Gays, population growth, the environment, clouds!

[DB_Hunter]

Admin Note: This thread has been split from Terra's thread (http://forums.gotwoot.net/showthread.php?t=14324) for being off-topic. If you want to talk about Terra's experience, go there. If you want to talk about the stuff this discussion wandered through, go here.
-Admin

I don't know what to be more disgusted about... your (Terra's) act or the response of the people on this forum.

Can't say I'm surprised, from the pictures you used to post you looked like you would end up doing something like this.

No wonder places like Europe are literally dying out... the fertility rate is bound to drop with people simply concerned with 'having fun' instead of worrying about the declining population levels.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not homophobic. That would suggest that I have some irrational fear/hatred of homosexuals, which I do not. Disgust would probably be the best way to describe my feeling towards such acts.

I think the idea of doing an act as long as it makes you happy is foolish to the extreme. The promotion of homosexuality is simply a step forward from the promotion of extra-marital relationships, if you believe in the idea that you should do whatever makes you happy.

In my opinion this leads to societal breakdown. This is why the populations of the vast number of Western countries are dying out... fertility rates in Europe are not even at the required levels to replace the existing population levels, let alone grow. This leads to a host of other problems, such as an ageing workforce, pension crisis' and economic decline amongst other things. But I guess this is not something one person should worry about huh?

I bet one day pedophillia will be promoted like this too... afterall, homosexuality was once considered to be 'abnormal' and illegal in Western societies about 30-40 years ago. Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I think there already is a party in the Netherlands that promotes either the legalisation of child porn or pedophilla.

At this rate, it may not be you guys but maybe your kids (if you have any) that will probably be sitting with each other and saying to pedophiles that its OK to bang kids, as long as they give consent and everyone involved is having fun. Who knows, they could be the "partner's" of pedophiles themselves...

[anime050]

-02:11:37- [~YTheAlien]: that post is so horrible that if I wasn't banned already I would post such a horrific reply that I would get banned again

---

-02:12:06- [~YTheAlien]: gays are just like pedophiles
-02:12:13- [~YTheAlien]: or maybe gays ARE all pedophiles
-02:12:24- [~YTheAlien]: and gays are destroying european civilization
-02:12:44- [~YTheAlien]: despite this being pretty much the only fucking period in history where europe isn't having a fucking gigantic war that has lasted a decade
-02:12:53- [~YTheAlien]: or colonizing africa and killing a million African-Americans (Hint: This used to be a racial slur!)

---

-02:13:02- [~`a50]: oh man
-02:13:04- [~`a50]: can i post that
-02:13:08- [~`a50]: ill copy paste!
-02:13:12- [~YTheAlien]: no
-02:13:22- [~YTheAlien]: ok here

---

-02:14:04- [~YTheAlien]: the fact that he is fucking worrying about underpopulation at a time when the earth's population as a whole is increasing exponentially is a fucking joke
-02:14:28- [~YTheAlien]: and of course his absolutely awful equivalence argument between homosexuality and pedophilia
-02:14:35- [~YTheAlien]: what the fuck is his fucking problem
-02:14:49- [~YTheAlien]: sex acts between consenting adults are acceptable
-02:15:08- [~YTheAlien]: sex acts between nonconsenting parties (children cannot legally consent to sex) is not acceptable
-02:16:43- [~YTheAlien]: his argument about european birth rates is fucking facile
-02:16:48- [~YTheAlien]: first of all, the birth rate is still positive
-02:16:54- [~YTheAlien]: and always has been throughout human history
-02:17:13- [~YTheAlien]: second of all, the predictor for declining population is based on a current trend in birth rate decline holding steady
-02:17:16- [~YTheAlien]: until 2100
-02:17:25- [~YTheAlien]: yeah ok guys we're fucked
-02:17:28- [~YTheAlien]: in 100 years..........
-02:17:33- [~YTheAlien]: oh wait nothing bad will happen
-02:18:09- [~YTheAlien]: and he is also making a fucking terrible argument about extramarital relation
-02:18:23- [~YTheAlien]: it's extramarital because PEOPLE LIKE YOU BANNED GAY MARRIAGE YOU FUCKING DICKHEAD
-02:19:00- [~YTheAlien]: he blames gays fucking for everything including his fucking pension problems
-02:19:30- [~YTheAlien]: gay people represent ~7-10% of the population and ALWAYS HAVE
-02:19:47- [~YTheAlien]: gay people have never reproduced, what the fuck do their reproductive rates have to do with current trends in population
-02:21:02- [~YTheAlien]: and as a reminder, the biggest and only credible threat to western civilization are backwards barbarians who want to destroy the foundations of modernity - and, surprise, they hate gay people.
-02:21:18- [~YTheAlien]: maybe he should go join up with the muslims, I hear they are very civilized and hate gays

---

-02:21:08- [~Schism]: Gay people did in ye ol' days
-02:21:13- [~Schism]: When if you were gay
-02:21:47- [~YTheAlien]: Schism the amount of gay people who lead married lives is, at best, about 40% of the gay population which is itself about 7% of the population
-02:21:58- [~YTheAlien]: and this is true even in modernity
-02:22:10- [~YTheAlien]: the reproductive shift has nothing to do with gay people

---

-02:22:30- [~Schism]: Yeah
-02:22:31- [~Schism]: I agree
-02:22:37- [~Schism]: The population loss is minimal
-02:22:44- [~Schism]: I'm just saying they do reproduce
-02:22:50- [~YTheAlien]: fucking shitty godawful ignorant ass-backwards fundamentalist shitbags like db_hunter are the reason I can never post on that board

-02:23:01- [~YTheAlien]: ahhhhhhhh
-02:23:08- • ~YTheAlien explodes in a fireball of gayness

[PSJ]

Do you honestly believe the population of Europe is decreasing because of people having fun or because people are homosexuals? You're saying that people should all breed like rabbits in order for the country to survive? Is that what people in your country do?

You do know that homosexuality is a very natural thing right? Homosexuality have been spotted in alot of diffrent animal societies. It's also freedom of choice, if a person is in fact attracted to the same sex it's his choice if he wants to go through with it or not. I can't believe that you compared homosexuality to pedophillia. Pedophillia takes advantage of kids who don't have knowledge about what it means and therefore can't make a judgement for themselves, while a homosexual is a grown person who is perfectly clear about what it is about. It's not the same thing.

The population of Europe is decreasing largly because women have children later in their lives and as a result of that they don't give birth to as many children as women did before. Alot of people are studying to their late 20's and even after that they may not get a secure job for a few years which makes them wait until they have a good enviroment for a child to be born into. It has nothing to do with "having fun". That is more or less a result of the long studying period alot of people go through.

The countries of Europe are working on ways to fix the problem of the decreasing population and i can tell you one thing, they aren't banning "having fun" or homosexuality. They are trying to make it more benetifial to get children and the more children you get, the more benefits you get. Immigrants is also a good way to solve the problem, for example a decreasing work force. Sweden did this in the 60's and it worked out fine.

[Assertn]

This is why the populations of the vast number of Western countries are dying out... fertility rates in Europe are not even at the required levels to replace the existing population levels, let alone grow.

You're an idiot. If there were a billion less people in the world, we would all stand to benefit from it. Unfortunately, the reality is that the world population will always increase until its no longer able to sustain us.

We need more gay people.

[anime050]

You're an idiot. If there were a billion less people in the world, we would all stand to benefit from it. Unfortunately, the reality is that the world population will always increase until its no longer able to sustain us.

We need more gay people.

Also more AIDS, desu wa.

Or at least a new disease/plague.

[bagandscalpel]

I like where this is going~

Starting from an "innocently" inane topic about two guys making happy, it has now entered the realm of implications about indirect death and destruction ~desu.

[PSJ]

I love how your comment fits with your avatar. That's just priceless.

[DB_Hunter]

AssertnFailure:

Either you are being satirical, or you have serious issues with your preception of the world. Less people in the world would be better? Are you thinking in simple terms as "less people = less food (etc) needed for humanity"? The reasons for world poverty lie in politics and the kind of economic systems that are implemented in world today, not because the Earth can't provide enough resources.

