Insidious, Lief and RÃ*an debate all things great and small.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I'm asking a "yes" or "no" question, and I would like an answer, not a "response"

yes im sure you don’t want a response. That’s the problem. You have a set response YOU want to make and the fact that im sitting here asking you to try it to FIND OUT THE ANSWER you ignore this and attempt to use it as an opportunity to paint me as someone who avoids questions. Well lets see you TRY it and we can all judge how it comes off rian. I don’t recall you ever calling me that. Maybe you have but I don’t remember.

Your response of "I WOULD LIKE TO SEE YOU TRY" does NOT answer my question.

no it asks you to provide further data so that I can judge exactly the response to make for your question. You have chosen not to because you don’t want to. So essentially I called your bluff on your little diversion which had nothing at all to do with my use of the word “silly� to describe a series of sentences.

And I did not try to antagonize you or set a trap I don't do things like that.

as I said above I don’t buy it. Ive experienced it before. I think its my place to say if Im feeling antagonized. Not yours to say oh I have never done that.

[Lizra]

Is this "The Anal Retentive Debate"?

Rian....I've noticed (over the years ) that you have a "thing" about being "right" and getting the last word. (Just my opinion, I'm sure you won't agree. Sorry now for offending you...really! ) I also think you get hung up on "how" people say things sometimes, like there are some kind of rules or something. I see the forum as a place where people just try to communicate with each other, each in their own way, sort of with a fairly casual, take it or leave it attitude.... These tag team, tit for tat death matches are strangly funny sometimes, but really, they suck. Obviously, I don't care for *debating* all that much, but I really do like to communicate with people. I think this back and forth attempt to "score" points for "our" side merely draws us further apart and is not all that healthy.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

What is the benefit of certain religious belief? Such as the religious strength that causes a small minority of Muslims in India to hold to their beliefs even though the Hindus are massacring them for it. Do the genes think that they're going to heaven? Or care if the human thinks that, for that matter.

massacring? Last time I checked there was hostility going on on both sides. Yeah its true that religion causes all sorts of hostilities (woops im guessing you didn’t mean to give me that point there ). But ok lets break this down biologically. People divide into tribes. Be it religion or whatever because its better then trying to deal with things all by yourself. So you better believe that the concept of social structure and tribe is hard wired into our genes so that we tend to follow that way of life. Its not ALWAYS the best way but for the most part it’s the smartest course of action. The fact that one tribe is attacking another essentially follows the normal pattern of nature. If the entire second tribe is wiped out then we can assume the stronger tribe survived to pass on their genes.

Many times these things are simply not the scenarios we encounter in real life, though. People give their lives up for friends as well as family. Many people completely abstain from marriage or sex for religious reasons, things their genes would surely be furious about (not that genes have feelings, of course you understand ). I seem to recall having brought up all these arguments in the past. Forgive me though; I don't remember your responses .

well ill be happy to give them again if you like because those are old standards with good solid reasons to them. Altruism is hardly a novel concept really. And mating avoidance in order to buttress the genes of relatives occurs in countless occasions in nature. And makes sense genetically. So we certainly could have this built into our genes as well.

But remember now before we start getting into the point by point minutia of genetics that genetics needs to be looked at from the widest view. What is the usual behavior pattern. If one thing is favored over a number of other things then genetically we can assume that THAT thing is the way to go in a particular environment. Does that mean that that’s ALL you are going to see? Of course not. Variation is by definition built into the system. But for the few that die off many more survive and things continue as they were designed to.

Having faith in God for protection probably wouldn't look like such a good idea to the genes .

god isn’t in our genes. But ill bet we have genes that make us trust a patriarchal figure. Obviously many animals have it. So that we can rely on someone stronger then us to take care of us when we are kids. Not such a stretch to have that extend to a father god. If we didn’t have it we wouldn’t want much to do with our dads. Which could prove dangerous on the African savannah. But religion (and how our brain deal with its) is a highly complex phenomenon. You cant expect to “find� a religion gene somewhere in there. But you can find a combination of genes that lead to brain action that leads to a combination of behaviors that can culminate in someone being a catholic like their parents were. No biggie there.

