Can the government compel you to provide someone a service against your will?

Sorry, but I disagree. I think that we can be trained to hump anything, but are only naturally attracted to adult members of the same species and opposite sex.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

Sorry, but I disagree. I think that we can be trained to hump anything, but are only naturally attracted to adult members of the same species and opposite sex.

---

Hmmm. Well, if you think it, it must be true. Science be damned. To quote an earlier post where you were responding to a statement that homosexuality is not a choice:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

Of course you know this for a fact because you are a god who knows everything, right?

---

For this entire discussion you have dodged every issue, responding only with religious dogma and personal prejudice. But what's funny is that I'm pretty sure if Jesus were to come back, today, right now, and tell you in person that you actually have it wrong: homosexuality is not a choice, you would instantly convert to Islam because at least Mohammad hasn't gone soft on "teh gay."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

Hmmm. Well, if you think it, it must be true. Science be damned. To quote an earlier post where you were responding to a statement that homosexuality is not a choice:For this entire discussion you have dodged every issue, responding only with religious dogma and personal prejudice. But what's funny is that I'm pretty sure if Jesus were to come back, today, right now, and tell you in person that you actually have it wrong: homosexuality is not a choice, you would instantly convert to Islam because at least Mohammad hasn't gone soft on "teh gay."

---

Nice taking out of context there Goofball. The truth is that the sciences is not conclusive and no one knows for 100% sure right now (despite some convincing themselves otherwise).
The difference between my statement and his is that he stated it as a fact, not an opinion, whereas I clearly stated my opinion as such "Sorry, but I disagree. I think that".


Personal prejudice? Well, I am not alone there in this thread. lol After all, I am the one who discards and refuses to look at the other guy's sources because I know they are wrong because they disagree with me. I am the one insulting people and calling them stupid, uneducated, etc because I disagree with them?

Like I said, let's agree to disagree. I got no beef with gays. (pun intended) I just think that sodomy is unhealthy and homosexual relationships not emotionally healthy. I also think BDSM relationship where a husband makes his wife boy before him, or a wife whips her husband, etc. are not emotionally healthy. It doesn't mean I got anything against the people who choose that type of relationship.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

Sorry, but I disagree. I think that we can be trained to hump anything, but are only naturally attracted to adult members of the same species and opposite sex.

---

Actually - Vuk is not completely off here - there's enough evidence that sexuality is malleable to at least support his claim that people can conditioned.

See Ancient Sparta.

Nature supports damn near anything you want it to.
To oft ignored is the friendly Bonobo.

http://www.psmag.com/science/bonobos...ur-past-59956/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

I think this nebulous concept of "Nature" is the problem. Everything is natural. If you try to arbitrate "natural" based on your human perspective, you're working from a flawed angle and you're not going to get anywhere.

If you think gay sex is sinful and against God, just say so. That argument is at least coming from a place of intellectual honesty.

---

I think it is 'against God' in the same way eating pork is: it is harmful for you so God told you not to do it. I also think that my observations and the science I have read mostly supports that. When I said natural, I mean following the genetic programing of a healthy, average human being with balanced hormones. Pardon me, but I don't think you can fairly say that I have been 'intellectually dishonest' in this conversation.

Speaking of unscientific, macroevolution has never been observed or proven possible. It doesn't even qualify as a theory. You say that we evolved into that way and can evolve another way, but I say we were created that way. Neither of us can prove it and both of us rely on some measure of faith, even if we believe that the science supports our beliefs. That is why by the end of the day I think the best we can do is agree to disagree.
And if it is all about evolution, 'gay' societies would go extinct anyway, so I doubt evolution is intended to go in that way.

Quote:

---

Speaking of unscientific, macroevolution has never been observed or proven possible.

---

Hoo boy. What exactly do you think "macroevolution" is?

Quote:

---

And if it is all about evolution, 'gay' societies would go extinct anyway, so I doubt evolution is intended to go in that way.

---

How's that?

How's that? Because they cannot reproduce.
Speciation has only been observed because evolutionists redefined 'species' so that they could observe speciation. lol We have observed living things rearrange existing genetic material (which God gave them to survive in a cycling world), but never have we observed new genetic material being created by random mutations (the crux of the evolutionary origins argument).

Quote:

---

How's that? Because they cannot reproduce.

---

Um, that doesn't matter?

Quote:

---

Speciation has only been observed because evolutionists redefined 'species' so that they could observe speciation. lol We have observed living things rearrange existing genetic material (which God gave them to survive in a cycling world), but never have we observed new genetic material being created by random mutations (the crux of the evolutionary origins argument).

---

Totally incorrect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

How's that? Because they cannot reproduce.

---

There are many species like that, especially in the insect world, since it favours survival of the species to breed servants/slaves to take care of them, like ants. Besides, when my neighbours dog humps his owners leg, that is closer to nature in action than morality from a book.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Um, that doesn't matter?



Totally incorrect.

---

Not incorrect, and it does matter. If everyone in the world was gay humans would go extinct. Yeah, we got the tech to technically still be able to reproduce, but it is really expensive and not adequate for sustaining a significant population. When the population gets to small, the support structures that our capabilities to reproduce rest on would be gone and we would either learn to be straight very fast or go out in a blaze of...buggery? :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiaexz

There are many species like that, especially in the insect world, since it favours survival of the species to breed servants/slaves to take care of them, like ants. Besides, when my neighbours dog humps his owners leg, that is closer to nature in action than morality from a book.

---

So what are you saying, gay men should keep women as slaves to give them babies? Unfortunately that has been the fate of women in most societies that have embraced homosexuality (Ancient Greece and Japan, etc, etc.) I think that any normal person can agree that is hardly desirable though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

So what are you saying, gay men should keep women as slaves to give them babies?

---

At a complete stretch compared with my previous stances on issues, Gay-Adoption would help the survival of the species as they can take care of the offspring and future generations. That is not including being productive members of society such as farming, producing goods, doctors, who would help take care of the species. Not every individual needs to reproduce.

Your fantasy scenario of the Planet of the Gay where women are held against their will to be used as reproduction tools of Gay Men (no such things as lesbians either) is something not remotely referenced anywhere i have ever seen or heard about in all my time on Earth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiaexz

At a complete stretch compared with my previous stances on issues, Gay-Adoption would help the survival of the species as they can take care of the offspring and future generations. That is not including being productive members of society such as farming, producing goods, doctors, who would help take care of the species. Not every individual needs to reproduce.

Your fantasy scenario of the Planet of the Gay where women are held against their will to be used as reproduction tools of Gay Men (no such things as lesbians either) is something not remotely referenced anywhere i have ever seen or heard about in all my time on Earth.

---

Seemed to be what you are insinuating. Maybe you should take a closer look at societies that fully embraced homosexuality, because that is what always happens.
What about lesbians? They are women, and women are physically weaker than men. As gay men want offspring and are unable to create them themselves, they invariably make women cattle to bear them children. Being physically weaker, women generally have little say in this.

As far as a 'gay planet', I consider it unlikely as well, but I was discussing a poster's idea that we are evolving to be gay. My argument was that if we all became gay our species would no longer exist or women would become simple tools for bearing children.
You think I am joking? Seriously dude, do some research into Greece and Japan back when they thought the perfect union was one between a young boy and an old man (remember what I said about that correlation between homosexuality and pedophilia?), and you will see that women were just complete cattle in their societies. They were much worse off than in mostly straight societies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

Seemed to be what you are insinuating. Maybe you should take a closer look at societies that fully embraced homosexuality, because that is what always happens.
What about lesbians? They are women, and women are physically weaker than men. As gay men want offspring and are unable to create them themselves, they invariably make women cattle to bear them children. Being physically weaker, women generally have little say in this.

As far as a 'gay planet', I consider it unlikely as well, but I was discussing a poster's idea that we are evolving to be gay. My argument was that if we all became gay our species would no longer exist or women would become simple tools for bearing children.
You think I am joking? Seriously dude, do some research into Greece and Japan back when they thought the perfect union was one between a young boy and an old man (remember what I said about that correlation between homosexuality and pedophilia?), and you will see that women were just complete cattle in their societies. They were much worse off than in mostly straight societies.

---

Ok, I really have to ask, and please believe me that I am sincere and not trying to insult you here: Do you really believe all this stuff? I'm almost at the point where I'm picturing you as a brighter than average college student who is smoking a fatty and laughing at us right now because you have managed to get us all to dance with you by spouting ideas that are ridiculous, but you manage to sound just rational enough that we actually believe that you believe what you are saying. If that is the case, sir, I tip my hat to you. If not, I bid you good day.