Zimbabwe for example was known as the breadbasket for Africa, yet its own people are starting to live in hunger now (apparantly) because of the policies of its government. It could feed all of Africa if managed properly. Similar stories with Bangladesh, Pakistan and Argentina. The list could go on, but the point is to solve the resource crisis we need political solutions. The problems would still exist even if there were less people but the mentality was the same.

PSJ:


Do you honestly believe the population of Europe is decreasing because of people having fun or because people are homosexuals? You're saying that people should all breed like rabbits in order for the country to survive? Is that what people in your country do?

That's too simplistic an understanding of what I am saying. And I live in the UK, where we clearly do not do this.


You do know that homosexuality is a very natural thing right? Homosexuality have been spotted in alot of diffrent animal societies.

I don't believe in equating humans with animals when it comes to behaviour. Humans clearly posses an intellect to discern right and wrong, animals do not. Comparing yourself to a pengiun or a goat that is homosexual (and I don't even know the authenticity of these claims) is plain silly. Not even worth discussing.


It's also freedom of choice, if a person is in fact attracted to the same sex it's his choice if he wants to go through with it or not. I can't believe that you compared homosexuality to pedophillia. Pedophillia takes advantage of kids who don't have knowledge about what it means and therefore can't make a judgement for themselves, while a homosexual is a grown person who is perfectly clear about what it is about. It's not the same thing.

Homosexuality was once considered a mental illness (note I don't subscribe to this view). It was evetually legalised because of your very own reasoning, due to the principle of sexual freedom. The people who were homosexual used this argument successfully to get it legalised. It didn't happen overnight, it took time. The same will happen with pedophillia, because as long as all people subscribe to this view there will always be legitimate grounds to argue this point. Fine I concede it may not go down to your 1 month old baby, but it won't be far off.


The population of Europe is decreasing largly because women have children later in their lives and as a result of that they don't give birth to as many children as women did before. Alot of people are studying to their late 20's and even after that they may not get a secure job for a few years which makes them wait until they have a good enviroment for a child to be born into. It has nothing to do with "having fun". That is more or less a result of the long studying period alot of people go through.

I agree with everything there apart from the bit in bold (kind of). What I am trying to get at is that 'having fun' is an extension of the concepts of sexual freedom, freedom of association etc. So 'having fun' is not the problem per se.

Take a step back and think why people are doing all of the above more now. For fun? How many people think its fun to work? How many people think its fun to study? Very few I guess, like the ones who are lucky enough to work or study in the field they like without having to worry about money. The societies we live in now are such people are having to "work" harder increasingly simply to maintain their lives. In a house now both partners are having to work to make ends meet comfortably.

This is a combination of essentially what are Capitalist policies and values at play. People have been indoctrinated to believe that success in life is personal gratification. So people now work harder than ever, are more liberal with their desires than every before. People have stopped thinking about the wider good about society, and now it is all me, me, me.


The countries of Europe are working on ways to fix the problem of the decreasing population and i can tell you one thing, they aren't banning "having fun" or homosexuality. They are trying to make it more benetifial to get children and the more children you get, the more benefits you get. Immigrants is also a good way to solve the problem, for example a decreasing work force. Sweden did this in the 60's and it worked out fine.

I know of what Europe is trying to do, I live in the UK. It won't work. Temporary governmental policies are no substitute for decades of mental conditioning. There is not one single country in Europe that meets the required fertility rate even to replace the current population, with many far below this rate.

Immigration won't work either. Imigrants are reluctant to give up their values, and the host nations don't like this. Europe needs immigrants to keep its economies going. However they wan't to treat immigrants like resources, not people. Europe wants to keep its cake and eat it also, which can't happen. It wants immigrants to give up their values and work or get out. Since this is not happening, I'm afraid the future isn't bright for Europe. Either immigrant values will take over in Europe, or the indigenous population will die out.

And forget about what happened in the 60's, it was a totally different era.

Edit: Just read Y's posts. Love his religious zeal in defending homosexuality. With his simple reasoning thats devoid of understanding politics or values, he would fit right in during the good old dark ages of Europe.

[bagandscalpel]

Either immigrant values will take over in Europe, or the indigenous population will die out.

And forget about what happened in the 60's, it was a totally different era.
Sorry, but I lo~ove how these two remarks work off of each other so well! Let's see, taking things solely according to this logic...

In a post-culture-apocalyptic Europe:

Person-whose-ancestors-were-immigrants A: "People back then were so craaaaazy!"

Person B: "Forget what happened in the 00's, it was a totally different era."

But hey, I feel your pain, natural selection, no?

[Honoko]

Just as an FYI for you guys, The Economist recently came out with an article on the declining fertility rate in Europe and what that would mean within a 5 and 10-year projection. I tried to find a link to it but unfortunately, you have to subscribe/pay in order to access it. If anyone has an account w/ this publication, could they copy and paste it here?

My point is, DB isn't exactly pulling all of this out of his ass. His arguments are based on what researchers have observed about Europe's population trends.

Also, I haven't read the article myself- just heard someone speak about it so but from what that person got out of it, the article also offered some theories on why the population is in decline, and perhaps also suggested the necessity of changing one's general outlook in life. Again, if I read the article myself, I'd go in more detail. You'll just have to take my word for it, I guess =P

[KitKat]

All issues of homosexuality aside, I don't think that a declining birth rate is either A) a sign of rampant homosexuality taking over society or B) as much of a problem as you think. Decline in birth rate correlates to an increased standard of living in the country. If your country is poor, you want to have a lot of children so that some of them will survive and take care of you in your old age. They're your retirement plan. In much of the Western world, there isn't much chance of children dying from flu or diarrhea or malaria, so people have about as many as they think they'd like to raise.

As for how much of a problem declining birth rates is, it might translate into a worrisome societal conundrum, but can only be a good thing for the earth. Our man-made societal and political systems can continually adapt. Our environment is reaching its limit of being able to adapt to our habits and lifestyles. We may be the most 'advanced' generation of humans, but we're also the most resource-hungry. The earth cannot sustain the way we're living. If the population decreases, it might just help stave off total environmental catastrophe for a bit longer.

[DB_Hunter]

Interesting article (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/india_knight/article1273689.ece)

[masamuneehs]

...this thread used to be all about laughing and having fun...
now it's all serious and about morality and science...
on the bright side, surely Gotwoot's birth rate will consequentely rise...

i don't agree with Y or DBHunter, but at least DB tried to present his argument in a decent manner. obviously this kind of opinion stuff gets mucky really fast, and i doubt you'll get everyone anywhere to ever agree on the whole gay sex/immorality/marriage/birth rate issue....

oh, and terra, still waiting on the gory details. those little sketches are funny, but i yearn for the butt-bustin truth!

[Assertn]

Are you thinking in simple terms as "less people = less food (etc) needed for humanity"? The reasons for world poverty lie in politics and the kind of economic systems that are implemented in world today, not because the Earth can't provide enough resources.

I hear statistical theories on how natural gas will be exhausted within the next 10 years...
theories on how water tables in North America will dry up within 10-20 years...
For practically every single adult in America, there's a car polluting the atmosphere. Scientists have conservatively presumed that even if every single CO2 emission was stopped right now, there would still be enough in the atmosphere to increase the temperature of the planet by 10 degrees within this century.

All this directly correlates to population.

Kitkat's right, politics and economics can change to meet our needs, but the environment cannot.

[Edort4]

Environmental science is quite in his first steps so even scientist dont know much about it (thus given completely different answers). But all of them say that earth is already overpopulated (some say that it can withstand 9 billion ppl but I found it hard to believe seeing how earth deteriorates rapidly) , and that is not good.

On the other hand the birth rate reduced to its most simplistic form means that having kids means: Less free time and less money for your hobbies (or perversions).

[Darkflare]

http://www.unesco.org/culture/worldreport/html_eng/wcrb11.shtml
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/27/world/main546441.shtml
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/09/03/news/birth.php

[complich8]

This discussion is being split from Terra's thread (http://forums.gotwoot.net/showthread.php?t=14324)., because it's totally off-topic.

If you want to talk about Terra's experience, go there. If you want to talk about ... whatever the hell this thread is about, go here. That is all.

