Philosophy Now Forum

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 7:57 pm

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

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

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.

I'm up late, me thinks you are up early primed to give idiots some food 4 thought.. I caved - on the back end of a bottle of Bacardi that I continually convert into Mojitos!

Greatest I am wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 7:07 pm 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?

First of all, you have no idea what I have or have not chosen.

Secondly, I have no idea what you mean by, "gay." It's not a thing, not a category of human being. If it is anything it is simply how one identifies some who engage in certain practices which they choose to do. They don't choose to, "be gay," they chose to do some things that are identified as gay practices, but that's the choice.

Two people with exactly the same feelings and desires can choose totally different life styles, can't they?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 7:22 pm

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?

Give your answer and you might find out.

Regards
DL

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 7:57 pm

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

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

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.

Fuck off.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 11:34 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 7:22 pm

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?

Give your answer and you might find out.

"My answer"? Well, since all the questions are with regard to what YOU intend, I can't actually be sure: I'm trying to ask you.

But you do say "homosexual," which is a word designed to normalize the practices by paralleling them with "heterosexuality." You don't regard it as a practice, a choice, an option, or participation in a "community," apparently.

And you do say "created," which at minimum, suggests that the persons in questions have to be it from birth. So you must be an essentialist, I suppose, and think that it is fixed and permanent, a state of being. (Of course, I don't know that you can have a "creation" with no "Creator," but I'll let that pass.)

And you say "nature" so you must think that it is definitive of the human being in question, rather than some other aspect of their person. Their "nature" is homosexual, you say.

But I can't be sure these are your answers...they are only deductions from your wording. So you'll have to say. You could have misspoken, I suppose.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 11:59 pm

Greatest I am wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 11:34 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 7:22 pm
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?

Give your answer and you might find out.

"My answer"? Well, since all the questions are with regard to what YOU intend, I can't actually be sure: I'm trying to ask you.

But you do say "homosexual," which is a word designed to normalize the practices by paralleling them with "heterosexuality." You don't regard it as a practice, a choice, an option, or participation in a "community," apparently.

And you do say "created," which at minimum, suggests that the persons in questions have to be it from birth. So you must be an essentialist, I suppose, and think that it is fixed and permanent, a state of being. (Of course, I don't know that you can have a "creation" with no "Creator," but I'll let that pass.)

And you say "nature" so you must think that it is definitive of the human being in question, rather than some other aspect of their person. Their "nature" is homosexual, you say.

But I can't be sure these are your answers...they are only deductions from your wording. So you'll have to say. You could have misspoken, I suppose.

By your inaccurate opinions and lies, for sure.

Stop putting your garbage in my mouth.

You trying to make me look stupid, makes you look really stupid.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am wrote: ↑Sat Jan 29, 2022 1:44 am Stop putting your garbage in my mouth.

I didn't put any words in your mouth. I quoted exactly what you said, each word being one you, yourself chose to use.

And I asked you to explain what you meant by what you said.

And apparently, you can't...or you're afraid to.

Very interesting.

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

WHY do you call 'it' "homosexual NATURES"?

If you want to refer to "homosexuality" as being NATURAL, then you would ALREADY HAVE 'your' answer.

If you asked are FAR MORE OPEN question like; 'Is homosexuality created by nurture or nature" (and removed the MIS/LEADING 'God' word), then my answer would be;

Both, OBVIOUSLY.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 22, 2022 4:24 pm Generally speaking, homosexuality is the result of genetic factors and/or forms of operant conditioning that process in social environments which produce extreme pressure and stress for individuals concerning their own perceived sense of identity and the roles they feel inclined to play in that conflicting environment. Most exclusively, forms of alienation experienced in societies of rugged individualism which produce artificial class and culture conflicts between the people involved. Where the degree of competition over material wealth and reproductive privilege is increased, the number of failures also increases, leading to identity aberrations like learned/conditioned homosexuality and the incel culture, for instance.

Needless to say, capitalism/consumerism environments are notorious for producing Bobby Browns with greater and greater frequency.

In any case, homos are not to blame for their sexuality (since there is no freewill), and should be understood as products of their environments or genetic dispositions.

