|
On June 25 2013 02:02 Qwyn wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 01:56 imallinson wrote:On June 25 2013 01:50 Qwyn wrote:On June 25 2013 01:46 marvellosity wrote:On June 25 2013 01:45 Qwyn wrote:On June 25 2013 01:40 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 01:38 Qwyn wrote:On June 25 2013 01:35 Iyerbeth wrote:
I find myself with a question about the people claiming that if sex isn't for reproduction then it is wrong because it is 'against the designof evolution' or whatever.
Do you apply the same rigorous standards of darwinian natural selection to all aspects of your life, or just when it suits you? Even Dawkins stated he wouldn't want to live in such a society and he's about the biggest proponent of evolution you'll find. ... I said that the primary purpose of sex is reproduction. All mammals on earth use sex as a means of reproduction. Humans are unique on this earth, but why should that change the purpose of sex? That purpose dictates the vast majority of the world's sexual preference. It might be a harsh viewpoint, but it doesn't make it any less valid.I have been saying over and over again that any biological programming or learned behavior is overshadowed by choice... Your viewpoint is actually completely invalid because it's riddled with hypocrisies and mistruths. You do not get to stand on equal intellectual footing as the rest of us until you can start citing some science. You're telling me that the viewpoint that sex is a function of reproduction and that all of a mammal's sexual interactions are catered to this purpose - is invalid? Is this what happens when someone shares a viewpoint that you dislike? You insult me by calling my viewpoint invalid. You act as if yours is the only one which is "right," a hypocrisy if I've ever seen one, since we're all just debating opinions here... And then you delegitimize me and insult me, claiming that I am ignorant and am uneducated. You're labouring under the delusion that it's a difference of opinion; when actually science is overwhelmingly of the 'opinion' that it is very much not a choice. All opinions are not equal or equally valid. I'm not delusional...Someone just quoted a website, APA.org, I think it was...And I quoted a paragraph right back at him. There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; ---> most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation <---. The key here being that "both nature and nurture both play complex roles..." I see now, though, that this is what happens when someone steps outside the "circlejerk" (as someone here aptly put it) that we've got going on here. You might want to read the bit just after that. ALTERNATIVELY, you might want to read the majority before it.
I do not think you understand what a conclusion is. Again, why am I not justified in calling you uneducated?
|
On June 25 2013 02:01 A Wet Shamwow wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 01:57 Taosu wrote:On June 25 2013 01:53 A Wet Shamwow wrote:
It isn't a choice (as others in this thread are arguing), but let's say that it is a choice, just as choosing not to live only to reproduce is a choice, then why should we prosecute and treat homosexuals as second class citizens while we ourselves are making a choice to "go against" our purpose? Because we don't want our children to encounter this on everyday basis? "This"? Two human beings being together? It isn't like there are going to be full blown orgies in the streets. I am pretty sure PDA of any nature is not kosher in most peoples minds, gay or straight.
I guess he think that teaching children to hate people for being who they are is more harmful than them seeing couples of the same genders :/ That's quite sad.
|
On June 25 2013 02:01 Fission wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 01:58 RockIronrod wrote:On June 25 2013 01:52 SgtCoDFish wrote:On June 25 2013 01:43 radscorpion9 wrote:On June 25 2013 01:30 shawster wrote:
the fact that people are saying that equality is political shows how close minded certain individuals are
keep it up tl! I think you mean something else, because equality very clearly *is* a political issue; one obvious case is gay marriage. Its just a statement of reality! I'd argue equality isn't political: if you don't support equality you're a moron, not a political activist. Achieving equality is however hugely political, obviously. You can't just blanketly call everyone who disagrees with you a moron, and you can't just spout "equality" when in reality you only mean "equality for the people I think are right." Unless you mean complete equality for every single orientation (including paedophilia and bestiality), religious expression (which can dictate violence against certain peoples) and cultural moral (the clan leader has to have sex with all the women of his tribe). There's an enormous difference between two consenting adults having a relationship and nonconsensual relationships between adults and children, or animals. Pedofilia isn't an orientation, it's a mental illness. Two adult men or women consenting to sex is NOTHING like raping a child. Your point is disgusting and groundless.
Did you even read his post. No, you didn't. Go back and read it and realize your post is stupid.
|
On June 25 2013 01:54 Qwyn wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 01:49 Plansix wrote:On June 25 2013 01:46 marvellosity wrote:On June 25 2013 01:45 Qwyn wrote:On June 25 2013 01:40 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 01:38 Qwyn wrote:On June 25 2013 01:35 Iyerbeth wrote:
I find myself with a question about the people claiming that if sex isn't for reproduction then it is wrong because it is 'against the designof evolution' or whatever.
