0
   

Is homosexuality circumstancial or biological?

 
 
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Apr, 2010 07:19 pm
@polpol,
polpol;157692 wrote:
So if homosexuality is circumstancial and biological, it is just like all other human traits and I think Sometime Sun made it quite clear. Thank you Sometime Sun and Pepijn I learned something. Correct me if I am wrong but the way you present it, we understand that heteros experience homosexuality at some point in their lives, then they decide what they want?



I would not think that this is completely true but I could always be wrong. Some people are born gay and are only attractive to the same sex and then some people have a change in what sex they prefer. I see this first example as completely biology and the second to be biology and psychology but to be honest I think it may be all biology if they have a sexual preference.Smile If I am not mistaken a mad scientist could create a gay or a hermorphadite if he/she injected a hormone in a pregnant woman.
The baby would have a biology and psychology diferent than its siblings, at least this has been done in mice:detective: I hope that this does not offend people as I have love ones that are gay but myself I am not.
Leonard
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Apr, 2010 07:23 pm
@polpol,
polpol;157624 wrote:
I always wondered, where does the term "gay" come from, sounds better than "sodomites" as homos were called in Louis X1V (? the sun king) times.


The definition of gay as cheery or lighthearted has been changed since the 17th century to refer to indulgent or pleasure-seeking individuals. The term to 'gay it' was a euphemism for copulation as well, giving the word a sexual meaning. I'm not sure how it led to the modern definition of 'gay', but it's been used this way since the 1950s.
0 Replies
 
HexHammer
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Apr, 2010 07:49 pm
@reasoning logic,
reasoning logic;157708 wrote:
I would not think that this is completely true but I could always be wrong. Some people are born gay and are only attractive to the same sex and then some people have a change in what sex they prefer. I see this first example as completely biology and the second to be biology and psychology but to be honest I think it may be all biology if they have a sexual preference.Smile If I am not mistaken a mad scientist could create a gay or a hermorphadite if he/she injected a hormone in a pregnant woman.
The baby would have a biology and psychology diferent than its siblings, at least this has been done in mice:detective: I hope that this does not offend people as I have love ones that are gay but myself I am not.
Hormone treatmen doesn't do much to the preception of mind. There has been many cases with attempted hormone treatmen in USA for homosexuality, but utterly failed.
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Apr, 2010 08:09 pm
@HexHammer,
HexHammer;157716 wrote:
Hormone treatmen doesn't do much to the preception of mind. There has been many cases with attempted hormone treatmen in USA for homosexuality, but utterly failed.


It is the hormone level in the pregnant mother that can have an effect on the sexualaity of the offspring. Too much of a good thing [hormone] can cause a hermorphadite and a neurobiological change.Smile
HexHammer
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Apr, 2010 09:06 pm
@reasoning logic,
reasoning logic;157720 wrote:
It is the hormone level in the pregnant mother that can have an effect on the sexualaity of the offspring. Too much of a good thing [hormone] can cause a hermorphadite and a neurobiological change.Smile
Yes and no.
Body and mind are 2 independandt things. Just because you are a hermaphrodite you can still be "hetro" or "homosexual/bisexual"
Grayshepherd
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Apr, 2010 10:57 pm
@HexHammer,
The issue is speculation as to the cause of homosexuality, and perhaps as to whether or not it is avoidable. But homosexuality is just a word to more accurately describe a particular type of attraction.

So a better question is what causes beings of the same sex to be attracted to one another. And at what level does that attraction become homosexual?

Attraction is both mental and physical, and in the case of homosexuality the two are closely linked. At first there is a physical attraction, but this is the same with heterosexual attraction. And after the initial physical attraction an emotional attraction is formed, which is also formed in heterosexual relationships.

So the real question is 'what causes the initial physical attraction?' Regardless of the reasoning it can be assumed that the homosexual in question shares character traits more similar to that of the opposite sex, which is why that individual is more interested in a member of their own sex.

So what events would cause an individual to poses qualities more common in the opposite sex? Both environmental trends as well as genetics can cause individuals to have adapted behavior. And depending on the amount of each could lead a person to more closely relate with the opposite sex.