Then there's also marriage- wouldn't genes be more in favor of getting a harem type system going?

in humans? It happens when the conditions are right but the ideal mating situation for humans SEEMS to be one primary mate and one or more secondary mates if the male can get away with it. Theres a give and take after all. If you focus all your attention on a primary mate and bond tightly with them then your offspring have a better chance of surviving then if you were keeping a harum or if you were just jaunting around the country side impregnating random females. BUT you might be able to get away with having a primary mate and once in a while copulating with secondary mates or random mates thereby ensuring your primary offspring is still taken care of and you may get the bonus of other offspring out there as well (more genes). And if you are really lucky they wont be noticed by the primary mate of the female you empregnate and he will actually raise and protect them for you. and anyway this is what is ultimately demonstrated by the statistics. That we are generally monogamous but selectively and generally secretly polygamous.

Anger comes on the person. The person's soul decides whether to express it or stamp on it. Love comes upon a person. The person decides whether to express it or stamp on it. The different emotions and pressures of genes come upon people and the decision is up to the soul in which way to act.

well I think that’s where we truly divert. The term “soul� doesn’t mean much to me. Certainly nothing biologically. So in order for it to have such a huge impact on our behavior id need to see where it is how it works and what mechanism brings about this process. But we have zilch as far as data unfortunately.

[Insidious Rex]

The vast diversity of human behavior seems largely self centered as you suggest

well it’s the GENES that are the selfish ones. They don’t care about us per se. they care about their own survival. And we are the vessels that have been created for that ultimate goal. Pretty impressive vessels we are. With highly complex engineering involved don’t you think?

but there are so many blazing examples of unselfish behavior that the hypothesis (gene rule ) seems flawed. People giving up their lives for their religion (whether family benefits or not), people abstaining from sex by choice, the existence of HOMICIDE, and other examples

existence of homicide? How is that an indication that the gene concept is flawed. Killing is part of our programming. Quite obviously. And the other stuff you named I briefly touched on above. Altruism is easy to explain. And abstinance in a social group has its explanations too.

Simply because we from our extremely limited reference frames cannot see the answer to something doesn't mean there isn't one. I'm sure you've heard the answers to the question of pain before, from Christians. If you don't remember them, we'll be fine with discussing this .

yeah I think I remember the standard explanations for pain or bad things happening to good christians. I have no problem with the well its just gods plan explanation because it fits in with the circular logic of Christianity in general. So its not really an issue for me.

No doubt those things are part of people's decision making. But they certainly aren't all. People also consider the moral issue of whether it's right or wrong to steal. They consider whether they are going to break that moral teaching. You might argue that the moral teaching was placed in for the betterment of the community, which is everyone including the potential thief. But the person's thoughts never even briefly touch on this.

morals are the end product of genetics and environment. They are one in the same. Its not genetics OR morals. Morals is what we choose to call that which bubbles to the cognitive surface from the unconscious micro motivation of genetics buttressed by environment.

Not really perfectly . Who was that famous actress that a year or so ago was jailed for shoplifting? Something Ryder.

Winona Ryder is the exception that proves the rule. She has had some serious mental issues. And a pretty odd environment. Are you saying it was simply her free will in perfect health that caused her to go out despite her millions of dollars and shop lift some clothes? Shed apparently been doing that since she was a kid when she wasn’t rich and famous. And look whats happened its hurt her career pretty much. So her gene value has dropped. Now do you think in the wild if she had done that it would make sense? And that she would last long?

Then there are people like Gandhi and many Christians that will take blow after blow without fighting back, without aggressive displays or anything. Not because they can't, but because they choose not to.

and there are also people who kill themselves. Do you think this scraps the whole genetic model then?

[HOBBIT]

"Insidious, Lief and Rian debate all things great and small"

That topic really encourages all other members to come and join the debate.

I don't even know what you guys are debating about! It seems to be one big mess going back and forth between the three of you - with a post or two by Lizra.

You could say that this whole thread is off topic since it doesnt even seem to have one!

Since it is just the three of you, you really need a thread? Email, chat room, pms.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Lizra
I think this back and forth attempt to "score" points for "our" side merely draws us further apart and is not all that healthy.

I'm very sorry if that's what it appears we're trying to do. Very sorry indeed; it's been completely unintentional.

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
as I said above I don’t buy it. Ive experienced it before. I think its my place to say if Im feeling antagonized. Not yours to say oh I have never done that.

She said she never tried to antagonize you. "I did not try to antagonize you or set a trap." She didn't say that she never antagonized you. Thus she isn't arguing your perception of her behavior. She's relating what her intent was.

Originally posted by Lizra
you have a "thing" about beeing "right" and getting the last word.