How, EXACTLY, could WANTING to have sex with a human body with the same sexual organs be a "genetic factor"?

promethean75 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 22, 2022 7:19 pm "everything is determined by genetics and environments every possible kind of behavior must be tolerated since what one does is not their fault. Right?"

See that's the pat response to the problem... part of the trap that has evolved over centuries of the conceptual confusion surrounding this most precarious of problems.

WHAT 'problem'?

promethean75 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 22, 2022 7:19 pm The situation is much like a riddle; one can't begin moralizing until they know there is no morality.

By believing in morality, a punisher hopes to ignore and forget that there is nothing sanctifying his redress of the criminal and/or immoral act when he punishes, beyond his own disagreement with it. That is, there is no appeal to any higher power that a punisher might make to authorize himself in punishing, reprimanding, scolding, etc.

BUT there is NO 'punishing' in True 'morality'.

If ANY thinks or BELIEVES that 'punishment' is NEEDED in or for 'discipline' or for ANY other reason, then there is a True SIGN of ANOTHER one who was ABUSED previously.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 22, 2022 7:19 pm But there is just as much morality in 'tolerating' as there is in punishing.

What 'morality' does there exist in 'punishing', EXACTLY?

promethean75 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 22, 2022 7:19 pm It never logically followed that there must be absolute toleration if there is no responsibility by virtue of there being no freewill.

LOOK;

BOTH 'free will' AND 'determinism' EXIST, just like BOTH 'nature' AND 'nurture' EXIST.

Human beings EXIST. Of which SOME are ALWAYS 'responsible' (or, more correctly, MEANT to be ALWAYS 'responsible') for ALL of their behaviors, right or wrong/good or bad, and then there are SOME who are NEVER EVER 'responsible' for absolutely ANY thing.

What the latter do is ALWAYS 'tolerated', no matter what they do, but the wrong the former does, NEVER has to be 'tolerated' ,but also NEVER deserves 'punishment' NOR 'ridicule'. There are NO 'excuses' EVER for doing wrong, but there are ALWAYS reasons WHY.

When BOTH the former and the latter DO Wrong, then what is NEEDED is ENCOURAGEMENT and SUPPORT to just do what is Right ONLY.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 22, 2022 7:19 pm When one tolerates, one still hesitates at the doorstep of morality... one is still afraid to pass judgement, to take full responsibility for the pleasure or disgust before the deed. They are still hoping to find something above and beyond their own judgement to permit, or not, the thing in question. One immediately jumps to ax 'but is this fair?', and in doing so becomes no more responsible for their judgement than the criminal is for his misdeeds. Ah! Nothing makes 'fair' than what man decides should be. No god, no objective moral equation, and no natural law.

And, what do 'you', human beings, just 'fair' on, EXACTLY?

promethean75 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 22, 2022 7:19 pm The second step following the abolishment of the concept of freewill is the complete existential grounding of morality into a new paradigm of atheistic collective egoism; the best man can do given his rather fucked up circumstances sans god, is attempt to maintain a law and order that he himself establishes without any recourse to divine edict or deontogical imperative. Social order becomes a science of behaviorism, and rather than continuing the practice of criminal justice based on a set of fundamental lies and misconceptions about human nature, man now looks outward, rather than at the offender, seeking the causes and conditions which lead to such criminal behavior.

Question: what if we discovered that, say, ninety some percent of blue collar crime could be prevented by tweaking the way society was arranged, rather than doing it the old way; poisoning the conscience of the criminal and weakening him by making him shameful, making him feel guilty, convincing him that he knew right from wrong (when he did not), that he had freewill, and demanding that he atone for his transgressions?

So, WHY, EXACTLY, do 'you', "promethean75", KEEP doing the Wrong things when you ALREADY KNOW what is Right in Life?

Or, do you NOT do Wrong "promethean75"?

promethean75 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 22, 2022 7:19 pm See the theory of freewill, in addition to being nonsense, is also the easy way out. One doesn't have to change anything and can just blame the criminal. Know what kind of society masters this way of doing things? A religious constitutionally based free market system. First it brings a gross misunderstanding of human nature, adds to it the nonsensical theory of freewill, sanctions that theory with more nonsense (that there is a god that gave it to them), and finally creates economic circumstances that inevitably lead to such conflicts that produce massive amounts of criminal activity. The whole thing is a joke, bruh. One big fat joke, and not one of the idiots who think they understand all this, and incidentally endorse this crap, have the slightest clue what's going on.