By associating more with the opposite sex the individual would also be more prone to desire qualities in a partner that the opposite sex looks for, in their case their own sex. And thus there is a homosexual attraction.

Trying to define what is and is not homosexual is a measurement that is totally based on opinion. So while an action may be judged as homosexual the only absolute way to know the sexual orientation of someone is to ask and be given an honest answer. All this is meant to indicate is, that proclamation of homosexuality by anyone other than the individual in question can be voided based on the premise of possible misinterpretation.

So sexuality in general is determined based on a combination of both environmental and genetic factors, and is as optional as asking a straight individual to alter his opinion of sexual orientation bases on their own environmental and genetic experiences. And the level at which an individual can be definitively proven homosexual is only with their own truthful admittance.
Pepijn Sweep
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Apr, 2010 02:17 am
@Grayshepherd,
Would some-one lie and say he is 100 % homosexual ? Would some-one lie and say he is 100 % heterosexual ? Apart from the Taboo it's nice to love An-Other. I am attracked to men & woman but don't engage in physical contact. I have a good relationship and am gay with that.
wayne
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Apr, 2010 02:28 am
@Pepijn Sweep,
Pepijn Sweep;157841 wrote:
Would some-one lie and say he is 100 % homosexual ? Would some-one lie and say he is 100 % heterosexual ? Apart from the Taboo it's nice to love An-Other. I am attracked to men & woman but don't engage in physical contact. I have a good relationship and am gay with that.


The taboo really complicates the issue. When I was in high school the taboo and homophobia had a great influence on my beliefs, since that time I have grown a great deal ( thank god ). My understanding today is much better.
0 Replies
 
Ali phil
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Apr, 2010 04:24 am
@Ali phil,
1 in 5 New Zealanders have had a 'gay' experience. Yet only 10% is accualy homosexual. So perhaps it is somthing you have a courosity for and IF you try it you decide weather its for you or not.
What ever it is. Homosexuals are very cool and most are the same as hetrosexuals (:
xris
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Apr, 2010 04:42 am
@Ali phil,
Im still bemused by the idea of homosexuality. Why is there role playing in a homosexual relation? In the main one plays the female role submissive and the other the male dominant role, this happens with lesbians or male homosexuals. Would a lesbian find me attractive if I removed my male bits? Would a male homosexual loose interest in me if i did? What has our appendage to do with sexual attraction?

I can understand the close friendship that same sex couples may develop but not the sexual desire. I'm not anti homosexual , just bemused.
0 Replies
 
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Apr, 2010 05:11 am
@HexHammer,
HexHammer;157740 wrote:
Yes and no.
Body and mind are 2 independandt things. Just because you are a hermaphrodite you can still be "hetro" or "homosexual/bisexual"

Yes I do see your point. I am new to all of this but I have been studying different points of views about all of this. I find the work of this neurophilosopher [Patricia Churchland] to be very interesting. She speaks about homosexuality in some of her other fine work
YouTube - Patricia Churchland on Neurophilosophy:detective:
xris
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Apr, 2010 05:34 am
@reasoning logic,
Bit strange how she admires a non dogmatic open minded dalai lama but proposes a dogmatic view of science.
0 Replies
 
HexHammer
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Apr, 2010 06:20 am
@reasoning logic,
reasoning logic;157875 wrote:
Patricia Churchland on Neurophilosophy
It was a long cosy chitchatter, not really a sientific informative interview.

She clearly didn't really have anything to say.
William
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Apr, 2010 06:21 am
@Ali phil,
Ali;157018 wrote:
I've heard many causes of sexuality, one being that the woman can produce more of a chemical in the womb which gives the child for femininity. I've also heard the wacky, that eating tinned pineapple exposes you to a chemacal which can also cause you to be more feminin, not too sure about that :/

Would be interested on your opinions even more on the facts you could come up with please post (:


Hello Ali you bring up a very touchy subject and an extremely "sticky" one. If you don't mind, solely an opinion, I will address the title of your initial query, I will offer my thoughts as they are now.