Do you apply the same rigorous standards of darwinian natural selection to all aspects of your life, or just when it suits you? Even Dawkins stated he wouldn't want to live in such a society and he's about the biggest proponent of evolution you'll find. ... I said that the primary purpose of sex is reproduction. All mammals on earth use sex as a means of reproduction. Humans are unique on this earth, but why should that change the purpose of sex? That purpose dictates the vast majority of the world's sexual preference. It might be a harsh viewpoint, but it doesn't make it any less valid.I have been saying over and over again that any biological programming or learned behavior is overshadowed by choice... Your viewpoint is actually completely invalid because it's riddled with hypocrisies and mistruths. You do not get to stand on equal intellectual footing as the rest of us until you can start citing some science. You're telling me that the viewpoint that sex is a function of reproduction and that all of a mammal's sexual interactions are catered to this purpose - is invalid? Is this what happens when someone shares a viewpoint that you dislike? You insult me by calling my viewpoint invalid. You act as if yours is the only one which is "right," a hypocrisy if I've ever seen one, since we're all just debating opinions here... And then you delegitimize me and insult me, claiming that I am ignorant and am uneducated. You're labouring under the delusion that it's a difference of opinion; when actually science is overwhelmingly of the 'opinion' that it is very much not a choice. All opinions are not equal or equally valid. Well, he has boiled his point down to the fact that sex's primary purpose is reproduce. Its sort of like boiling down your argument to saying the sky is blue or water is wet. We can't really argue against it. But it proves nothing. The primary purpose of sex doesn't matter. Flowers primary purpose for being colorful is to attract animals to they can spread their pollen. That doesn't stop me from putting them in my back yard because I like the way they look. The primary purpose doesn't matter for humans because we are one of the few species on earth that is capable of going against the biological mold... I said there are two components of sexual preference. Biological design and learned behavior. I believe the APA.org website calls these "nature and nurture..." I'm boiling down my viewpoint to homosexual preference being a clash of nature and nurture, with nurture overriding the other. Of course, the viewpoint that homosexuality is a component of "nature" is also valid. I'm just inclined to think that is an anomaly, since it goes against the predominant purpose of sex. Like it or not - I mean, you can sugar coat it all you want, go ahead. What sort of flowers do you like? And I'm loathe to hear that you think reproduction doesn't matter.
I didn't say reproduction doesn't matter and you know it. I said the point that reproduction is sex's primary propose doesn't matter when it comes to human relationships. Humans have sex all the time and actively avoid trying to have children. You keep citing this point, but the majority of couples have sex for a number of reasons and only one of them is to have children. Are those relationships unnatural or "a clash of nature and nurture" as well?
You keep trying to use the primary purpose of sex as some sort of moral or social compass. But it has little baring on relationships as a whole and only comes into play when people want children. Some couples never want children, but have a ton of sex.
|
United Kingdom3482 Posts
On June 25 2013 02:02 Qwyn wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 01:56 imallinson wrote:On June 25 2013 01:50 Qwyn wrote:On June 25 2013 01:46 marvellosity wrote:On June 25 2013 01:45 Qwyn wrote:On June 25 2013 01:40 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 01:38 Qwyn wrote:On June 25 2013 01:35 Iyerbeth wrote:
I find myself with a question about the people claiming that if sex isn't for reproduction then it is wrong because it is 'against the designof evolution' or whatever.
Do you apply the same rigorous standards of darwinian natural selection to all aspects of your life, or just when it suits you? Even Dawkins stated he wouldn't want to live in such a society and he's about the biggest proponent of evolution you'll find. ... I said that the primary purpose of sex is reproduction. All mammals on earth use sex as a means of reproduction. Humans are unique on this earth, but why should that change the purpose of sex? That purpose dictates the vast majority of the world's sexual preference. It might be a harsh viewpoint, but it doesn't make it any less valid.I have been saying over and over again that any biological programming or learned behavior is overshadowed by choice... Your viewpoint is actually completely invalid because it's riddled with hypocrisies and mistruths. You do not get to stand on equal intellectual footing as the rest of us until you can start citing some science. You're telling me that the viewpoint that sex is a function of reproduction and that all of a mammal's sexual interactions are catered to this purpose - is invalid? Is this what happens when someone shares a viewpoint that you dislike? You insult me by calling my viewpoint invalid. You act as if yours is the only one which is "right," a hypocrisy if I've ever seen one, since we're all just debating opinions here... And then you delegitimize me and insult me, claiming that I am ignorant and am uneducated. You're labouring under the delusion that it's a difference of opinion; when actually science is overwhelmingly of the 'opinion' that it is very much not a choice. All opinions are not equal or equally valid. I'm not delusional...Someone just quoted a website, APA.org, I think it was...And I quoted a paragraph right back at him. There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; ---> most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation <---. The key here being that "both nature and nurture both play complex roles..." I see now, though, that this is what happens when someone steps outside the "circlejerk" (as someone here aptly put it) that we've got going on here. You might want to read the bit just after that. ALTERNATIVELY, you might want to read the majority before it.