BUT, 'you', "promethean75", KNOW EXACTLY what is going on here, correct?

promethean75 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 22, 2022 7:19 pm In fact - and I've said this before - if there were any reason to believe in god, it would be because one can't imagine such a perfect travesty coming into existence without being designed. Like evolution couldn't accidentally produce such a wellspring of nonsense on its own, i'ont think. Well I dunno... maybe given enough time it would.

Or maybe it's not a travesty and I'm just an exceptional kind of being, such that the normal run of things seems so ridiculous to me because I'm used to a higher order of existence. Like a Vulcan or something, ya know? All I see is six billion monkeys arguing over problems that are none. This is why I became a nihilist. I had to, man. Life on planet erf is too slow.

But, what is NOT 'you', "promethean75", who stated in your very first sentence in this reply;

"See that's the pat response to the problem.".. AND ... 'this most precarious of problems".

If ALL you can SEE is just "monkeys" arguing over problems, then you then CLAIM, "THAT ARE NONE", then WHY START your response about 'problems'?

To 'you' are there 'problems', or, are there NO 'problems'?

Also, and by the way, WHY do you only see 'six billion' "monkeys", when the population on earth, on the day this was written was said to be over 7.9 billion human beings? Or, do you REALLY only see 'monkeys' arguing?

Greatest I am wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 12:29 am

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.

And where EXACTLY are these 'electronic subatomic rays' coming from?

Greatest I am wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 12:29 am The roots or gayness are in our genes, and they are under DNA and chemical control.

Regards
DL

What are you basing this CLAIM on, EXACTLY?

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.

This is VERY True but what is ALSO True is that EVERY one makes the choices they do for the EXACT SAME reasons. Which is; 'past experiences'.

EVERY body has had DIFFERENT 'past experiences', and it is for this EXACT SAME reason WHY, literally, EVERY one LOOKS AT 'things' DIFFERENTLY, SEES 'things' DIFFERENTLY, and makes the choices they do, which will be DIFFERENT for, literally, EVERY 'individual' 'one', and 'body'.

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

'Reality', Itself, does NOT make 'choices'. ONLY human beings make 'choices'. And there is ALWAYS a 'consequence' for EVERY 'choice' made. No matter what 'choice' human beings make Nature, Itself, creates a 'rewarding' or a 'suffering' consequence, which will OBVIOUSLY just VERY 'naturally' occur from CHOOSING either to just do 'what is Wrong in Life', or, just do 'what IS Right in Life'. So, the choice is 'yours' ALONE.

By the way, one's choices ALWAYS interfere, or have an effect, on someone else's life.

So, the choice is 'yours' ALONE, but the 'consequences' ALWAYS affect EVERY one, in some way.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 2:52 am It is not up to anyone else, or society, or the government, to decide how others should live their lives.

Actually, thee Truly Peaceful and Harmonious life, which we ALL WANT and DESIRE, actually comes to fruition when a Truly 'self-governing' society is 'in full swing', as some say.

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.

But was "rcsaunders" comparing those 'human beings' who like sex with the same gender, with those 'human beings' who like sex with children, or younger 'human beings', with those who like to force sex on other 'human beings', or with those who 'human beings' who like sex with other 'animals'? Or, was "rcsaunders" just pointing out and showing that there is NO 'nature' in those DIFFERENT 'likings', within DIFFERENT 'human beings', and that those 'likings' are JUST CHOICES?

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?

What EVERY one of 'you', human beings, have 'come-to-like' is A CHOICE, and A CHOICE of 'your' ALONE.

OBVIOUSLY, the male gendered human body is, at some stage, going to produce and release sperm, and the female human body is, at some stage, going to ovulate, produce, and release an egg. This happens absolutely NATURALLY, no matter what CHOICES one makes.

But, where the 'person' inside the male gendered human body DECIDES it likes and wants to place its sexual organs into is A CHOICE of 'theirs' ALONE, and, what the 'person', inside the female gendered body, DECIDES it likes and wants to place inside its sexual organs is A CHOICE of 'theirs' ALONE.

If those CHOICES align with what is just PURELY NATURAL or NOT will ALWAYS depend on what kind of past experiences those human bodies have actually had.

