First  Prev  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  Next  Last
Is it possible to wear off evil from Humanity?
Posted 8/9/13
Without evil, good has no meaning.
50575 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Sydney, Australia
Offline
Posted 8/10/13 , edited 8/10/13

Shy-Anime-Guy wrote:



50575 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Sydney, Australia
Offline
Posted 8/10/13

dark_paradox_21 wrote:

1) You assert that love is not observed in the animal kingdom, but homosexuality is. Your logic is flawed because it does not apply across the board. You contradict yourself. Bears, dogs, and numerous other animal species have been known to throw themselves in harm's way to protect their kin. Several bird species are monogamous. It is said that lovebirds will actually die without a companion (hence their name). There are numerous examples of dogs mourning their masters and waiting for them, and elephants have also been shown to mourn the dead and recognize the decomposed remains of their ancestors. You say this isn't love? Well, by that VERY same logic, I can easily say that homosexuality and bisexuality are NOT observed in the animal kingdom, they are merely mechanical actions taken to feel physical pleasure and assert dominance and NOT a sexual orientation, preference, or biological imperative. If the actions associated with love are not evidence of the emotion, then it follows that the actions associated with homosexuality or bisexuality are not evidence of sexual orientation.


It's not a contradiction, since I've asserted many times throughout this thread, that the instinct to protect one's offspring is instilled in all animals, mostly the females of that animal.
You people are the ones who think this instinct is the equivalent of "love".
If you think it's "love", then it's merely your opinion, it's not mine. A male lion does not have this instinct because it wants to dominate, therefore it tries to kill its male offspring instead.




Also, stimulation is stimulation. It is natural to seek out pleasure regardless of source. A dog will hump a stuffed animal or a person's leg, but we don't have a word for creatures which hump stuffed animals exclusively (well, maybe Otaku). Dolphins will bone anything. This is pretty natural. It is not natural for libido (an instinctual, biological drive which compels reproduction) to apply to members of the same gender while excluding the opposite gender. I've never heard of that happening in the animal kingdom beyond anecdotes. In other words, I have never heard of a purely homosexual animal from any nature magazine, television show, news article, biology class, zoo, or other reputable source. The only time I have ever heard of purely homosexual animals is in forums like this one. Frankly, I don't believe they exist.


So, in your opinion, why do sex toys exist? Is it because heterosexuality is now a lie too? Humans are merely seeking out pleasure?
Can a heterosexual male suddenly want to hump another male?
Your logic is flawed.

ALL Animals (including humans) act on stimulation, but it's clear that the homosexual animals prefer to stay with another male even though female counterparts are present. In the same way that a homosexual human male would rather stay with a male even though females are present.


If you've never heard of homosexual animals, why don't you try watching more Discovery Channel?

Reputable source #1: http://www.yalescientific.org/2012/03/do-animals-exhibit-homosexuality/

Reputable source #2: http://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&lr=&id=KXM3F59y1jkC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=homosexuality+in+animals&ots=WG_MYlerVW&sig=_nXoc80kcd2y0UPKnQG2psV6fyM#v=onepage&q=homosexuality%20in%20animals&f=false



2) You accept that homosexuality has no evolutionary explanation, that it is a trait that would not be commonly passed on genetically, yet you claim it is still natural because it is probably caused by hormones in the womb and that is the reason the numbers are not declining. That makes no sense.

First, I have heard vague mention of similar ideas before but no evidence or study from any reputable source to support them.

Second, there has to be a cause for such a hormonal change to occur. Genetics are the largest determining factor for hormone production levels, so if it were not genetic, there would have to be an external factor changing these hormone levels. What on Earth do you think would cause such a thing? If it is abnormal diet, chemical exposure, exposure to electromagnetic fields or any other such outside interference, then it is certainly not "natural" even if it takes place inside the womb. It would validate the claim that some people are born that way, but it would also imply that homosexuality is essentially an anomaly caused before birth, in other words, a birth defect. If this were true, it would justify a lot of biases since it would prove homosexuality is a deviation from normal children.