I did. It says "errr its complicated and we don't know exactly why some people are gay and some are straight". Not what you seem to be thinking its saying that people have a choice about their sexual orientation.
|
On June 25 2013 02:01 Steel wrote:
"As usual, the debate ended with everyone losing. The clash of intractable views produced no harmony, just exhaustion and an ache in the back of the skull"
I can't believe how much people try to argue for or against causes they affect them so little. You're not ignorant and uneducated saying that homosexuality is wrong because nature didn't intend for it, but why do you care so much? Are you nature's white knight, vowed to be opinionated when you spot unnatural behavior? If people like you would go about their business and let others go about their business, then there wouldn't even need to be this gay pride bullshit. Your viewpoint isn't invalid, it's just pointless and idiotic to argue for it. Similar to what religious zealots use in arguments.
Because this is a forums. People debate on a forums. Why do we debate? You tell me. But do not strike down my views if you disagree with them. Simply state that you think otherwise respectably, and I will take up no qualms with you.
But when you post a paragraph saying that everything I write is futile, that it is pointless because it goes against that majority, that I should not debate on a forums or put out a view that goes against the mold, I get more than a little bit irritated.
|
On June 25 2013 02:01 Fission wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 01:58 RockIronrod wrote:On June 25 2013 01:52 SgtCoDFish wrote:On June 25 2013 01:43 radscorpion9 wrote:On June 25 2013 01:30 shawster wrote:
the fact that people are saying that equality is political shows how close minded certain individuals are
keep it up tl! I think you mean something else, because equality very clearly *is* a political issue; one obvious case is gay marriage. Its just a statement of reality! I'd argue equality isn't political: if you don't support equality you're a moron, not a political activist. Achieving equality is however hugely political, obviously. You can't just blanketly call everyone who disagrees with you a moron, and you can't just spout "equality" when in reality you only mean "equality for the people I think are right." Unless you mean complete equality for every single orientation (including paedophilia and bestiality), religious expression (which can dictate violence against certain peoples) and cultural moral (the clan leader has to have sex with all the women of his tribe). There's an enormous difference between two consenting adults having a relationship and nonconsensual relationships between adults and children, or animals. Pedofilia isn't an orientation, it's a mental illness. Two adult men or women consenting to sex is NOTHING like raping a child. Your point is disgusting and groundless.
I specifically stated I wasn't comparing the two, glad you decided to edit that out though. Great cherry picking skills.
The entire point of what I said is that you can't just throw around the word "equality" without putting necessary limits on it, and that you can't just blanketly call people morons for not having the exact same limits as you.
|
On June 25 2013 02:01 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 01:59 dcsoda wrote:On June 25 2013 01:49 Nikk wrote:On June 25 2013 01:38 Qwyn wrote:On June 25 2013 01:35 Iyerbeth wrote:
I find myself with a question about the people claiming that if sex isn't for reproduction then it is wrong because it is 'against the designof evolution' or whatever.
Do you apply the same rigorous standards of darwinian natural selection to all aspects of your life, or just when it suits you? Even Dawkins stated he wouldn't want to live in such a society and he's about the biggest proponent of evolution you'll find. ... I said that the primary purpose of sex is reproduction. All mammals on earth use sex as a means of reproduction. Humans are unique on this earth, but why should that change the purpose of sex? That purpose dictates the vast majority of the world's sexual preference. It might be a harsh viewpoint, but it doesn't make it any less valid. I have been saying over and over again that any biological programming or learned behavior is overshadowed by choice... Reproduction is a consequence of sex. What evidence do you have that it is the purpose? How do you know the purpose is not pleasure? Why do you think there exists a purpose in the first place? I don't want to look like I'm agreeing with that dude but reproduction is pretty much the purpose of sex. I think it's pleasurable to us so we keep doing it and so we keep reproducing. Survival and reproduction is the basic purpose of pretty much all life right? Just my two cents. If survival and reproduction are the purposes of life then why do we even bother with hobbies? Hell, why don't we all have several kids and then kill ourselves? That way we'd further the species and then we wouldn't consume resources so there'd be more for our kids so they could reproduce. Oh wait, we aren't cicadas.