Enjoy.

[complich8]

Now, to take off the admin-hat, and put on the giant-response-rant hat.


(a lot of anti-gay bile)
random arguments
On gays, pedos, and morality:

The best scientific evidence to date shows that homosexuality is neither a choice nor a learned behavior. Evidence of homosexuality in the animal kingdom is not just present, it's pervasive, and to ignore it or its implications is to shut out the realm of science entirely.

Making moral judgements about the actions of gay people is pretty fucked. It's like making moral judgements about women or black people or people with congenital defects: they don't really have any control over who they're attracted to. Forcing people into hetero relationships when they're not straight is just asking for social problems (loveless marriages, divorces, etc).

Gay people aren't pedophiles. Acceptance of homosexuality doesn't imply acceptance of pedophilia. They're independent phenomena. However, pedophilia, like homosexuality, spans all economic and social classes in a way that points towards some other factor influencing it.


On declining birth rates:

Yes, birth rates are hovering right around or slightly below the replacement rate in Europe and the US. So what's that mean for you? If you're hetero and you're concerned about the birth rate in your country, when you're married and having a family, make sure to have at least 3 kids. A lot of the low birth rates in Europe are the direct result of women's equality in the workplace but not in the home -- a direct clash of liberalization and traditional values. If it were feasible for a married couple to get by on a single income, or if fathers were more universally willing to take part in their children's upbringing, this problem would probably go away.

Further, gay couples have been known to adopt or to use artificial insemination to have children, and tend to make excellent parents. So there you go ... let gay couples marry, let married gay couples adopt, and straight unmarried/unmarried women will keep them supplied with kids ('cause you KNOW teenagers aren't going to stop having sex, and the preponderance of abstinence-only sex ed drives up teen pregnancy rates). With more stable adoptive families waiting, more people will feel better about putting their kids up for adoption and choose that over abortion. Another win-win: functional families happen, abortion declines, population grows.


On peak-everything:

Now let's talk about the world. There's a lot of theories floating around ... about how the planet, the angel, the ruby crag and Kujuta are all going to fall off of Bahamut's back and plunge all of existence into the oblivion of Adwad.

Peak-oil and its variants (peak-natural-gas, peak-food) are sexy. They scare people. They're also scientifically weak, based on models that mainstream science doesn't tend to find compelling. There's statistical and scientific models that show just about everything, but you have to question their validity. I'll leave that to climate scientists and earth scientists and whatnot though. What I _do_ know is that nuclear's still a valid solution, ITER is scheduled to come online in 2016 and hopefully demonstrate sustainable tokamak-model fusion energy (which is the holy grail of energy concerns), and if we can solve our energy concerns in clean ways we can solve most other problems that comes up using that energy.


On carrying capacity:

There is no non-coercive way to implement population controls. If you're comfortable with the ethics of coercion, then by all means, have a look at China. It's ... pretty fucked. Or, more to the point, China needs more gay men, since they're short of women by something like 115 men to 100 women. Coercive measures bring out horrible things in people and cultures, and non-coercive measures don't work. All you can really do is educate people and hope they make socially positive choices.

As for the carrying capacity of the world, that's SO wildly speculated on that it's barely worth thinking about. Science is nowhere near a consensus on that ... some people say 4 billion, some people say 50 billion. Global warming _might_ turn vast expanses of northern Asia (Russia) and North America (Canada) from non-arable tundra into arable land, which would in turn increase the food production capacity of the world. The biggest concern with more people is that more industrialization leads to more energy consumption, which leads to more CO2, more global warming, flooding of lowlands and rising sea levels, etc. And hey, flooding all of those popular coastal lowlands will probably kill a LOT of people, so there you go :p.


Optimism!

Anyway, I think we're just starting to be awake enough to avoid the apocalyptic terrors of peak-everything and global warming. And with a little bit more tolerance and a bit less irrational rejection of reality I think we'll be able to avoid the land mines of both population collapse and unchecked population growth. Maybe I'm just being optimistic though.

[Winged Dancer]

Also more AIDS, desu wa.

Or at least a new disease/plague.

YES.

I dunno if you were serious or joking, but whatever. I'm all for a new wave of black plague. And a new glaciation. Anything to clear the way. Seriously, the world has way too many people, I can't believe someone worries about decreasing birth-rate... so yeah, I cheer for the planet. Go, Earth, go! Some more earthquakes wouldn't be bad!

On homosexuality...

Whatever. Some gay people have a bunch of sex with whomever, some don't. It's their life, I don't care.

[Lucifus]

On the Gay Issue...
Raised in Jamaica, taught in Jamaica.....nothing more needs to be said. =S

[Board of Command]

You don't have to be gay to take it up the ass. Look at inmates.

[Terracosmo]

DB_Hunter, 83 years old, last survivor on Earth: "Well I'm standing here on a cliff surrounded by water in the middle of what I think is the Atlantic Ocean. The entire world has been blown to smithereens by bombs, there isn't any food, not any drinkable water, no widescreen TV with bad adultery on them, no people, not anything. FUCKING GAY PEOPLE! YOU'VE DOOMED US ALL!"



This has been a joke "sort-of" from Terra entertainment stating the hilarity of being concerned about what gayness will bring to the end of the world when there are about 2914891284 issues that are more important - and also definitely more dangerous - when it comes to the planet's survival. Such as the long-awaited ban on canned shrimps. CANNED SHRIMPS WTF!! YOU CAN'T EAT THAT!



SEX!!!!1111


Also I updated my signature with a quote that DB uttered when I visited his home last night and attempted to change his abyssmal view on society (I think I succeeded)

[Lefty]

The way I look at it religion will always hate gay people, gay people will always hate religion, and I will sit on the side lines with a tub of popcorn and watch the insanity insue. Granted I will be switching to the middle east on occasion, it's a classic i can't miss.

[Yukimura]

On average I would guess that gay people don't hate religion as much as religious people might hate gays. This is mere arm chair philosophy but it seems reasonable that lots of gay people might still believe in God (since I don't know how non-monotheistic religions treat homosexuality at all please assume i'm only talking about followers of the three). Anyway, contrary to what many bible thumpers believe you can be a good and god fearing person and still be attracted to members of your own gender. However, my extremely religious friend put it rather eloquently on night while we were having one of our arguments.
He essentially said that even if homosexuality (defined as being sexually attracted to members of the oppisate sex) is a property of people and thus not something you can 'choose' you can still choose not to partake of sexual activity if it violates the rules of God. This hit me pretty hard because it made sense as a way to justify seeing it as a choice while still raging against it. If you don't want to have sex with a woman (that you're married to), then don't have sex at all. It's pretty much the same message as what most religious groups send at youth, sex outside the proper social norms is a no no and is wrong. Unfortunately people don't seem to have figured this out and whine and complain about homosexual activity as if it's somehow more of an afront than underage or premarital sex. If people don't want to be hypocrites about their beliefs then they should take both equally serious.

As for the environment, my gut instinct is less people is better in general so low birth rate is good, but I'd rather it was a global low birth rate than only in a certain area. Of all the cultures I prefer Western (aka American) culture the best pretty much just b/c I'm a part of it, and that's enough for me. I do see merits in most other cultures and plenty of things wrong with the one I live in, but all in all I don't think I'd want to live any other way (though some societies look like they might not be so bad to live in from birth, Oh Canada...).

[DB_Hunter]

Lets get a few things straight though before I continue, as some people seem confused with what I am trying to say.

1. All Gays DO NOT = Paedophiles, just like all hetros DO NOT = Pedophiles

2. Gays are not the root cause of the problems societies face.

3. Its people acting on an individualistic level to do whatever makes them happy that is the problem.

4. I am predicting that Pedophillia will be legalised due to arguments based on point 3. It is already starting to happen, as highlighted in the article linked to in my last post. Hence point 3 is the crux of the issue.



You can't choose to be gay, you are born gay.

Rubbish. This is the kind of assumption that causes people to blindly support gays AND blindly hate gays, depending on which side you are on.

People are not born knowing how to have sex, they just want to have sex when they hit puberty and onwards. How they have sex depends on what they learn from their surroundings.