Finally, your suggestion does nothing to explain the rapid increase in the professed homosexual portion of the population. It still relies on birth and the number of people claiming to be homosexual or bisexual is increasing at a rate significantly faster than the birthrate. An in-born trait cannot occur more often than births. The fact that the homosexual population is increasing more rapidly than the general population logically excludes the possibility that people are born that way (at least in the majority of cases). Your explanation is insufficient to explain the situation.


Why do you keep bringing up, "I've never heard of this I've never heard of that except on forums, there is no reputable source for this or that?". Just google it, and the articles will come up.

Here's one: http://news.sciencemag.org/evolution/2012/12/homosexuality-may-start-womb


"Although epigenetic changes are usually temporary, they involve alterations in the proteins that bind together the long strands of DNA. Thus, they can sometimes be handed down to offspring. According to the hypothesis, homosexuality may be a carry-over from one's parents' own prenatal resistance to the hormones of the opposite sex. The "epi-marks" that adjusted parental genes to resist excess testosterone, for example, may alter gene activation in areas of the child's brain involved in sexual attraction and preference. "These epigenetic changes protect mom and dad during their own early development," Rice says. The initial benefit to the parents may explain why the trait of homosexuality persists throughout evolution, he says."






5) This is a side note, but one I thought I'd throw in. It isn't really relevant to the debate, but it is food for thought nonetheless.

Every homosexual I've met (except one) has claimed, "I've always been different!" Guess what. We ALL feel that way. Every individual is the protagonist in their own life story. We can only hear our own internal monologue. For this reason alone we all view ourselves differently than we view others. We all feel alienated at times. No human who has lived to adulthood has ever not felt that way. "The average man thinks he isn't."

That one exception -- the only openly gay person I've met who readily admits it was a chosen path, is a Vietnamese woman adopted by American parents after the war. When she was a child in Vietnam during the war, she witnessed several half-white babies and their mothers get murdered by the VC. This left her terrified of even the possibility of becoming pregnant, but she didn't want to be alone, so she chose the carpeted path.



So you believe that this one woman speaks for every homosexual person on the planet? Every homosexual person must have been affected by a traumatic event in childhood or some time in their life, that's why they're now homosexual?

And you believe she's being objective? She's not lying to you to further her agenda at all.

The same way that people think homosexuality can be cured... those people keep lying to themselves that they are now cured and it turns out they're still homosexual--how do you explain this situation?

You can't, because in your mind, that Vietnamese woman is your only TRUTH.




I still think you're backwards.



I would rather be backwards and believe in my fellow scientists than believing in your words (more specifically an agenda).


Your statements have no scientific evidence or objective evidence. (Dogs mourning, Vietnamese woman saying she chose homosexuality because she saw dead babies).

What kind of joke is this?
Rajyrr 
30016 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Nova Scotia, Canada
Offline
Posted 8/10/13
Much like luck .. I don't believe in good an evil. I make decisions about what I do and don't approve of, as opposed to letting people make those decisions for me. I'm a fan of justice and the rule of law, for the most part, though ..
5285 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / F / Johnstown, PA, USA
Offline
Posted 8/10/13 , edited 8/10/13
No, I don't think so. At least, not completely or for a significant amount of time. There are even plants that behave in ways that can be considered "evil." For example; Cestrum parqui (ie: green cestrum, green poison berry, etc...), releases toxins that kill off all other competition and is deadly to predators. Japanese giant hornets slaughter bees in order to steal honey, which can easily be viewed as another prime example of "evil." I can hardly imagine plants and insects being successfully made to "be good," much less, humans. As far as I'm concerned, trying to purge "evil" is equivalent to attempting to totally block out UV radiation with modern sunscreen.

I do, however, believe that tiny pockets of human populations can have a fairly close semblance of being "good," like the monks of isolated Buddhist monasteries.
51324 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / US
Offline
Posted 8/10/13
Hey, try using spoiler boxes or something man. We are getting more than a little off topic and not everyone wants to scroll through this whole thing.


