Gays, population growth, the environment, clouds!

[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.

[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

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.

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.