You're really arguing with the need of life to survive and procreate? Ok then. Just because humans do other shit doesn't mean those aren't two of our most primal instincts. But to argue with your actual ridiculous stupid point I'm pretty sure that killing ourselves goes against the SURVIVAL instinct I was talking about.
|
On June 25 2013 02:05 Qwyn wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 02:01 Steel wrote:
"As usual, the debate ended with everyone losing. The clash of intractable views produced no harmony, just exhaustion and an ache in the back of the skull"
I can't believe how much people try to argue for or against causes they affect them so little. You're not ignorant and uneducated saying that homosexuality is wrong because nature didn't intend for it, but why do you care so much? Are you nature's white knight, vowed to be opinionated when you spot unnatural behavior? If people like you would go about their business and let others go about their business, then there wouldn't even need to be this gay pride bullshit. Your viewpoint isn't invalid, it's just pointless and idiotic to argue for it. Similar to what religious zealots use in arguments. Because this is a forums. People debate on a forums. Why do we debate? You tell me. But do not strike down my views if you disagree with them. Simply state that you think otherwise respectably, and I will take up no qualms with you. But when you post a paragraph saying that everything I write is futile, that it is pointless because it goes against that majority, that I should not debate on a forums or put out a view that goes against the mold, I get more than a little bit irritated.
Say what you will, but if you say something stupid, don't complain when people calll you stupid.
|
On June 25 2013 02:04 imallinson wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 02:02 Qwyn wrote:On June 25 2013 01:56 imallinson wrote:On June 25 2013 01:50 Qwyn wrote:On June 25 2013 01:46 marvellosity wrote:On June 25 2013 01:45 Qwyn wrote:On June 25 2013 01:40 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 01:38 Qwyn wrote:On June 25 2013 01:35 Iyerbeth wrote:
I find myself with a question about the people claiming that if sex isn't for reproduction then it is wrong because it is 'against the designof evolution' or whatever.
Do you apply the same rigorous standards of darwinian natural selection to all aspects of your life, or just when it suits you? Even Dawkins stated he wouldn't want to live in such a society and he's about the biggest proponent of evolution you'll find. ... I said that the primary purpose of sex is reproduction. All mammals on earth use sex as a means of reproduction. Humans are unique on this earth, but why should that change the purpose of sex? That purpose dictates the vast majority of the world's sexual preference. It might be a harsh viewpoint, but it doesn't make it any less valid.I have been saying over and over again that any biological programming or learned behavior is overshadowed by choice... Your viewpoint is actually completely invalid because it's riddled with hypocrisies and mistruths. You do not get to stand on equal intellectual footing as the rest of us until you can start citing some science. You're telling me that the viewpoint that sex is a function of reproduction and that all of a mammal's sexual interactions are catered to this purpose - is invalid? Is this what happens when someone shares a viewpoint that you dislike? You insult me by calling my viewpoint invalid. You act as if yours is the only one which is "right," a hypocrisy if I've ever seen one, since we're all just debating opinions here... And then you delegitimize me and insult me, claiming that I am ignorant and am uneducated. You're labouring under the delusion that it's a difference of opinion; when actually science is overwhelmingly of the 'opinion' that it is very much not a choice. All opinions are not equal or equally valid. I'm not delusional...Someone just quoted a website, APA.org, I think it was...And I quoted a paragraph right back at him. There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; ---> most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation <---. The key here being that "both nature and nurture both play complex roles..." I see now, though, that this is what happens when someone steps outside the "circlejerk" (as someone here aptly put it) that we've got going on here. You might want to read the bit just after that. ALTERNATIVELY, you might want to read the majority before it. I did. It says "errr its complicated and we don't know exactly why some people are gay and some are straight". Not what you seem to be thinking its saying that people have a choice about their sexual orientation.
No, I'm talking about the part that says "no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles..."
|
On June 25 2013 02:06 Qwyn wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 02:04 imallinson wrote:On June 25 2013 02:02 Qwyn wrote:On June 25 2013 01:56 imallinson wrote:On June 25 2013 01:50 Qwyn wrote:On June 25 2013 01:46 marvellosity wrote:On June 25 2013 01:45 Qwyn wrote:On June 25 2013 01:40 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 01:38 Qwyn wrote:On June 25 2013 01:35 Iyerbeth wrote:
I find myself with a question about the people claiming that if sex isn't for reproduction then it is wrong because it is 'against the designof evolution' or whatever.
