|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/15/2009 11:34:17 AM · #2976 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
People could say they would want their son not to be gay because the pool of potential mates goes up literally almost ten-fold. |
For people who like both sexes, there is a virtually unlimited choice, so the answer for many is moot. |
|
|
|
11/15/2009 11:46:34 AM · #2977 |
Holy crap, you guys. The possibility of such a time is not science fiction. It is very likely a combination of genetic predisposition and environmental factors that determines who is Aryan, just like many other traits of human personality. Discovering the gene (or genes) is well within our grasp. Discovering the environmental trigger is likely to be harder, but is not impossible. The thought experiment did not show any judgement or bias! It's just an innocent question: if you discovered that your child showed a genetic predisposition to be anything other than blond, blue-eyed Aryan, would you take steps to correct it? I'm not making ANY sort of bigoted assumptions here, and for the sake of this exercise let's assume that Jews and other lesser humans are treated equally. Would you still correct such an obvious defect?
What, nobody has the intellectual bravery to even answer the question? Ya cowards! There is no right or wrong answer. Terry actually answered and said that if everyone is treated equally, then there are no lesser humans and the assumption of a defect wouldn't exist to contemplate, but he just ignored the question I asked about correcting the defect.
I can't believe when I start a reasonable course of conversation the natural reaction is just to pig pile on me. What is the harm in my question? Look back at it. Where do I judge anything? I'm basically getting at the question of whether there is any reason one would choose not to include their son in the Master Race if they could do so? See? Perfectly innocent.
Hmph! Get a grip, people. |
|
|
|
11/15/2009 11:47:22 AM · #2978 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
People could say they would want their son not to be gay because the pool of potential mates goes up literally almost ten-fold. |
For people who like both sexes, there is a virtually unlimited choice, so the answer for many is moot. |
True. We did not consider bisexuality.
I didn't ignore your question Louis. I think your question is very different and lots of things come into play. One, personal choice plays a role (in your case) and forcing your choice upon someone with the capability to choose (you assume there is a "cure") is largely wrong. (The thought experiment, more reflective of real life, assumes the person is incapable of making the choice when the trigger likely exerts its effect.) Two, I'm not sure there is any good evidence to suggest you can transform people. Trying all sorts of crazy things runs the very real risk of doing a good deal of harm. Three, if my son was gay I would not suddenly embrace the gay lifestyle. I'm afraid that would be the easy way out, but not the correct one (in my opinion). Four, however, I would still love my son with all my heart and would spend my life working on how to exhibit that love without compromising my beliefs.
EDIT to add: I hope this shows (as I've evidenced many times on this thread), that I am willing to answer the "tough" questions with honesty. It's all I'm asking in return and in general that willingness or ability is quite lacking. (not pointing at you here)
Message edited by author 2009-11-15 11:52:39. |
|
|
|
11/15/2009 11:57:49 AM · #2979 |
| My experience has always been that life experience transforms beliefs. Not sure how it is for others, but that's always the way it's been for me. |
|
|
|
11/15/2009 12:06:58 PM · #2980 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
We discover it is a genetic predisposition which is triggered by environmental conditions (if the conditions are met, the gene is expressed and your son is a virtuoso). We have discovered what the environmental trigger is and find that it occurs very early in life, before a year of age. You have a son and discover he has the genetic predisposition to piano virtuosity. In what manner would you use the knowledge of knowing what the environemental trigger is for your son? |
Scares the hell out of me, actually. I'd never want to know any of this stuff. I'd want to let a child be a child and grow up to be whatever he or she wants to be, not something conveniently determined to be pre-dispositioned. Terrifying. |
|
|
|
11/15/2009 12:28:28 PM · #2981 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
I'd want to let a child be a child and grow up to be whatever he or she wants to be, not something conveniently determined to be pre-dispositioned. Terrifying. |
Right. Unless it's a life-threatening defect, why would anyone even consider interfering with their child's natural traits? If someone is gay, black or Jewish, regardless of whether it's a choice or genetic predisposition, then the only thing life-threatening about it is the distrust and hatred of others. They're all perfectly capable of living happy, meaningful lives if allowed to do so.
