>>>I never claimed behavior can change the fundamental genetic structure of an individual, but that certain biological changes to the individual possibly can be triggered as a result of repeated behavior. We know, for example, that brain structure can be influenced as a result of learning and exposure to stimuli.<<<
First of all you confuse your speculation with a fact, second you deny what you obviously did, which is to imply that fundamental brain structures that are controlled by genetics could possibly be caused by behaviour (which is absurd, in my opinion). I expect better than this sort of weasel wording from a man who puts himself forward as a moral judge. First, heal thyself, Pilch.
>>> Once again, you confuse concepts.
It is you who confuse concepts. I believe this is a result of your being so ponderously wordy, which leads to error simply from the weight of unneeded verbiage.
>>> Again, you confuse concepts, and whether there is a
genetic cause to homosexuality has not been established.<<<
According to you. But you don't accept causality, as you said before, so your standard of proof is pretty suspect to me.
>>> Stupidity produces stupidity.
Here we agree. When discussing an issue with someone like yourself who is deliberately intransigent, I sometimes have to lower myself to the general tone of the debate. Try to remember, Pilch, that your stubborn tone is indestinguishable from stupidity to those of us on the outside of the effect. (See, I can write like that too! Actually you have had me tending toward your own style for some time now - a tendency in writing I have been trying to overcome. I shall perservere.)
>>> Calvinist will claim that the universe is in the control of a sovereign God, even claiming we are pre-destined to our final resting place, he will not claim the individual not responsible for his actions,
Pure Calvinists considered it a sin even to try to earn a place in heaven by good deeds, as this would have been bargaining with God, and insulting his omnipotence. In their philosophy miscreants were punished simply because God had decreed that they sin and also decreed that punishment be applied. (Of course, the Calvinists were full of crap.)
>>> While the ancients did see themselves as being in control of their pantheon of gods, they did not believe the individual was not to be held personally accountable for his actions. Otherwise civilized societies would not have insisted that lawbreakers be tried and sentenced <<<
Tut tut. The Gods themselves were full of sins. That you conclude humans would not have had laws and punishment unless their gods had decreed it is your conclusion, and a transparent logical fallacy depending on the idea that laws exist because people always do what the Gods will them to do. Actually, practical laws exist because not everyone is as stupid as the true believers. Thus they take action in the absence of explicit instruction, or in spite of it.
Were their no agnostics, atheists, non-deist mystics, or religious hypocrits, humans would be unlikely to survive their own dogma. It is these people who make the survival decisions when the true believers are heading for the edge of the cliff. Otherwise we'd be at war forever, shun medicine, spend the day praying instead of working, and adopt a thousand other absurdities. Otherwise no religion would ever make peace with another.
>>>Even so, the similarities between chimps and men prove common descent about as much as do the similarities between my Steinway and my son's Yamaha. <<<
OK, I'll bite. The two instruments (I'll assume we are not talking motorcycles here :-) share a common descent in many ways. The wood they are made of comes from trees that share a common genetic ancestry. The technology is held in common and has slight variations in implementation. There is a taxonomy of instruments with types and subtypes. The notes they produce are ordered by a commonly held coding structure for musical notation and frequency relationships. This makes them much closer in type than either is, for instance, to a sitar or a koto or a single string Chinese violin. You can trace the history of all this. So what is the problem with such an analogy? You must have one in mind - spell it out.
>>> They are interested in proving what they know to be true when they should be searching to disprove it. They are not objective.
I think that it is you who should prove you are disinterested, by proving that these researchers are biased, via facts and not your unvarnished opinions. Also, your idea that they should first be trying to disprove the concept betrays an unfamiliarity with the actual practice of science. That 9th grade schoolbook version of how science proceeds via the scientific has never been correct nor practical. And you are betraying your predudices by assaulting the reputations of these scientists with your slurs. Some facts, please.
>>> Kinsey's
Nobody gives a rat's ass about Kinsey anymore. Sociologists and psychologists of that long-ago era aren't even respected by other scientists. Unless you want to be held accountable for the Ayatolla Khomeini, please don't hold me liable for whatever flawed statistics Kinsey produced.
He did do some good: As far as I can tell, the main value of Kinsey was that he acquainted Americans with two concepts many of them were somewhat unfamiliar with at that juncture. First, that not everyone in the US had heterosexual union inside marriage with the man laying briefly atop the woman in the Missionary position. Second, that women were capable of having sexual pleasure, and that it was normal for them to try to achieve orgasm every time they had sex. What Americans did before Kinsey was lie about things like that, live in confusion, and be left all their lives to wonder what other people really did. Plus, they had rather sparse (if they were lucky) episodes of really
bad sex.
>>> (!) You really should consider at least the attempt at holding to the issue, not confusing it with other matters.
You should really shed that cloak of pomposity. You're not kidding anyone.
Cheers,
Chaz |