I don't know about a chemical in the womb, but you can bet what that child is "exposed" to in the womb has something to do with it. We don't know and we don't remember what life was like there and it can be said life sure as hell could be better there. Having a loving father present for a child to hear and a loving mother and her voice and everything else involve with that time has everything to do with it. And it's about harmony, serenity and comfort in those surroundings and what that child "senses" from "his/her" "creators". The Mother and the Father created those conditions that allowed that new life to form. Always remember when you envision the creation of life the similarities of a "long tailed" extraterrestrial entity penetrating the Earth as a "long tailed" sperm penetrating the egg!!!!!! They are identical.

What life is like there afterward those two "impregnations" are identical.
What the earth does is mirrored in what the WE do. For the time being, let's just leave it there.

A child (those little things that matter) cannot be created any other way and god help us if we ever find a way to circumvent that universal truth. What a universal "lie" that would be. We don't understand all that is that is that child or new creation. We think WE created that child, just as God created the Earth and it is indeed "NEW" when it is not. It is just a part of a universal continuum and an extremely important part of that continuum; we will not continue without it. Now when I say "IT", imagine "IT" is God, and he is "IT", he's been "tagged", ha, it's his turn. The thing is, is you don't tag him, he tags you, ha! More later on this. It is rapturous! Hmmm! You'll know when he is doing that, they are called "chill bumps" as I have offered in another thread about "IT" and what it is.

Now back to the subject at hand.

If that child is disturb in that rather helpless state in the womb, there will be consequences that will plague that child for the rest of his life. One thing that child needs is the feel and sounds of contentment from both those responsible for his being. BOTH!!!!!!!

Ha, had I known at that state of my life the situation of the world, you couldn't have pried me out with a crowbar, ha! I have always wondered how it would have changed my life had it been practiced what I, what you might call, preach today?

Same sex sexuality is about dominance/competitiveness, misunderstood desire/wants, and the master/slave reality we are now living in and have always lived in; or survived in might be a better way of saying it. When we fully understand the man/woman universal paradigm that brings life into this world, it will not only eliminate homosexuality but a hell of a lot of other problems created from those misunderstandings.

Now let's go back to the ancients; in particular the Greeks will do for the time being and the word "Oikos"; house/household/family and what that meant and what it is supposed to mean and man's culpability in his assumptions or his supreme autonomy. That assumption is what is wrong and why all the strife, bloodshed. Not giving woman the recognition she certainly deserves. Just like the Earth. We, man, rape and pillage "her" too.

It is the same as a city, state, nation and the Earth. Our house, our family that begins with a man and a woman in harmony that bring life into this world. Without a man and a woman there would be no life in that world or rather than man or woman we can say male and female and the union of the two. That's why I say it is universal; there are NO other alternatives. The sperm uniting with the egg. That's when life continues. Not begins; we don't know when that started or how long ago it was that started.

By misunderstanding the relationship between man and woman would cause a decay in the city/state/nation/world. Or THE END. There is no life whatsoever that can ever come from homosexuality. NONE. It decays life. Homosexuality is but one of the man-infestions, there are many more than that because of his "assumed autonomous dominance". It can lead to sado-masochistic (self punishment). Man punishes man and sodomy does "HURT" and so do wars. Ever thought about when we experience pain in one of those "pointing fingers" the first thing we to is put it into our mouth and "suck on it", ha! "Suck it up, be a man!" Yeah, right, hmmm?

I have given this much thought an it all comes down to rather than heterosexuals being afraid of gay men, it is more reasonable to conclude that anyone who has a fear, it is that of a man of a woman when there is a very strong male influence assumed by those women in his formative, early years or there is no male influence what so ever or a very weak one if there is one at all. Not "macho", that's bad too. It's all about dominance/master/slave and all that truly does SUCK. Pardon the pun. Man will revert back to his infant state and suck on anything and a good indication of this is when they begin sucking on their own thumb. Girls will do that to when exposed to the same conditions. Domination by either is a no win proposition.

In a single parent scenario when one of the biological "creators" is missing or in a role that juxtaposes those innate roles into one, the child will subsequently try and "fix it" in such a way that makes sense to "that child". It is a lack and causes a depravity. These 'fixes' can cause all sorts of scenarios, homosexuality is just one of them.