Sorry for intruding on your comments to RÃ*an, Lizra. What do you mean really when you say she's got a thing about being right? Of course she believes she's right; so do I and Insidious Rex. I'm quite sure you don't have a problem with that. Do you mean you find the confidence insufferable?

Just briefly about getting the last word: You should have seen Insidious Rex and myself going at this predestination discussion some time ago in the Silmarillion thread. In fact, I think you may have seen some of it. Neither of us could ever give the last word. We went on and on and on and on and on. Quite exhausting in the end. We were both glad when I ended up collapsing with fatigue .

My only point in saying this is that if RÃ*an does it, she's not the only one. Some of us debaters are just crazy . . .

[Lief Erikson]

Gosh, I'm very excited to respond to your recent two posts, Insidious . Very fun. However, have to stop for supper, then have a phone call, then post on Atharon . . . should be back in a few hours. Maybe sooner. Hopefully .

Originally Posted by HOBBIT

"Insidious, Lief and Rian debate all things great and small"

That topic really encourages all other members to come and join the debate.

I don't even know what you guys are debating about! It seems to be one big mess going back and forth between the three of you - with a post or two by Lizra.

I won't argue that point .

Originally Posted by HOBBIT

You could say that this whole thread is off topic since it doesnt even seem to have one!

Since it is just the three of you, you really need a thread? Email, chat room, pms.

We need a thread. Chat rooms don't save. Email here would desperately limit me in speed, as well as being hard to connect so that it's three way. PMs would get overloaded instantly. I'm already at 87!

Go ahead and bring in more debaters, if they're interested in coming . It makes sense to me to have a thread that's fluid in topics. It's so hard to keep a thread going on topic anyhow, when it's a debate. Particularly a religious debate. Conversations always run everywhere. Here we won't be so limited. The thread can be archived instantly after its time is over.

It's all right, isn't it?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Lizra

Is this "The Anal Retentive Debate"?

Rian....I've noticed (over the years ) that you have a "thing" about being "right" and getting the last word. (Just my opinion, I'm sure you won't agree. Sorry now for offending you...really! )

But why only me for this criticism? You don't see IRex leaving this discussion. I don't understand, but I'll think about it.

I also think you get hung up on "how" people say things sometimes, like there are some kind of rules or something.

Well, there ARE some kind of rules at Entmoot ... I think IRex was starting to break them, but at this point I think I'll stop mentioning it because clearly he disagrees. And it's his call how he acts, but it looks like he didn't even consider what I asked him to. So I think I'll stop giving him suggestions, since he appears to not want any. And I think I'll take your advice and back off a bit about "how" people say things sometimes.

I see the forum as a place where people just try to communicate with each other, each in their own way, sort of with a fairly casual, take it or leave it attitude.... These tag team, tit for tat death matches are strangly funny sometimes, but really, they suck. Obviously, I don't care for *debating* all that much, but I really do like to communicate with people. I think this back and forth attempt to "score" points for "our" side merely draws us further apart and is not all that healthy.

I'm just not interested in scoring points. I'm interested in trying to discuss things honestly and vigorously. I don't understand why you even read these threads; they seem to just upset you! Why do you read them if you only pop in and say things like you're sick of hearing about free will? I really don't understand

[Rían]

Originally Posted by HOBBIT

"Insidious, Lief and Rian debate all things great and small"

That topic really encourages all other members to come and join the debate.

I don't even know what you guys are debating about! It seems to be one big mess going back and forth between the three of you - with a post or two by Lizra.

You could say that this whole thread is off topic since it doesnt even seem to have one!

Since it is just the three of you, you really need a thread? Email, chat room, pms.

The title was a joke (a funny one, IMO) from the AIDS funding thread. Lief was taking an off-topic discussion that was taking over the thread on to a new thread and giving it a funny title from something IRex said.

The two topics of discussion here, as far as I can tell are : can a person be blamed for their actions if their actions are controlled by their genes and environment, and how shall we speak, in terms of trying to not hurt other people. (note - I didn't say who said what)

Other participants in the discussion are free to offer what they think are the thread topics here

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Lizra

Is this "The Anal Retentive Debate"?

I think this is the stubborn people who wont back down despite beating a dead horse into the ground debate. And Im the first one to say guilty.

[Lizra]

I read the threads because I feel like it. This one's actually quite funny. I can't help making my little comments, after reading so many repetitive posts... Free will this, free will that....worldveiw, worldveiw, worldveiw.... I just get this URGE to say something to dry it all out a bit. You really don't have to respond to everything I say. Just ignore me if you want.