Here is an interesting article for you to read:
http://www.westernbuddhistreview.com...sexuality.html

With some back-up and expanded context:
http://japanhistory-homo.blogspot.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_Japan


http://www.studentpulse.com/articles...nt-confinement



Basically, when Buddhism was introduced to Japan, homosexuality as an acceptable practice was as well. Women became thought of as literal offspring of the devil, and purely evil creatures whose only purpose in life was to provide children. True love and a perfect relationship was only between a young man/boy and an older man (again, notice how homosexuality and child molestation go together).



Greece was a very similar case, where for a while in several Hellenistic states sodomy was embraced. Women's role's were strictly that of child-bearing. Men would have sex with boys, and keep a wife simply to provide them with sons.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosex...ancient_Greece

http://www.theguardian.com/books/200...istory.society

http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/wmna/hd_wmna.htm

http://webpage.pace.edu/nreagin/F200...alHISTORY.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

Here is an interesting article for you to read:
http://www.westernbuddhistreview.com...sexuality.html

With some back-up and expanded context:
http://japanhistory-homo.blogspot.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_Japan


http://www.studentpulse.com/articles...nt-confinement



Basically, when Buddhism was introduced to Japan, homosexuality as an acceptable practice was as well. Women became thought of as literal offspring of the devil, and purely evil creatures whose only purpose in life was to provide children. True love and a perfect relationship was only between a young man/boy and an older man (again, notice how homosexuality and child molestation go together).



Greece was a very similar case, where for a while in several Hellenistic states sodomy was embraced. Women's role's were strictly that of child-bearing. Men would have sex with boys, and keep a wife simply to provide them with sons.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosex...ancient_Greece

http://www.theguardian.com/books/200...istory.society

http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/wmna/hd_wmna.htm

http://webpage.pace.edu/nreagin/F200...alHISTORY.html

---

I said good day! :clown:

Frankly I think that Vuk has gone over the edge, but at least the thread is interesting.

Define macro evolution.

Why is there a statistically significant relationship between having more older brothers and the chance of being gay? Is its natures way of curtailing overpopulation?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Define macro evolution.

Why is there a statistically significant relationship between having more older brothers and the chance of being gay? Is its natures way of curtailing overpopulation?

---

Maybe because that makes the younger brothers more over shadowed, more depressed, and it becomes easier for them to be preyed upon. They will respond more well to a guy who pretends to appreciate them when no one else does.

BTW mutations occur all the time. It's why flu shots only last a year and its how new crops are made by bombarding seeds with radiation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

BTW mutations occur all the time. It's why flu shots only last a year and its how new crops are made by bombarding seeds with radiation.

---

Shhh. Those are Science Lies put in the world by Satan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

BTW mutations occur all the time. It's why flu shots only last a year and its how new crops are made by bombarding seeds with radiation.

---

But again, you are talking about restructuring of existing genetic material in an organism designed to adapt, not the creation of new bits of genetic code. These viruses are not mutating into bacteria.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Shhh. Those are Science Lies put in the world by Satan.

---

Wow, condescending schmuck much? So I see we are back to the insulting your enemies as religious fanatics (which simultaneously attacking their religion). Personal insults make a poor substitute for intelligent debate, Lemmy-lambs. Then again, intelligent debate was never your strong point, was it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

Then again, intelligent debate was never your strong point, was it?

---

But intelligent design is clearly yours.

Denial of evolution is a disavowal of all modern biology and medicine. All of it. Poof. Gone.

Seems pretty radical.

As PVC said, although Vuk is an easy target for the usual highbrow mocking, he has some valid points that people seem unwilling to acknowledge.

Firstly, the notion that sexuality is purely genetic is demonstrably false - you need only look at the American prison system to see this. Or ancient Sparta, or the Ottoman Empire, or certain practices in Afghanistan and Central Asia, or tourist abuses in Thailand, etc.

I also think it is significant that in each of these examples, homosexual practices flourish as a result of an artificial situation. In all of these examples, there is either a deprivation of more typical expressions of sexuality, a power imbalance between the two partners, a cultural glorification of sodomy, etc...

All this evidence flies in the face of the standard modern attempts to attribute sexuality purely to genetics. It may be more accurate to view is a social phenomena, rather than a product of individual genetics/choice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

I think this nebulous concept of "Nature" is the problem. Everything is natural. If you try to arbitrate "natural" based on your human perspective, you're working from a flawed angle and you're not going to get anywhere.

---

I think a case could be made that while all social norms are natural in the sense that they come from society, which is in itself a natural expression of human relations as a social species; a human being can, as a member of society, engage in behaviour which might not be a true expression of his own inherent humanity as an individual.

So while homosexuality might in the grander scheme of things be natural as a social phenomena; in the more immediate sense it is less natural to the individual who engages in it.

Quote:

---

a human being can, as a member of society, engage in behaviour which might not be a true expression of his own inherent humanity as an individual.

---

What exactly does that mean and how does one assess it?

Quote:

---

in the more immediate sense it is less natural to the individual who engages in it.

---

See above.

An individual is as an individual does. There is no inner core of self that reflects 'who one really is' underneath some sort of social trimming.

Humans are mammals.

Most but not all mammals give birth to live young. A tiny minority lay eggs.

The ability to give birth relies on the fetus staying attached inside. This means the placenta which attaches to your belly button needs to stay attached to the womb wall.

The ability to attach the placenta is based on genetic code. Some birth defects will stop attachment. The successful ones use a particular set of DNA codes.

This code has been found to derive from a virus. As it turns out viruses love to get inside your body and subvert your factories (cells) to produce more viruses. Sometimes in the process of subversion their own code gets stuck inside. Most of the time for no effect, sometimes fatal consequences or a mutation of some sort.

For mammals it appears the code for placental attachment is based on a retrovirus.

So unless you are an egg laying mammal you need a particular virus derived mutation to have any chance of carrying a fetus to term.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal.../403785a0.html

Those with a better understanding of biology can simplify and correct my summary.

In short there are plenty of examples of mutations within not just the fossil record but the DNA one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

What exactly does that mean and how does one assess it?

See above.

An individual is as an individual does. There is no inner core of self that reflects 'who one really is' underneath some sort of social trimming.

---

I disagree with the bit in bold, since I think we are born with certain predispositions that show our true, inherent humanity. Indeed, your side of the argument seems to argue that sexuality is a purely genetic predisposition, so I'm not quite sure why you are contesting the fact now.

However, while we have these internal predispositions, the external pressure of society can lead an individual to be untrue to their own humanity, whether by force, conditioning, or necessity.

As for your query as to how we assess what is natural, I would suggest looking to the original conditions in which humanity developed and the behaviours displayed in those times; and contrast that with how these behaviours changed when the individual became increasingly defined by the abstract creation that is society.

What would your response be to all those examples of sexuality being down to social (and particularly artificial) conditioning?

Quote:

---

untrue to their own humanity

---

Conceptually-speaking, there is just no such thing as one's "own humanity". Might as well be speaking of fairies in the woods.

Quote:

---

As for your query as to how we assess what is natural

---

Natural to the individual, as per your post.

Quote:

---

As for your query as to how we assess what is natural, I would suggest looking to the original conditions in which humanity developed and the behaviours displayed in those times; and contrast that with how these behaviours changed when the individual became increasingly defined by the abstract creation that is society.

---

This is the critical error - there has been society as long as there have been humans. There is no separating the two, so attempts to divine a human nature 'beneath' society is akin to searching for an era in which the Earth was wholly flat.

Quote:

---

What would your response be to all those examples of sexuality being down to social (and particularly artificial) conditioning?

---

'Little Johnny turned gay after the bad man taught him gayness' is easily dismissed with the far more reasonable inference that Johnny was gay all along.

Sexual orientation is emphatically not something that can be taught.

I see morality as a emergent phenomena.

Without delayed reciprocity society would not be able to grow beyond small family groups.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Conceptually-speaking, there is just no such thing as one's "own humanity". Might as well be speaking of fairies in the woods.

---

Nonsense, a whole host of drives and desires are instilled in use from birth, not least those regarding our human relationships. For example, how a baby craves for its mother.

You seem to be advocating the idea of 'tabula rasa', which is at best a fringe theory within the scientific community.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Natural to the individual, as per your post.

---

Yes, natural to the individual. Like I said, this can be assessed by looking at the conditions in which humans began to emerge, and how artificial (from an individual viewpoint) things like society alter them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

This is the critical error - there has been society as long as there have been humans. There is no separating the two, so attempts to divine a human nature 'beneath' society is akin to searching for an era in which the Earth was wholly flat.

---

I already answered this objection in anticipation of it:

"while all social norms are natural in the sense that they come from society, which is in itself a natural expression of human relations as a social species; a human being can, as a member of society, engage in behaviour which might not be a true expression of his own inherent humanity as an individual."