In a more subtle case like piano virtuosity, even if that person only needed a slight genetic nudge to be a piano phenom, how do you know the existing set of genes aren't already perfect for playing basketball or being a genius in physics? Homosexuality is not a disability or "almost something better," and if Achoo's thought experiment precludes discrimination, then the point is moot— there's nothing to correct or improve. |
|
|
|
11/15/2009 12:29:38 PM · #2982 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
Huh, I thought I answered it. The answer was no, I would NOT do anything to "stop" an environmental trigger. |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Sorry, you did, yup. I was limiting my thinking to the resident-antagonists-of-doc :-) You ain't one of them...
R. |
So did I in my last post....
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Look at it from our view......you put it out there that if we could "fix" our gay kid before it really takes hold, would you?
In my case, absolutely not. |
Knee-jerk or not, coming from Jason that was a loaded question, bound to elicit the response it got, and the innocent and injured act doesn't really fly.......8>)
|
|
|
|
11/15/2009 12:31:13 PM · #2983 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Holy crap, you guys. The possibility of such a time is not science fiction. It is very likely a combination of genetic predisposition and environmental factors that determines who is Aryan, just like many other traits of human personality. Discovering the gene (or genes) is well within our grasp. Discovering the environmental trigger is likely to be harder, but is not impossible. The thought experiment did not show any judgement or bias! It's just an innocent question: if you discovered that your child showed a genetic predisposition to be anything other than blond, blue-eyed Aryan, would you take steps to correct it? I'm not making ANY sort of bigoted assumptions here, and for the sake of this exercise let's assume that Jews and other lesser humans are treated equally. Would you still correct such an obvious defect?
What, nobody has the intellectual bravery to even answer the question? Ya cowards! There is no right or wrong answer. Terry actually answered and said that if everyone is treated equally, then there are no lesser humans and the assumption of a defect wouldn't exist to contemplate, but he just ignored the question I asked about correcting the defect.
I can't believe when I start a reasonable course of conversation the natural reaction is just to pig pile on me. What is the harm in my question? Look back at it. Where do I judge anything? I'm basically getting at the question of whether there is any reason one would choose not to include their son in the Master Race if they could do so? See? Perfectly innocent.
Hmph! Get a grip, people. |
I think I hurt myself laughing.......8>)
|
|
|
|
11/15/2009 12:33:38 PM · #2984 |
| I do have an "aside" kinda question - why is it so different if women are homosexual as opposed to men? I don't really see a difference, so I am truly rather curious as to why almost all these conversations deal entirely with men. |
|
|
|
11/15/2009 12:44:49 PM · #2985 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
I do have an "aside" kinda question - why is it so different if women are homosexual as opposed to men? I don't really see a difference, so I am truly rather curious as to why almost all these conversations deal entirely with men. |
Perception. Many of the same people who are uncomfortable with the sight of two men holding hands, would actually spend money to see two women go a lot farther on pay-per-view. Ironic, isn't it? |
|
|
|
11/15/2009 12:46:40 PM · #2986 |
Here's my answer, good Dr.
The mere idea that society even WANTS to know IF homosexuality is genetic and/or environmentally triggered turns my stomach. I simply cannot even fathom the DESIRE, because it intrinsically points to "if we find the cause, we find the cure", in my mind. Even if you didn't specifically intend for your question (or thought experiment) to be in ANY way insulting or offensive, know that, like an atheist saying "jesus christ!" around a christian, it's going to have a backlash. Especially when it's made with the timing that it had, when you were getting balled around a bit on the other subject and suddenly this off-topical surprise. You feign surprise and ignorance about the response, but even you can't be that self-involved, can you?
No, if I lived in a society that began testing for a genetic key to homosexuality in infants or very young children, I would be outraged. I would do everything in my power to opt out of said testing, fight it if it was mandatory, remove myself FROM said society, or simply not have children. Who we love and end up being with is simply not something we should be worrying about in any way whatsoever, period. It's pretty simple.