Anyway, my point wasn't supposed to be gay centric. I was debating individualism and the concept of sexual freedom vis a vis their impact on society, but it seems a lot of people are too hung up about homosexuality to have a proper discussion.

[Kraco]

4. I am predicting that Pedophillia will be legalised due to arguments based on point 3. It is already starting to happen, as highlighted in the article linked to in my last post. Hence point 3 is the crux of the issue.

That article only pointed out the fact not all offenders get sentences harsh enough due to (unforgivable) practical issues like the prison system not having enough money to accommodate anybody else but murderers and such.

However, human rights are a pretty big issue altogether right now, and child abuse is right there at the top. Active pedophiles are hunted down all the time, and hardly a week goes by without news of some ring being busted by the police somewhere. Legislation and general awareness have also developed greatly during the recent 20 or so years. Of course partly due to the Net being such a perfect tool for the sickos, which required new means of fighting against it.

Problems with the prison system are still a long way from legalising serious crimes...

[DB_Hunter]

I agree, it is a long way off. The thing is why has it got to such a state where the prison system is full? It sure hasn't got a linear link to population growth, so it can't be said that the number of prisoners are rising because there are more people (hence proportionally the prisoner levels are the same). My argument is that its the values that society holds which is causing these problems.

That said, in the UK there have been instances where once an offence becomes widespread it is eventually legalised. These tend to be the non-violent ones which also do not involve theft, but everything else seems to be up for grabs. There just seems to be an attitude to sweep problems under the carpet by legalising them, such as prostitution, drugs etc.

[complich8]

The thing is why has it got to such a state where the prison system is full?

For your consideration: (US statistics)
Prison populations by primary (most serious) offense:
violent crime -- 52%
drug crimes -- 20%
property-related charges (vandalism, theft) -- 21%
(source: usdoj.gov (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/prisons.htm))

Substantial portions of violent crime are probably property-related or drug-related (the stereotypical crack-addict knocking off a liquor store, for example). Didn't run into any stats on that.

Via usdoj (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/fdo99.htm):
Prisoners drug charges by charge family:
Trafficking: 97.5%
Possession: 2.1%
The remainder is there for "other drug offenses".

Trafficking is apparently quite a lucrative market to be in, considering it accounts for pretty close to 1/5 of us prison populations. On the other hand, "general trafficking" (70% of prosecutions) is charged for anyone in possession of more than a certain amount, whether they intended to use it themselves or sell it. Judging intents is difficult, and a lot of trafficking charges might actually be simple possession.

By drug (from the same source), trafficking is statistically
Marijuana: 30%
Cocaine: 30%
Crack: 15%
Methamphetamine: 15%
Opiates (heroin, opium and morphine in particular): 6.7%,
Hallucinogens, others: 3%

Violent crime is by far the biggest piece of the pie though.

Discuss.

[SK]

As a staunch Neo-Platonic/Straussian/Stoic, I condemn all homosexual acts, except ones between females.

[Stoopider]

It's not true Europe's population is dwindling!!!! It's just being replaced by the very frisky muslim minority.

[Board of Command]

As a staunch Neo-Platonic/Straussian/Stoic, I condemn all homosexual acts, except ones between females.
Right on!!

[sairane]

Haha that view allways makes me laugh.

man + man = omg tis zee devils work, stone them quickly D:<!!!! they are responsible for all the problems with society!!!
woman + woman = get the popcorn out lads, /wank.

DB_Hunter you need to get a grip mate. Seriously.

You know one of the most interesting documentaries on this subject i have seen was a test on male sexual arousal. (think it was on channel 4 on scottish tv, i'll see if i can find it on the net)

200ish 'straight' men were given a questionare on thier thoughts on homosexuality. they ended up with 50 who by thier answers were pretty homophobic (it was bad etc) and 50 who didnt mind either way, basically thought it was personal choice but not for them.

The most interesting part was when they sat the men in a little room with some kind of electrode on thier genitals to moniter sexual arousal and then showed them images of men, and basically gay porn.

A high number of the 'homophobic' lads got rather exited while watching it, but very few of the 'dont mind' showed any interest.

You know what that says to me? And what your reaction to terra's thread says?

Get out of the closet mate, you know your gay really.


Oh and terra? Grats, i hope he was hot :p

[Kraco]

The most interesting part was when they sat the men in a little room with some kind of electrode on thier genitals to moniter sexual arousal and then showed them images of men, and basically gay porn.

A high number of the 'homophobic' lads got rather exited while watching it, but very few of the 'dont mind' showed any interest.

Maybe they just liked the electrodes and the hot, young nurse who installed them... >_>

[Yukimura]

@sairaine: I've heard of similar studies before but I don't put as much stock into them because physical arousal experienced in temporal proximity to an act does not indicate any desire or willingness towards participation in that act(as many convicted date rapists might attest).

I feel that determining attraction objectively is a pretty tough thing to do, on one hand, you can't really trust people not to lie in order to fit within social standards (even lying to themselves). On another any test that doesn't involve input from the conscious mind seems like it would be insufficient to indicate attraction, since you usually have to be consciously aware in some way that you are attracted to something for it to mean much to you.

[DB_Hunter]

Sairane:

Mate.. a Channel 4 documentary? Is that what supports your theory?

Channel 4... the channel whose own founding cheif executive condemned it by saying it has an "obsession with adolescent transgression and sex''?

Channel 4, who wanted to run a series of programmes entitled 'Wank Week'?

Channel 4, who arranged for a Masterbat-a-thon to be filmed in London in August last year?

Channel 4, who has broadcast shows such as 'Penis Week' and 'Designer Vagina's'?

Seriously man... at least use a credible source to back up your theories.

Besides, EVEN IF this documentary was accurate (fair, balanced etc), my view is that homosexuality is conceptual, and therefore a choice. So there is no contradiction if there is a situation where someone gets excited and says that they believe it is wrong. That's like me saying using violence is not the way to get someone to agree with you, even if I feel like giving them a slap for being an idiot. And then again, you could also have the reasons Yukimura outlined above regarding lying to conform to social norms.

[sairane]

You can refer to me as 'man' when i grow a penis, k?

I'll admit that channel 4 isnt the most credible source (cant remember if it even was 4 tbh) but i was just using it as an example to put across my opinion ^^



So there is no contradiction if there is a situation where someone gets excited and says that they believe it is wrong. That's like me saying using violence is not the way to get someone to agree with you, even if I feel like giving them a slap for being an idiot.

hmm. Personally i think that someone is gay if they are attracted to the same gender, regardless of whether they actually consider themself to be or not.
I also dont think that your example is valid in this case. Try again :)

@kraco
Haha could be :p

[Lucifus]

This thread disturbs me. However I must say...
"Originally Posted by SK
I condemn all homosexual acts, except ones between females"

Hell the F yeah!:cool:

[DB_Hunter]

Personally i think that someone is gay if they are attracted to the same gender, regardless of whether they actually consider themself to be or not.

We are getting into to technicalities now. For me a person would be "officially" gay if they commit a homosexual act. Having 'feelings' towards the same gender could be a phase someone is going through.

But I would agree with you in the sense that humans are not robots, and that emotions are linked to their actions. So if a person thinks they are gay they will probably end up doing a gay act, if they do not change their thinking.

[Winged Dancer]

man + man = omg tis zee devils work, stone them quickly D:<!!!! they are responsible for all the problems with society!!!
woman + woman = get the popcorn out lads, /wank.


Well, that's were us, the women from the Porn for Women Liberation Front, come in.

Whenever any male says that homosexual acts are disgusting, we'll be there to mention how much he likes lesbian porn!
Whenever any male says that homoerotic porn is disgusting, we'll be there to say "Actually, it's pretty hot"!
Whenever there's some dude in a series or anime that you might think it's cool, we'll be there to write slash fanfiction and draw porny fanart!

(Note: I don't condone the last one as yaoi fangirls are detestable, but hey, it was kinda due.)

[masamuneehs]

i firmly disagree with the idea that homosexuality is simply a choice or something that you 'decide' or are raised to become. Like most things, I believe there are parts of behavior that are influenced by uncontrollable aspects: brain chemistry, height. Then there are things that how one's raised create, nurture: being raised with only sisters.