When a young boy does not receive the nurturing and care from a male in his very young years, he will always seek that. He needs both, this "mother and Father" and the love from both and I don't mean "sexually". Dare I mention it, could it be love?

The mother is the girls role model and the father is the boys and when boys and girls get the love and attention from both in those early stages of life, homosexuality would have never existed. One sex dominance sucks in all scenarios. Men will try to prove they are men willing to go to war to prove it. Misunderstanding the male/female universal paradigm is primarily man's fault not woman's. Each will do what they have to do to survive and the exchanging of their innate roles is by far the most depraved and only makes it worse. Thank god there is, for the most part, an understanding of the "family" and what IT should be.

When a Mother is the dominate figure in a young boys life, she becomes "his role model", period. He will follow her lead and try to emulate her. That's not hard to understand; he wants to be like her so he will not get into trouble and what some women cater to them. Fathers who are in a more submissive role has the same effect. The boy will follow the role of the stronger of the two. These men were boys who where "afraid" of their mothers. And on the same token, those boys who are afraid of their fathers create problems too.

This misunderstanding goes back thousands of years into antiquity and it's always been wrong! Now universally that can be said to be just yesterday as it pertains to just how far 'we' do go back. It could be we have destroyed ourselves before, let's hope we don't do it again.

Now let's go back to "IT". Man will effort to prove his masculinity or that god in him, that life, that sperm, that life in him that is IT. that life that brings life to woman and he shouldn't have to as indicated by those extremes; war being the worst. A sado-masochistic punishment of US causing a lot of innocents to perish. Yep, man has created a whole bunch of problems and it started with his misunderstanding of woman. Haven't you ever heard it's "not nice to fool with "Mother Nature". If we only knew, in all respects, as it pertains to the heavens and the earth. Hmmm! IT would be something, wouldn't IT. Something is surely better than nothing, isn't IT. IT IS.

Let me say sexual expression in the public domain should only be that of the universal paradigm of a man and woman and limited to small expressions such as holding hands, the arm around the waist and peck on the cheek. I will not argue, that is to be allowed. Many will offer that this is an infringement of an expression of freedom of speech for other "sexual lifestyles", and that, to me, is a crock of sh*t. Pardon that expression, please.

That means all that is considered the public domain and that's a lot. Sexual expressions that are any more than that should remain private in one's private domain and that is where they should stay. That is no one else's "affair" unless what goes on there ventures into public domain, then it becomes all our affair. There is entirely too much to consider regarding what should be public and what should be private to elaborate more here. There should be no conflict in either, but that is not what IT is at the moment.

Let me offer that I feel it is a lot more than what is biological and what is circumstantial. The word itself means definitively "one sex" which means an alienation of the other of the two universal paradigms. What causes this alienation can be any number of things; but before we will ever know that we must effort to understand that male/female universal paradigm. If we do eventually understand that, homosexuality will in and of itself...............begone along with all the other "things" created by such an autonomous man including war. To imagine those consequences is much to horrible to imagine what they might be if WE don't effort to understand collectively what that universal paradigm represents and all that IT IS.

William
0 Replies
 
Pyrrho
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Apr, 2010 10:30 am
@jgweed,
jgweed;157072 wrote:
It might be the case that it is not a case of either/or, but that for a high number of instances, the causes of homosexuality in either gender are biological in origin (genetic, perhaps). Whether either satisfactorily accounts for what appears to be a very wide spectrum of sexual preferences, with bisexuality somewhere in the centre, is open, primarily because little is known about the area (sampling until very recent times is open to criticism).


I think a significant percentage of people are bisexual, but many may identify as either heterosexual or homosexual due to social circumstances. (Many people have very strong feelings that people should have a preference and stick to that preference, though why they feel that way is not entirely clear to me. Here is an example of people not being "gay enough", so there is pressure to pretend to be homosexual instead of bisexual in some circumstances; I presume all of you can think of motives to pretend to be heterosexual when one is not.) And obviously, a bisexual person could act like a heterosexual or homosexual person if he or she wanted to do so. It would also explain how it could be that whole societies have been bisexual, as, for example, the ancient Greeks. And it would also fit in with the idea that some people have that it is a matter of "choice", and with the idea that "everyone experiments" with alternatives (which, however, is false).

