Disobedience has consequences.

[LostMarbels]

I simply asked, what are these "absolute" morals that you allude to? Can you not answer this question?

We are all hardwired not to do such things as rape, hurt kids, and even steal, but it isn't enough. That is why we have law. Law is an extension of a societies ethics imposed on it's populace. It shows what is good, and what is wrong. Without law anyone can do anything.

 

[LostMarbels]

The religionist's claim of "my god did it" is not enough for me. Particularly when the individual making said assertion then promptly exempts their own religious beliefs (gods/angels/afterlife/miracles/souls/etc) from being subject to those same laws.

Well, I view the laws as an extension of God's will. While we are subject to them, we can act on them to get different results.

 

[Chany]

We are all hardwired not to do such things as rape, hurt kids, and even steal, but it isn't enough. That is why we have law. Law is an extension of a societies ethics imposed on it's populace. It shows what is good, and what is wrong. Without law anyone can do anything.

As much as I would like to agree with the statement about being hardwired, it simply is not true. Some people biologically lack the ability to empathize, while others are conditioned through their environment to not really care. This is especially true when dealing with circumstances: many people can easily justify stealing from a "lower" or "lesser" group of people if they come from a different culture.

You seem to be arguing that there is a necessary and conceptual connection between law and morality. Could you explain this connection more fully? Are laws that are amoral and immoral? Are immoral laws and legal systems, like that of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, not really legal systems? What about the right to do "wrong": the legal right to do morally unsavory or wrong behavior, like refuse to help others in need?

 

[LostMarbels]

As much as I would like to agree with the statement about being hardwired, it simply is not true. Some people biologically lack the ability to empathize, while others are conditioned through their environment to not really care. This is especially true when dealing with circumstances: many people can easily justify stealing from a "lower" or "lesser" group of people if they come from a different culture.

You seem to be arguing that there is a necessary and conceptual connection between law and morality. Could you explain this connection more fully? Are laws that are amoral and immoral? Are immoral laws and legal systems, like that of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, not really legal systems? What about the right to do "wrong": the legal right to do morally unsavory or wrong behavior, like refuse to help others in need?

We are all hardwired not to do such things as rape, hurt kids, and even steal, but it isn't enough. That is why we have law. Law is an extension of a societies ethics imposed on it's populace. It shows what is good, and what is wrong. Without law anyone can do anything.

The fail safe is law.

Rom 4:15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.
Rom 5:13 For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

Without law there is no set standard as to what is right, or wrong, and nothing to be held accountable to. Some may feel it to be perfectly acceptable to murder women for example. Without a set standard this individual would have nothing to hold him accountable of his actions. He would be right in his own actions, not being accountable to law. Also this individual may not have any moral issues with murdering people, and could find it morally acceptable. So law imposes a set standard of morals on this person by deeming his morals incorrect.

 

[Davian]

Thanks, I have seen it. It looks like opinion though, and does not produce any evidence except patterns in study of twins.

What are you implying when you say "except patterns in study of twins"? Do you not accept twin studies as a valid tool for the study of the absolute and relative importance of environmental and genetic influences on individuals?

Can I just check with you that you understand it the same way as this article is suggesting:

gender identity (the conviction of belonging to the male or female gender) and sexual orientation

.. Do you suggest that there is a correlation between the amount of gender identity and sexual attraction? This seems to me, to be suggesting that heterosexual men feel more confident about being a male than a homosexual man, or bisexual man. This would surprise me you know. And how reliable is this information? If that is reliable information it is very convincing and exactly what I have asked for, and leads me to wonder why the experts have divided opinions.

The experts have divided opinions because this is science. Unlike religion, they do not declare that they have the truth. The experts have divided opinions on the theory of evolution, but it does not invalidate the data or the overall theory.

Well I reckon it is, but the choice is about whether we allow ourselves to become comfortable with the idea. I know a guy who will not try any food he has never tried before. It's odd, I know. But I am sure that if he did, he would develop a taste for some of those foods.

Now you are moving the goalposts.

Is it your position that sexual orientation is a choice? Is it for you? Can you change your sexual orientation for the next three days?

 

[Davian]

We are all hardwired not to do such things as rape, hurt kids, and even steal, but it isn't enough.