Of course, if you believe in fringe theories like tabula rasa, and believe that our humanity has no foundations beyond our experiences, then you will not share the assumptions that underpin the above statement. But within my framework of thought, it stands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

'Little Johnny turned gay after the bad man taught him gayness' is easily dismissed with the far more reasonable inference that Johnny was gay all along.

Sexual orientation is emphatically not something that can be taught.

---

I'm sorry, but that is really inadequate in the face of the examples I gave you. Examples that cross all sorts of cultures and historical timeframes, and consistently depict homosexuality as something that thrives only in very artificial environments - a phenomena that is drastically reduced when more typical sexual relations are available.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

As PVC said, although Vuk is an easy target for the usual highbrow mocking, he has some valid points that people seem unwilling to acknowledge.

Firstly, the notion that sexuality is purely genetic is demonstrably false - you need only look at the American prison system to see this. Or ancient Sparta, or the Ottoman Empire, or certain practices in Afghanistan and Central Asia, or tourist abuses in Thailand, etc.

I also think it is significant that in each of these examples, homosexual practices flourish as a result of an artificial situation. In all of these examples, there is either a deprivation of more typical expressions of sexuality, a power imbalance between the two partners, a cultural glorification of sodomy, etc...

---

I think you are confusing attraction and the ability to use sex as a means to an end. Lots of people have sex with people they are not particularly attracted to for any number of reasons. Gay men have sex (and children) with women all the time to maintain their cover and straight men have sex with other men in prison to establish hierarchy, gain protection, and/or regain a lost sense of intimacy. Deep down, however, those gay men will always fantasize about other men, and those prisoners will return to women as soon as they are released.

This is a point that I was trying to make to Vuk. There is a big difference between who we are attracted to and who we choose to have sex with. That's where social and situational constraints come into play.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Morality certainly isn't emergent at all. Morality exists all over the animal Kingdom, you just don't call it that. What is morality? Is it not the unspoken (or spoken) rules that govern our behaviour? The proverbial pheromones that drive an ant colony to do the queen's bidding serve the same function: Some species' evolve a means to work together. Wolves operate in packs with rules and regulations. Geese fly in formation. Social rules are one of life's oldest tricks, but humans have the misfortune of being smarter than the sum of their parts. Our mutated brains have enough processing power to question the rules that we never understood on a conscious level anyway, and I suppose in that sense it is emergent indeed.

---

Atoms don't have morals. Therefore it is an emergent property of a complex ie multi molecular system. It is not a property of electromagnetics, gravity or nuclear forces.

The properties emerge out of combining various other things. One requirement for morality to be non instinctual would be memory. Game theory and the prisoners dilemma takes on a whole different strategy when played as a single thought game vs a series.

Morality deals with future consequences. Some people do the right thing because it is right others will worry about the ROI.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

You seem to be advocating the idea of 'tabula rasa', which is at best a fringe theory within the scientific community.

---

Then there must be a misunderstanding. You seemed to be conceiving of a private "humanity" unique to each individual that ought to be 'satisfied' in some way, that there's some core of selfhood beneath all the social conditioning and so on.

That is clearly false. The social conditioning is the core.

Another interpretation based on this bit of your latest post is that you're claiming that humans are inherently heterosexual at birth and can only deviate from this rule as a result of social conditioning.

It's essentially the same position, and it is also clearly false.

Quote:

---

"while all social norms are natural in the sense that they come from society, which is in itself a natural expression of human relations as a social species; a human being can, as a member of society, engage in behaviour which might not be a true expression of his own inherent humanity as an individual."

---

So look, the only other interpretation I can come to is that 'all humans individually have the exact same nature' (i.e. heterosexuality in particular), which is also clearly false. One common trait, however, is to conceive of and organize the world in social terms.

Note that without society a human is nothing, so there's no point in this "true...individual" stuff.

Even being raised by a wolf-pack instills social conditioning into a human. A human raised in solitude by machines in a sterile laboratory would automatically raise a private society about his environment.

What is the individual behavior of a dog that contains no atoms?

Quote:

---

I'm sorry, but that is really inadequate in the face of the examples I gave you. Examples that cross all sorts of cultures and historical timeframes, and consistently depict homosexuality as something that thrives only in very artificial environments - a phenomena that is drastically reduced when more typical sexual relations are available.

---

As Panzer pointed out, sexual orientation and sexual behavior are not equivalent notions. Homoeroticism is not homosexuality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Atoms don't have morals. Therefore it is an emergent property of a complex ie multi molecular system.

---

It's an emergent property in the same way sunlight is an emergent property of the sun. Everything is precisely the sum of its parts; just because some have difficulty grasping the concept of 10^20 or 10^30 discrete parts to an "object" doesn't mean there's anything "emergent" about it, if we're using "emergence" in that holistic sense and not in the hum-drum literal sense.

A car has 10^3 parts or so, and we have no problem understanding that it works according to the individual capabilities of its parts in their combination.

There is no need to make magical exceptions for any elements of any system.

Quote:

---

I see morality as a emergent phenomena.

Without delayed reciprocity society would not be able to grow beyond small family groups.

---

What you are talking about is a certain sort of behavior, allowed for by the neural complexity of the human brain. There's really nothing more to it. Holistic "emergence" is just an excuse to ignore complexity while paying it lip-service.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Social rules are one of life's oldest tricks, but humans have the misfortune of being smarter than the sum of their parts.

---

Let us put the number of neurons and glia in the adult human brain to be on the order of magnitude 10^11 or 10^12. Now, within these there are many different effective elements, from mitochondria to ribosomes producing proteins to the proteins themselves in their myriad roles, to the transmitter molecules in chemical cascades at the synapses of neurons, and so on. Let's say this is anywhere in between 10^8-10^12 effective, discrete molecules - per cell. This gives us a figure of 10^8*10^11 = 10^19 parts minimally, and 10^12*10^12 = 10^24 parts maximally in the human brain. That's something like a billion billions of cars. And of course we're not even talking about muscle tissue here, or bones, or all the support structures that maintain the body to maintain the brain. Not so easy now to say that we're more than the sum of our parts, eh?

The brain can not be treated as one discrete part, or else you come to such fallacies as this...

Natural instinct and behaviour is being over-thought and misconstrued by peoples own morality. There are some very basic preconceptions which are innate, but none of these are in league with morality. They are simple guidelines such as 'Loud Noise = Bad' and as such, drop a pan on the floor or knock over a glass, everyone suddenly goes quiet and draws their attention towards you, heightened senses, anxiety, it starts kicking in the bodies "fight or flight" mechanisms.

The most basic construction of morality was adopted by Christianity and that is "Do upon others as you would do upon yourself". Murder is wrong as you would not wish to be murdered yourself, even this is a stretched as it is a fundamental selfishness. What is very surprising is when you take a look at other cultures where you have the example of HoreTore in Africa saying "First to the tree gets all the apples" and all the kids hold their hands and run to the tree together, so they all got an apple. Put that in America where there is more focus on the individual, and bam, that kid just ran off with all the apples. Clearly the environment makes a massive difference even if you do not understand or appreciate how complex it actually is.

What is inherent is the sex drive, and that desire to do the mating, this is even within asexuals, but it doesn't affect attraction in the slightest. The nature 'favours' certain scenarios such as making sex pleasurable, as people are more likely to do pleasurable things. 'I have a pleasure stick, I have a pleasure hole, lets put them together and both feel good' and the by-product of this is the child, thus this is how nature encourages reproduction. There is no 'You have to be with female only' gene, such as there is no 'You have to be with male only' gene.

Monty i believe we are misaligned on emergence.

The parts do not have the same ability set as the combined.

A computer is not merely many smaller computers. At some point you go from individual transistors, to registers to calculators to computations.

Look at the layer approach to networking from 1 to 7. The sum has properties that the parts do not have.

Quote:

---

The parts do not have the same ability set as the combined.

---

Quote:

---

The sum has properties that the parts do not have.

---

Then let's be really clear about how we mean this.

Let's go back to the automobile. The car is an assembly of parts (including hydrocarbon molecules actually, though this inclusion still leaves the car many orders of magnitude below the human brain) that function a certain way as a system when properly combined. When improperly combined, the system may act a totally different way, or may even be relatively stable (i.e. totally inoperable).

Does the automobile not have the same properties as its constituents? It doesn't only if you tack on extraneous labels. Yes, you can't drive a steering wheel or scrap a hexane molecule - but so what?

It is totally OK to have a definition of emergence (see end of post) that deals precisely with this sort of thing, but my impression is that it's not the emergence you have in mind.

Quote:

---

A computer is not merely many smaller computers. At some point you go from individual transistors, to registers to calculators to computations.

---

There are a number of parts to a computer, and when they are combined - just as with a car - you get a certain systemic behavior that is reducible to the interaction of the components. A car is what we call a particular agglomeration of parts that has a certain appearance and a certain behavior; it doesn't matter that pistons or wheels or plastic molecules are not 'tiny cars'. A car is just what we call a result.

