Born This Way

[Astrid]

People may not choose their inclinations, but their behavior is a choice. period

So very true of alcoholics

 

[RileyG]

So very true of alcoholics

Absolutely correct!

 

[Pommer]

Absolutely correct!

People who are from families with alcoholism in their histories are going to be a lot more prone to succumbing to the condition; holding them to the same normal moral standard with regard to drink for “normal people” is wildly optimistic.

 

[Astrid]

People who are from families with alcoholism in their histories are going to be a lot more prone to succumbing to the condition; holding them to the same normal moral standard with regard to drink for “normal people” is wildly optimistic.

I hope nobody really thinks it's
just a choice.

 

[All Becomes New]

I hope nobody really thinks it's
just a choice.

How would you explain alcoholics and drug addicts who get clean if it is not on some level a choice?

 

[Pommer]

How would you explain alcoholics and drug addicts who get clean if it is not on some level a choice?

Alcoholics (and to a much lesser extent) heroin addicts, are the only two withdrawals where the possibility of death is a real concern.
Once an alcoholic is physically addicted, it can be near impossible to “quit”.

Alcoholics, when physically addicted have substituted ethanol for dopamine in their brains.
Alcohol depletes dopamine, (patient gets no dopamine “reward” for taking a drink, since it’s been eliminated by the ethanol), but the alcohol also mimics dopamine to some degree, this is both why alcoholics get “the shakes” and why the shakes go away after that first drink(s) of the day.

They’re sick if they do drink and sicker if they don’t drink and are stuck and moralized at by well meaning religion-peddlers.

 

[CoreyD]

So very true of alcoholics

Well at least you referred to being under the influence of something. So that is helpful.

 

[All Becomes New]

They’re sick if they do drink and sicker if they don’t drink and are stuck and moralized at by well meaning religion-peddlers.

You make it seem like it's fine to be an addict.

 

[Astrid]

Well at least you referred to being under the influence of something. So that is helpful.

I think we are not communicating. I can't make sense
of that.

 

[partinobodycular]

How would you explain alcoholics and drug addicts who get clean if it is not on some level a choice?

It seems to me that this question illustrates that people are a composite of nature and nurture, of natural tendencies and personal choices.

For example, I was born an introvert, but I can choose to be outgoing. That choice however doesn't alter the fact that I am by nature an introvert. It is for me a fact of which I'm always keenly aware. I can constantly work to overcome it, but none-the-less it's there. It's part of who I am, of what makes me... me.

To me the same thing is true with gender identity. Not everyone's personal sense of self is as rigidly aligned with their sexual identity as what may be deemed to be the norm. And although they can choose to try to conform to some supposed norm this doesn't mean that their discomfort with their sexual identity isn't perfectly real and natural.

Someone's natural tendencies aren't abnormal simply because they can choose to act in opposition to them. The problem as I see it is that people tend to consider gender dysphoria as a disorder that needs to be corrected.

Why?

As an extreme introvert I understand that society has an expectation that people should try to fit within the social norm, and although I may try to conform to this norm, I object to the implication that I'm somehow obligated to do so. And that there's something wrong with me, or I'm somehow abnormal if I don't.

It's my personal opinion that gender identity, like many other personal characteristics isn't binary, it exists on a spectrum wherein the definition of 'normal' isn't as rigid as many would like us to believe. That said, I'm perfectly willing to let you do you, my only hope is that you'll allow me, and others, the freedom to do the same.

 

[Astrid]

It seems to me that this question illustrates that people are a composite of nature and nurture, of natural tendencies and personal choices.

For example, I was born an introvert, but I can choose to be outgoing. That choice however doesn't alter the fact that I am by nature an introvert. It is for me a fact of which I'm always keenly aware. I can constantly work to overcome it, but none-the-less it's there. It's part of who I am, of what makes me... me.

To me the same thing is true with gender identity. Not everyone's personal sense of self is as rigidly aligned with their sexual identity as what may be deemed to be the norm. And although they can choose to try to conform to some supposed norm this doesn't mean that their discomfort with their sexual identity isn't perfectly real and natural.

Someone's natural tendencies aren't abnormal simply because they can choose to act in opposition to them. The problem as I see it is that people tend to consider gender dysphoria as a disorder that needs to be corrected.

Why?

As an extreme introvert I understand that society has an expectation that people should try to fit within the social norm, and although I may try to conform to this norm, I object to the implication that I'm somehow obligated to do so. And that there's something wrong with me, or I'm somehow abnormal if I don't.

It's my personal opinion that gender identity, like many other personal characteristics isn't binary, it exists on a spectrum wherein the definition of 'normal' isn't as rigid as many would like us to believe. That said, I'm perfectly willing to let you do you, my only hope is that you'll allow me, and others, the freedom to do the same.

And some of us dont care to ask, rather,
its get OUT of my way!!

 

[Ivan Hlavanda]

Every human being is an image of glorious, living God. He made us for Himself, and to live for Him and to serve and worship Him.

Through sin we became a broken image of God. But by His grace, God sent His Son to restore us to a perfect image of God.