I do not know what you mean by "hardwired". People still do this stuff.

That is why we have law. Law is an extension of a societies ethics imposed on it's populace. It shows what is good, and what is wrong. Without law anyone can do anything.

I asked, what are these "absolute" morals that you allude to?

 

[Davian]

Well, I view the laws as an extension of God's will. While we are subject to them, we can act on them to get different results.

Perpetual motion machines work just fine if "God" "wills" it so. How convenient.

How do you know this?

 

[oi_antz]

What are you implying when you say "except patterns in study of twins"? Do you not accept twin studies as a valid tool for the study of the absolute and relative importance of environmental and genetic influences on individuals?

Not without understanding why I should. As I said, it raises questions, and I do not straight away make assumptions that trends indicate reliable behaviours. That would be shonky science. But I am not suggesting this is what happened, I am asking for more information so I can find the understanding I need. You may choose to believe their findings without having the degree of understanding I require, you have the right to make that decision.

The experts have divided opinions because this is science. Unlike religion, they do not declare that they have the truth. The experts have divided opinions on the theory of evolution, but it does not invalidate the data or the overall theory.

This information you produced does read like a declaration of truth. What you say here does not describe what this person believes about the certainty of their belief. Is that a "no" then? This information is not reliable information and it only claims to be?

Now you are moving the goalposts.

At this, I think you might have gotten a different idea than I have intended. I might have done what LostMarbels has done. Would you like to seek to clarify your understanding of it?

Is it your position that sexual orientation is a choice? Is it for you? Can you change your sexual orientation for the next three days?

No, it would take me more than three days to change that, at this time.

 

[oi_antz]

We are all hardwired not to do such things as rape, hurt kids, and even steal, but it isn't enough. That is why we have law. Law is an extension of a societies ethics imposed on it's populace. It shows what is good, and what is wrong. Without law anyone can do anything.

Are we hard wired to not step on snails?

 

[Davian]

Not without understanding why I should.

As I have said in these forums before, I am not here to champion science.

As I said, it raises questions, and I do not straight away make assumptions that trends indicate reliable behaviours. That would be shonky science. But I am not suggesting this is what happened, I am asking for more information so I can find the understanding I need. You may choose to believe their findings without having the degree of understanding I require, you have the right to make that decision.

This information you produced does read like a declaration of truth. What you say here does not describe what this person believes about the certainty of their belief. Is that a "no" then? This information is not reliable information and it only claims to be?

I will leave that for you to explore. A few posts on an internet discussion board do not a science lesson make.

At this, I think you might have gotten a different idea than I have intended. I might have done what LostMarbels has done. Would you like to seek to clarify your understanding of it?

No.

No, it would take me more than three days to change that, at this time.

Then it would appear that we agree that sexual orientation is not a choice. That was the only point I was attempting to make.

 

[Davian]

We are all hardwired not to do such things as rape, hurt kids, and even steal, but it isn't enough. That is why we have law. Law is an extension of a societies ethics imposed on it's populace. It shows what is good, and what is wrong. Without law anyone can do anything.

The fail safe is law.

Rom 4:15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.
Rom 5:13 For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

Without law there is no set standard as to what is right, or wrong, and nothing to be held accountable to. Some may feel it to be perfectly acceptable to murder women for example. Without a set standard this individual would have nothing to hold him accountable of his actions. He would be right in his own actions, not being accountable to law. Also this individual may not have any moral issues with murdering people, and could find it morally acceptable. So law imposes a set standard of morals on this person by deeming his morals incorrect.

You mention accountability. Is there any action that is not forgivable, according to your beliefs?

 

[oi_antz]

No.

Then it would appear that we agree that sexual orientation is not a choice. That was the only point I was attempting to make.

This confirms that I cannot take you seriously. We don't agree, and you have decided to not seek to understand what I have said. Please remember to explain why I should engage with you next time, as I probably will not want to waste my time.

 

[Davian]

This confirms that I cannot take you seriously. We don't agree, and you have decided to not seek to understand what I have said. Please remember to explain why I should engage with you next time, as I probably will not want to waste my time.

Did not you yourself testify that you could not simply choose to change your sexual orientation?