If a mixture has different properties than its constituent chemicals, well, maybe that's just because the constituent chemicals (each with their own particular properties) react to produce a different chemical with its own unique properties, and not because its some mysterious thing unrelated to the chemicals that were combined to produce it, to be discovered purely by trial and error.

It is not conceptually difficult to predict the "emergent" systemic behavior of automobiles or computers, which are relatively simple compared to biological systems. We do it all the time, in fact, or else we wouldn't indeed have such technology available.

The crux: emergence defined as the interactions of parts producing a - any - systemic function at the highest level, or an emergence defined as the arising of significant new properties on a systemic level that can not be expected to derive from the interactions of the constituents.

The second half of the latter is really critical, and I'm seeing your talk of emergence in that light. So, choose one or offer a different definition.

As an example: if we were to build a human being 'from scratch', do you believe that morality could be predicted as a feature of this human?

I'm not saying emergence is not predictable. I'm saying there are new attribute sets when you combine things.

=][=
However your view is very mechanical.

It seems to not include things like HAL (Hardware Abstraction Layer) where the computers abilities are not directly linked to its particular hardware. It's why windows runs on so many different hardware combinations. The hardware isn't determining how the applications work.

Add in probability, chaos theory, quantum physics. The last being very interesting as you scale up you go from a digital to continuum so something that changes from probable outcomes to mechanical ones as it gets larger.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

I think you are confusing attraction and the ability to use sex as a means to an end... This is a point that I was trying to make to Vuk. There is a big difference between who we are attracted to and who we choose to have sex with. That's where social and situational constraints come into play.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

As Panzer pointed out, sexual orientation and sexual behavior are not equivalent notions. Homoeroticism is not homosexuality.

---

Panzer, my problem with what you are saying is that this divorcement of the act from the attraction is somewhat novel (at least in those cases where it serves no purpose beyond pleasure), and indeed seems to change the goalposts with what we understand by sexuality - and all this because a cursory glance at sexuality in past societies challenges your position.

Consider my example of ancient Sparta, or modern Afghanistan/Central Asia, or the Ottoman Empire - while you assert that certain constraints might lead to people acting against basic predispositions; in all these examples, no such constraints exists - rather, homosexuality is something pursued in addition to heterosexual relationships. And, indeed, it occurs on such a scale relative to other societies, that we must conclude that society is what is conditioning these people to seek such relationships. Unless, of course, you were to argue that certain population groups had a genetic predisposition towards such behaviour - but I find that highly unlikely (although I would of course consider any evidence presented). Finally, in all these examples, attraction was central to the desire for the act, since it was entirely voluntary and served no purpose but pleasure, at least on the part of one partner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Then there must be a misunderstanding. You seemed to be conceiving of a private "humanity" unique to each individual that ought to be 'satisfied' in some way, that there's some core of selfhood beneath all the social conditioning and so on.

That is clearly false. The social conditioning is the core.

---

This notion is not "clearly false", it has been comprehensively proven by the mainstream scientific community. For example:

"Important evidence against the tabula rasa model of the mind comes from Behavioural genetics, especially twin and adoption studies. These indicate strong genetic influences on personal characteristics such as IQ, alcoholism, gender identity, and other traits. Critically, multivariate studies show that the distinct faculties of the mind such as memory and reason fractionate along genetic boundaries. Cultural universals such as emotion and the relative resilience of psychological adaptation to accidental biological changes (for instance the David Reimer case of gender reassignment following an accident) also support basic biological mechanisms in the mind."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Another interpretation based on this bit of your latest post is that you're claiming that humans are inherently heterosexual at birth and can only deviate from this rule as a result of social conditioning.

It's essentially the same position, and it is also clearly false.

---

Again, it is plainly not, and is really just an extension of the evidence I gave above. As to why we should be heterosexual by nature, that is clear enough by looking at human reproduction throughout our history as a species. Homosexuality might make more sense in certain arrangements - for example in pack animals where only the alpha male/female reproduce, but not with human social arrangements.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

So look, the only other interpretation I can come to is that 'all humans individually have the exact same nature' (i.e. heterosexuality in particular), which is also clearly false. One common trait, however, is to conceive of and organize the world in social terms.

Note that without society a human is nothing, so there's no point in this "true...individual" stuff.

Even being raised by a wolf-pack instills social conditioning into a human. A human raised in solitude by machines in a sterile laboratory would automatically raise a private society about his environment.

What is the individual behavior of a dog that contains no atoms?

---

You seem happy to declare many things as "clearly false", providing no evidence in doing so - and, indeed, in the face of a whole lot of evidence to the contrary.

Does society condition a baby to cry for its mother? And to stop when she cradles it? From birth, we can see that particular aspects of the most basic human relationships are instilled in us by nature.

Look at other species - ants and bees know by nature the role they have in their colony, it is hardwired into them. They don't learn it from experience, they don't have the mental capacity to do that. What makes anti-social species like bears seek after a mate, when no society taught them to do so?

If a boy was raised in isolation away from all humanity, and exposed to a female once he was a grown man, do you think he would just stand there unperturbed, since he lacks the social conditioning to be attracted to her? Heck, people knew where to put it before we had sex education.

Society plays its role but you are going way overboard here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Panzer, my problem with what you are saying is that this divorcement of the act from the attraction is somewhat novel (at least in those cases where it serves no purpose beyond pleasure), and indeed seems to change the goalposts with what we understand by sexuality - and all this because a cursory glance at sexuality in past societies challenges your position.

Consider my example of ancient Sparta, or modern Afghanistan/Central Asia, or the Ottoman Empire - while you assert that certain constraints might lead to people acting against basic predispositions; in all these examples, no such constraints exists - rather, homosexuality is something pursued in addition to heterosexual relationships. And, indeed, it occurs on such a scale relative to other societies, that we must conclude that society is what is conditioning these people to seek such relationships. Unless, of course, you were to argue that certain population groups had a genetic predisposition towards such behaviour - but I find that hardly unlikely (although I would of course consider any evidence presented). Finally, in all these examples, attraction was central to the desire for the act, since it was entirely voluntary and served no purpose but pleasure, at least on the part of one partner.

"Important evidence against the tabula rasa model of the mind comes from Behavioural genetics, especially twin and adoption studies. These indicate strong genetic influences on personal characteristics such as IQ, alcoholism, gender identity, and other traits. Critically, multivariate studies show that the distinct faculties of the mind such as memory and reason fractionate along genetic boundaries. Cultural universals such as emotion and the relative resilience of psychological adaptation to accidental biological changes (for instance the David Reimer case of gender reassignment following an accident) also support basic biological mechanisms in the mind."

---

May I point out that homosexuality has also occured plenty in places where the tolerance with homosexuality is zero? As in, more consistant with your second statement than your first?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

May I point out that homosexuality has also occured plenty in places where the tolerance with homosexuality is zero? As in, more consistant with your second statement than your first?

---

So does theft. And murder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

people acting against basic predispositions

---

Complementing them.

Quote:

---

These indicate strong genetic influences on personal characteristics such as IQ, alcoholism, gender identity, and other traits.

---

These exactly support my arguments, which are rather far from tabula rasa. Read this again:

Quote:

---

a private "humanity" unique to each individual that ought to be 'satisfied' in some way, that there's some core of selfhood beneath all the social conditioning and so on.

---

If you would defend your position on these very terms, then you are basically claiming that each individual human has some innate and fully-developed social characteristics before being exposed to social conditioning.

Think very carefully here, as if it turns out that each of us is missing something about the other then we'll just end up going in circles.

Quote:

---

Again, it is plainly not, and is really just an extension of the evidence I gave above. As to why we should be heterosexual by nature, that is clear enough by looking at human reproduction throughout our history as a species. Homosexuality might make more sense in certain arrangements - for example in pack animals where only the alpha male/female reproduce, but not with human social arrangements.

---

It's not about "what makes sense", as evolution is arbitrary, not teleological. What you think we "should" be is totally irrelevant. If certain genetic features - including appropriate mutations - determine homosexuality, even congenital homosexuality, then that's going to repeat time and again throughout history regardless of whether or not the homosexuals reproduce. Homosexuality need not be heritable - polydactyly and cleft lip often aren't.

Quote:

---

You seem happy to declare many things as "clearly false", providing no evidence in doing so - and, indeed, in the face of a whole lot of evidence to the contrary.

---

Your "evidence" is invalid.

First, homoeroticism is not equivalent to homosexuality. If it were, then by your "evidence" homosexuality would be at a historic low-point for a society.

Second, there is no correlation between homosexuality and abuse of children; homosexuals are not over-represented among molesters of the same sex, and they are not over-represented among children (now adults) who have been abused by members of the same sex.

