Philosophy Now Forum

promethean75 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 22, 2022 4:30 pm I should probably let Harry as a boy have a few words to help us understand some of the factors involved in the rise of homosexual behavior, as well.

I see more of a rise in freedom of expression than a rise in actual % of the numbers.

Mind you, we are giving our DNA a workout with all the electronic subatomic rays we are subjecting ourselves to.

The roots or gayness are in our genes, and they are under DNA and chemical control.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 12:22 am

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Fri Jan 21, 2022 11:24 pm

Greatest I am wrote: ↑Fri Jan 21, 2022 11:22 pm

I understand the situation, but fail to see how the twins would have been silly enough to think that front to back, like gays would be, would be like them getting back to feeling like their former back to back state.

They would loose a penis and thus no gain.

Perhaps a great lose if you consider masturbation.

I hope I did not insult your sensitivities, new guy.

Regards
DL

Yes, it's a pretty ridiculous 'explanation'.

Chastisement without correction is what low I.Q. does.

Thanks for showing yours.

Regards
DL

What a kunty comment, especially when I was agreeing with you, you stupid little prik. Actually, not being able to spell a simple word like 'lose' is a sign of low intelligence, especially when you have been told umpteen times.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 12:37 am

Greatest I am wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 12:22 am

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Fri Jan 21, 2022 11:24 pm

Yes, it's a pretty ridiculous 'explanation'.

Chastisement without correction is what low I.Q. does.

Thanks for showing yours.

Regards
DL

What a kunty comment, especially when I was agreeing with you, you stupid little prik. Actually, not being able to spell a simple word like 'lose' is a sign of low intelligence, especially when you have been told umpteen times.

G_i_AM :- "Loose penis" ??

Maybe he's talking about one of these:- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQBPgJQhQHc

Greatest I am wrote: ↑Tue Jan 18, 2022 10:58 pm Are homosexual natures created by nurture, nature, or God?

I think the answer is is quite important as it would show us the cause/source of homosexuality.

If God, as believers think, then why is God creating gays?

Regards
DL

There is no such thing as a, "homosexual nature," anymore than there is a, "pedophile nature," or, "rapist nature," or, "bestiality nature." These are all chosen practices. Nothing makes anyone be anything that can otherwise be chosen. It's like asking what makes someone have a piano player's nature, or an electrician's, a dancer's, or a baker's.

Everybody is different and the reasons why anyone makes the choices they do will be different for every individual. So long as one's choices do not interfere in anyone else's life, one may choose to live any way they like, suffering the consequences of their wrong choices and enjoying the rewards of their right ones. Reality will decided which is which.

It is not up to anyone else, or society, or the government, to decide how others should live their lives.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 2:52 am

Greatest I am wrote: ↑Tue Jan 18, 2022 10:58 pm Are homosexual natures created by nurture, nature, or God?

I think the answer is is quite important as it would show us the cause/source of homosexuality.

If God, as believers think, then why is God creating gays?

Regards
DL

There is no such thing as a, "homosexual nature," anymore than there is a, "pedophile nature," or, "rapist nature," or, "bestiality nature." These are all chosen practices. Nothing makes anyone be anything that can otherwise be chosen. It's like asking what makes someone have a piano player's nature, or an electrician's, a dancer's, or a baker's.

Everybody is different and the reasons why anyone makes the choices they do will be different for every individual. So long as one's choices do not interfere in anyone else's life, one may choose to live any way they like, suffering the consequences of their wrong choices and enjoying the rewards of their right ones. Reality will decided which is which.

It is not up to anyone else, or society, or the government, to decide how others should live their lives.

I'm sure they would be thrilled to know you are comparing them to paedophiles, rapists and bestialists.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 3:01 am

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 2:52 am

Greatest I am wrote: ↑Tue Jan 18, 2022 10:58 pm Are homosexual natures created by nurture, nature, or God?

I think the answer is is quite important as it would show us the cause/source of homosexuality.

If God, as believers think, then why is God creating gays?

Regards
DL

There is no such thing as a, "homosexual nature," anymore than there is a, "pedophile nature," or, "rapist nature," or, "bestiality nature." These are all chosen practices. Nothing makes anyone be anything that can otherwise be chosen. It's like asking what makes someone have a piano player's nature, or an electrician's, a dancer's, or a baker's.