Do you apply the same rigorous standards of darwinian natural selection to all aspects of your life, or just when it suits you? Even Dawkins stated he wouldn't want to live in such a society and he's about the biggest proponent of evolution you'll find. ... I said that the primary purpose of sex is reproduction. All mammals on earth use sex as a means of reproduction. Humans are unique on this earth, but why should that change the purpose of sex? That purpose dictates the vast majority of the world's sexual preference. It might be a harsh viewpoint, but it doesn't make it any less valid.I have been saying over and over again that any biological programming or learned behavior is overshadowed by choice... Your viewpoint is actually completely invalid because it's riddled with hypocrisies and mistruths. You do not get to stand on equal intellectual footing as the rest of us until you can start citing some science. You're telling me that the viewpoint that sex is a function of reproduction and that all of a mammal's sexual interactions are catered to this purpose - is invalid? Is this what happens when someone shares a viewpoint that you dislike? You insult me by calling my viewpoint invalid. You act as if yours is the only one which is "right," a hypocrisy if I've ever seen one, since we're all just debating opinions here... And then you delegitimize me and insult me, claiming that I am ignorant and am uneducated. You're labouring under the delusion that it's a difference of opinion; when actually science is overwhelmingly of the 'opinion' that it is very much not a choice. All opinions are not equal or equally valid. I'm not delusional...Someone just quoted a website, APA.org, I think it was...And I quoted a paragraph right back at him. There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; ---> most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation <---. The key here being that "both nature and nurture both play complex roles..." I see now, though, that this is what happens when someone steps outside the "circlejerk" (as someone here aptly put it) that we've got going on here. You might want to read the bit just after that. ALTERNATIVELY, you might want to read the majority before it. I did. It says "errr its complicated and we don't know exactly why some people are gay and some are straight". Not what you seem to be thinking its saying that people have a choice about their sexual orientation. No, I'm talking about the part that says "no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles..."
Which doesn't contradict the fact that sexual orientation is not a choice in any way.
|
On June 25 2013 02:05 RockIronrod wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 02:01 Fission wrote:On June 25 2013 01:58 RockIronrod wrote:On June 25 2013 01:52 SgtCoDFish wrote:On June 25 2013 01:43 radscorpion9 wrote:On June 25 2013 01:30 shawster wrote:
the fact that people are saying that equality is political shows how close minded certain individuals are
keep it up tl! I think you mean something else, because equality very clearly *is* a political issue; one obvious case is gay marriage. Its just a statement of reality! I'd argue equality isn't political: if you don't support equality you're a moron, not a political activist. Achieving equality is however hugely political, obviously. You can't just blanketly call everyone who disagrees with you a moron, and you can't just spout "equality" when in reality you only mean "equality for the people I think are right." Unless you mean complete equality for every single orientation (including paedophilia and bestiality), religious expression (which can dictate violence against certain peoples) and cultural moral (the clan leader has to have sex with all the women of his tribe). There's an enormous difference between two consenting adults having a relationship and nonconsensual relationships between adults and children, or animals. Pedofilia isn't an orientation, it's a mental illness. Two adult men or women consenting to sex is NOTHING like raping a child. Your point is disgusting and groundless. I specifically stated I wasn't comparing the two, glad you decided to edit that out though. Great cherry picking skills. The entire point of what I said is that you can't just throw around the word "equality" without putting necessary limits on it, and that you can't just blanketly call people morons for not having the exact same limits as you.
You explicitly compare them, then try to say "oh I'm not comparing them". Your entire point is ridiculous.
|
On June 25 2013 02:05 Qwyn wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 02:01 Steel wrote:
"As usual, the debate ended with everyone losing. The clash of intractable views produced no harmony, just exhaustion and an ache in the back of the skull"
I can't believe how much people try to argue for or against causes they affect them so little. You're not ignorant and uneducated saying that homosexuality is wrong because nature didn't intend for it, but why do you care so much? Are you nature's white knight, vowed to be opinionated when you spot unnatural behavior? If people like you would go about their business and let others go about their business, then there wouldn't even need to be this gay pride bullshit. Your viewpoint isn't invalid, it's just pointless and idiotic to argue for it. Similar to what religious zealots use in arguments. Because this is a forums. People debate on a forums. Why do we debate? You tell me. But do not strike down my views if you disagree with them. Simply state that you think otherwise respectably, and I will take up no qualms with you. But when you post a paragraph saying that everything I write is futile, that it is pointless because it goes against that majority, that I should not debate on a forums or put out a view that goes against the mold, I get more than a little bit irritated.
Your views are a threat to the quality of life of many people. I think it's fair to strike them down.
|
On June 25 2013 02:02 Qwyn wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 01:56 imallinson wrote:On June 25 2013 01:50 Qwyn wrote:On June 25 2013 01:46 marvellosity wrote:On June 25 2013 01:45 Qwyn wrote:On June 25 2013 01:40 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 01:38 Qwyn wrote:On June 25 2013 01:35 Iyerbeth wrote:
I find myself with a question about the people claiming that if sex isn't for reproduction then it is wrong because it is 'against the designof evolution' or whatever.