For evidence toward predisposition, tendency, or outright determinism of sexuality:

We have the frequently-noted fact that children who grow up to be homosexuals will describe feeling such attractions even in pre-adolescence.

The neurophysiology in homosexuals is closer to the typical neurophysiology of the opposite sex than that of the same sex.

It is possible to induce homosexuality in other animal species through genetic manipulation.

Quote:

---

Does society condition a baby to cry for its mother? And to stop when she cradles it? From birth, we can see that particular aspects of the most basic human relationships are instilled in us by nature.

---

Exactly.

Quote:

---

If a boy was raised in isolation away from all humanity, and exposed to a female once he was a grown man, do you think he would just stand there unperturbed, since he lacks the social conditioning to be attracted to her? Heck, people knew where to put it before we had sex education.

---

Unless of course he happened to be homosexual. Don't beg the question.

Quote:

---

Society plays its role but you are going way overboard here.

---

That's what I'm telling you. :stare:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Panzer, my problem with what you are saying is that this divorcement of the act from the attraction is somewhat novel (at least in those cases where it serves no purpose beyond pleasure), and indeed seems to change the goalposts with what we understand by sexuality - and all this because a cursory glance at sexuality in past societies challenges your position.

---

How do your examples challenge my position? The gap that often exists between attraction and the sexual relationships in which we choose to engage is well documented and what I would think to be common knowledge. Western history is replete with men who have conformed to the social norm of a consenting, monogamous, heterosexual relationship with a woman within the same age cohort and race/ethnicity that results in children who have also pursued sexual interactions that deviate from that norm in private. Most people will conform to social norms regarding sexuality in public, but private sexual practices can vary dramatically based on attractions that are inherent to the individual.

I think it is difficult for straight people who fit neatly into the current social norm to understand how wrapped up sexuality is in social standing and the public self. Even in today's vastly more tolerant society, there is still incredible pressure to conform to the current norm in many families, social groups, workplaces and in society in general. And yet, inherent attraction is so strong that people act on it in the face of that pressure.

Quote:

---

Consider my example of ancient Sparta, or modern Afghanistan/Central Asia, or the Ottoman Empire - while you assert that certain constraints might lead to people acting against basic predispositions; in all these examples, no such constraints exists - rather, homosexuality is something pursued in addition to heterosexual relationships. And, indeed, it occurs on such a scale relative to other societies, that we must conclude that society is what is conditioning these people to seek such relationships. Unless, of course, you were to argue that certain population groups had a genetic predisposition towards such behaviour - but I find that highly unlikely (although I would of course consider any evidence presented). Finally, in all these examples, attraction was central to the desire for the act, since it was entirely voluntary and served no purpose but pleasure, at least on the part of one partner.

---

Your line of reasoning is a bit murky, but it appears to rest on the above quote in bold. Can you support that with any actual data? I am not sure how one could make any points about the scale of comparative sexual practices in Sparta, for example, that are not firmly based in anecdote.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

So does theft. And murder.

---

Counterpoint A. Theft and murder either done out of desperation or for personal gain. So in the case of homosexuality it's done for personal gain (the prison situation might be done for both). How common is it for you to feel like you can gain something more through gay sex than normal sex?

Counterpoint B. There's a notable genetical component behind both theft and murder. There's a reason why psychopatic traits are way more common in prisoners (repeat offenders in particular) than in the general population.

Counterpoint C. This stuff isn't binary, but a sliding scale. So that means that a lot depends on cultural influence. Society tries to make it binary, but like gender identity/expression that's an incorrect simplified assumption.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

Counterpoint A. Theft and murder either done out of desperation or for personal gain. So in the case of homosexuality it's done for personal gain (the prison situation might be done for both). How common is it for you to feel like you can gain something more through gay sex than normal sex?

---

Countercounterpoint A. What isn't done for personal gain? Just about anything anyone ever does is done for personal gain. As for gaining more through gay sex vs normal, no idea, ask a gay guy.

Quote:

---

Counterpoint B. There's a notable genetical component behind both theft and murder. There's a reason why psychopatic traits are way more common in prisoners (repeat offenders in particular) than in the general population.

---

Countercounterpoint B. Aren't liberals (homosexuals in particular) shouting atop of their lungs about how being gay is not a choice, but rather something congenital?

Quote:

---

Counterpoint C. This stuff isn't binary, but a sliding scale. So that means that a lot depends on cultural influence. Society tries to make it binary, but like gender identity/expression that's an incorrect simplified assumption.

---

Countercounterpoint C. Theoretically yes, but only theoretically. In reality most people strictly adhere to one style or the other, which why the society labels it as binary: for all practical purposes it is binary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Atoms don't have morals. Therefore it is an emergent property of a complex ie multi molecular system. It is not a property of electromagnetics, gravity or nuclear forces.

---

Science does not speak to morality, therefore Science cannot make moral statements.

Who says Atom's don't have morals?

You have violated the bounds of Scientia - you argument is invalid.

Find a better one.

:(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Science does not speak to morality, therefore Science cannot make moral statements.

Who says Atom's don't have morals?

You have violated the bounds of Scientia - you argument is invalid.

Find a better one.

:(

---

You see boundaries based on your belief that some higher power has set out morality.

I see morality as out comes of empathy, memory, and other gregarious enhancing abilities that allow creatures to form large groups. All these can be hypothesized, tested and theorized.

Now maybe the higher power is using a transparent ruleset or an opaque one. You can still hypothesis and test. Even if the outcome is one that the system is unpredicatable. If predictions are possible then one can add in theories to.

Quote:

---

Science does not speak to morality, therefore Science cannot make moral statements.

---

Good thing that's a factual, not a moral, statement then.

Quote:

---

Who says Atom's don't have morals?

---

Atoms have no property called "morality", and you'll never show otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

Countercounterpoint A. What isn't done for personal gain? Just about anything anyone ever does is done for personal gain. As for gaining more through gay sex vs normal, no idea, ask a gay guy.

---

And they will say something about knowing that they were gay, even before puberty.

The difference is that you can understand the gain with someone stealing and some murders (well if you never in your life has had a theiving or murderous impulse, you might not understand it), even if you reject the idea for other reasons. Your first response here was "ask a gay".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

Countercounterpoint B. Aren't liberals (homosexuals in particular) shouting atop of their lungs about how being gay is not a choice, but rather something congenital?

---

Yes, and people attracted to the same gender will have vastly higher correlation with expressing homosexual behavior. That attraction is not something they have a choise about, even if they have a choise about the expression. With that expression being a matter between two agreeing adults and normally harmless, it's no wonder that they're pushing it for being an accepted behavior, rather than tolerated.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. My point was that even things like theft and murder has a genetical component even if societal factors have most influence in that case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

Countercounterpoint C. Theoretically yes, but only theoretically. In reality most people strictly adhere to one style or the other, which why the society labels it as binary: for all practical purposes it is binary.

---

It's more a point towards Rhyfelwyr than you actually. What that means is that a society that accepts or encurages gay behavior will have more of it, if only because more people are getting closer to their "natural selves" to use his words.

Bisexuals often have a prefered gender even if they like both genders. That means with binary treatment, they'll try to stick with one gender.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

You see boundaries based on your belief that some higher power has set out morality.

I see morality as out comes of empathy, memory, and other gregarious enhancing abilities that allow creatures to form large groups. All these can be hypothesized, tested and theorized.

Now maybe the higher power is using a transparent ruleset or an opaque one. You can still hypothesis and test. Even if the outcome is one that the system is unpredicatable. If predictions are possible then one can add in theories to.

---

I have [/i]never[/i] seen an effective Scientific test regarding morality, or anything relating to it. All such "experiments" have been malformed, failing to measure the thing they claim to be measuring.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Good thing that's a factual, not a moral, statement then.

---

You believe it is not a factual statement?

Quote:

---

Atoms have no property called "morality", and you'll never show otherwise.

---

No, Atoms have no [i]quantifiable[/quote] property called morality. Whether they have a qualitative property, Science has never investigated.

Quote:

---

You believe it is not a factual statement?

---

Oh, I see. I was referring to Pape's line, not yours, and unironically.

Quote:

---

No, Atoms have no quantifiable property called morality. Whether they have a qualitative property, Science has never investigated.

---

Of course not.

1. How is [x] to be defined/characterized?

2. How is it to be tested for?

Before it can be enabled to deal with something, science must have these questions answered.

For morality as an atomic or fundamental property, these questions are not to be answered satisfactorily, and so there is not even any point considering whether there is some heretofore-unknown property called "morality". Science should not have truck with phantasms; from there whether you'd like to take an agnostic or an eliminative perspective is up to you - though the former assumes there would be no contradiction with existing knowledge.