Everybody is different and the reasons why anyone makes the choices they do will be different for every individual. So long as one's choices do not interfere in anyone else's life, one may choose to live any way they like, suffering the consequences of their wrong choices and enjoying the rewards of their right ones. Reality will decided which is which.

It is not up to anyone else, or society, or the government, to decide how others should live their lives.

I'm sure they would be thrilled to know you are comparing them to paedophiles, rapists and bestialists.

Only in your mind. Just pointing out that sexual proclivities really have no limits and are not predetermined. My comparison was to piano player's, electrician's, dancer's, and baker's.

To be frank, I really don't give a damn whether anyone likes my comparisons or not. Why do you?

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 2:52 am
There is no such thing as a, "homosexual nature," anymore than there is a, "pedophile nature," or, "rapist nature," or, "bestiality nature." These are all chosen practices. Nothing makes anyone be anything that can otherwise be chosen. It's like asking what makes someone have a piano player's nature, or an electrician's, a dancer's, or a baker's.

Would you say a heterosexual chose their sexuality? I can understand that they may choose to approach this or that person of the opposite sex, but the attraction, was it chosen?

At what age do children decide to be attracted to either the opposite sex or the same sex? (or a combination of varying degrees)
When did you choose your sexuality?

Further, here's an article talking about epigenetic differences between identical twins where one is gay and one is not.
https://www.latimes.com/science/science ... story.html


And useing these markers, as it says in the article, they can predict, from the genes 75% correctly if a baby will grow up to be gay.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/29/scie ... e-sex.html

Note: it seems there is no single gay gene, nevertheless there are genetic markers for gayness.

Note: the scientists find environmental and social factors play a a strong role. But then, these wouldn't really count as choice.

"Since you can't help what you think, there is no point commenting on it."

Two things tho: you can't help what you think, either, and there has never been any point in commenting, anyway (I mean in the grand scheme of things). And yet, human beings have been in dialogue for thousands of years.

So as you can see, those are pretty weak reasons, sir.

A better reason to avoid commenting would be because I'm an insufferable troll.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 7:24 am

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 2:52 am
There is no such thing as a, "homosexual nature," anymore than there is a, "pedophile nature," or, "rapist nature," or, "bestiality nature." These are all chosen practices. Nothing makes anyone be anything that can otherwise be chosen. It's like asking what makes someone have a piano player's nature, or an electrician's, a dancer's, or a baker's.

Would you say a heterosexual chose their sexuality?

There is no such thing as, "sexuality." It's a made-up concept to excuse any practice one chooses by claiming their nature made them do it.

All so-called, "attractions," are entirely psychological resulting in physical responses to what one thinks and believes. No one is born with any specific physiological desire for anything. One has to learn what sex is, what the difference between the sexes are, how and what to think about such things--their physiological reaactions (including physical "desires") will be determined by what they choose to think and believe.

No one is born with a desire for a cheeseburger with fries--they have to learn what those things are and have some experience with them before having such desires. No one is born with any particular sexual proclivity--they have to learn what all those things are and have some experience before having any such desires. Then they must evaluate their feelings (which cannot tell them what is best for them) and choose whether to let their desires determine their choices (have the burger even though they are overweight and already diabetic) or choose what is best for their own long-term benefit. The same goes for how one practices their sexual desires.

[Do some research on paraphilias, here and, "The 15 most common paraphilias". Are these desires inborn? Are they one's nature?]

You can't have it both ways. Either human beings are volitional creatures who must consciously choose their behavior and are therefore totally responsible for all they choose to think and do, or something else (their gene's, society, inborn desires, etc.) determines what they do. If the latter, all discussion of what anyone ought to do becomes silly, because they don't have any choice about it. Either one chooses their behavior or they don't, but, it cannot be both.

It's a redundancy, and you end up with an infinite regression if not a circularity.

The "psychological resulting in physical responses to what one thinks and believes", as you put it, doesn't stop at the corporeal desire, and would have to also count for the 'choice' as well.

Meaning, you can't escape this deterministic process by introducing some process - 'choosing' - that is supposed to be free of the causal process that determines the desires one then chooses to act on, or not.

Say you have a desire. Let's grant that you don't have to act on it. Hell, let's even grant that you have freewill. Now, you think it over and decide you shouldn't do it.