 

[anetazo]

Revelation chapter 4 and hosea chapter 6.
God created people for His pleasure. He wants our love and worship.
If someone has down syndrome or another disability. God loves His children the same. No favoritism.
Ezekiel chapter 33 . The wicked choose to turn their backs on God and won't repent. The wicked are going to hell.
Those who love and serve God have nothing to worry about.
Galatians chapter 6. We reap what we sow.

 

[stevevw]

That's debatable, considering that what is often traditional is culturally relative.

Not really, for example the traditional belief that there is only man and women. That aligns with objective reality, our lived reality. Or the traditional principle 'Rule of Law' and that of humans being made in Gods image which elevated human worth beyond cultural constructions which is found in many Declarations of nations and the basis for human Rights.

Or that the traditional setup of biological mother and father or even just any male and female parent both present in a childs life is best according to the research. These are not just arbitrarily chosen before of belief but also because we have discovered they are best for how we order society to be optimum stability and wellbeing.

That's a meaningless distinction, considering tradition often plays to feelings as well.

Maybe but as examples above will show there is an objective measure we can use with biology regarding male and female and psychology and sociology, anthropolgy and our history of living these things out being tested over time. We don't get that with self determined and subjective/relative aspects.

Though I would argue that even cultural differences actually have an objective basis as well. You will notice that there is a core number of beliefs that are universal. Even found in our nearest cousins primates. For example infant primates play with the stereo typical gendered toy choices just like human infants. Theres a biological and neurological reason why infant males choose trucks and things and females choose dolls.

The real question is why men are dominant in sports. Alot of it has nothing to do with potential prowess, and everything to do with culturally relative assumptions about the proper place of women.

I suggest the reason males do better in sports is because they are built that way. At least for power, speed, strength sports and activities. Greater upper body strength for power/strength sports. Faster muscle twist for speed sports. Possible due to an evolution need to run like hell from nasty predators which out hunting lol.

Just recently a transwomen smashed the womens weight lifting record by 200 + ibs and has set a record that will never be beating by a biological female. At least for a very long time. Possibly another transwomen will beat it. It could end up that transwomen own all power sports records in the future thus denying biological women.

Principles that aren't even that old. If you're going to appeal to science, lets look at the broad span of human existence. Western social organization and norms are just one of many, and not necessarily even the most successful in terms of how long it has endured, or how many people it has influenced.

Not just science. Science came along and confirmed the already lived reality of most people regardless of culture. Like that humans form the traditional form of family being mother father and children. This is reflected in most cultures and even stemming back to prehistoric times. It made sense that a women giving birth who was volnurable to the elements and predators needed to couple with a male who could protect mother and baby.

This was primarily the default position because it worked but also it made sense in that children did better with both parents and extendede families who were tied by blood for survival. People tend to look out for someone who is a part of them.

Now you are making a pragmatic argument. That doesn't fit with the rest of your assertions. I also am a pragmatist. That doesn't mean that I believe pragmatism leads to "objectivity", but it's a close approximation. Pragmatism also allows for different responses as equally valid.

Yes but the pragmatic acts also need to cohere to something that is going to work, provide stability and wellbeing. Its when all these different aspect of determining what is best or the most real thing in regards to what is really going on and what is best. The science, the belief and life experience should all converge and then we can be more sure that is is what is most real and best in how to order society.

But if belief alone is used then we have no check and balance to know that what we believe is really the case when it comes to the world outside ourselves. If its just science then this is only part of the picture as science cannot explain our conscious experiences alone. The same with if its only our conscious experience as we may be imagining things. The mind can play tricks. So each aspect of determining reality should be used and then converge and support each other.

 

[Pommer]

You make it seem like it's fine to be an addict.

W h a t ?
I’m describing their dilemma.
Addicts’ ability to “choose” is greatly diminished, if they could choose, what makes you think that they do?

 

[All Becomes New]

Addicts’ ability to “choose” is greatly diminished,

Only after they become an addict. Not before.

 

[Pommer]

"We are born this way. Therefore, it cannot be wrong."
Have you heard that before? Does the logic follow?

"We are born this way. Therefore, nothing is wrong with us. It's perfectly normal."

Spoiler

Normal
Anophthalmia
Müllerian agenesis

Hence, this must be wrong.
Treatments - Cosmetic surgery
Treatment - Lab-grown vagina
_

Does that logic follow?

If read literally, Genesis would suggest that when Eve was created, everything she had was because she came out of Adam (unless the LORD added some special-super-secret ingredient?) and the “made in the image of God”=some combination of male-female, since, apparently, God is Genderful.

 

[Pommer]

Only after they become an addict. Not before.

If they understood the danger would they choose that path?
Some would, I’ll grant ya. But most just sort of meander there.

 

[All Becomes New]

If they understood the danger would they choose that path?

This doesn't really matter. If Adam knew what his sin would lead to, he would not have sinned either.

 

[Pommer]

This doesn't really matter. If Adam knew what his sin would lead to, he would not have sinned either.

Still comes off as victim-blaming.
Maybe it’d be better to not exist at all if the chance at “life” is eternal torment?
Maybe abortion=mercy?*

*don’t respond to this as it’s Off topic and I won’t defend it here.