Just for kicks:

Quote:

---

Atoms have an intrinsic and unmodifiable property called "Criminality". This property correlates with another such called "Badness" 100% of the time.

One hypothesis is that the proportion of atoms with Criminality=Y in an organism will correlate directly with that organism's propensity to commit crimes.

Another hypothesis is that all individuals classified as "Negroid" will be found to be entirely composed of atoms with Criminality=Y.

We believe that a positive conclusion to these hypotheses would explain the ineluctable and prolific law-breaking behavior of the Negro.

---

Quote:

---

I have [/i]never[/i] seen an effective Scientific test regarding morality, or anything relating to it. All such "experiments" have been malformed, failing to measure the thing they claim to be measuring.

---

It's fairly easy to find tests measuring "moral behavior", which is merely a certain kind of experimentally pre-defined behavior, call it whatever you like. Behavior is not difficult to quantify; what do you have against such tests?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

How do your examples challenge my position? The gap that often exists between attraction and the sexual relationships in which we choose to engage is well documented and what I would think to be common knowledge. Western history is replete with men who have conformed to the social norm of a consenting, monogamous, heterosexual relationship with a woman within the same age cohort and race/ethnicity that results in children who have also pursued sexual interactions that deviate from that norm in private. Most people will conform to social norms regarding sexuality in public, but private sexual practices can vary dramatically based on attractions that are inherent to the individual.

I think it is difficult for straight people who fit neatly into the current social norm to understand how wrapped up sexuality is in social standing and the public self. Even in today's vastly more tolerant society, there is still incredible pressure to conform to the current norm in many families, social groups, workplaces and in society in general. And yet, inherent attraction is so strong that people act on it in the face of that pressure.

---

OK, so as we stand, I have suggested that naturally heterosexual people can engage in homosexual behaviour often occurs as a result of social conditions, and you have countered that naturally homosexual people engage in heterosexual behaviour as a result of social conditions. And I think we can accept that for these basic points, what each of us is saying is true.

But I think there is one core difference that prevents our comparisons from being analogous. The only socities where homosexuality has occured on a large scale (beyond a couple of percentage points of the population), are those in which homosexual relations are fostered by particularly artificial environments - whereas heterosexual relations remain the norm in the vast majority of human societies past and present, whether tolerant or intolerant of homosexuality.

While this could fit with what you are saying about the gap between attaction and sexual relationships, the problem for me with that argument is that in all these artificial environments with high levels of homosexual practice, the homosexual acts seem to be both voluntary, and entirely for pleasure (at least for one partner). The relationship between the attraction and the act seems to hold firm - so why don't we see such high levels of homosexuality in modern, open societies?

I accept that I am left with the problem of those few percentage points, but counter with the above question. I am not in this debate to say I have all the answers, I just think the water is far muddier than people make out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Your line of reasoning is a bit murky, but it appears to rest on the above quote in bold. Can you support that with any actual data? I am not sure how one could make any points about the scale of comparative sexual practices in Sparta, for example, that are not firmly based in anecdote.

---

I thought that the examples I gave were commonly accepted. I'll be honest though, it's not the sort of topic I want to research on my computer. Sorry if that's a bit of a debate killer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Think very carefully here, as if it turns out that each of us is missing something about the other then we'll just end up going in circles.:

---

Yeah, I think we need to clarify some things to make sure we know where each other is coming from. Now, from comments such as these:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Then there must be a misunderstanding. You seemed to be conceiving of a private "humanity" unique to each individual that ought to be 'satisfied' in some way, that there's some core of selfhood beneath all the social conditioning and so on.

That is clearly false. The social conditioning is the core.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Note that without society a human is nothing, so there's no point in this "true...individual" stuff.

---

I thought you were saying that an individual is no more than society conditions them to be - that they have no underlying "true" self, whether straight or gay in orientation.

Now from your last post in respose to me, I'm a bit confused since you seem to be saying something different. I'm not saying you are necessarily being inconsistent, we are maybe just looking at some concepts differently, I am maybe misunderstanding you. For example, do you think when I speak of our inherent humanity, that I a speaking of something somehow 'deeper' than what is expressed in us genetically?

I'm saying that it is inherent to human beings to have society and engage socially with other humans; it's a truism, really. What I saw you as doing was referring to some sort of pristine 'sub-social' human in your arguments as if it were an actual organism that can and does exist somehow. Even infants behave/engage socially.

So let's narrow it down to sexual orientation:

From your perspective, humans are born heterosexual and shift to homosexuality due to specific external influences. There is no gap between attraction and behavior.

From my perspective, sexual orientation is mostly congenital and not so fluid. There is a gap between attraction and behavior, and in either direction for the latter it is due to things like stigma, prestige, power...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

And they will say something about knowing that they were gay, even before puberty.

---

And you know that how exactly?

Quote:

---

The difference is that you can understand the gain with someone stealing and some murders (well if you never in your life has had a theiving or murderous impulse, you might not understand it), even if you reject the idea for other reasons. Your first response here was "ask a gay".

---

This makes no sense at all.

Quote:

---

Yes, and people attracted to the same gender will have vastly higher correlation with expressing homosexual behavior. That attraction is not something they have a choise about, even if they have a choise about the expression. With that expression being a matter between two agreeing adults and normally harmless, it's no wonder that they're pushing it for being an accepted behavior, rather than tolerated.

---

They argue that it's not a choice.

Quote:

---

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. My point was that even things like theft and murder has a genetical component even if societal factors have most influence in that case.

---

Do you have any evidence of that?

Quote:

---

It's more a point towards Rhyfelwyr than you actually. What that means is that a society that accepts or encurages gay behavior will have more of it, if only because more people are getting closer to their "natural selves" to use his words.

---

Why would any society want to encourage gay behavior?

Quote:

---

Bisexuals often have a prefered gender even if they like both genders. That means with binary treatment, they'll try to stick with one gender.

---

Their behavior is binary. Their treatment is based on their behavior, not the other way around.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

I have [/i]never[/i] seen an effective Scientific test regarding morality, or anything relating to it. All such "experiments" have been malformed, failing to measure the thing they claim to .

---

1) Lets assume first there is morality and it isn't another fable to comfort adults.

2) First you would define what it is and what are its features and sub components. For instance empathy, reciprocity, proportional response, delayed satisfaction, altruism etc. Pick the traits that you believe would make moral members of society and test for those traits.

If it is intrinsic to human genetic coding one would expect to see it a wide variety of societies.

So you could study this via anthropology, psychology, biology or neuroscience.

It could be that some of the traits are instinctual and others socially reinforced.

First though would be defining what is moral and then you could test it. If it is based on an untestable definition then one would need to do a meta study ie does every religion believe morals are from their unique god, pantheon, spaghetti monster. What is the shared beliefs. Are these shared with primitive societies, children raised by animals or animals themselves?

Trying to dismiss morality by using the scientific method is silly.

It's the same as trying to empirically determine human rights. They exist not because of nature, they exist because we (or God if you are religious) wills it ourselves. I don't care what nature has to say about who we are or how we "should" behave. We as humans do posses the ability to alter ourselves, and just as we can say that human rights are a clearly good notion to have, we can say the same with morality in general. Thus we live our lives under the notions of human rights and morality and we are better off believing in these "lies" than trying to take humanity back to the "natural" state of bonobos individual violence and group orgies.

One I'm not trying to dismiss it. I'm trying to get a definition for this thread to show which parts may or may not be able to be tested. I believe morality is a outcome of our ability to socialise. If we were all sociopaths with no memory we would not be able to form large societies of individuals. We might be able with pheromones, dictatatorships or other forms of manipulation form large groups.

Anyhow one only needs to look at the large number of laws we have, the need for police and the way our leaders from CEO, Politicians and Priests all exploit their positions of power to wonder how intrinsic morality is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

One I'm not trying to dismiss it. I'm trying to get a definition for this thread to show which parts may or may not be able to be tested. I believe morality is a outcome of our ability to socialise. If we were all sociopaths with no memory we would not be able to form large societies of individuals. We might be able with pheromones, dictatatorships or other forms of manipulation form large groups.

Anyhow one only needs to look at the large number of laws we have, the need for police and the way our leaders from CEO, Politicians and Priests all exploit their positions of power to wonder how intrinsic morality is.

---

Wasn't trying to respond to you in particular. Was mostly me venting because I have met plenty of people both online and in RL that bring up science where morality is concerned because to them not intrinsic and/or unnatural = lacking in value.

I believe that morality is something that is a combination of nature and nuture up there with gender defined role.

I think some of the sub components of it can be studied with current toolsets. Other parts are in the black box category and not yet able to be tested. I do think that some will have structures in the brain that will contribute. There will be a whole host of studies showing removal of parts of the brain causing changes in social patterns. I also think some of it will be learnt and/or redundant or if lost learnt from scratch as the brain will compensate to adapt to its environment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

not intrinsic and/or unnatural = lacking in value.