Aren't the experiences that led you to believe you ought not do it, the same kind of "psychological results to physical responses"? The sum total of reasons which you consider in deciding not to act on the desire, are just as learned as are the desires themselves. You grew up in an environment and culture that conditioned you to have moral reservations about beating up old ladies.... and you aren't able to believe otherwise. Here, your choice not to do so is just another conditioned behavior, categorically no different than beating up old ladies.

This is one reason why compatibalism is nonsense.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 12:37 am

Greatest I am wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 12:22 am

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Fri Jan 21, 2022 11:24 pm

Yes, it's a pretty ridiculous 'explanation'.

Chastisement without correction is what low I.Q. does.

Thanks for showing yours.

Regards
DL

What a kunty comment, especially when I was agreeing with you, you stupid little prik. Actually, not being able to spell a simple word like 'lose' is a sign of low intelligence, especially when you have been told umpteen times.

I am French, and fuck off stupid.

Regards
DL

promethean75 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 5:49 pm It's a redundancy, and you end up with an infinite regression if not a circularity.

The "psychological resulting in physical responses to what one thinks and believes", as you put it, doesn't stop at the corporeal desire, and would have to also count for the 'choice' as well.

Meaning, you can't escape this deterministic process by introducing some process - 'choosing' - that is supposed to be free of the causal process that determines the desires one then chooses to act on, or not.

Say you have a desire. Let's grant that you don't have to act on it. Hell, let's even grant that you have freewill. Now, you think it over and decide you shouldn't do it.

Aren't the experiences that led you to believe you ought not do it, the same kind of "psychological results to physical responses"? The sum total of reasons which you consider in deciding not to act on the desire, are just as learned as are the desires themselves. You grew up in an environment and culture that conditioned you to have moral reservations about beating up old ladies.... and you aren't able to believe otherwise. Here, your choice not to do so is just another conditioned behavior, categorically no different than beating up old ladies.

This is one reason why compatibalism is nonsense.

So you think a gay should and can easily choose not to be gay.

Am I reading you right?

If so, why would a person choose the hard way?

Did you choose not to be gay?

Regards
DL

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 2:52 am

Greatest I am wrote: ↑Tue Jan 18, 2022 10:58 pm Are homosexual natures created by nurture, nature, or God?

I think the answer is is quite important as it would show us the cause/source of homosexuality.

If God, as believers think, then why is God creating gays?

Regards
DL

There is no such thing as a, "homosexual nature," anymore than there is a, "pedophile nature," or, "rapist nature," or, "bestiality nature." These are all chosen practices. Nothing makes anyone be anything that can otherwise be chosen. It's like asking what makes someone have a piano player's nature, or an electrician's, a dancer's, or a baker's.

Everybody is different and the reasons why anyone makes the choices they do will be different for every individual. So long as one's choices do not interfere in anyone else's life, one may choose to live any way they like, suffering the consequences of their wrong choices and enjoying the rewards of their right ones. Reality will decided which is which.

It is not up to anyone else, or society, or the government, to decide how others should live their lives.

I agree with your last.

In a species that has to have the two genders attracted to use each other to reproduce, like ours, do you think the prevailing heterosexual nature is something we choose, and when did you choose to not be gay?

Regards
DL

Greatest I am wrote: ↑Tue Jan 18, 2022 10:58 pm Are homosexual natures created by nurture, nature, or God?

What is a "homosexual nature"?

Are you essentializing? Are you assuming that "homosexuality" is a sort of fixed fact from birth? Are you assuming it is the summation of the "nature" of particular human beings, whom, for some reason, you wish to define exclusively by their sexual proclivities but not by any other aspects of their humanity?

In other words, what are you taking for granted when you ask the question that way?

Greatest I am wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 6:48 pm

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 12:37 am

Greatest I am wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 12:22 am

Chastisement without correction is what low I.Q. does.

Thanks for showing yours.

Regards
DL

What a kunty comment, especially when I was agreeing with you, you stupid little prik. Actually, not being able to spell a simple word like 'lose' is a sign of low intelligence, especially when you have been told umpteen times.

I am French, and fuck off stupid.

Regards
DL

Sure you are, as if that has anything to do with it anyway. And fuck off with your insane 'regards' at the end of every single comment. You aren't writing a letter.