Besides, I'm Tolkiened out.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Lizra

I read the threads because I feel like it.

Well, that explains it

Seriously, I just wondered because you seemed really distressed about some things, but if ya wanna read it, ya wanna read it!

Besides, I'm Tolkiened out.

Yeah, I get there, too ... I am right now! I'm only doing quote game and hobbit wheel of fortune.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

I think this is the stubborn people who wont back down despite beating a dead horse into the ground debate. And Im the first one to say guilty.

What did you say? I was just beating a dead horse and couldn't hear you ...

Shall we just drop it and move on to other things?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

massacring? Last time I checked there was hostility going on on both sides.

Hmm. Retaliation toward the Hindus wasn't included in what I read. You certainly could be right, though.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Yeah its true that religion causes all sorts of hostilities (woops im guessing you didn’t mean to give me that point there ).

Actually I agree with you fully on this. And Christians certainly aren't excluded from blame.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

But ok lets break this down biologically. People divide into tribes. Be it religion or whatever because its better then trying to deal with things all by yourself.

There are Christians in Muslim countries that turn away from their social surroundings as they learn of Christianity. Always they are ostracized in communities. Many Muslim states have laws that people cannot convert to Christianity. People do, and they are thrown in prison or executed for their beliefs. Their coming to Christ gave them no group link, no benefits whatsoever that you would agree with. They suffered and died without expecting or gaining any group protection, any bonding with more then the very few missionaries that they knew. They were punished severely by the community around them. No benefits whatever way you look at it for these people (at least that I can see now; doubtless you'll come up with some).

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

So you better believe that the concept of social structure and tribe is hard wired into our genes so that we tend to follow that way of life.

I think the examples where this is not the case are very numerous. Persecution of Christians within the 20th century has been calculated to be greater then the combined persecution of all other centuries put together. That is an astounding and horrible figure. These figures seem to me to clearly indicate religion is not a social or tribal protection mechanism of genes, but rather is a choice made by individuals from their souls (or whatever other source of choice you believe in).

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Its not ALWAYS the best way but for the most part it’s the smartest course of action. The fact that one tribe is attacking another essentially follows the normal pattern of nature. If the entire second tribe is wiped out then we can assume the stronger tribe survived to pass on their genes.

The examples going against this pattern I think are too numerous to be ignored.

When scientists were discovering the truths of the solar system, they watched the stars through telescopes and plotted their paths. There were always a few random stars that went against current theory. A lot of people just wanted to ignore those. But when scientists really looked closely at those random stars, they found that what they had previously ignored actually revealed massive new truths about the physical laws of the universe. It was an amazing discovery for them.

The examples here that differ from a "law of selfishness from genes" I think are far more numerous and powerful an evidence for the soul then the random stars were an evidence for a different model of the solar system.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

well ill be happy to give them again if you like because those are old standards with good solid reasons to them. Altruism is hardly a novel concept really. And mating avoidance in order to buttress the genes of relatives occurs in countless occasions in nature. And makes sense genetically. So we certainly could have this built into our genes as well.

How frequent is this in animal communities? Among human monks during the medieval ages we had huge numbers of people abstaining for religious reasons, not because their sexual instincts and desires were any less.

Indeed, I would ask you how much of what goes on in the mind, in your opinion, connects with the will of genes. Because often you say that genes in order to continue would want things in a certain way. But the reasoning you say the genes have has absolutely no bearing upon what the person's thinking at the time he does the action. For example, if he saves the life of a friend at risk of his own. You said in the other thread where we were discussing this that it would be partly because the friend's in his group and the group all has to protect itself even at the expense of one member. Also the friend might feel an obligation to him. Yet these self centered reasons have absolutely no connection to what's going on in the person's mind when he tries to save his friend's life. He doesn't think, "that person would be useful to me in the future and I owe this to the group." He is filled with fear because of his love for his friend.

So how do the thoughts of the mind connect with the will of the genes (forgive me if I phrased that wrong)?

One thing I would like to thank you for briefly, Insidious Rex, is how you make a point by far most of the time of answering every part of our posts. You don't skip issues at all, and the fact that you devote that kind of time to this is very pleasant.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

But remember now before we start getting into the point by point minutia of genetics that genetics needs to be looked at from the widest view. What is the usual behavior pattern. If one thing is favored over a number of other things then genetically we can assume that THAT thing is the way to go in a particular environment. Does that mean that that’s ALL you are going to see? Of course not. Variation is by definition built into the system. But for the few that die off many more survive and things continue as they were designed to.

