27 Jan 09
Originally posted by KazetNagorraA mistake? How is it disadvantageous from an evolutionary stand point? A large percentage of what we classify as child molestation actually involves girls of reproductive age - and in the not too distant past it was common practice for them to be reproducing at that age. We must also remember that in humans sex and sexual attraction serves more purposes than mere reproduction. If attracting an adult male at an young age ensures material support from him (as it usually does even in modern times) then it is an advantage from an evolutionary standpoint. The same may similarly apply to other forms of molestation - young boys that get molested frequently get material benefits in return.
Perhaps this is a "mistake" in evolution, where selecting for youthful characteristics has gone too far. But I'm just guessing here.
I am in no way justifying anyones actions - merely pointing out that the assumption that child molestation and sex with minors is 'unnatural' or 'biologically wrong' may be unfounded. Similarly I see no reason why we should assume that being gay is a biological disadvantage.
27 Jan 09
Originally posted by twhitehead…A large percentage of what we classify as child molestation actually involves girls of reproductive age -...…
A mistake? How is it disadvantageous from an evolutionary stand point? A large percentage of what we classify as child molestation actually involves girls of reproductive age - and in the not too distant past it was common practice for them to be reproducing at that age. We must also remember that in humans sex and sexual attraction serves more purposes t ...[text shortened]... Similarly I see no reason why we should assume that being gay is a biological disadvantage.
True -but I think you have got the wrong end of the stick because I think what we where generally thinking of when talking about “child molesters” was specifically child molestation actually involves girls of below reproductive age such as 8-year olds etc. It clearly wouldn’t be an “evolutionary” advantage to do such a thing so vaguely calling it a “mistake” in evolution would in fact be “correct” I think.
27 Jan 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadI wasn't specific enough, I'm specifically talking about sex with children who cannot reproduce. There is nothing "wrong" with a 40 year old having sex with a 13 year old girl, from an evolutionary point of view (of course, ignoring ethics). It could be that there is actually a sound evolutionary reason for this similar to male homosexuality.
A mistake? How is it disadvantageous from an evolutionary stand point? A large percentage of what we classify as child molestation actually involves girls of reproductive age - and in the not too distant past it was common practice for them to be reproducing at that age. We must also remember that in humans sex and sexual attraction serves more purposes t ...[text shortened]... Similarly I see no reason why we should assume that being gay is a biological disadvantage.
27 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraBut as I pointed out, human sex often has very little to do with reproduction - or you will be calling sex after menopause an "evolutionary mistake".
I wasn't specific enough, I'm specifically talking about sex with children who cannot reproduce. There is nothing "wrong" with a 40 year old having sex with a 13 year old girl, from an evolutionary point of view (of course, ignoring ethics). It could be that there is actually a sound evolutionary reason for this similar to male homosexuality.
27 Jan 09
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe "evolutionary argument" is more often that not just a red herring when discussing ethics. Many times (like in this thread) it assumes that evolution is "complete", but I wouldn't hold my breath in getting Kazet to admit this.
But as I pointed out, human sex often has very little to do with reproduction - or you will be calling sex after menopause an "evolutionary mistake".
27 Jan 09
I would further like to point out that evolution tends favor behaviors that benefit the genes of the perpetrator of the behavior. The vast majority of child molesters molest children they know and are in regular contact with. Many child molesters molest children over long periods and this frequently does lead to pregnancy.
I am not saying that evolution favors child molestation but I would like to make two very important points:
1. The situation is far too complex to make an off the cuff call as to whether or not the behavior could arise as a result of evolution.
2. Evolution and the behaviors that arise from it are totally devoid of morals. The fact that a behavior or characteristic arose via evolution or did not has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the behavior is moral.
If humans like many other species had tendencies to eat their young in certain events I would still consider it immoral even if it was perfectly 'natural'.
27 Jan 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadPerhaps it is, in a way. The vast majority of the evolution of mankind happened at times when women didn't normally reach the menopause, so it didn't have much effect on reproduction. On the other hand, you could argue that the sex still serves an evolutionary purpose in the form of emotional bonding.
But as I pointed out, human sex often has very little to do with reproduction - or you will be calling sex after menopause an "evolutionary mistake".
Alternatively, the menopause could be because of evolution, since it makes less sense for an elderly woman to have children and more sense for her to care for her grandchildren.
27 Jan 09
Originally posted by PalynkaNo, actually I was avoiding ethics altogether, and I would never claim evolution is or ever can be "complete".
The "evolutionary argument" is more often that not just a red herring when discussing ethics. Many times (like in this thread) it assumes that evolution is "complete", but I wouldn't hold my breath in getting Kazet to admit this.
31 Jan 09
2 edits
Is homosexuality biologically determined? No.
No more than alcoholism is genetically determined.
There are greater chances of succeptibility but it's not determined.
What I hate is this plea of innocence. Dresswrapping and scarf-mangling.
You're just another bloke with a fetish, get over it.
Sincere apologies to Canadians, you do indeed rock!
31 Jan 09
Originally posted by Thequ1ck…What I hate is this plea of innocence...…
Is homosexuality biologically determined? No.
No more than alcoholism is genetically determined.
There are greater chances of succeptibility but it's not determined.
What I hate is this plea of innocence. Dresswrapping and scarf-mangling.
You're just another bloke with a fetish, get over it.
Sincere apologies to Canadians, you do indeed rock!