If you ever feel ganged up on again and want to ease the pressure, next time, try and do it in a way that isn't inherently offensive. Whether you like it or not, or whether or not you'll deny it to the ends of the earth and back, that's exactly what you've done. Even if you don't KNOW that's what you've done. |
|
|
|
11/15/2009 12:57:30 PM · #2987 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
If you ever feel ganged up on again and want to ease the pressure, next time, try and do it in a way that isn't inherently offensive. Whether you like it or not, or whether or not you'll deny it to the ends of the earth and back, that's exactly what you've done. Even if you don't KNOW that's what you've done. |
I suspect Jason would understand the problem with looking for a genetic predisposition that could eventually lead someone into an interracial marriage, but he doesn't recognize the similarity. |
|
|
|
11/15/2009 01:04:36 PM · #2988 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Melethia:
I do have an "aside" kinda question - why is it so different if women are homosexual as opposed to men? I don't really see a difference, so I am truly rather curious as to why almost all these conversations deal entirely with men. |
Perception. (1 Many of the same people who are uncomfortable with the sight of two men holding hands), (2 would actually spend money to see two women go a lot farther on pay-per-view). Ironic, isn't it? |
1) I do still slightly.
2) A few years back, Oh Yea.
But at 48 I'm starting to grow up... |
|
|
|
11/15/2009 01:55:38 PM · #2989 |
Thanks for the reply K10. Shannon, you can suck an egg.
Well, if I've offended people, it wasn't my intention. I think the responses here, if anything, would illustrate the immense chasm between two sides of our culture and society. I do try to bridge that chasm through discussion on this thread, but far too often within 2-3 posts we are back to wallowing in the mud. While participating does try to teach me not to lash out when I feel trampled upon (and I'm far from perfect at that bit of self-control), in the end I often think this thread does way too much harm compared to any good.
I'm going to put the thread back on ignore, so if someone asks a decent question hoping for an answer from me, I won't see it. Feel free to PM me if you want. Those discussions tend to be much more civil than anything we find in here. |
|
|
|
11/15/2009 02:04:18 PM · #2990 |
|
|
|
11/15/2009 02:13:01 PM · #2991 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
How typical. |
Expand on that?
R. |
|
|
|
11/15/2009 02:32:35 PM · #2992 |
I think if we find a genetic predisposition for interracial marriage with an environmental trigger, the simple solution for avoiding the triggering factor is to set up communities of pure-breeds and never leave them.
Message edited by author 2009-11-15 14:32:54. |
|
|
|
11/15/2009 02:35:26 PM · #2993 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Mousie:
So, after hours, I should be able to get on the internet and write posts about how much my employer and their products suck, under my own name, and not lose my job over it? |
Oh c'mon Mousie, you can do better than that. Of course you're gonna get fired if you run your employer down. What's more to the point though: what if your employer was a radical conservative and he fired you because you campaigned for Obama on your own time? THAT would be actionable...
R. |
So you agree with my snarkily stated position that in fact there ARE limits to freedom of expression outside of the workplace, if you expect to be seen as doing your job well and fulfilling its requirements?
Great! Why not point that out to the people who need to hear it, instead of me? |
|
|
|
11/15/2009 04:53:53 PM · #2994 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
And that's a question NO-body is willing to answer, apparently...
R. |
Well I thought I answered it originally by comparing it to something equally ridiculous. However, in case it wasn't clear of course I wouldn't prevent my child from becoming homosexual for the same reasons Deb has pointed out. Only someone who sees homosexuality as undesirable would even contemplate changing it. I don't know why Jason would think that those arguing in favor of gay marriage would have such a predisposition in the first place.