Take a fat person. Now, why are they fat? Well, some people simply have it in their genes that their bodies crave and store fat more readily than other people. But what about people who are simply never raised to eat healthy? What about a combo of those two? I think alot of behavior and 'lifestyle' attributes are due to both kinds of influences.

i also totally second sairane's point. It's bogus for people to reject one half of homosexual pairings and celebrate the other. and never insult yaoi fangirls, i know someone who is a yaoi fangirl!!!1

and, on a final note, i believe mankind needs more homosexuality. I think overpopulation will be a huge problem in the future, and the less reproducing the average person does is a good thing in my eyes. Homosexuals are actually performing a great service for society! (although indirectly...)

[Terracosmo]

I don't FUCKING get what's so INCREDIBLY AWESOME ABOUT LESBIAN PORN!!! Do you really love close-ups on female genitals that much? THE VAGINA LOOKS DISGUSTING UP CLOSE! YOU'RE ALL FUCKED UP!!!!

(not that penises are beautiful, but still)

And strap-ons are just... weird. That's coming from me, too. Well of course I have my share of dickgirl hentai around (which I find decent) but why the -obsession- over seeing a girl penetrate another girl? I guess this is the one "male mainstream mindset" thing I will never come to terms with.

[Lefty]

Sexuality is just a matter of prefrence that's based on brain chemistry and genetics. It's a choice weather or not you want to persue being in gay relationships but you don't have a choice in being gay or bi.

How would you feel if i choose to treat you poorly based on you skin color. Same concept. Just let people do their own damn thing.

[SK]

I don't FUCKING get what's so INCREDIBLY AWESOME ABOUT LESBIAN PORN!!! Do you really love close-ups on female genitals that much? THE VAGINA LOOKS DISGUSTING UP CLOSE! YOU'RE ALL FUCKED UP!!!!

(not that penises are beautiful, but still)

And strap-ons are just... weird. That's coming from me, too. Well of course I have my share of dickgirl hentai around (which I find decent) but why the -obsession- over seeing a girl penetrate another girl? I guess this is the one "male mainstream mindset" thing I will never come to terms with.

Well when I first started watching porno, back when I was 3, a lesbian movie was the first thing I seen, they've had a special place in my heart ever since then. :o

[Assertn]

I don't FUCKING get what's so INCREDIBLY AWESOME ABOUT LESBIAN PORN!!! Do you really love close-ups on female genitals that much? THE VAGINA LOOKS DISGUSTING UP CLOSE! YOU'RE ALL FUCKED UP!!!!
Yeah, I'm pretty sure half the guys that endorse lesbian porn do it purely for social reasons.

[DB_Hunter]

You see the problem with saying that its all genetics and stuff is that it reduces humans to just a bunch of chemical reactions and electrical impulses, which is clearly not correct.

If this were the case then it would undermine the entire history in humanity of behavioural correction and general changes in behaviour. According to this theory then a person is born to be a murderer, or an adulterer, or a liar, or a thief etc and they cannot change. There would be no point in having discussions or dialogue's on any issue, as it has been determined by our genes how we will respond.

This entire thread would be useless, as none of us has the ability to reach in to each other and change genes, chemicals or electrical impulses and thus affect behaviour.

Yes a person does have what I would call 'abilities' determined to a certain extent by their genes, but behaviour is not determined by genes. The only exceptions to these cases would be where a person is actually disabled, and there is something fundementally wrong with their gentic make up, like in Down's Syndrome.

As behaviour is not just a bunch of chemical reactions and electrical impulses I believe that Science actually does not have a role to play in behaviour. You can't analyse behaviour like you can a volcanic rock or a piece of sillicon. These things are tangible, whereas human behaviour is not. I would say that you need rational reasoning independent of science to determine human behaviour.

[Yukimura]

Why is it not correct that we're a bunch of chemical reactions and electrical impulses? When I look at a person that's all I see, an infinitely complex biological machine that is capable of all types of amazing things.


If this were the case then it would undermine the entire history in humanity of behavioural correction and general changes in behaviour. According to this theory then a person is born to be a murderer, or an adulterer, or a liar, or a thief etc and they cannot change. There would be no point in having discussions or dialogue's on any issue, as it has been determined by our genes how we will respond.
You've left out external environment, which can and does change the properties of the life reaction drastically. I don't disagree with the sentiment that you seem to have, that the line of reasoning I'm following reduces humans to statistically predictable individuals. However, you say that this means that people can be born liars or murderers based on only genetics, while I say people that murder or lie do so because of the sum of everything that has happened to them since they started developing, inludeing the influence of genetics. If someone becomes a murderer, it wouldn't have been just because they were genetically predisposed to go around killing people, though that could play a part. Instead it's likely that they're development and upbringing also influenced the way their minds processed the world around them and they ended up in a situation where they had taken a life. Now there's not really any way to know how much a person will be affected by their predispositions or how much they'll be affected by their environment but I haven't observed anything that would make me think that you couldn't predict behavior with the ability to independently process all of the the same stimuli that a person is experiencing in the EXACT same way that they are processing it.

Also Please explain this...rational reasoning independent of science how would that help?


As behaviour is not just a bunch of chemical reactions and electrical impulses I believe that Science actually does not have a role to play in behaviour. You can't analyse behaviour like you can a volcanic rock or a piece of sillicon. These things are tangible, whereas human behaviour is not. I would say that you need rational reasoning independent of science to determine human behaviour.

[Kraco]

As behaviour is not just a bunch of chemical reactions and electrical impulses I believe that Science actually does not have a role to play in behaviour. You can't analyse behaviour like you can a volcanic rock or a piece of sillicon. These things are tangible, whereas human behaviour is not. I would say that you need rational reasoning independent of science to determine human behaviour.

A few psychologists might disagree with your assessment that what they are doing is not science or scientific. Psychology might not be as hard science as chemistry, but it's science nonetheless, and great many things can be put in order, evaluated and even predicted based on all the previous studies, observations and experiments.

[shinta|hikari]

Im gonna go out on a limb and add philosophy to the mix.

What Yukimura is suggesting is an absolute determinist POV. It would be stupid to oppose this line of thought with an absolute freedom (in which people are unaffected by all external and even biological factors) POV, since such a thing cannot exist.

I think that the very fact people can question themselves, their history, and their actions gives them a sense of freedom, and maybe a sense of uncalculability when they are able to separate themselves (not completely though) from external influences by using the power of their reasoning. It is exactly this that will allow a person to choose something different from another who is exposed to the exact same influences. In fact, it maybe what makes us human.

Human are neither absolutely free nor absolutely determined.

[phil0253]

Personally i don't think that anyone is born to be somthing or act in some way but the fact of the matter is that the social enviroments that we live in affect the way that we feel and act i know that being a Jehovah's Witness can get me ostrasized in certain curcumstances but the fact is i realize the enfluences of others on me such as using cusswords and how i act around others in the social circles that i travel in

[SK]

I don't believe in genes.

[Assertn]

I've seen both sides of the nature vs nurture debate, and have a pretty decent perspective on the points they bring across. You'd be surprised how many behaviors and personalities people develop thats environmentally induced, as evident by many dramatically different cultures out there that have yet to be exposed to western ideology. However themes of homosexuality do pop up in alot of different places. Enough to suggest that its one of the few things about a person that IS instinctual. How a person exposes those instincts publicly is where the nurture aspects plays its role.

[LobsterMagnet]

I always thought in the not too distant future that chines people and Muslims would be herded into camps so as to selectively breed them to ensure that there's a healthy supply of children so that future gay/lesbian couples will always have something to adopt.

[DB_Hunter]

@Yukimura:

I think me and you are saying almost the same thing, for the most part. I agree with you that human behaviour will be determined by both genetic factors and the environment. Where me and you diverge is when you say you don't know how much of an effect each factor has. I say that gentics has a minimal effect, and this only increases if the person has some disability or mutation of their genes.

Primarily, for the majority of 'healthy' humans behaviour is determined by the concepts one holds towards actions. So a person's action's are determined by the concepts they hold.