---

There's the rub, though, the strange sort of special pleading often invoked in defense of morality: if there is no value, then there is still value because :bigcry:, and if there's value my morals are spared.

But if there's no value, there's no need to return (or move) to any which conceivable state: that's the whole point.

Quote:

---

Trying to dismiss morality by using the scientific method is silly.

---

It has nothing to do with science, not ultimately.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

There will be a whole host of studies showing removal of parts of the brain causing changes in social patterns.

---

Interestingly enough, we no longer need to act invasively; we now have the ability to selectively (de)/activate individual circuits or cell-types by introducing mutations that produce sensitivity to target stimuli.

Although either way, it would be widely treated as unethical for scientists to 'lobotomize' people to test this and that. I'm sure we could block long-term memory entirely, or paint the world in hues of one's values, or shut off the self, consciousness as a whole...

It all depends on who's interested in the applications, I suppose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

I'm saying that it is inherent to human beings to have society and engage socially with other humans; it's a truism, really. What I saw you as doing was referring to some sort of pristine 'sub-social' human in your arguments as if it were an actual organism that can and does exist somehow. Even infants behave/engage socially.

---

I would say we have a 'sub-social' being, in the sense that while social relations are inherent to us and society is an extension of those; as society becomes increasingly removed from its organic origins and instead becomes stratified (eg maintaining the collective spirit as a whole, while subverting the individual to particular roles through inequality), codified (by law and custom, maintaining the social spirit in laws, while destroying the process by which it came to be expressed in society, and replacing a natural system with an arbitrary one), and inorganic (growing less from its roots as an expression of those social relations inherent to us, but rather by replecating itself based on the form it took through the previous stratification/codification), society becomes something of a will unto itself, a driving force in its own right - and wholly divorced from its roots.

It is at this point we can say that while society is natural to humans, the social roles it enforces on people can be anything but natural to the individual.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

So let's narrow it down to sexual orientation:

From your perspective, humans are born heterosexual and shift to homosexuality due to specific external influences. There is no gap between attraction and behavior.

From my perspective, sexual orientation is mostly congenital and not so fluid. There is a gap between attraction and behavior, and in either direction for the latter it is due to things like stigma, prestige, power...

---

I wouldn't say there is no gap between attraction and behaviour - I acknowledged it in my last post. I just don't think that from a historical perspective, there is reason to believe it tells the whole story. Like I said, the problem I have with your position is that "stigma, prestige, power" are at best secondary to a voluntary and attraction-based pursuit of sex in socities where highly artificial conditions seem to make people pursue homosexual relations, in much higher numbers than they do even in free and tolerant societies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

It's the same as trying to empirically determine human rights. They exist not because of nature, they exist because we (or God if you are religious) wills it ourselves. I don't care what nature has to say about who we are or how we "should" behave. We as humans do posses the ability to alter ourselves, and just as we can say that human rights are a clearly good notion to have, we can say the same with morality in general. Thus we live our lives under the notions of human rights and morality and we are better off believing in these "lies" than trying to take humanity back to the "natural" state of bonobos individual violence and group orgies.

---

The problem then is that your concept of human rights and morality would lack legitimacy, and they would be very difficult to implement without it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

The problem then is that your concept of human rights and morality would lack legitimacy, and they would be very difficult to implement without it.

---

I acknowledge that. Isn't that the entire reason we have so many ethical systems in the first place? People for millennium have tried to make a justification behind the morality to legitimize it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

OK, so as we stand, I have suggested that naturally heterosexual people can engage in homosexual behaviour often occurs as a result of social conditions, and you have countered that naturally homosexual people engage in heterosexual behaviour as a result of social conditions. And I think we can accept that for these basic points, what each of us is saying is true.

But I think there is one core difference that prevents our comparisons from being analogous. The only socities where homosexuality has occured on a large scale (beyond a couple of percentage points of the population), are those in which homosexual relations are fostered by particularly artificial environments - whereas heterosexual relations remain the norm in the vast majority of human societies past and present, whether tolerant or intolerant of homosexuality.

While this could fit with what you are saying about the gap between attaction and sexual relationships, the problem for me with that argument is that in all these artificial environments with high levels of homosexual practice, the homosexual acts seem to be both voluntary, and entirely for pleasure (at least for one partner). The relationship between the attraction and the act seems to hold firm - so why don't we see such high levels of homosexuality in modern, open societies?

I accept that I am left with the problem of those few percentage points, but counter with the above question. I am not in this debate to say I have all the answers, I just think the water is far muddier than people make out.

---

Quote:

---

I thought that the examples I gave were commonly accepted. I'll be honest though, it's not the sort of topic I want to research on my computer. Sorry if that's a bit of a debate killer.

---

I suppose we have reached an impasse, as I do not believe this can be verified with any degree of statistical certainty in the societies that you mentioned. We cannot even get a truly accurate gauge of the prevalence of homosexuality in our own society. :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

We cannot even get a truly accurate gauge of the prevalence of homosexuality in our own society. :shrug:

---

Don't know about accuracy, but a very large survey in 2011 found 1.7% of the U.S.A. population self-identifying as gay or lesbian, with another 1.8% (mostly women) self-identifying as bisexual. Quite a few of the respondents also described themselves as "closeted." Source.

From the article: "Higher numbers can be obtained when asking about lifetime sexual experiences, rather than identity. The Williams Institute found that, overall, an estimated 8.2 percent of the population had engaged in some form same-sex sexual activity. Put another way, 4.7 percent of the population had wandered across the line without coming to think of themselves as either gay or bisexual. Other studies suggest those individuals are, like the bisexuals, mainly women: The same CDC study that found only 1 percent of women identify as lesbian, for example, found that 13 percent of women reported a history of some form of sexual contact with other women."

-edit-

TL/DR: Best estimate is that approx 3.5% of the U.S.A. population self-identifies as gay, lesbian, or bisexual.

Quote:

---

I would say we have a 'sub-social' being, in the sense that while social relations are inherent to us and society is an extension of those; as society becomes increasingly removed from its organic origins and instead becomes stratified (eg maintaining the collective spirit as a whole, while subverting the individual to particular roles through inequality), codified (by law and custom, maintaining the social spirit in laws, while destroying the process by which it came to be expressed in society, and replacing a natural system with an arbitrary one), and inorganic (growing less from its roots as an expression of those social relations inherent to us, but rather by replecating itself based on the form it took through the previous stratification/codification), society becomes something of a will unto itself, a driving force in its own right - and wholly divorced from its roots.

It is at this point we can say that while society is natural to humans, the social roles it enforces on people can be anything but natural to the individual.

---

I simply cannot accept a distinction on those grounds. :shrug:

Quote:

---

highly artificial conditions

---

See above. This is tautological, as any conditions pertaining to humanity will be "artificial". Being more generous and taking "artificial" as - look, I'll just cut it short and say that societies have been "artificial" in your sense since at least the second generation of humans", if not even millenniums prior in pre-human hominids. Again, this is perfectly natural for humans.

Quote:

---

make people pursue homosexual relations, in much higher numbers than they do even in free and tolerant societies.

---

The key behind your correlation is that modern, Western, "free and tolerant societies" do not tolerate the sexualization and the sexual "abuse" of children, which in the societies you mentioned was taken as a matter of course. Children are there for the pleasure of (male) adults, to obey them and to provide future insurance (as caretakers and continuation of lineage) in those societies. So this "homosexual behavior" - which, again, is better called "same-sex sexual activity", or else you run into equivocation - is just sybaritism, really, encouraged by...

Quote:

---

attraction-based pursuit

---

That's just it - it's not attraction-based, it's pleasure-based and power-based. As MRD's Afghan put it, "kids are for fun, women are for kids'. It has nothing to do with attraction - though I'm sure 'ugly' boys are less desirable than 'pretty' ones - and everything to do with power imbalance in favor of adult males, and prestige attached to having boy-toys. If you ask why girls aren't used as commonly, well, think about it: in such societies, the girls are merely property of other adult males! Meanwhile, the existing culture makes it more likely for sons to think of such interactions as perfectly acceptable - and desirable - things, and for fathers to place little-to-no stigma on their own sons engaging in them, if they don't initiate for themselves...

Also keep in mind that homeless, parent-less boys tend to last longer on the streets than girls in a similar position - for obvious reasons. Boy-hookers can survive on the streets, more-or-less.

Another thing - in the societies you mentioned homosexuality between adults was an object of disgust and derision. Pederasty was not considered to be equivalent in them. What better way to get a power high than to sexually dominate (i.e. 'educate') a young boy, especially if it considered positive by the culture, and taking the honor of virginal females isn't?