I just don't think that fits with the examples of what we see. Oh well. As RÃ*an's always saying, you're entitled to your own opinion.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Quote:
Having faith in God for protection probably wouldn't look like such a good idea to the genes .

god isn’t in our genes. But ill bet we have genes that make us trust a patriarchal figure. Obviously many animals have it. So that we can rely on someone stronger then us to take care of us when we are kids. Not such a stretch to have that extend to a father god. If we didn’t have it we wouldn’t want much to do with our dads. Which could prove dangerous on the African savannah.

That seems a bit of a stretch. None of the animal species have any visible belief in God, yet they are able to maintain their patriarchal figures. Sure we're more complex then animals, but I don't see that as necessitating a view of God. At least not from a biological gene oriented focus. Many people don't have the patriarchal belief in God, while they still respect their own fathers.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

But religion (and how our brain deal with its) is a highly complex phenomenon. You cant expect to “find� a religion gene somewhere in there. But you can find a combination of genes that lead to brain action that leads to a combination of behaviors that can culminate in someone being a catholic like their parents were. No biggie there.

All right. This feels like a little bit of a brush off. That's because it doesn't explain religion, which on the surface appears frequently to be contrary to what's beneficial to humans from a gene point of view (forgive the terminology- I don't speak in genetics ).

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Quote:
Then there's also marriage- wouldn't genes be more in favor of getting a harem type system going?

in humans? It happens when the conditions are right

(Frowns) Plenty of times the conditions are exactly right. The couple is alone in a place, one tries to seduce the other, but the other refuses. No one need ever have known. However, it does not happen.

Ignorance is frequently present in people that have sex before marriage. Abstinence-only programs actually have reduced the number of people having sex before marriage by a large number. That program reaches out to people's intellects. Religion does too. So if this intellectual information (though I'm certainly not saying that's all it is) causes people to change behavior patterns, where's the will of genes involved? They seem to be bound by the intellectual information available to their hosts. Further, from the paragraph I said above, it seems that they are bound to the will of their hosts. Even if the conditions are perfect from sex, the spreading of genes, the will of a person involved is against the action.

My main question is about the intellectual reasoning though. Information seems to be a key in whether or not the person will have sex or not. If it's all biological and about the genes' will, the information shouldn't be important.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

but the ideal mating situation for humans SEEMS to be one primary mate and one or more secondary mates if the male can get away with it. Theres a give and take after all. If you focus all your attention on a primary mate and bond tightly with them then your offspring have a better chance of surviving then if you were keeping a harum or if you were just jaunting around the country side impregnating random females. BUT you might be able to get away with having a primary mate and once in a while copulating with secondary mates or random mates thereby ensuring your primary offspring is still taken care of and you may get the bonus of other offspring out there as well (more genes). And if you are really lucky they wont be noticed by the primary mate of the female you empregnate and he will actually raise and protect them for you. and anyway this is what is ultimately demonstrated by the statistics. That we are generally monogamous but selectively and generally secretly polygamous.

This seems a little unbelievable to me from a purely biological perspective. Families where polygamy is involved I think would have many more children then would other families. They also would have a good chance of survival, I think. It just doesn't make enough sense to me. Where do you get the statistics from?

"but the ideal mating situation for humans SEEMS to be one primary mate and one or more secondary mates if the male can get away with it."

This depends massively upon the religious views and social interests of the male, as well.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

well I think that’s where we truly divert. The term “soul� doesn’t mean much to me. Certainly nothing biologically. So in order for it to have such a huge impact on our behavior id need to see where it is how it works and what mechanism brings about this process. But we have zilch as far as data unfortunately.

Scientific data yes. Doesn't mean there's no evidence for it though. Spiritual experience is a strong indicator. Out of body experiences are a strong indicator. The fact that many aspects of human behavior are unexplainable by gene motives is a strong indicator. There probably are more things that I haven't thought of yet.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Quote:
The vast diversity of human behavior seems largely self centered as you suggest

well it’s the GENES that are the selfish ones. They don’t care about us per se. they care about their own survival. And we are the vessels that have been created for that ultimate goal. Pretty impressive vessels we are. With highly complex engineering involved don’t you think?

Oh yeah. Of course .

