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: Lane3 who wrote (71616)	8/5/2003 9:37:09 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

That, and the sensible point that, in a democracy, as long as view is supported by the majority, reasonable, and not derived exclusively from dogma, it is allowed to prevail.

To: Lane3 who wrote (71616)	8/5/2003 12:07:22 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Since a factor in the argument for easing up on homosexuals is that their inclinations are built-in, then the practitioners of immoral behaviors will make the excuse that their behavior is build in, too, and we will have to ease up on them as well. That we will end up excusing serial killers rather than branding them psychopaths and putting them away because they claim that they're just wired that way. I haven't read Neo's response, but mine is that the argument is somewhat different. It goes like this. Assume, if you wish, that homosexual inclinations are built-in. If you accept the research that suggests, though doesn't prove, this, you have, at least for the sake of argument and I think absolutely, to accept the research that suggests that violence, pedophilia, and other behaviors are also built-in inclinations. We then have to decide how to respond to built-in inclinations. Here is the point you may take issue with, but it's my belief that if say that built-in inclinations justify behavior in one area, they must also be allowed to justify it in others. There are two general categories of genetic predisposition. One is simply an immutable trait -- race, skin color, gender, eye color, height, and other such things which are totally beyond one's control. The other are traits which affect behaviors. These are traits where the individual may have a genetic tendency to act in a certain way, but can make the choice whether to engage in that behavior. It may be more or less difficult to choose not to engage in the behavior, but it is still a choice. This group includes, if we accept the current state of genetic research, such things as tendency toward overweight, tendency toward violence, tendency toward homosexuality, tendency toward ritght or left handedness, and many others as yet unclarified. But in each of these cases, there is an element of choice as to one's behavior. (A tendency toward religion may also be in this category -- I believe it is, though I can't prove it yet.) Now think socities have not only the right but the obligation to say that acting on certain of these tendencies is acceptable and acting on others (violence, pedophilia are examples) is not. That people may have these tendencies, but they are expected to overcome them and not act on them. So my appoach is to say, quite simply, I don't care a whit whether an inclination is built in or not. That drops totally out of the equation. It's irrelevant. What matters is how people choose to act. And society decides whether behaviors are socially acceptable or unacceptable without any concern or regard for whether or not they have any biological basis. Doing otherwise opens the door you mention. I don't know how Neo will answer, but for myself, the door stays shut and we look at what people do without regard for why they may choose to do it or be the way they say they are.