Meanwhile, in Western society we look upon such things with horror and crack down hard on them; is it then so surprising that the vast majority of same-sex child abusers actually don't self-identify as homosexual?

Rape is about power, and pederasty is, even legally-speaking, rape.

Think on it.

This is obviously a case of hurt feelings. Nobody really cares abou the service in particular, but abut the way they refused.

"Hi, can you take our wedding photos?"

"When is the wedding, sir?"

"June the 19th."

"Oh, sorry, we're booked for that date."

"OK, thanks anyway"


versus:

"Hi, can you take our wedding photos?"

"We dun' take photos of f*g weddings, git of muh propurtee!"

I highly doubt this would have reached court if the photographers simply made up an excuse out of courtesy and kept their opinoins to themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myth

This is obviously a case of hurt feelings.

---

Very few people sue when they think they've been treated well. Fact of life. Being a jerk substantially increases your litigation exposure.

I forget which hospital did the trial, but there was a temporary thing where administrators enacted a policy that all doctors say "please" and "thank you" to patients. Basic stuff, right? Lawsuits went down by a large, measurable amount.

Anyway, it's safe to bet that the photog was dickish about the whole thing. 'Cause people don't sue someone they think is nice (e.g., "Oh, I'm so happy for you two, but I'd be violating my religion if I did your pictures. However, I want you to know that God loves all his children, and I'm going to help you find a great replacement that works with your budget and schedule!" Hey presto—no lawsuit.)

I think the takeaway from all this is wedding planning bring out the worst in people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntiDamascus

I think the takeaway from all this is wedding planning bring out the worst in people.

---

Video proof:

http://youtu.be/OTPBbTBQiiY

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

I suppose we have reached an impasse, as I do not believe this can be verified with any degree of statistical certainty in the societies that you mentioned. We cannot even get a truly accurate gauge of the prevalence of homosexuality in our own society. :shrug:

---

Fair enough, it is a very difficult topic to get accurate statistics on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

I simply cannot accept a distinction on those grounds. :shrug:

---

Well an explanation would have been nice, but even if you reject what I said above, here's another line of thought - consider the impact of external factors to humans and their society. For example, for most of our history as a species, our fundamental social relations were forged around life as hunter-gatherers, and all that that entailed. Our society was one that has limitations placed on it by external things like our environment, and our social relations were forged within that reality. Principles like patriarchy and hierarchy emerged in a world where circumstance limited population groups to around 150 or so.

Meanwhile, something external to this, like the development of agriculture (while the capacity to use the relevant tools is of course natural, the ability to use them to this end is external and circumstancial, and for those earliest farmers, entirely novel and alien to human life) meant that while we had the same inherent social relations, the world they were expressed in was fundamentally changed. Whereas patriarchy and hierarchy once maintained the natural family unit, they now maintained a system of injustic and inequality - relationships that were alien to the individual. Consider how natural law theorists of monarchy said that the position of the king as head of a nation, was an extension of the principle of the man and head of the household, and thus it was entirely natural for one man to be subject to another. Would you agree with this? For me, such as society maintains the natural social spirit, while subjecting the individual to the whole, and thus a life which is itself unnatural to them.

And while the restraints that a hunter-gatherer life placed on humanity could be said be to be external and therefore artificial, the thing is that this was the environment our social relations were built for, since it defined the period where we arose as a species.

Without these constraints, society may still be said to be a natural phenomenon - but having escaped it's bounds, it no longer maintains an order that is a natural expression of those social relations inherent in us. Indeed, it is thought that the rise of agriculture is what gave rise to instutionalised inequality - and thereafter, it was all downhill as society became less a natural order, and more an artificial monstrosity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

See above. This is tautological, as any conditions pertaining to humanity will be "artificial". Being more generous and taking "artificial" as - look, I'll just cut it short and say that societies have been "artificial" in your sense since at least the second generation of humans", if not even millenniums prior in pre-human hominids. Again, this is perfectly natural for humans.

---

If you take "artificial" as meaning "anything external to the individual", then of course everything is artificial. But this ignores the fact that humanity was forged in a particular environment with a particular way of life, and thus is intrinsically linked to them. Likewise, if you take "natural" to mean "anything and everything arising out of nature", then of course everything is natural. However, I think we all recognise the need for distinction, and that something can become sufficiently altered from its original form that it is deemed something different altogether.

For society, a watershed in this regard, is whether or not it continues to be expressed in the way it originally was. For society to be natural, it must be organic - it must be something that flows from all its inhabitants, and expresses those relations inherent to them, that we can see ingrained even in their genetic code (babies crying for mothers, formation of families etc). When this link becomes degraged, and society instead expresses something more arbitrary, a system of legal codes and customs etc, then the mode of expression has fundamentally changed, and society could be said to no longer be natural. Well, it remains natural in the sense that it arose from humans, but the social order it maintains is no longer something natural to humanity - it is not the way we are designed to live.

And on top of that, you have like I was saying above, the external influences as well.

**************

And as for the bit about what has caused various forms of homosexual relationships throughout history, I think power is only part of the story, but really we are all speculating. Although as you said yourself, some distinction between "ugly" and "pretty" remains, which demonstrates to me that attraction plays at least some role.

I would also point out that not all examples relate to pederastry and the like. In the Ottoman Empire, I think it involved fully grown males, likewise I remember an article (sorry I don't have it) in the BBC (IIRC) that was about how common homosexuality is in modern Pakistan - because it is so difficult for guys to access girls prior to marriage, they engage in homosexual behaviour, and families actually ignore it so long as the plan to marry a woman and have a family.

For me, there are just to many examples where sexuality seems to be circumstancial, and where attraction/pleasure (can you really separate the two?) seem to be the core motivation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

We cannot even get a truly accurate gauge of the prevalence of homosexuality in our own society. :shrug:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Fair enough, it is a very difficult topic to get accurate statistics on.

---

Yes, indeed, if only someone would find some statistics backed up by a decent methodology. Too bad it will never happen in our lifetimes.

[Taps microphone: "Is this thing on?"]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Yes, indeed, if only someone would find some statistics backed up by a decent methodology. Too bad it will never happen in our lifetimes.

[Taps microphone: "Is this thing on?"]

---

Now do that for ancient Sparta and we'll have something to go on. :tongue:

Sorry gents, I only found reliable statistics for half of your fact-holes. I should be ashamed of myself.

Bad lemur! Naughty lemur!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

It's the equivalent of refusing to sell them a wedding cake.

---

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013...ng-challenges/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

There's the rub, though, the strange sort of special pleading often invoked in defense of morality: if there is no value, then there is still value because :bigcry:, and if there's value my morals are spared.

But if there's no value, there's no need to return (or move) to any which conceivable state: that's the whole point.



It has nothing to do with science, not ultimately.



Interestingly enough, we no longer need to act invasively; we now have the ability to selectively (de)/activate individual circuits or cell-types by introducing mutations that produce sensitivity to target stimuli.

Although either way, it would be widely treated as unethical for scientists to 'lobotomize' people to test this and that. I'm sure we could block long-term memory entirely, or paint the world in hues of one's values, or shut off the self, consciousness as a whole...

It all depends on who's interested in the applications, I suppose.

---

I think what Montemercy is getting at, and I'm not sure if he realises this or not, is that we live in an amoral society. More specifically, we live in a society where moral pleading is in-effective. One cannot make a case on moral grounds, only empirical ones. If you cannot measure it, it does not exist.

Morality is not measurable - ergo it is non-existent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

I think what Montemercy is getting at, and I'm not sure if he realises this or not, is that we live in an amoral society. More specifically, we live in a society where moral pleading is in-effective. One cannot make a case on moral grounds, only empirical ones. If you cannot measure it, it does not exist.

Morality is not measurable - ergo it is non-existent.

---

Dat science religion.

The bane of the modern west, haughty little narcissistic know it alls

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

One cannot make a case on moral grounds, only empirical ones. If you cannot measure it, it does not exist.

Morality is not measurable - ergo it is non-existent.

---

Not entirely convinced that the components are unmeasurable or non predictable either. Morality would be a social glue much like electrostatics are glue for molecules.

Take a look at the Ten Commandments or the Golden Rule or many religious food restrictions. Look at the context of the society it was developed in and think like a game designer.

Some of these rules would have given those societies advantages over the local competitors who don't observe them, or implement their opposite.

Atoms can form all sorts of molecules. Some of which are more likely to form then others given the environment they form in, some will also be more robust.

Likewise humans can form all sorts of groups. The ethical rules that are formed are shaped by the environment and some are more generally applicable then others.

"Morality" maybe not; but parts of it would certainly admit to operational definitions. If you can define it in such a way as to quantify it, you can study it...whatever it is.
I believe there are studies on moral issues like greed, altruism, sacrifice, compassion...etc.