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Quote:
but there are so many blazing examples of unselfish behavior that the hypothesis (gene rule ) seems flawed. People giving up their lives for their religion (whether family benefits or not), people abstaining from sex by choice, the existence of HOMICIDE, and other examples

existence of homicide? How is that an indication that the gene concept is flawed. Killing is part of our programming. Quite obviously. And the other stuff you named I briefly touched on above. Altruism is easy to explain. And abstinance in a social group has its explanations too.

Homicide, killing of family members. Outright destruction of oneself and most surrounding related genes. Completely opposite to what genes would will. Are you saying that when killing was programmed into us, genes were essentially set up for the possibility that their own host might wipe them all out? The genes had no ability to change that possibility? If you tell me when killing is programmed genes have to accept the possibility, I'll probably drop this line of argument. That's because of not knowing enough. (has this expression only toward self)

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Quote:
No doubt those things are part of people's decision making. But they certainly aren't all. People also consider the moral issue of whether it's right or wrong to steal. They consider whether they are going to break that moral teaching. You might argue that the moral teaching was placed in for the betterment of the community, which is everyone including the potential thief. But the person's thoughts never even briefly touch on this.

morals are the end product of genetics and environment. They are one in the same. Its not genetics OR morals. Morals is what we choose to call that which bubbles to the cognitive surface from the unconscious micro motivation of genetics buttressed by environment.

If morals are the product of genetics and environment, then shouldn't they support those genes? I think there's a strong case to be made that religion, which is deeply related to morals, actually goes against the natural instinct someone's genes would normally have.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Quote:
Not really perfectly . Who was that famous actress that a year or so ago was jailed for shoplifting? Something Ryder.

Winona Ryder is the exception that proves the rule. She has had some serious mental issues. And a pretty odd environment. Are you saying it was simply her free will in perfect health that caused her to go out despite her millions of dollars and shop lift some clothes?

I don't know about her situation specifically. I don't know her. I don't know what evidence there is that she was not in full mental health. Some people have tendencies toward alcohol, some toward anger. That someone would have an addiction to thievery doesn't sound unlikely to me. With successful criminals you see it all the time. Often they continue even when they don't need to. Even though it's dangerous. Whether they're proud or obsessed or both or there are other motives, it's against the motives they'd have going with their genes, but I'm sure these people aren't all mentally unhealthy.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Shed apparently been doing that since she was a kid when she wasn’t rich and famous. And look whats happened its hurt her career pretty much. So her gene value has dropped. Now do you think in the wild if she had done that it would make sense? And that she would last long?

Sorry . . . can you rephrase your question so that I better understand it? I can't really grasp what point you're trying to make.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Quote:
Then there are people like Gandhi and many Christians that will take blow after blow without fighting back, without aggressive displays or anything. Not because they can't, but because they choose not to.

and there are also people who kill themselves. Do you think this scraps the whole genetic model then?

Well, what do you mean by the genetic model? If you mean the idea that we're ruled by our genes, that we have no free will but rather that our behavior is dictated by our genes, yes I think it does damage the idea. Lol. I don't think it scraps all our information about genetics though. Not by a long shot.

[brownjenkins]

guess i'll stay out of this one

[Lizra]

Moving on to other things.......

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

guess i'll stay out of this one

That would be a wise move. Soul vs. gene-rule is a long, long, long, long, long, long, long debate.


If you want to bring up something else, Lizra, go for it!

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Originally Posted by brownjenkins
it is a matter of balance, i agree

though on the research thing... many basic drugs which we take for granted today were tested via unethical means... whether it be upon children, prisioners, soldiers

i'm making this up (as you know i like to do ), but if it was found that innocent people were killed in the development of penicillen, would you feel it should be outlawed? or even that you could say to your child, 'no, you can't take it'

i think one can, and should, fight unethical practices... including stem-cell research, if you believe it's wrong... but if something works, irregardless of how is was developed... it's seems crazy to me to just toss it aside

It was my impression that stem cell research, in order to work, requires more and more abortions. Is that only in the testing stage? I'd be interested to hear your answer, always being interested myself in increasing my knowledge .

Meanwhile, I think that the point you made is flawed whether the abortions are merely in the development stages or not. Your argument is the same as Shakespeare's Richard III, when he convinces Elizabeth to allow him to marry her daughter. He'd murdered Elizabeth's sons already. Then he argued to her, "the past is in the past and cannot be amended. We need to look to the future. In this future I will bless you and your own even more then I have deprived from them."

It's a call the ignores justice, that ignores clear wrongdoing in an attempt to make the future a better place.