 

[oi_antz]

Did not you yourself testify that you could not simply choose to change your sexual orientation?

Yep. I even thought more afterward, I don't even know whether I am capable of doing it effectively.

 

[Davian]

Yep. I even thought more afterward, I don't even know whether I am capable of doing it effectively.

For you then, sexual orientation is not a choice?

 

[oi_antz]

For you then, sexual orientation is not a choice?

I reckon all beliefs are a result of choices. Yes, and I believe that the last time my sexual orientation changed was a result of a choice. But not as a choice made to change my sexual orientation. This is why I said I don't know whether I can prescribe a course of experiences that will effectively do that, while also saying that I have experienced it happening.

 

[Davian]

I reckon all beliefs are a result of choices.

Ultimately meaningless. If I choose to live a small, windowless box, with no outside contact with the world, it will affect most, if not all of my beliefs. But, the subject was sexual orientation, not beliefs.

Yes, and I believe that the last time my sexual orientation changed was a result of a choice.

When was that? As a teenager, or an adult?

But not as a choice made to change my sexual orientation.

Tricky. What was this choice again?

This is why I said I don't know whether I can prescribe a course of experiences that will effectively do that, while also saying that I have experienced it happening.

Then you are maintaining that sexual orientation is a choice, just not in any way that you can demonstrate, or accomplish at this time, even for yourself?

 

[oi_antz]

Ultimately meaningless. If I choose to live a small, windowless box, with no outside contact with the world, it will affect most, if not all of my beliefs. But, the subject was sexual orientation, not beliefs.

Can you please explain why you think these are different things?

When was that? As a teenager, or an adult?

I can't accurately remember whether two or three years ago, it followed shortly after reconciling with Jesus.

Tricky. What was this choice again?

I allowed myself to love others for who they are, instead of projecting my pains on them due to a matching stereotype. It was quite a noticeable change, probably something that not many people experience, and certainly something that could not go unnoticed.

About this, what of those days where someone is just not in the mood to feel attracted at all? I am wondering if we have a basic difference in understanding of what is really going on inside of us, yet we assume we are speaking about the same thing.

Then you are maintaining that sexual orientation is a choice, just not in any way that you can demonstrate, or accomplish at this time, even for yourself?

I said earlier, it is about being comfortable with it, and described as a sense of taste. Yes, we can make choices that lead us to become comfortable or uncomfortable with those ideas. What about a guy who likes bondage fantasy? Do you think he did not decide to allow himself to become comfortable with that rather than deciding to become uncomfortable with it?

I don't have necessary skills in psychology to prescribe a course of experiences that will produce a change in comfort about how I view human beauty. Not saying I cannot do it by fluke or study to acquire necessary skills if necessary, only I think three days is not a possible assignment for me at this time.

 

[Davian]

Can you please explain why you think these are different things?

I can't accurately remember whether two or three years ago, it followed shortly after reconciling with Jesus.

I allowed myself to love others for who they are, instead of projecting my pains on them due to a matching stereotype. It was quite a noticeable change, probably something that not many people experience, and certainly something that could not go unnoticed.

About this, what of those days where someone is just not in the mood to feel attracted at all? I am wondering if we have a basic difference in understanding of what is really going on inside of us, yet we assume we are speaking about the same thing.

I said earlier, it is about being comfortable with it, and described as a sense of taste. Yes, we can make choices that lead us to become comfortable or uncomfortable with those ideas. What about a guy who likes bondage fantasy? Do you think he did not decide to allow himself to become comfortable with that rather than deciding to become uncomfortable with it?

I don't have necessary skills in psychology to prescribe a course of experiences that will produce a change in comfort about how I view human beauty. Not saying I cannot do it by fluke or study to acquire necessary skills if necessary, only I think three days is not a possible assignment for me at this time.

I did not say to change over three days, I said for the next three days. Does it take you more than three days to decide what to have for breakfast?

 

[LostMarbels]

Then it would appear that we agree that sexual orientation is not a choice. That was the only point I was attempting to make.

Go to prison. Many perfectly heterosexual people chose to have sex simply because they want the relationship. Especially in female camps where it is regular practice to for same sex families with a defined Mom, Dad, and kids. When they get out they stay "straight".