Do you apply the same rigorous standards of darwinian natural selection to all aspects of your life, or just when it suits you? Even Dawkins stated he wouldn't want to live in such a society and he's about the biggest proponent of evolution you'll find. ... I said that the primary purpose of sex is reproduction. All mammals on earth use sex as a means of reproduction. Humans are unique on this earth, but why should that change the purpose of sex? That purpose dictates the vast majority of the world's sexual preference. It might be a harsh viewpoint, but it doesn't make it any less valid.I have been saying over and over again that any biological programming or learned behavior is overshadowed by choice... Your viewpoint is actually completely invalid because it's riddled with hypocrisies and mistruths. You do not get to stand on equal intellectual footing as the rest of us until you can start citing some science. You're telling me that the viewpoint that sex is a function of reproduction and that all of a mammal's sexual interactions are catered to this purpose - is invalid? Is this what happens when someone shares a viewpoint that you dislike? You insult me by calling my viewpoint invalid. You act as if yours is the only one which is "right," a hypocrisy if I've ever seen one, since we're all just debating opinions here... And then you delegitimize me and insult me, claiming that I am ignorant and am uneducated. You're labouring under the delusion that it's a difference of opinion; when actually science is overwhelmingly of the 'opinion' that it is very much not a choice. All opinions are not equal or equally valid. I'm not delusional...Someone just quoted a website, APA.org, I think it was...And I quoted a paragraph right back at him. There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; ---> most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation <---. The key here being that "both nature and nurture both play complex roles..." I see now, though, that this is what happens when someone steps outside the "circlejerk" (as someone here aptly put it) that we've got going on here. You might want to read the bit just after that. ALTERNATIVELY, you might want to read the majority before it.
Yeah, I read it all. It said that sexual orientation is not caused by any specific factor. This means that both nature and nurture have little effect on whether or not someone is heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. The point is that it is not a question of raising, will or biology. Even science does not know.
|
On June 25 2013 02:05 dcsoda wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 02:01 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 01:59 dcsoda wrote:On June 25 2013 01:49 Nikk wrote:On June 25 2013 01:38 Qwyn wrote:On June 25 2013 01:35 Iyerbeth wrote:
I find myself with a question about the people claiming that if sex isn't for reproduction then it is wrong because it is 'against the designof evolution' or whatever.
Do you apply the same rigorous standards of darwinian natural selection to all aspects of your life, or just when it suits you? Even Dawkins stated he wouldn't want to live in such a society and he's about the biggest proponent of evolution you'll find. ... I said that the primary purpose of sex is reproduction. All mammals on earth use sex as a means of reproduction. Humans are unique on this earth, but why should that change the purpose of sex? That purpose dictates the vast majority of the world's sexual preference. It might be a harsh viewpoint, but it doesn't make it any less valid. I have been saying over and over again that any biological programming or learned behavior is overshadowed by choice... Reproduction is a consequence of sex. What evidence do you have that it is the purpose? How do you know the purpose is not pleasure? Why do you think there exists a purpose in the first place? I don't want to look like I'm agreeing with that dude but reproduction is pretty much the purpose of sex. I think it's pleasurable to us so we keep doing it and so we keep reproducing. Survival and reproduction is the basic purpose of pretty much all life right? Just my two cents. If survival and reproduction are the purposes of life then why do we even bother with hobbies? Hell, why don't we all have several kids and then kill ourselves? That way we'd further the species and then we wouldn't consume resources so there'd be more for our kids so they could reproduce. Oh wait, we aren't cicadas. You're really arguing with the need of life to survive and procreate? Ok then. Just because humans do other shit doesn't mean those aren't two of our most primal instincts. But to argue with your actual ridiculous stupid point I'm pretty sure that killing ourselves goes against the SURVIVAL instinct I was talking about.
No. I'm not arguing with that need. I'm arguing with your post above it which says that it's the purpose of life. A need != a purpose. We need to procreate and survive. That does not make procreation and survival our purpose. My point was ridiculous and stupid because it was simply an extrapolation of what you asserted...which was stupid.
|
United Kingdom3482 Posts
On June 25 2013 02:06 Qwyn wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 02:04 imallinson wrote:On June 25 2013 02:02 Qwyn wrote:On June 25 2013 01:56 imallinson wrote:On June 25 2013 01:50 Qwyn wrote:On June 25 2013 01:46 marvellosity wrote:On June 25 2013 01:45 Qwyn wrote:On June 25 2013 01:40 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 01:38 Qwyn wrote:On June 25 2013 01:35 Iyerbeth wrote:
I find myself with a question about the people claiming that if sex isn't for reproduction then it is wrong because it is 'against the designof evolution' or whatever.