So, to answer your question here, directly, 'people' CHOOSE to be 'heterosexual', 'homosexual, or ANY other 'sexuality'.

And, the reason WHY 'heterosexual' is, or was, far MORE COMMONLY CHOSEN is because that one aligns more with Nature, or what is PURELY NATURAL, or, literally, UNADULTERATED, Itself.

ALL 'people' make their CHOICES past on the past experiences that "they" have had. And, 'heterosexuality' is FAR MORE COMMON 'practice' and so FAR MORE 'experienced'.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 7:24 am I can understand that they may choose to approach this or that person of the opposite sex, but the attraction, was it chosen?

If a, literally, UNADULTERATED, human being, which is one that has NOT been previously ABUSED/MISUSED, so which is absolutely NO one, in the days when this was being written anyway, was left to their 'OWN ACCORD', as it is sometimes said, then what do 'people' think that 'one' would be 'attracted' to, NATURALLY?

While ANY one is 'thinking' about this, take into account what is the ACTUAL reason WHY 'you', human beings, become 'attracted' to "another one"?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 7:24 am At what age do children decide to be attracted to either the opposite sex or the same sex? (or a combination of varying degrees).

Whenever they NATURALLY do. Or, when they have been, literally, 'sexualized'. Also, taking into account that 'one' does NOT, initially, consciously DECIDE, " I will become attracted to 'this' or 'that' ". One just becomes attracted to 'whatever' one does, initially.

And, EVERY one, initially, becomes 'attracted' to what they do, no matter 'it' is, BECAUSE of previous 'past experiences'.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 7:24 am When did you choose your sexuality?

For me, AFTER my first 'sexual' experience.

When did you 'choose' your sexuality?

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

One could read ALL the information ever written on just ANY topic, and come away none the wiser. In fact sometimes 'you', human beings, come away less wiser and more confused the more you read and listen to "OTHERS".

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

When was this FIRST CLAIM MADE?

And, how many of those babies have grown up, FULLY?

So, when, EXACTLY, was this CLAIM 'tested and proved conclusively true'?

People can also CHANGE their sexuality, as regularly as, like they CHANGE their religions, and/or their BELIEFS/DISBELIEVING in religions.

Also, because of what 'thoughts' ARE, EXACTLY, which is where DECISIONS and CHOICES ACTUALLY COME FROM, genetics do NOT have CONTROL over. The Fact is, what the genetic human body 'experiences' influences the 'thoughts' within, but what makes DECISIONS and CHOICES is NOT the genes of the human body.

As ALREADY PROVED IRREFUTABLY True, and which can also be PROVED True to anyone else who is Truly INTERESTED.

By the way, provide me with a list of EVERY thing that some body has 'experienced' and I CAN SHOW 'you' WHY EVERY 'person' is EXACTLY the way they ARE.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 7:24 am Note: it seems there is no single gay gene, nevertheless there are genetic markers for gayness.

Will you list those "genetic markers" here for us to SEE?

If no, then WHY NOT?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 7:24 am Note: the scientists find environmental and social factors play a a strong role. But then, these wouldn't really count as choice.

'dna' creates the physical body the way it is.
What the physical body, then experiences, creates/influences the 'thinking' within.
What the 'thinking', within, ends up 'liking' or 'disliking' is NOT controllable, but ONLY to non-responsible 'people'. That is; 'children'.
What the 'thinking', within, continues 'liking' or 'disliking', into 'adulthood', which is; ' the meant to be responsible 'people' ', then that is A CHOICE, and it is A CHOICE, made by that 'one' ALONE.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 7:43 am "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, WHY EXACTLY are 'you', human beings, in dialogue?

And, if 'you' can NOT help think "what you think", then what EXACTLY is causing or creating 'you' to 'think' 'what you are thinking'?

promethean75 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 7:43 am So as you can see, those are pretty weak reasons, sir.

But even you just CLAIMED that there has NEVER been ANY point in commenting ANYWAY, within the grand scheme of 'things', so if "another one" says there is NO point in commenting, then that, well to me, seems to a VERY 'strong reason' to avoid commenting. Especially considering you just 'hardened' that reason here.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 7:43 am A better reason to avoid commenting would be because I'm an insufferable troll.