Suppose you are right -suppose homosexuality is plainly and simply NOT biologically determined (although I fail to see the premise for this belief of yours). Ok, so that would mean homosexuality is purely caused by environmental factors -this would STILL mean homosexuals are “innocent” of their homosexuality because they presumably don’t control nor understand those environmental factors just as he presumably doesn’t control nor understand any biological factors that may determine sexuality!
Thus for a homosexual to claim that his sexuality is caused by biology rather than the environment is no more a “plea of innocence” than if he claimed that his sexuality is caused by the environment rather than biology!
31 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonAs I said before, reductionism is not an standpoint, it's a method.
[b]…What I hate is this plea of innocence...…
Suppose you are right -suppose homosexuality is plainly and simply NOT biologically determined (although I fail to see the premise for this belief of yours). Ok, so that would mean homosexuality is purely caused by environmental factors -this would STILL mean homosexuals are “innocent” of their ho ...[text shortened]... nocence” than if he claimed that his sexuality is caused by the environment rather than biology![/b]
So what do you say to people like me who accept homosexuals but recognise
the consequences?
edit. heads up to MJ here who is the coolest person on this site by far!!!
31 Jan 09
2 edits
Originally posted by Thequ1ck…As I said before, reductionism is not an standpoint, it's a method. ..…
As I said before, reductionism is not an standpoint, it's a method.
So what do you say to people like me who accept homosexuals but recognise
the consequences?
edit. heads up to MJ here who is the coolest person on this site by far!!!
Not sure how this relates to “reductionism” nor what is wrong with using “reductionism” (if that is what you are implying? ). I wasn’t trying to use “reductionism”, I was just trying to us logic and don’t really care what “sort” of logic you classify that logic as being.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductionist
“…Reductionism can either mean
(a) an approach to understanding the nature of complex things by reducing them to the interactions of their parts, or to simpler or more fundamental things …“
-don’t see anything wrong with that.
“…or (b) a philosophical position that a complex system is nothing but the sum of its PARTS, and that an account of it can be reduced to accounts of individual constituents….)…” (my emphasis)
-providing the “PARTS” in the above can include the interaction between other parts then I would be in general agreement with that.
-so which kind of reductionism are your referring to? (a) or (b)?
and explain to me exactly how have I used “reductionism” in the argument in my previous post.
Also, I would be curious to know what is you counter argument to my argument I gave in my previous post?
….So what do you say to people like me who accept homosexuals but recognise
the consequences? ….
Normally nothing -because I fail to see the relevance this has to anything.
But, because of what you said in previous posts, I would ask you:
“So what do you say to people like me who accept heterosexuals but recognise
the consequences?
( -I have absolutely no idea what so ever what kind of “answer” this question demands -which is precisely my point!!! -so I don't see what kind of “answer” your question demands )
31 Jan 09
5 edits
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonAndrew -I have absolutely no idea what so ever what kind of “answer” this question demands -which is precisely my point!!! -so I don't see what kind of “answer” your question demands )
[b]…As I said before, reductionism is not an standpoint, it's a method. ..…
Not sure how this relates to “reductionism” nor what is wrong with using “reductionism” (if that is what you are implying? ). I wasn’t trying to use “reductionism”, I was just trying to us logic and don’t really care what “sort” of logic you classify that logic as bei ...[text shortened]... -which is precisely my point!!! -so I don't see what kind of “answer” your question demands )[/b]
I'm just asking you 'what are the consequences of this belief?'
Are you saying that you can't see these consequences?
Having had my life turned upside down as many others have, isn't it at least
important for people to recognise that this behaviour is dangerous to others?
Strangely enough this reminds me of a story which I'll tell to you because I
recognise you're not used to people standing up to your homonid creed.
In England they recently put pictures of decaying smokers on cigarettes packets.
They took the pictures off again. Why? Because it was stopping the government
getting tax.
I put it to you that homosexuality is the same engine, driven by greed and supported
by the greedy.
31 Jan 09
4 edits
Originally posted by Thequ1ck…I'm just asking you 'what are the consequences of this belief?'
Andrew -I have absolutely no idea what so ever what kind of “answer” this question demands -which is precisely my point!!! -so I don't see what kind of “answer” your question demands )
I'm just asking you 'what are the consequences of this belief?'
Are you saying that you can't see these consequences?
Having had my life turned upside down as many o you that homosexuality is the same engine, driven by greed and supported
by the greedy.
..…
What belief!? -you didn’t ask me what I believed!
Your original question was:
“…what do you say to people like me who accept homosexuals but recognise
the consequences? …”
Well, I also “accept” homosexuals -that “acceptance” is not a “belief” but rather just the absence of negative emotions and negative behaviour towards them.
…Having had my life turned upside down as many others have, isn't it at least
important for people to recognise that this behaviour is dangerous to others? .….
Again, I don’t see the point you are driving at by your question; I could say:
“Having had my life turned upside down as many others have, isn't it at least
important for people to recognise that this heterosexual behaviour is dangerous to others?”
I don't know what “kind” of answer this demands.
….In England they recently put pictures of decaying smokers on cigarettes packets.
They took the pictures off recently. Why? Because it was stopping the government
getting tax.
I put it to you that homosexuality is the same engine, driven by greed and supported
by the greedy
..…
Is homosexuality taxed?
In what way is homosexuality “driven by greed and supported by the greedy”?
-can you give me a specific example of how so?