Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Poet who wrote (21480)	8/11/2001 11:17:14 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Worse than cheap, that tactic is illogical. The greatest sin, according to my agnostic bible on conversation.

To: Poet who wrote (21480)	8/11/2001 1:47:19 PM
From: The Philosopher	Respond to of 82486

I don't happen to agree with the argument, but there is a side issue there that is seldom brought up. Assume homosexuality is genetically programmed and immutable, as I think it was you who said you believed. This is used as a basis to say that we should not discriminate against homosexuals because it isn't a choice, it's a characteristic like being black. The problem with that theory is that it slides without notice over the difference between characteristics and behaviors. I don't know of anybody who advocates discrimination against people who are genetically programmed for homosexuality if they don't practice it. This may sound like a silly thing to say, but bear with me. The problem comes if society discoveres that pedophilia is also genetically programmed and immutable. We're halfway there already, and I think will get all the way there soon. Assume we get there. Does that mean that we should accept not only the persons who have that chacteristic, but also their behaviors and chosen lifestyle, as okay? I hope not. I assume not. But if not, that says that we do NOT accept that just because people are genetically and immutably programmed for certain attributes we accept that their exercise of those is necessarily okay. So, we are back to the position that it really doesn't matter whether a behavior is based on genetic or immutable characteristics, we have to evaluate independent of that whether we accept the exercise of that genetic trait as societally acceptable or not. Pedophilia is, of course, a loaded example to use, but it's the one that was brought up here, so I use it. More imminent, perhaps, are bullying and schoolyard violence. There seems to be no doubt now that certain children are genetically predisposed to violent behaviors. Yet we expect them to control those behaviors, to deny that part of their genetic makeup, to overcome those genetic and immutable characteristics. The obvious place to try to draw a difference, of course, is whether the parties on or with whom one is exercising one's genetic compulsions are willing or unwilling participants. But that's only of limiting benefit. Some children may, indeed, be willing participants in pedophilia, but we still object to it. Some children seem to be willing victims of bullying, but we don't accept that, either. As with all human interactions, the interrelationships are messy and fuzzy, not nicely clear and clean.