For example, a person could spend their entire life drinking, fornicating etc. Then one day he/she decides to adopt a religon, and becomes religous. In becoming religous this person stops drinking, fornicating etc because thier view on these actions have changed. Previously, the person believed that he/she should do whatever brings them the most sensual pleasure so they did the mentioned actions. Now he/she believes that he/she must follow what their religon says, so their actions change due to the change in concepts.

So physically (i,e, chemically, genetically etc) they are still the same person, but his/her actions have changed. The reasons the actions have changed is because the concepts held by this person have changed from attaining as much phyiscal pleasure as possible to following their religon.

@AssertnFailure: I agree with you that homosexuality is not a 'Western' thing to do in origin. That does not mean however that it is instinctual, due to my reasoning outlined above. Besides, humans all have the same instincts and needs. Only the way that these needs and instincts are fulfilled are different. The reason why they may differ from person to person or society to society is due to the concepts and values held.

[complich8]

Submitted for your consideration:
Prenatal hormones and sexual orientation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenatal_hormones_and_sexual_orientation)

Humans have reason, which mitigates instinct. However, we've still got a set of basic programs that our brains ship with that we can't help but running. These programs drive things like feeding, sleep cycles, activity levels and sexual behavior.

Sure, you can use your reason and your will to override any of those (eg: pulling all-nighters, fasting, forcing yourself to go running, being celibate). However, most people will choose to satisfy their drives rather than perpetually fight against their own natures, and in general most people that do are better-adjusted for it. If you are constantly at war with yourself, it's really difficult to be at peace with anything else.

[phil0253]

now that i don't really agree with i believe that you can satisfy SOME desires SOMETIMES but the thing that keeps us from being rutting beasts in some field is our ability to reason

[Assertn]

@AssertnFailure: I agree with you that homosexuality is not a 'Western' thing to do in origin. That does not mean however that it is instinctual, due to my reasoning outlined above. Besides, humans all have the same instincts and needs. Only the way that these needs and instincts are fulfilled are different. The reason why they may differ from person to person or society to society is due to the concepts and values held.
And where do these concepts and values originate from?

If you approach this from a scientific perspective, you have to argue that when multiple test samples, completely isolated from each other, exhibit similiar characteristics, then there has to be some subconscious predetermined behavior that invokes those characterstics. You say humans fulfill their instincts differently...what does this mean? It sounds like you understand that some people naturally desire different things than other people, but that their will to resist and "follow the norm" is what should make us into humanity-abiding individuals.

Are you saying that you understand homosexuality to be natural, but should be nurtured into heterosexuality?

[Yukimura]

@DB_Hunter: You keep dancing very close to the 'Christian Science' point of view that one of my friends tends to use. If that's what you believe in and what you want us to see you should stop now, since I don't think a lot of people here want a religion crammed down their throats. Since you haven't mentioned anything like that I'm not holding it against you (I don't argue with strong willed Christians other than for fun because by definition a good Christian can't (and shouldn't) admit that his points are incorrect and thus is no use to debate seriously).

Anyway, there's a flaw in your argument about a person who gives up drinking or makes some other behavioral change. They've made the decision to be different than who they were, that in and of itself implies something different is going on in their brains then what used to, maybe they feel guilty for something, maybe they came to the conclusion that they're wasting their life, or maybe they just feel bored and are trying something different. When drinkers stop drinking they are evaluating similar circumstances (do I go out drinking tonight) in a different way than before, indicating that the heuristic they use to decide their behavior has changed. It's quite probably impossible to detect what exactly it is that caused the shift in most cases, conceivably it could be s mundane as because Tom was wearing a blue shirt on Monday but not on Wednesday.

As for the social aspects, I'm currently in a class about Sex and Gender and recently we've been talking about geneder roles in different societies. We've looked at several cultures that have a well defined and accepted 'other' genders that are neither man nor woman from a social standpoint. Usually the members of a 'third' gender are inclined more towards the activities normally performed by those of the opposite gender.

In many of these cultures the ideas we (I anyway) associate with homosexuality i.e a person having sex with someone who has the same sex chromosome pair as themselves, is not extended to those who have sex with the members of one of these extra genders. It has been postulated in class that these cultural roles were created to allow people who felt the urge to live outside of rigidly sex divided social roles.

[darkshadow]

Just replying, to say that the "pedophile" party in holland, isn't accepted at ALL by society here.
Even though The Netherlands tolerate lot's and lot's of stuff, pedophelia is a serious crime.
Homosexuality however, is like completely accepted here, with gay marriage and everything, lot's of or celebrities are also... well yeah gay...

[KitKat]

@DB_Hunter: You keep dancing very close to the 'Christian Science' point of view that one of my friends tends to use. If that's what you believe in and what you want us to see you should stop now, since I don't think a lot of people here want a religion crammed down their throats. Since you haven't mentioned anything like that I'm not holding it against you (I don't argue with strong willed Christians other than for fun because by definition a good Christian can't (and shouldn't) admit that his points are incorrect and thus is no use to debate seriously).

Yuki, I think there's a flaw in your reasoning here. A person's faith, meaning the way in which they view the world, will affect all of their debate, whether they want it to or not. No one here is 'forcing religion down the throats' of anyone else. I might as well just accuse you of trying to force atheism or somethingorother down my throat for putting forth your views. Absurd, is it not? What it comes down to, is that we all understand the world in some sort of framework, and we cannot escape this. The reason this debate will never end up convincing anyone is because more often than not, arguments that don't fit within our framework seem silly to us, whereas they may seem quite compelling to someone who holds a different framework. We cling tightly to our frameworks, unwilling to give them up, and unable to see the other point of view. Not just people who are part of organized religion, but everyone. You cannot address the issues without addressing the framework, and neither can you argue without any framework at all. I know that 'religion' is somewhat of a touchy subject, but you cannot ban it from a conversation like this because it is so closely tied to why people hold the views that they do.

[Board of Command]

Well when I first started watching porno, back when I was 3, a lesbian movie was the first thing I seen, they've had a special place in my heart ever since then. :o
Quality material, SK. Nothing wrong with lesbian porn.


now that i don't really agree with i believe that you can satisfy SOME desires SOMETIMES but the thing that keeps us from being rutting beasts in some field is our ability to reason
Even better! Oh, you folks are on a roll recently.

[SK]

Having sex with men is wrong. Having sex with women is wrong. Science is your imagination playing tricks on you.

[Assertn]

Having sex with men is wrong. Having sex with women is wrong. Science is your imagination playing tricks on you.
Well then SK, you must be about as right you as you can get!

[DB_Hunter]

And where do these concepts and values originate from?

You say humans fulfill their instincts differently...what does this mean?

Are you saying that you understand homosexuality to be natural, but should be nurtured into heterosexuality?

@AssertnFailure:

Concepts and Values originate from your viewpoint towards life. This can be partial, as in the case that you only subscribe to a moral code on life, but you don't mind say how your economic affairs are fulfilled. Or it can be comprehensive, and this would make you an ideological individual. If you are ideological you would constantly refer to your viewpoint in life about all problems e.g. you could be a communist, so you would refer to communism in an attempt to find solutions to economic problems, social problems etc.

It is in this context that I mean humans fulfill their instincts and needs differently.

So in line with this understanding, and in this particular context, I don't view any action to be 'natural' or 'unatural'. Actions by themselves do not have an intrinsic value of being right or wrong. It is your viewpoint on life that determines the value of right or wrong for any action, and acts as a criteria for judgment.

As actions are determined by concepts, if you change the concepts in an individual you will change his/her actions. So in answer to your third question, if a person is homosexual then this aspect of them should be changed via changing their view towards this action from being acceptable to unacceptable. However this will only happen if you change their viewpoint towards life/framework of thinking, since homosexuality stems from the the idea of sexual freedom.

So why am I for this point? This is because of my viewpoint towards life and my opinions as to how best society can be orgainsed to produce tranquility for all. Which leads me on to the following point...

@Yukimura:

That's why I havn't actually mentioned my own viewpoint on life yet, because I want people to remain as objective as possible in this discussion. I agree with KitKat, that you can't seperate people's belief's, religous or otherwise, from their actions/discussions etc.

