Russia...Politics...Beliefs.

[Nebulous112]

All hail fascism! It's easy to understand, there is a clear good and evil, and people who made the 'wrong choice' (i.e. are different) are finally properly punished.

Is that you, Donald Trump...? LOL

 

I agree, life is too complex for a binary world view. This is why we have subjective, as well as objective thought.

 

Live and let live, I say.

[Neovalen]

Live and let live, I say.

Sadly, not everyone in this world has that view.

[Guest]

Honestly, I don't care what opinions Boris has about lifestyles, values, or traditions.  I say that he's got every right to have his own opinions about what's right and what's not.  As long as Boris is creating software and sharing it, I'm happy with him.  I personally have mixed feelings about homosexuality myself, and I do see the propaganda element that Boris talks about to have some validity to it.  There is plenty of misinformation out there currently about the cause of homosexuality, being widely spread and taken as fact and aggressively shoved into everyone's face.  The current idea is that it's a condition that's solely genetic.  This is absolutely not true, and I say that with very strong conviction.

 

Like any other psychological preference, the truth is that it's part genetic and part experience.  For some it's more genetic, and for others it's more experience.  There is a choice involved, as there is with any psychological condition/preference.  For some who are strongly predisposed, it's an easier choice to make than for others who are not.  It's that simple.  That's the truth about it.  Of course that truth sheds light on the fact that people can learn to be gay, which can be politically damaging to proponents of gay marriage/public acceptance/etc.  Being able to deny the experience/choice aspect of a behavior/preference strengthens one's defense, even if it's not true.  So there is validity to the idea that greater public acceptance will lead to more homosexual behavior in more people.  It's there where my feelings are mixed, as that result does take away from the traditional concept of families and relationships.  When you lose standards for basing opinions and determining which behaviors are correct and which behaviors are not, the ideas of right and wrong start to become grey and society could go in strange and undesirable directions.  Same can be said of multiculturalism, as the habits of some cultures are absolutely taboo to other cultures.  Religions as well.

 

Anyway, don't fall for propaganda out there.  Various interests will find all kinds of ways to lie to you and influence your opinions.  To a degree I understand what Boris is saying.

So with this logic racism would be perfectly fine if that particular person made some awesome software as well? You can't understand why someone would want to be gay? It's no more than deep-rooted attraction in my eyes. Maybe the person just likes the company of men/women more and finds certain things about them more attractive? If it wasn't natural it would be a lot rarer than it is. It's not like they can't have kids with the adoption/science today, so what are the actual downsides? Again, look at Homosexuality in animals. Ducks especially.

 

@Greg

 

Lol. I was thinking about Hitler as I was reading that post.   

[n0mad23]

It's unfortunate the West "discovered" the Common Chimp before the Bonobo.  I think looking at the latter biologically would help.

 

Sex, for humans, is as much about the biology of our inherent social natures as it is hard-wired urges for procreation.  Perhaps even more so socially.  We're hard wired to be language users now.  I personally suspect we're hard wired for sex for fun specifically because of our social natures.  What other species has children so dependent for so long?

 

Bonobos seem to be hard-wired bisexuals.  

 

We've got to try to keep those kids from having sex too early, and we've got to train really, really hard to be able to kill.  Which is the natural and which is artificial?

 

In my English 101 classes, very early into the sessions I do a class on "taboos."  Partially this is just to get everyone engaged and compelled with what's before them - who doesn't want to talk about the things you can't talk about?  I generally break the class into multiple small discussion groups and have them take notes, then bring the class together to consolidate all the ideas they came up with.  One session in particular really stood out to me, as it was the only time I had to intervene in one of the small groups as they got to arguing at levels that were disruptive.

 

The source of conflict?  One woman refused to accept her group's wanting to put incest on their list of Western taboos.  Why?  Because it was "a biological mandate," that supersedes any kind of arbitrary cultural taboo, she argued.  (Incest has always been the prerogative of gods and royalty but let's not go there.)

 

It's "God terms" and "Devil terms" that really get in the way.  If it's outside the ready-made terms (largely unexamined) within our culture, they're Devil terms and we can't talk about those.  Same with God terms - gods help you if you try to point out logical problems with the position, as you don't criticize God.  

 

We impose meaning to justify our cultural norms.

 

I've yet to meet a racist or homophobe who was born that way.  I suspect there are a few out there, but aberrations do happen.

 

My take, anyway.

 

Edited for clarity.

Edited December 10, 2015 by n0mad23

[elenhil]

It is easy to say live and let others live. It is rather more difficult to act on the maxim in a pro- or contra-something state that sways with whatever the dominant lobby happens to like and want to impose on you through policy.

[Spock]

Live and let live, I say.

Well, I don't.

I think it is very important to voice concerns against rasicm, chauvinism, homophobia etc. because those views are harmful for a democratic society if acted upon.

People like Trump are way too loud with their Chewbacca arguments.

 

Rationalism is the way to enlightenment!

[elenhil]

Well, incidentally, Boris seems to think it equally important to voice his - and for the very same reasons, mind you (though he is obviously not very eloquent at expressing them): he thinks those views are harmful of any society, democratic or otherwise. Curious, huh?

