the Red Hen's owners are taking a play out of the Maxine Waters playbook in regards to harassing people wherever they may be.

[Dashinka 24,492]

1 hour ago, Cyberfx1024 said:

So apparently the owners didn't stop when they refused to serve Sarah Sanders but they actually followed her into the next restaurant to harass her more.

 

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5885663/Mike-Huckabee-says-liberal-Red-Hen-owners-harassed-daughter-more.html

Interesting, the leftist protesting the leftist! 

 

Apparently, they had advanced knowledge of the Democrat talking points expressed by Maxine!

Edited June 26, 2018 by Bill & Katya

[Dashinka 24,492]

43 minutes ago, bcking said:

Unfortunately whatever lay person source you've pulled that definition from has simplified it a bit, which is maybe the source of your confusion. It's okay. A lot of terminology gets simplified for the lay audience, which can lead to misunderstandings.

 

From the very first link is shared with you:

 

"Sexual orientation refers to an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic and/or sexual attractions to men, women or both sexes. Sexual orientation also refers to a person's sense of identity based on those attractions, related behaviors and membership in a community of others who share those attractions."

 

it's not about who you happen to be attracted to today. It's about enduring feelings, feelings which you can't control completely and therefore can't choose. If, as you say, you truly have the "freedom" to choose to be attracted to both men and women, and that's over a significant period of your life, then as Yuna suggested perhaps you don't fall on the spectrum where you think. Most people can't "make" themselves attracted to the sex they aren't routinely attracted to. 

Aren't you claiming the definition has been perfected by a bunch of psychologists?  To me, that is no different.  Btw, I think people can chose to ignore or control themselves as they wish regardless of any definition. 

[Dashinka 24,492]

46 minutes ago, bcking said:

That would be bisexual.

 

It's not day to day. It's an enduring pattern. If you are fluid and go back and forth, you're bi.

Isn't that up to the person and their self identity?  For instance, a person could have relations with either gender at various times and self identify as either gay or straight at those times.  Sure by the definition you posted they may be considered bi-sexual, but it is my understanding that the self identity is much more important than some pseudo-scientific definition.

 

On another note, don't we now have multiple genders?  So isn't bi-sexual kind of obsolete now?

[bcking 3,157]

1 minute ago, Bill & Katya said:

Aren't you claiming the definition has been perfected by a bunch of psychologists?  To me, that is no different.  Btw, I think people can chose to ignore or control themselves as they wish regardless of any definition. 

Sexual orientation is a neuropsych term, as it deals with the mind, feelings, relationships, and (we are slowly learning more) neurocognitive connections in the brain.

 

So if you want the best, most accurate definition you go to a good source. Googling it and taking the first definition that pops up is not a good source. The American Psychological Association is a good source.

 

You can try to "ignore" enduring emotional and physical attractions, but you can't change them. You can live as a "straight man" for 50 years but if you have enduring emotional and physical attractions to men, you are not heterosexual. Doesn't matter if you don't act on those feelings.

[Dashinka 24,492]

31 minutes ago, Unidentified said:

Well they have scientifically proven that we have gotten dumber the last decade or so, internet could definitely be a factor considering a lot of people seem to think EVERYTHING you read on the internet is true. They don't realize you have to have a critical mind and fact check what you're reading and check who the source is. 

Scientifically proven?  I suppose those that don't engage in group think are considered dumb by the group.

[bcking 3,157]

1 minute ago, Bill & Katya said:

Isn't that up to the person and their self identity?  For instance, a person could have relations with either gender at various times and self identify as either gay or straight at those times.  Sure by the definition you posted they may be considered bi-sexual, but it is my understanding that the self identity is much more important than some pseudo-scientific definition.

 

On another note, don't we now have multiple genders?  So isn't bi-sexual kind of obsolete now?

I'll be honest I can't keep up completely with sexual identity issues, which is why in an earlier post I said neither IDWAF or myself are among the "experts" on the subject. I just know the better sources to use. In my daily practice though internal sexual identity doesn't really come up (I only see infants).

 

The feelings that define your sexual orientation have to be enduring. If you truly have enduring feelings that go "back and forth" between men and women you are probably bisexual. So much more goes into attraction (a heterosexual isn't attracted to every single person of the opposite sex) that you can't just say "oh now I'm no longer interested in men". It's just that at the time there aren't any men that you're interested in.

[Dashinka 24,492]

1 minute ago, bcking said:

Sexual orientation is a neuropsych term, as it deals with the mind, feelings, relationships, and (we are slowly learning more) neurocognitive connections in the brain.

 

So if you want the best, most accurate definition you go to a good source. Googling it and taking the first definition that pops up is not a good source. The American Psychological Association is a good source.

 

You can try to "ignore" enduring emotional and physical attractions, but you can't change them. You can live as a "straight man" for 50 years but if you have enduring emotional and physical attractions to men, you are not heterosexual. Doesn't matter if you don't act on those feelings.

How do you know neuropsychologists are a good source?  Is that just a personal opinion?

[bcking 3,157]

1 minute ago, Bill & Katya said:

How do you know neuropsychologists are a good source?  Is that just a personal opinion?

As I already said, you go to the experts in the subject matter you are investigating.

 

Sexual orientation is a subject matter related to the mind. So you go to people who study that subject. 

 

Contrary to people who just google everything, there are people out there that devote their entire lives to studying a subject. They are better sources than random opinions.

[Dashinka 24,492]

1 minute ago, bcking said:

I'll be honest I can't keep up completely with sexual identity issues, which is why in an earlier post I said neither IDWAF or myself are among the "experts" on the subject. I just know the better sources to use. In my daily practice though internal sexual identity doesn't really come up (I only see infants).

 

The feelings that define your sexual orientation have to be enduring. If you truly have enduring feelings that go "back and forth" between men and women you are probably bisexual. So much more goes into attraction (a heterosexual isn't attracted to every single person of the opposite sex) that you can't just say "oh now I'm no longer interested in men". It's just that at the time there aren't any men that you're interested in.

That really didn't answer my question though does it.  I thought that today, self-identity is considered paramount to anything else?  Is that not the case?  Do we all need to go to a neuropsychologist to find out our orientation?

Just now, bcking said:

As I already said, you go to the experts in the subject matter you are investigating.

 

Sexual orientation is a subject matter related to the mind. So you go to people who study that subject. 

 

Contrary to people who just google everything, there are people out there that devote their entire lives to studying a subject. They are better sources than random opinions.

How do we know that sexual orientation is not genetic?  Maybe we should be going to geneticists?