Your viewpoint in life will provide you solutions to problems you face. What we have been doing so far is discussing these solutions without discussing the viewpoints themselves. Why? Simply to see what are the best solutions before any prejudices or biases we have get in the way. People already have been quite emotional over this one issue... this would be magnified in a viewpoint discussion, because that fundementally deals with why you live your entire life the way you do.


Anyway, there's a flaw in your argument about a person who gives up drinking or makes some other behavioral change...

...It's quite probably impossible to detect what exactly it is that caused the shift in most cases, conceivably it could be s mundane as because Tom was wearing a blue shirt on Monday but not on Wednesday.

Your refutation of my argument is based on a theory proposed by some psychologists, which from my understanding are not accepted by all psychologists as fact. These are theories without conclusive proof, based on a few "experiments" which do not even meet the criteria of the scientific method. You can't experiment on people in order to determine their behaviour, as there are too many variables at play. This is why I say the scientific method is being used beyond its remit by these psychologists. Psychology is not a science. You can't cut open a human and find his/her thoughts in the brain.

Fine, you could have brain scans and see which parts of the brain are being activated say when a person is about to do something. You will ofcourse have a physcial manifestation of your thoughts, but thoughts are not orignated due to chemicals in your brain.

The best analogy I can think of is like a computer. You have the hardware and the software part. The software controls what the hardware does, hence when a command is to be executed you will see a physical manifestation of this. But the action is initiated from the software, not the hardware, despite us seeing a change in say voltage on the motherboard when data is to be written in to the RAM.

[Spiegel]

I personally have no issue with Homosexuality, It is not my preference but if someone lives that lifestyle it is up to them to live that lifestyle, the same could be said in opposite that it is my choice to live my lifestyle. So I feel there is no point in arguing about it, people will do it, that is their choice. Just like it is my choice to eat this delicious creme-filled doughnut... mmm... This thread was an interesting read though. I just thought I would put in my two cents and run like hell.

P.S. Where are the clouds in this thread... I WANT MY CLOUDS!!

[Yukimura]

@Kitkat I didn't mean to imply that anyone WAS trying to force anything, just that I was noticing symptoms that could happen and I was hoping it wouldn't. My reason was because I've had this discussion before with a very rigid Christian (I mean every word in the bible is indisputably true rigid), and he made some very reasonable points about how from the Christian framework there's only one correct answer and everything else must be wrong by the tenets of his faith. At this point I stopped the discussion because I didn't want to be threatening his core values every time I wanted to talk about something that disagreed with the doctrine that he believed.

@DB_Hunter It seems like we've both come to the conclusion that human science can't completely understand behavior but we've approached it from different directions. You're offering your theory and I'm offering mine. Neither is physically testable (though mine should be theoretically testable) and thus neither is truly scientific. I understand your refutations of psychological theories because you're pointing out their flaws. What I don't understand is your claim that thoughts and behaviors are more than just chemical signals. The reason I don't understand your perspective is because you've made the claims without offering any explanation (that I can see). Is your claim simply a personal opinion that it doesn't work the way I've said or is it supported by some evidence?

As to your analogy, since I've been studying computer architecture for a few years and it was the basis for my theory about deterministic thought processes, not some psychological paper as you inferred. Software on a computer, once compiled and run, merely acts as inputs into the hardware that cause the hardware to change state deterministically (hopefully). Once you've written a piece of software, compiled it, and begun executing it, it is no longer simply software, it is a part of the system itself and you can't go back and change it while it's running. However if the software is very robust it can take in information and behave in different ways based on that information, and according to some it might even be capable of 'growing' and evolving itself while it's running.

@spiegal: There are no clouds, they are a figment of your imagination.

[DB_Hunter]

@Yukimura:

My theory can't be scientifically tested, as my whole point is that this not the realm of science. We are talking about concepts, which are judgements upon reality. Science can only at best describe a reality, and not pass judgement on it.

Science can't say whether or not for example Euthenaisia for disabled individuals is morally justified (was on the news in the UK a couple of nights ago). Science can't decide if the European Union should expand to include Turkey, or if funding to Medicare in the US should be cut from the government and people should use private healthcare instead. All of these decisions can only be made using your viewpoint on life. What I am saying can be verfied by rational reasoning, instead of science.

The fact that you are reading this post andf comprehending what I am saying, then forumlating a response proves what I say. You are sensing the reality of what I am saying then responding. It's once you have sensed what I saying and formulated your response that the whole chemical stuff kicks in. Maybe I have not made myself clear in this aspect. I do not for one moment deny that chemicals and electical impulses have a role to play in your actions. All I am saying is that they way your chemicals and electrical impulses respond are controlled by your thoughts and concepts, which are in turn determined by your viewpoint on life.

As for the computer example, it was a rough analogy, not a straight map. Apologies for the simple analogy!

[complich8]

... this is getting tedious. Such a ... windy topic.

Science doesn't have an ethical toolkit. Ethics doesn't have a scientific toolkit. However, each is necessary to engage in the other properly (see also: bioethics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioethics), various unethical science experiments).


Humans are not obviously deterministic machines. We're continually self-programming. It's theoretically possible that you could construct a turing-model representation of a human being's behaviors and choices, but such a model would be incalculable and ultimately useless, and require omniscience to produce.

If you're going to compare humans to computers, you should learn more about evolutionary computation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_computation) and self-organizing systems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organizing_system). We constantly change our own code. All life does, actually. We also constantly change our hardware -- growing new receptors, making new neural connections. A simple deterministic computing model just doesn't work for a human being.


As creatures with wills, we can override our instincts, if there's compelling reason to do so (see also: Gom Jabbar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gom_jabbar)). However, when there's not compelling reason to do so, we won't. If our instincts are telling us to eat, and there's food around, we'll eat, unless there's some factor telling us not to eat (like, a knowledge that the food is poisoned, or that we're saving the food for a party tonight, or possibly both).

So, if you want gay people to override their urge to have sex with people of the same sex, you better start coming up with reasons that they'll find compelling. (hint: "god says so" isn't compelling, and neither is "you're responsible for faltering population growth")


Finally, you're faced with a choice. If you believe in a Cartesian or Lockean concept of the mind (qua soul) as separate from the body, you believe that the body is ultimately a puppet for the mind. If you believe in the general view of modern neuroscience, then the mind is a result of those chemical reactions in the brain, and nothing else. This, in itself, determines whether you believe that your mind controls your body or your mind is a function of your body. Clearly, the biggest voices in this thread are not meeting on this fundamental issue, and I am fairly sure this could be considered an intractable conflict.

[DB_Hunter]

.

Science doesn't have an ethical toolkit. Ethics doesn't have a scientific toolkit.

Agree.


However, each is necessary to engage in the other properly (see also: bioethics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioethics), various unethical science experiments).

Agreed, but only in certain contexts.



If you're going to compare humans to computers, you should learn more about evolutionary computation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_computation) and self-organizing systems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organizing_system). We constantly change our own code. All life does, actually. We also constantly change our hardware -- growing new receptors, making new neural connections. A simple deterministic computing model just doesn't work for a human being.

It was an analogy. A bad one, as I have already admitted. Doesn't change my point though.



As creatures with wills, we can override our instincts, if there's compelling reason to do so (see also: Gom Jabbar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gom_jabbar)). However, when there's not compelling reason to do so, we won't.

Agreed.


So, if you want gay people to override their urge to have sex with people of the same sex, you better start coming up with reasons that they'll find compelling. (hint: "god says so" isn't compelling, and neither is "you're responsible for faltering population growth")

The issues of population decline and whatnot... the stuff I mentioned way back... that was an example of what happens when people follow the idea of sexual freedom. Gays, non-marriage hetro relationships... this all points towards societal breakdown. But I agree, some people would need more compelling reasons then the well being of society to change their behaviour.

I can see you are deeply convinced of the idea that God does not exist. I am a Muslim, and I do believe that Allah exists. Since Islam forms my viewpoint on life, I could have indeed issued a 'God says so' kind of statement and left it at that. It is afterall something I am deeply convinced of. However I was willing to discuss the issue in depth with everyone and anyone, in an objective manner. If this is to continue on the issue of the existance of God, all I ask is that you extend the same courtesy.