From an evolutionary perspective, I see no disadvantage to being bisexual. Having sex more than necessary does not seem to be harmful, and may be useful in creating and maintaining social bonds which can be helpful for survival. That said, I don't think everyone is bisexual. But I think a lot more people are than are going to answer that way in a poll, for reasons already stated.
0 Replies
 
platorepublic
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Apr, 2010 10:54 am
@polpol,
polpol;157308 wrote:
As a woman, I enjoy the friendship of homosexual men, but not homosexual women who make me feel just like with macho men. Where I live, same sex marriages are well accepted. Homosexuality is a good contraceptive method and there is a link between overpopulation and homosexuality among many species. On the other hand, I am sad when I see a handsome, healthy and intelligeant person, not reproduce, it's bad for the species. The Greeks practised homosexuality (sodomy and pedophily), but not exclusively, they would still marry to reproduce, homosexuality was just a way to maximise pleasure. Anyways, we must be respectful of homosexuals as they participate in our society and contribute in many ways in making this world better, I'm not sure we would have all this horrible wars had we let homosexuals decide!

OMG I love Canadian diamonds too!

---------- Post added 04-29-2010 at 05:57 PM ----------

William;157895 wrote:
Hello Ali you bring up a very touchy subject and an extremely "sticky" one. If you don't mind, solely an opinion, I will address the title of your initial query, I will offer my thoughts as they are now.

I don't know about a chemical in the womb, but you can bet what that child is "exposed" to in the womb has something to do with it. We don't know and we don't remember what life was like there and it can be said life sure as hell could be better there. Having a loving father present for a child to hear and a loving mother and her voice and everything else involve with that time has everything to do with it. And it's about harmony, serenity and comfort in those surroundings and what that child "senses" from "his/her" "creators". The Mother and the Father created those conditions that allowed that new life to form. Always remember when you envision the creation of life the similarities of a "long tailed" extraterrestrial entity penetrating the Earth as a "long tailed" sperm penetrating the egg!!!!!! They are identical.

What life is like there afterward those two "impregnations" are identical.
What the earth does is mirrored in what the WE do. For the time being, let's just leave it there.

A child (those little things that matter) cannot be created any other way and god help us if we ever find a way to circumvent that universal truth. What a universal "lie" that would be. We don't understand all that is that is that child or new creation. We think WE created that child, just as God created the Earth and it is indeed "NEW" when it is not. It is just a part of a universal continuum and an extremely important part of that continuum; we will not continue without it. Now when I say "IT", imagine "IT" is God, and he is "IT", he's been "tagged", ha, it's his turn. The thing is, is you don't tag him, he tags you, ha! More later on this. It is rapturous! Hmmm! You'll know when he is doing that, they are called "chill bumps" as I have offered in another thread about "IT" and what it is.

Now back to the subject at hand.

If that child is disturb in that rather helpless state in the womb, there will be consequences that will plague that child for the rest of his life. One thing that child needs is the feel and sounds of contentment from both those responsible for his being. BOTH!!!!!!!

Ha, had I known at that state of my life the situation of the world, you couldn't have pried me out with a crowbar, ha! I have always wondered how it would have changed my life had it been practiced what I, what you might call, preach today?

Same sex sexuality is about dominance/competitiveness, misunderstood desire/wants, and the master/slave reality we are now living in and have always lived in; or survived in might be a better way of saying it. When we fully understand the man/woman universal paradigm that brings life into this world, it will not only eliminate homosexuality but a hell of a lot of other problems created from those misunderstandings.

Now let's go back to the ancients; in particular the Greeks will do for the time being and the word "Oikos"; house/household/family and what that meant and what it is supposed to mean and man's culpability in his assumptions or his supreme autonomy. That assumption is what is wrong and why all the strife, bloodshed. Not giving woman the recognition she certainly deserves. Just like the Earth. We, man, rape and pillage "her" too.