Message edited by author 2009-11-15 16:58:06.
|
|
|
|
11/15/2009 05:04:58 PM · #2995 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
This changes the subject a bit, but it may be an interesting conversation. Let us assume our hunch about piano virtuosity is correct. We discover it is a genetic predisposition which is triggered by environmental conditions (if the conditions are met, the gene is expressed and your son is a virtuoso). We have discovered what the environmental trigger is and find that it occurs very early in life, before a year of age. You have a son and discover he has the genetic predisposition to piano virtuosity. In what manner would you use the knowledge of knowing what the environemental trigger is for your son? |
In place of piano virtuosity you can literally place any genetically/environmentally controlled human characteristic, be it hair or eye colour, IQ, height, sexual orientation, or wicked piano skills.
What the question comes down to then, is designer babies. Personally, I would let the random assortment of mine, and my wife's genes determine the makeup of my child, and I would love that child with all my heart regardless of what characteristics they had. Now, if the child was born with a disease that affects their health, I would seek treatment, and if gene therapy was such a treatment, I would go ahead with it. I do not, however, believe that homosexuality is a disease, so even if a gene or environmental trigger is found for it, testing for it is irrelevant because it will not sway my decision at all.
|
|
|
|
11/15/2009 05:11:27 PM · #2996 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Only someone who sees homosexuality as undesirable would even contemplate changing it. I don't know why Jason would think that those arguing in favor of gay marriage would have such a predisposition in the first place. |
The thing of it is, there's a huge difference, out in the real world, between the intellectual and the visceral, if you catch my drift?
Just because a given citizen supports equal rights for a given group doesn't mean s/he wishes to be a part of that group. This should be obvious.
What Jason's getting at basically hinges on that point: it has nothing to do with whether he "approves" or "disapproves" of homosexuality per se. Now Jason and I are coming from different perspectives; it's obvious that he has reservations about homosexuality that I do not share, although perhaps it's less obvious that I don't share them. Nevertheless I spent my entire working career in the close company of the gay community, I have been a guest in the houses of many committed gay couples, some of whom are now actually legally married, and I'm 100% in favor of equal rights for gays and of gay marriage.
If you think this sounds like "some of my best friends are black", well, I'm sorry but I don't know how else to express this.
Anyway, regardless of all that, I'm somewhere on the spectrum between "annoyed" and "appalled" at how the politically correct, outspoken, liberal participants in this thread are working to demonize Jason (and others who think like he does) instead of understanding where he's coming from. It's ridiculous. He's carrying on this debate with civility and good humor, and he's representative of a *HUGE* number of people in America, and it makes no point at all, IMO, to ridicule and demean him for being what he is.
R. |
|
|
|
11/15/2009 05:43:54 PM · #2997 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Thanks for the reply K10. Shannon, you can suck an egg.
Well, if I've offended people, it wasn't my intention. I think the responses here, if anything, would illustrate the immense chasm between two sides of our culture and society. I do try to bridge that chasm through discussion on this thread, but far too often within 2-3 posts we are back to wallowing in the mud. While participating does try to teach me not to lash out when I feel trampled upon (and I'm far from perfect at that bit of self-control), in the end I often think this thread does way too much harm compared to any good.
I'm going to put the thread back on ignore, so if someone asks a decent question hoping for an answer from me, I won't see it. Feel free to PM me if you want. Those discussions tend to be much more civil than anything we find in here. |
Well.....to tell you the truth, I think that was kind of a chicken-sh*t way to deal with a problematic situation that he created himself.
The thing about it was that the whole concept proposed wasn't just one of those off-the-wall, rhetorical, what-if scenarios.
Putting it forth was poorly, or not at all, thought out, and just plain flat guaranteed to rile people.
It was irrelevant, and not particularly empathetic to the feelings of the participants of the thread who live in a constant state of battling uphill for their freedoms, or the freedoms of family, and other loved ones, who basically have the sh*ts of the world telling them there's something wrong with them.
There's not, and the treament, and cavalier attitudes towards their very persons simply will not be tolerated by more and more of us every day.
So......if you want to put forth insensitive hypothetical scenarios like what if you could genetically alter your kid to not be gay, then you're going to get responses like, "Well, we wouldn't need to worry about it if we could eradicate the Christian gene.".