[TechAngel85]

Though Boris sparked this discussion, lets generalize our statements, views, and discussion without calling out individuals for their beliefs.

 

This topic is being closely monitored and will be shut down if it turns into flaming or targeted towards any one individual. Keep it mature. Keep it polite.

[z929669]

Honestly, I don't care what opinions Boris has about lifestyles, values, or traditions.  I say that he's got every right to have his own opinions about what's right and what's not.  As long as Boris is creating software and sharing it, I'm happy with him.  I personally have mixed feelings about homosexuality myself, and I do see the propaganda element that Boris talks about to have some validity to it.  There is plenty of misinformation out there currently about the cause of homosexuality, being widely spread and taken as fact and aggressively shoved into everyone's face.  The current idea is that it's a condition that's solely genetic.  This is absolutely not true, and I say that with very strong conviction.

 

Like any other psychological preference, the truth is that it's part genetic and part experience.  For some it's more genetic, and for others it's more experience.  There is a choice involved, as there is with any psychological condition/preference.  For some who are strongly predisposed, it's an easier choice to make than for others who are not.  It's that simple.  That's the truth about it.  Of course that truth sheds light on the fact that people can learn to be gay, which can be politically damaging to proponents of gay marriage/public acceptance/etc.  Being able to deny the experience/choice aspect of a behavior/preference strengthens one's defense, even if it's not true.  So there is validity to the idea that greater public acceptance will lead to more homosexual behavior in more people.  It's there where my feelings are mixed, as that result does take away from the traditional concept of families and relationships.  When you lose standards for basing opinions and determining which behaviors are correct and which behaviors are not, the ideas of right and wrong start to become grey and society could go in strange and undesirable directions.  Same can be said of multiculturalism, as the habits of some cultures are absolutely taboo to other cultures.  Religions as well.

 

Anyway, don't fall for propaganda out there.  Various interests will find all kinds of ways to lie to you and influence your opinions.  To a degree I understand what Boris is saying.

Being gay is in almost all cases 99.9% nature and 0.1% nurture (there is no 'never' and there is no 'always' in biology) ... for the same reason that compels heterosexuals to inexplicably go mentally insane after the opposite sex. It is genetic, and the genes dictate the physiology, which in turn (largely) drives the psychology. Those few exceptions are cases of other unrelated personality/psychological disorders (and in those cases, the individual is not really homosexual anyway).

 

Reproductive compulsion is deep-rooted in our basic, genetic-driven instincts. Some of us simply have a physiology that deviates from the general norm. Nobody 'decides' to like (or not like) sex or other relations with any gender class. They just 'do' as the victims of their physiology.

 

It isn't 'propaganda' it is scientific fact ... like climate change, the reality of which is also up for 'debate' by the misinformed and fearful. I could say the same about any religion or socially-conservative viewpoint. Although, I do agree that many groups shove their agendas down our throats on both sides (liberal and conservative social agendas), and it annoys the hell out of me.

 

Your personal conviction on this issue (like others') is swayed by subjective opinion and preference, not fact. You have the right to your own opinion, and I will like you no more or less for it; however, I cannot stand by and not call out any kind of subjectivity expressed as objectivity.

 

For the record: I am a relatively old, heterosexual biologist with an unrealistic penchant for idealism and justice.

 

... and I am fine with Boris if I don't have to be subject to his subjective social opinions/actions to any unrealistic degree. However, if he begins waving any socially superior banner as his site or brand logo, I will happily stop using his products ... so please let me know if that is ever the case.

[Spock]

Well, incidentally, Boris seems to think it equally important to voice his - and for the very same reasons, mind you (though he is obviously not very eloquent at expressing them): he thinks those views are harmful of any society, democratic or otherwise. Curious, huh?

Well, I personally think that pluralistic societies are more prosperous then non pluralistic societies. What I learned during my history studies tells the same story. The measurements of 'prosperous' may differ though. I like to look at things like health care, life expectancy and civil rights.

[elenhil]

The nature vs nurture debate is as old as science itself. Which belies any claim that a phenomenon is 99.9% one of the other. And, more specifically, any claim that a certain aspect of the currently predominant paradigm is a 'fact'.

[n0mad23]

I have no tolerance for intolerance.  

 

I have no tolerance of people who think their beliefs trump empirical evidence.  I have been working on my own diplomacy instead of whacking people alongside their heads which is my impulse.

 

@Spock - you're right, and there's tons of evidence to support it. 

 

@elenhil - agreed, which is what God and Devil terms are about.  In other discursive circles the same thing is called Discursive Formations (nothing outside the dominant paradigm exists and can't be talked about) or The Ideological State Apparatus.  All basically the same things, with different lenses of interpretation.  The dominant paradigm does indeed become "fact," when it isn't.  It's an opinion or belief.  The language of "War" is a good example of this - it has to be in binary terms and refuses to see nuance or multiple choice outcomes.

 

Remember friends - ignorance is curable but stupidity is a terminal condition.