Do you apply the same rigorous standards of darwinian natural selection to all aspects of your life, or just when it suits you? Even Dawkins stated he wouldn't want to live in such a society and he's about the biggest proponent of evolution you'll find. ... I said that the primary purpose of sex is reproduction. All mammals on earth use sex as a means of reproduction. Humans are unique on this earth, but why should that change the purpose of sex? That purpose dictates the vast majority of the world's sexual preference. It might be a harsh viewpoint, but it doesn't make it any less valid.I have been saying over and over again that any biological programming or learned behavior is overshadowed by choice... Your viewpoint is actually completely invalid because it's riddled with hypocrisies and mistruths. You do not get to stand on equal intellectual footing as the rest of us until you can start citing some science. You're telling me that the viewpoint that sex is a function of reproduction and that all of a mammal's sexual interactions are catered to this purpose - is invalid? Is this what happens when someone shares a viewpoint that you dislike? You insult me by calling my viewpoint invalid. You act as if yours is the only one which is "right," a hypocrisy if I've ever seen one, since we're all just debating opinions here... And then you delegitimize me and insult me, claiming that I am ignorant and am uneducated. You're labouring under the delusion that it's a difference of opinion; when actually science is overwhelmingly of the 'opinion' that it is very much not a choice. All opinions are not equal or equally valid. I'm not delusional...Someone just quoted a website, APA.org, I think it was...And I quoted a paragraph right back at him. There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; ---> most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation <---. The key here being that "both nature and nurture both play complex roles..." I see now, though, that this is what happens when someone steps outside the "circlejerk" (as someone here aptly put it) that we've got going on here. You might want to read the bit just after that. ALTERNATIVELY, you might want to read the majority before it. I did. It says "errr its complicated and we don't know exactly why some people are gay and some are straight". Not what you seem to be thinking its saying that people have a choice about their sexual orientation. No, I'm talking about the part that says "no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles..."
Which in no way supports your view that people have a choice about sexual orientation. However the last line does support the view that people don't have much of a choice in sexual orientation.
|
On June 25 2013 02:06 corumjhaelen wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 02:05 Qwyn wrote:On June 25 2013 02:01 Steel wrote:
"As usual, the debate ended with everyone losing. The clash of intractable views produced no harmony, just exhaustion and an ache in the back of the skull"
I can't believe how much people try to argue for or against causes they affect them so little. You're not ignorant and uneducated saying that homosexuality is wrong because nature didn't intend for it, but why do you care so much? Are you nature's white knight, vowed to be opinionated when you spot unnatural behavior? If people like you would go about their business and let others go about their business, then there wouldn't even need to be this gay pride bullshit. Your viewpoint isn't invalid, it's just pointless and idiotic to argue for it. Similar to what religious zealots use in arguments. Because this is a forums. People debate on a forums. Why do we debate? You tell me. But do not strike down my views if you disagree with them. Simply state that you think otherwise respectably, and I will take up no qualms with you. But when you post a paragraph saying that everything I write is futile, that it is pointless because it goes against that majority, that I should not debate on a forums or put out a view that goes against the mold, I get more than a little bit irritated. Say what you will, but if you say something stupid, don't complain when people calll you stupid.
You're insulting me. Is that because you don't like my opinion? I'd hope that you could conduct yourself a bit better than that.
People (you) are calling me stupid because that is a petty thing that people do when they don't like what other people say. They ridicule them and mock them in hopes of making them leave or give up. I told you that I respect the common viewpoint. It seems that you are incapable of respecting mine.
|
On June 25 2013 02:07 Fission wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 02:05 RockIronrod wrote:On June 25 2013 02:01 Fission wrote:On June 25 2013 01:58 RockIronrod wrote:On June 25 2013 01:52 SgtCoDFish wrote:On June 25 2013 01:43 radscorpion9 wrote:On June 25 2013 01:30 shawster wrote:
the fact that people are saying that equality is political shows how close minded certain individuals are
keep it up tl! I think you mean something else, because equality very clearly *is* a political issue; one obvious case is gay marriage. Its just a statement of reality! I'd argue equality isn't political: if you don't support equality you're a moron, not a political activist. Achieving equality is however hugely political, obviously. You can't just blanketly call everyone who disagrees with you a moron, and you can't just spout "equality" when in reality you only mean "equality for the people I think are right." Unless you mean complete equality for every single orientation (including paedophilia and bestiality), religious expression (which can dictate violence against certain peoples) and cultural moral (the clan leader has to have sex with all the women of his tribe). There's an enormous difference between two consenting adults having a relationship and nonconsensual relationships between adults and children, or animals. Pedofilia isn't an orientation, it's a mental illness. Two adult men or women consenting to sex is NOTHING like raping a child. Your point is disgusting and groundless. I specifically stated I wasn't comparing the two, glad you decided to edit that out though. Great cherry picking skills. The entire point of what I said is that you can't just throw around the word "equality" without putting necessary limits on it, and that you can't just blanketly call people morons for not having the exact same limits as you. You explicitly compare them, then try to say "oh I'm not comparing them". Your entire point is ridiculous.