[Board of Command]

I can see you are deeply convinced of the idea that God does not exist. I am a Muslim, and I do believe that Allah exists. Since Islam forms my viewpoint on life, I could have indeed issued a 'God says so' kind of statement and left it at that. It is afterall something I am deeply convinced of. However I was willing to discuss the issue in depth with everyone and anyone, in an objective manner. If this is to continue on the issue of the existance of God, all I ask is that you extend the same courtesy.
And because of that it is impossible to truly argue objectively.

[DB_Hunter]

And because of that it is impossible to truly argue objectively.


It depends what you mean. If we are talking about proving the validity of a viewpoint, then if one is sincere in the discussion then you have to argue objectivley. As I have been saying all along, concepts dictate actions, and the concepts spring from your viewpoint in life. Change the viewpoint, you change the concepts which change the actions.

As for myself personally, I understand Islam conceptually. I agree if someone holds on to their viewpoint in an emotional manner rather than conceptually, then the discussion becomes much more difficult. Since I did not start labelling people blasphemous heretics for holding views opposing my own, I hope it can be seen that I am able to discuss in a conceptual manner.

By the way as a side point... I've got this horrible cold right now, so if I take some time in responding to posts from now on you know why.

[SK]

I won't listen to a Muslim until the Middle East region has a period akin to the European Enlightenment.

[Yukimura]

So you won't listen to any Muslims until people in the Middle East stop basing their laws on Islam?

[Assassin]

man, those crazy muslims. you never know what they're planning. freaking terrorists

[Uchiha Barles]

The muslims don't need a period of enlightment. Unlike the europeans, they were never, as a whole, into the burning of books containing useful knowledge. While the Europeans were still amputating limbs from minor war injuries and burning things that were contradictory to their interpretation of the bible, the Muslims had devised methods of healing those wounds preventing and treating infections that hadn't progressed too far using a combination of skills and information from their own devising, and from the work of other cultures. So they don't need such a period, they've known for quite sometime to take what's useful from others.

[Lefty]

man, those crazy muslims. you never know what they're planning. freaking terrorists

Well if you want to blame terrorist you need to look at Israilies as well. Cuz yeah the Zionist created the modern forms of terrorism against the british and Palistinians that are popular today.

But back on topic. Basing weathor not you will listen to some based on religion is a bullshit move. If you want to make an educated response thats not how you go about it. Knowing everythign that you can about a subject then making a response is what everyone, especially a christian when your own religion requiers an open heart and mind, should do.

[complich8]

Discussion on the validity or culpability of various Abrahamic religions aside...


The issues of population decline and whatnot... the stuff I mentioned way back... that was an example of what happens when people follow the idea of sexual freedom. Gays, non-marriage hetro relationships... this all points towards societal breakdown.

If you're going to claim that society is in a decline, I challenge you to pinpoint precisely when it was better than it is now.


I can see you are deeply convinced of the idea that God does not exist. I am a Muslim, and I do believe that Allah exists. Since Islam forms my viewpoint on life, I could have indeed issued a 'God says so' kind of statement and left it at that. It is afterall something I am deeply convinced of.
See, that's the thing. My views are irrelevant, because I'm not the one you're trying to convince. Your task is to convince everyone who does the things you find objectionable that they are in fact justifiably objectionable. My task, on the other hand, is to demonstrate to you that you have no universally accepted (or acceptable) basis to make such claims.

I've already conceded that if you're noncritically religious, you would find your religion's proscriptions to be compelling. But to anyone who doesn't buy into your particular flavor of holy book, such an argument will be very lacking indeed. I'd rather not turn this into a "does God exist" or "is Islam right" thread... those never end well.

[Turkish-S]

I won't listen to a Muslim until the Middle East region has a period akin to the European Enlightenment.

Lots of the rappers you listen to are muslim...

[DB_Hunter]

If you're going to claim that society is in a decline, I challenge you to pinpoint precisely when it was better than it is now.

I'm not claiming to be a sage on stats, I would not be able to do that for you.

However, addressing your implicit point of whether things were ever better in the past, I think that can be answered satifactorily fom present day society. Things are getting pretty screwed up, I mean when you have polticians (in the UK) suggesting control order for babies for the first time in history, you know something is seriously wrong. That's one example only, and by itself could be anamolous, but there are a host similar initiatives being carried out, which I am not addressing simply due to the fact that I would just go on and on and on.

Crime has reached epidemic proportions, societal relations are a mess and economically people are being worked to near death for a minimal increase in living standards from say a few decades ago. This clearly indicated a downward gradient in living standards, and I'm saying that as long as society holds on to its current values this will not change.


See, that's the thing. My views are irrelevant, because I'm not the one you're trying to convince. Your task is to convince everyone who does the things you find objectionable that they are in fact justifiably objectionable. My task, on the other hand, is to demonstrate to you that you have no universally accepted (or acceptable) basis to make such claims.

I agree with you that my basis or viewpoint in life is not univerally accepted.


I've already conceded that if you're noncritically religious, you would find your religion's proscriptions to be compelling. But to anyone who doesn't buy into your particular flavor of holy book, such an argument will be very lacking indeed. I'd rather not turn this into a "does God exist" or "is Islam right" thread... those never end well.

Again I'm at an agreement with you. I totally second your thought that those who do not buy into my 'flavour of holy book' would not find my arguments compelling. But the same goes from my end... as I don't by in to certain concepts you guys may hold on to, such as sexual freedom etc, I don't find these arguments compelling.

That's why I'm saying to resolve this stalemate we will have to discuss the basis of our viewpoints themselves. Unless we agree which one is valid then there is no point in discussing further... we will just go blue in the face saying the same things over and over and get no where.

As for threads never ending well, I'm pretty sure that a lot of people thought that this discussion on homosexuality was going to get ugly. Yet I think its been kept very sensible, and its a credit to all those who have particpated.

Edit: As for SK's comments, I would just echo what Lefty and Uchiha Barles have said.

[complich8]

So, we're at an impasse. *shrug* nothing to be done about it, I spose.


I'm not claiming to be a sage on stats, I would not be able to do that for you.

However, addressing your implicit point of whether things were ever better in the past, I think that can be answered satifactorily fom present day society. Things are getting pretty screwed up, I mean when you have polticians (in the UK) suggesting control order for babies for the first time in history, you know something is seriously wrong. That's one example only, and by itself could be anamolous, but there are a host similar initiatives being carried out, which I am not addressing simply due to the fact that I would just go on and on and on.

Crime has reached epidemic proportions, societal relations are a mess and economically people are being worked to near death for a minimal increase in living standards from say a few decades ago. This clearly indicated a downward gradient in living standards, and I'm saying that as long as society holds on to its current values this will not change.

Violent crime rates are actually substantially down in the US. Since 1994, violent crime has dropped by roughly half (from between 40 and 50 victims per 1000 people down to around 20 victims per 1000 people now). It was on a decline until 2005, and 2005-2006 it had a slight rise (source (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm)). Property crime is similarly at a low (source (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/house2.htm)). Drug-related crimes are on the rise, however -- which might just be a side-effect of increased enforcement (source (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/drug.htm)), or might be increased prevalence.

The UK has social control issues. So does the US, but the most onerous measures that people have tried to get legislated have generally not held up. People are waking up to the need for privacy and personal liberty ... which is one reason the mid-term elections over here brought about wholesale changes.

For non-whites, the western world as a whole has never been so accepting. The 1960's brought about the civil rights movement and the end of Jim Crow, the 1970's brought about cultural revolution, the 80's and 90's brought about growing acceptance and non-whites climbing the corporate ladder and attaining higher levels of education. Opportunity that wasn't there 40 years ago is there now.

Really, if you're going to say there's a decline in progress based on social control and civil liberties concerns, I'd say that decline started in 1994 in the UK (when they started getting serious about putting cameras everywhere), and 2001 in the US (when the term "in the post-9/11 world" was coined, and started to get passed around indiscriminately to justify terrible ideas). But even in that context, I'd say that there's other factors in play that mitigate that.

Regardless, I'd rather be in this moment than any previous time in history.