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: thames_sider who wrote (26026)	9/5/2001 11:56:55 AM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

'd take issue with the inclusion of homosexuality in that list. Why am I not surprised? <g> But let's be clear what I was saying before you decide whether we disagree.. I was making one point; that genetic predisposition is NOT a valid reason to approve of (or, perhaps better put, to not discriminate against) certain behaviors. What I'm saying is that society has to evaluate behaviors independent of whether they are partially genetically based. It's entirely consistent with this philsophy to argue that the behaviors of violence and pedophilia are bad behaviors society should ban, and homosexuality is an okay behavior which society shouldn't ban. You are free to make this argument without contradicting the position I was taking. Just because a behavior is partially genetically based doesn't automatically make it bad. But what I think is intellectually dishonest is saying that some behaviors should be accepted because they're partly genetically based, and others should be rejected even thought they're partly genetically based. In this case you're making a judgment of good or bad indepenedent of genetic predisposition. So I think it's intellectually dishonest then to fall back and say, basically, now that I've determined, IMO, that this behavior is okay independent of its genetic predisposition, I'll now say it's okay partly BECAUSE of its genetic predisposition. That's fraudulent reasoning, and should be rooted out. Society should evaulate ALL behaviors on the basis of whatever standard society uses for "good" or "bad" or "we wish they weren't happening, but they're not bad enough to ban" behaviors without any reference to any genetic predisposition. Otherwise, if one opens the door of arguing that genetic predisoposition should affect our view of the acceptability of behavior, the door is open and things we don't want to accept will find a way to slither through.