I'm pretty sure you just saw the words pedophilia and bestiality and then made incorrect assumptions from there. Read his post and use your brain to actually think about the meaning of it.
|
On June 25 2013 02:07 imallinson wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 02:06 Qwyn wrote:On June 25 2013 02:04 imallinson wrote:On June 25 2013 02:02 Qwyn wrote:On June 25 2013 01:56 imallinson wrote:On June 25 2013 01:50 Qwyn wrote:On June 25 2013 01:46 marvellosity wrote:On June 25 2013 01:45 Qwyn wrote:On June 25 2013 01:40 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 01:38 Qwyn wrote:
[quote]
...
I said that the primary purpose of sex is reproduction. All mammals on earth use sex as a means of reproduction. Humans are unique on this earth, but why should that change the purpose of sex? That purpose dictates the vast majority of the world's sexual preference. It might be a harsh viewpoint, but it doesn't make it any less valid.
I have been saying over and over again that any biological programming or learned behavior is overshadowed by choice... Your viewpoint is actually completely invalid because it's riddled with hypocrisies and mistruths. You do not get to stand on equal intellectual footing as the rest of us until you can start citing some science. You're telling me that the viewpoint that sex is a function of reproduction and that all of a mammal's sexual interactions are catered to this purpose - is invalid? Is this what happens when someone shares a viewpoint that you dislike? You insult me by calling my viewpoint invalid. You act as if yours is the only one which is "right," a hypocrisy if I've ever seen one, since we're all just debating opinions here... And then you delegitimize me and insult me, claiming that I am ignorant and am uneducated. You're labouring under the delusion that it's a difference of opinion; when actually science is overwhelmingly of the 'opinion' that it is very much not a choice. All opinions are not equal or equally valid. I'm not delusional...Someone just quoted a website, APA.org, I think it was...And I quoted a paragraph right back at him. There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; ---> most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation <---. The key here being that "both nature and nurture both play complex roles..." I see now, though, that this is what happens when someone steps outside the "circlejerk" (as someone here aptly put it) that we've got going on here. You might want to read the bit just after that. ALTERNATIVELY, you might want to read the majority before it. I did. It says "errr its complicated and we don't know exactly why some people are gay and some are straight". Not what you seem to be thinking its saying that people have a choice about their sexual orientation. No, I'm talking about the part that says "no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles..." Which in no way supports your view that people have a choice about sexual orientation. However the last line does support the view that people don't have much of a choice in sexual orientation.
Which in no way denies my view that people have a choice about sexual orientation. However, the last line states what psychologists think, not what they know to be an absolute truth.
|
On June 25 2013 02:08 Qwyn wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 02:06 corumjhaelen wrote:On June 25 2013 02:05 Qwyn wrote:On June 25 2013 02:01 Steel wrote:
"As usual, the debate ended with everyone losing. The clash of intractable views produced no harmony, just exhaustion and an ache in the back of the skull"
I can't believe how much people try to argue for or against causes they affect them so little. You're not ignorant and uneducated saying that homosexuality is wrong because nature didn't intend for it, but why do you care so much? Are you nature's white knight, vowed to be opinionated when you spot unnatural behavior? If people like you would go about their business and let others go about their business, then there wouldn't even need to be this gay pride bullshit. Your viewpoint isn't invalid, it's just pointless and idiotic to argue for it. Similar to what religious zealots use in arguments. Because this is a forums. People debate on a forums. Why do we debate? You tell me. But do not strike down my views if you disagree with them. Simply state that you think otherwise respectably, and I will take up no qualms with you. But when you post a paragraph saying that everything I write is futile, that it is pointless because it goes against that majority, that I should not debate on a forums or put out a view that goes against the mold, I get more than a little bit irritated. Say what you will, but if you say something stupid, don't complain when people calll you stupid. You're insulting me. Is that because you don't like my opinion? I'd hope that you could conduct yourself a bit better than that. People (you) are calling me stupid because that is a petty thing that people do when they don't like what other people say. They ridicule them and mock them in hopes of making them leave or give up. I told you that I respect the common viewpoint. It seems that you are incapable of respecting mine.
Not all opinion are equal, I'm sorry.
Edit : please respect the fact I believe 1+1=3 and woman are inferior to man.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