[elenhil]

Well, I personally think that pluralistic societies are more prosperous then non pluralistic societies. What I learned during my history studies tells the same story. The measurements of 'prosperous' may differ though. I like to look at things like health care, life expectancy and civil rights.

Once you have a child and begin to invest (figuratively) into his education, it becomes rather less important whether your society is 'prosperous' enough than whether your society is OK enough to let you raise him the way you think best. If prosperity comes only though the kind of pluralism that, in reality, means an aggressive state-sponspored and in-your-face propaganda of 'alternative lifestyles' (which is the reality of trying to establish pluralism on a preexisting more or less homogenous set of opinions and beliefs), I say thanks, no. I don't know if Boris got children, but I do, and would be rather mad if the state (swayed, for example, by the current Western fancy for 'inclusiveness' in 'sexual education') tried to influence their ethical worldview over and contrary to mine. To hell with pluralism. then - when in comes to children, not every man's opionion is of equal importance, prosperity or no.

Edited December 10, 2015 by elenhil

[elwaps]

The nature vs nurture debate is as old as science itself. Which belies any claim that a phenomenon is 99.9% one of the other. And, more specifically, any claim that a certain aspect of the currently predominant paradigm is a 'fact'.

(Natural) Science itself by definition does not allow 100% certainties. Things aren't proven but confirmed while still being falsifiable.

The amount and quality of confirmation determines the proximity of something to being a fact.

 

However, instead of randomly casting doubts on a topic based upon a commonplace, one could have a look at actual studies.

To my knowledge, sexual orientation is largely influenced by hormonal exposure during pregnancy, somewhat by (epi)genetics and a bit by nurture.

When in doubt, check for yourself: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/advanced

Here's a study on the topic from last year: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25172350

 

I still understand why the average homophobic person feels better telling himself sexual orientation had nothing to do with biology but only with choice and/or nurture. In my personal experience, 90% of them are motivated by religion, which naturally conflicts with people being born homosexual. Just like for some biological findings about the development of lifeforms conflict with their beliefs, that's why for them they just don't exist. The rest just wants to justify their hate before themselves which doesn't work when you hate someone for being born a certain way. As said, this is my personal experience. There might of course be some intellectual reasons for being homophobic based upon some serious philosophical considerations. Haven't seen any tho.

 

People don't take away your cookies when they're on a diet. Instead they either look away or got no problem watching you eat them. The same way people shouldn't take away your rights when you're gay and they're not. Instead they should look away or just don't give a ****. I mean, noone forces anyone to watch anyone else having sex in their bedrooms. So what's the harm? Seeing people loving each other by holding hands or kissing in public? Oh my god... 

[z929669]

 

The nature vs nurture debate is as old as science itself. Which belies any claim that a phenomenon is 99.9% one of the other. And, more specifically, any claim that a certain aspect of the currently predominant paradigm is a 'fact'.

Nature versus nurture largely does not apply to basal drives like hunger and sex drive (or innate sense of smell, intelligence, etc.). These have genetic/physiologic determinants much much more so than environmental ones (although these can be, to more or lesser extent, modified by the environment). These are governed predominantly by nature, not nurture. One is not taught, nor does one learn to be gay ... same as one is not taught to like the opposite sex. It is a raw fact of nature that begins with no environmental component.

 

Science supports that nature is by far the strongest predictor of basal/fundamental drives. One does not 'choose' their sexuality. It is an innate component of the person that is predetermined for that person at birth. Only in rare cases of extreme environmental pressure is a pattern of behavior chosen (but your sexuality is set, regardless).

 

I said 99.9% and 0.1% because i was illustrating my point. The nature versus nurture argument stands for almost all things except that which the environment cannot affect. A creative person suddenly does not lose his/her creativity based upon that person's experiences (aside from traumatic brain injury, maybe). He/she may not behave creatively for whatever environmental reason, but creativity is an innate aspect of that person's character as dictated by that person's physiology. Twin studies have clearly shown that even patterns of behavior have a very strong genetic component ... we are talking about sexuality. It is NOT a choice even in the least bit any more than my own heterosexuality is my choice.

 

These are facts, not opinions. saying that something is wrong or not is an opinion ... what something IS or is NOT is simple fact.

 

Off i go now, because I 'choose' to be hungry even though i really don't want to eat :/

 

 

Once you have a child and begin to invest (figuratively) into his education, it becomes rather less important whether your society is 'prosperous' enough than whether your society is OK enough to let you raise him the way you think best. If prosperity comes only though the kind of pluralism that, in reality, means an aggressive state-sponspored and in-your-face propaganda of 'alternative lifestyles' (which is the reality of trying to establish pluralism on a preexisting more or less homogenous set of opinions and beliefs), I say thanks, no. I don't know if Boris got children, but I do, and would be rather mad if the state (swayed, for example, by the current Western fancy for 'inclusiveness' in 'sexual education') tried to influence their ethical worldview over and contrary to mine. To hell with pluralism. then - when in comes to children, not every man's opionion is of equal importance, prosperity or no.

Agreed ;)