Well, this has been done to death. You can reply if you want to and I'll probably read it, but I have no intention of dragging this on any further by replying again.

I suggest reading on logical fallacies. Different authors break them up and categorize them differently. Depending on whom you ask, there are between 7 and 20 common logical fallacies. It is good debate practice.

I also suggest reading on Operant Conditioning Theory. It is really fascinating.

Have a good one.
51324 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / US
Offline
Posted 8/10/13

aeb0717 wrote:

No, I don't think so. At least, not completely or for a significant amount of time. There are even plants that behave in ways that can be considered "evil." For example; Cestrum parqui (ie: green cestrum, green poison berry, etc...), releases toxins that kill off all other competition and is deadly to predators. Japanese giant hornets slaughter bees in order to steal honey, which can easily be viewed as another prime example of "evil." I can hardly imagine plants and insects being successfully made to "be good," much less, humans. As far as I'm concerned, trying to purge "evil" is equivalent to attempting to totally block out UV radiation with modern sunscreen.

I do, however, believe that tiny pockets of human populations can have a fairly close semblance of being "good," like the monks of isolated Buddhist monasteries.


There is a quote, "Evil only flourishes when good men do nothing." I very much believe this to be true.

You say that isolated monks can be close to being good, but if they are isolated they cannot take a stand against evil. So how good are they? I would argue that isolationist behavior for the sake of avoiding "worldly" evil is in itself an act of evil.

Just a fun thought.

Also, I agree that evil will never be purged from humanity. It is part of what we are.
50575 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Sydney, Australia
Offline
Posted 8/11/13 , edited 8/11/13

dark_paradox_21 wrote:


Hey, try using spoiler boxes or something man. We are getting more than a little off topic and not everyone wants to scroll through this whole thing.


Well, this has been done to death. You can reply if you want to and I'll probably read it, but I have no intention of dragging this on any further by replying again.

I suggest reading on logical fallacies. Different authors break them up and categorize them differently. Depending on whom you ask, there are between 7 and 20 common logical fallacies. It is good debate practice.

I also suggest reading on Operant Conditioning Theory. It is really fascinating.

Have a good one.



Well, since you're no longer interested in continuing this debate, I'll make a concluding statement.

Yes, I am a scientist, I graduated with a Bachelor of Science degree, read 100's of genuine scientific articles and is currently in a science job right now; if that doesn't qualify me as a scientist, I don't know what will.


I never said anything about you saying "homosexuality is wrong", nor did I lash out. This is the nature of a debate, it's to ask rhetorical questions to provoke deeper thoughts on why the opposition's statements are illogical or flawed.

Feel free to say homosexuality is a defect, and I still wouldn't get offended; words used in a scientific context with scientific evidence to back it up cannot offend me. I'm not a politically correct person who gets offended at words. Like I said before, I respect the decision for anyone to say homosexuality is socially conditioned.


Like I said, your statements have no scientific/objective evidence to back it up; it is merely your own thinking and opinion. You say evolution doesn't support homosexuality "increasing" in rates, but I've already countered such claims with my "homosexuality occurring in the womb" hypothesis, which is thought up by other scientists, it's not just my own opinion. If a trait occurs in the womb, it's not going to decrease. I never said my hypothesis was a FACT, go back and read my original statement, I've used the word "probably" when making this statement.
Your evidence is at best, your own opinion and your lack of understanding of what evolution is about. You don't even referenced other scientists when making the claim, that "homosexuality is socially conditioned", you used IRRELEVANT scientific theories such as "Pavlov's dogs" and "Evolution" to support your claim.


You've used "Evolution" to say that homosexuality in humans are socially conditioned; yet you abandon this theory when I said that homosexuality is observed in animals; by saying that humans are different from animals in terms of sexuality in that humans somehow don't act on stimulation, and only animals act on stimulation by humping foot or objects.
The Theory of Evolution treats humans as part of the animal kingdom, if you didn't know. Therefore some things that animals do, can be applied to humans as well. You can't just say humans are now different to animals, and then proceed to use Evolution to back up your own opinion.