And then we get to point out that bigotry and religious values that support it are a choice, and those characteristics simply require compassion and education to overcome.
Maybe......there's hope.
|
|
|
|
11/15/2009 05:49:45 PM · #2998 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
[Anyway, regardless of all that, I'm somewhere on the spectrum between "annoyed" and "appalled" at how the politically correct, outspoken, liberal participants in this thread are working to demonize Jason (and others who think like he does) instead of understanding where he's coming from. It's ridiculous. He's carrying on this debate with civility and good humor, and he's representative of a *HUGE* number of people in America, and it makes no point at all, IMO, to ridicule and demean him for being what he is.
R. |
And you can be just as righteously indignant as you want, but that doesn't change the fact that Jason really stepped into the sh*t BIG TIME in a stupid way.
Hey, people were beaten senseless and/or killed simply for *being* gay, and somehow I'm supposed to feel compassion for Jason 'cause he got roundly thrashed for that stupid scenario?
Nope......am NOT there, and I know, I'm a miserable prick, but in this modern age, there just isn't any excuse for this stuff.
There just isn't any reason for someone who is not involved, or that it doesn't affect on ANY level, to tell two committed people that they cannot get married.
THAT'S wrong!
|
|
|
|
11/15/2009 06:00:27 PM · #2999 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by yanko:
Only someone who sees homosexuality as undesirable would even contemplate changing it. I don't know why Jason would think that those arguing in favor of gay marriage would have such a predisposition in the first place. |
The thing of it is, there's a huge difference, out in the real world, between the intellectual and the visceral, if you catch my drift?
Just because a given citizen supports equal rights for a given group doesn't mean s/he wishes to be a part of that group. This should be obvious.
What Jason's getting at basically hinges on that point: it has nothing to do with whether he "approves" or "disapproves" of homosexuality per se. Now Jason and I are coming from different perspectives; it's obvious that he has reservations about homosexuality that I do not share, although perhaps it's less obvious that I don't share them. Nevertheless I spent my entire working career in the close company of the gay community, I have been a guest in the houses of many committed gay couples, some of whom are now actually legally married, and I'm 100% in favor of equal rights for gays and of gay marriage.
If you think this sounds like "some of my best friends are black", well, I'm sorry but I don't know how else to express this.
Anyway, regardless of all that, I'm somewhere on the spectrum between "annoyed" and "appalled" at how the politically correct, outspoken, liberal participants in this thread are working to demonize Jason (and others who think like he does) instead of understanding where he's coming from. It's ridiculous. He's carrying on this debate with civility and good humor, and he's representative of a *HUGE* number of people in America, and it makes no point at all, IMO, to ridicule and demean him for being what he is.
R. |
Nobody has come out and called Jason names. What I saw were several people finding his argument to be ridiculous with perhaps some building frustration that Jason simply isn't seeing the parallels people have already countered with. Sure Shannon could have done without the sarcasm and maybe some (myself included) could have simply answered the question in the same clinical detached way in which Jason frames his questions, leaving out all the tangential stuff. But you have to know that this issue is more than just a debate exercise so I don't understand why the presence of emotions would be seen as something unexpected.
|
|
|
|
11/15/2009 06:11:42 PM · #3000 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Anyway, regardless of all that, I'm somewhere on the spectrum between "annoyed" and "appalled" at how the politically correct, outspoken, liberal participants in this thread are working to demonize Jason (and others who think like he does) instead of understanding where he's coming from. It's ridiculous. He's carrying on this debate with civility and good humor, and he's representative of a *HUGE* number of people in America, and it makes no point at all, IMO, to ridicule and demean him for being what he is.
R. |
I agree. Jason's been very generous with sharing his thinking. I don't agree with him, but I have learnt a lot from his comments.
I took photos at the civil partnership of a couple of friends a month ago. It was a very enjoyable day - no different to a civil service wedding in pretty much every respect.
They said that the biggest confrontation they suffered was over their decision to ask that children stay at home...
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/12/2025 08:12:12 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/12/2025 08:12:12 AM EDT.
|