I know about logical fallacies, I'm not the one making them. I just happen know the difference between scientific evidence and a pure opinion.


Your statements occur in the opinion category, and people who try to use Evolution or scientific theories in the incorrect manner to back up their own opinion--that's called setting an agenda.

Your agenda in this case is trying to get people to believe that homosexuality is socially conditioned by using evolution to back up your points and several anecdotes that were entirely subjective in nature.



And like I said, I don't care if you think homosexuality was socially conditioned, all I care about is, if you use scientific evidence in the wrong manner to back up your claim, I have the right to counter such a claim. I don't have the right to change your mind about your stance on whether homosexuality is natural occurring or environmentally affected.



5285 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / F / Johnstown, PA, USA
Offline
Posted 8/11/13

dark_paradox_21 wrote:


aeb0717 wrote:

No, I don't think so. At least, not completely or for a significant amount of time. There are even plants that behave in ways that can be considered "evil." For example; Cestrum parqui (ie: green cestrum, green poison berry, etc...), releases toxins that kill off all other competition and is deadly to predators. Japanese giant hornets slaughter bees in order to steal honey, which can easily be viewed as another prime example of "evil." I can hardly imagine plants and insects being successfully made to "be good," much less, humans. As far as I'm concerned, trying to purge "evil" is equivalent to attempting to totally block out UV radiation with modern sunscreen.

I do, however, believe that tiny pockets of human populations can have a fairly close semblance of being "good," like the monks of isolated Buddhist monasteries.


There is a quote, "Evil only flourishes when good men do nothing." I very much believe this to be true.

You say that isolated monks can be close to being good, but if they are isolated they cannot take a stand against evil. So how good are they? I would argue that isolationist behavior for the sake of avoiding "worldly" evil is in itself an act of evil.

Just a fun thought.

Also, I agree that evil will never be purged from humanity. It is part of what we are.


I found it fairly difficult to produce an example without rambling, so I was forced to settle with the bit about Buddhist monks.

I always found that evil is an incredibly convoluted subject, like art. To me, a significant reason as to why we cannot be rid of evil is because the perception of evil is subjective.
28362 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Central City
Offline
Posted 8/11/13
If there is no bad, there is no good. Balance is the key. Life is the pinnacle of that understanding. When something is out of balance there are always ramifications. I'm not talking fairness mind you. That's completely different.

Without death there is no birth. What's the opposite of life then? Life has no opposite. If there is, our current human understanding hasn't perceived it yet. One could argue non-existence as the opposite, but as you could imagine that's difficult to prove.

The ONLY way I see Humanity overcoming a significant portion of its current flaws/problems/evil tendencies is through some sort of evolution. I think physical evolution would do more harm than good, but psychological evolution would be most beneficial.
4955 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / Earth
Offline
Posted 8/18/13

KaosProphet wrote:


PhyongHwa wrote:



I was talking about people wanting evil in general eradicated by a deity, not people who want help.


While I recognize the distinction, I don't see it's relevance. It strikes me more as a semantic quibble about the analogy.

By not eradicating evil, any prospective deity is refusing to help every single victim of evil. Even the innocent ones, who made no choices. Stopping evil is not "saving us from ourselves," it's "saving one man from the predations of his neighbour."


I think the big question is, "Where does evil come from, & what is evil?" Is it genetic or environmental? Is it learned or what? Are people driven to it? Is it an entire entity itself, or just random actions of random people? I have my own ideas about this, but they are not written in stone, I'm open to whomever can prove otherwise....

If we're going to ask a deity to eradicate evil, why stop there? How about making everyone healthy & intelligent, eradicate diseases/illnesses? Why not ask for immortality too while we're at it? No more deaths from accidents, or "before their time" deaths.....Just wondering......
41074 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 8/18/13
Nope
4825 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
USA
Offline
Posted 8/18/13
I don't think world peace will ever be possible.
Posted 8/18/13
Someone's always considered evil to another.
77419 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
66 / M / Columbia, MO
Offline
Posted 8/19/13
won't be in anyone's lifetime
First  Prev  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.