It is the same as a city, state, nation and the Earth. Our house, our family that begins with a man and a woman in harmony that bring life into this world. Without a man and a woman there would be no life in that world or rather than man or woman we can say male and female and the union of the two. That's why I say it is universal; there are NO other alternatives. The sperm uniting with the egg. That's when life continues. Not begins; we don't know when that started or how long ago it was that started.

By misunderstanding the relationship between man and woman would cause a decay in the city/state/nation/world. Or THE END. There is no life whatsoever that can ever come from homosexuality. NONE. It decays life. Homosexuality is but one of the man-infestions, there are many more than that because of his "assumed autonomous dominance". It can lead to sado-masochistic (self punishment). Man punishes man and sodomy does "HURT" and so do wars. Ever thought about when we experience pain in one of those "pointing fingers" the first thing we to is put it into our mouth and "suck on it", ha! "Suck it up, be a man!" Yeah, right, hmmm?

I have given this much thought an it all comes down to rather than heterosexuals being afraid of gay men, it is more reasonable to conclude that anyone who has a fear, it is that of a man of a woman when there is a very strong male influence assumed by those women in his formative, early years or there is no male influence what so ever or a very weak one if there is one at all. Not "macho", that's bad too. It's all about dominance/master/slave and all that truly does SUCK. Pardon the pun. Man will revert back to his infant state and suck on anything and a good indication of this is when they begin sucking on their own thumb. Girls will do that to when exposed to the same conditions. Domination by either is a no win proposition.

In a single parent scenario when one of the biological "creators" is missing or in a role that juxtaposes those innate roles into one, the child will subsequently try and "fix it" in such a way that makes sense to "that child". It is a lack and causes a depravity. These 'fixes' can cause all sorts of scenarios, homosexuality is just one of them.

When a young boy does not receive the nurturing and care from a male in his very young years, he will always seek that. He needs both, this "mother and Father" and the love from both and I don't mean "sexually". Dare I mention it, could it be love?

The mother is the girls role model and the father is the boys and when boys and girls get the love and attention from both in those early stages of life, homosexuality would have never existed. One sex dominance sucks in all scenarios. Men will try to prove they are men willing to go to war to prove it. Misunderstanding the male/female universal paradigm is primarily man's fault not woman's. Each will do what they have to do to survive and the exchanging of their innate roles is by far the most depraved and only makes it worse. Thank god there is, for the most part, an understanding of the "family" and what IT should be.

When a Mother is the dominate figure in a young boys life, she becomes "his role model", period. He will follow her lead and try to emulate her. That's not hard to understand; he wants to be like her so he will not get into trouble and what some women cater to them. Fathers who are in a more submissive role has the same effect. The boy will follow the role of the stronger of the two. These men were boys who where "afraid" of their mothers. And on the same token, those boys who are afraid of their fathers create problems too.

This misunderstanding goes back thousands of years into antiquity and it's always been wrong! Now universally that can be said to be just yesterday as it pertains to just how far 'we' do go back. It could be we have destroyed ourselves before, let's hope we don't do it again.

Now let's go back to "IT". Man will effort to prove his masculinity or that god in him, that life, that sperm, that life in him that is IT. that life that brings life to woman and he shouldn't have to as indicated by those extremes; war being the worst. A sado-masochistic punishment of US causing a lot of innocents to perish. Yep, man has created a whole bunch of problems and it started with his misunderstanding of woman. Haven't you ever heard it's "not nice to fool with "Mother Nature". If we only knew, in all respects, as it pertains to the heavens and the earth. Hmmm! IT would be something, wouldn't IT. Something is surely better than nothing, isn't IT. IT IS.

Let me say sexual expression in the public domain should only be that of the universal paradigm of a man and woman and limited to small expressions such as holding hands, the arm around the waist and peck on the cheek. I will not argue, that is to be allowed. Many will offer that this is an infringement of an expression of freedom of speech for other "sexual lifestyles", and that, to me, is a crock of sh*t. Pardon that expression, please.

That means all that is considered the public domain and that's a lot. Sexual expressions that are any more than that should remain private in one's private domain and that is where they should stay. That is no one else's "affair" unless what goes on there ventures into public domain, then it becomes all our affair. There is entirely too much to consider regarding what should be public and what should be private to elaborate more here. There should be no conflict in either, but that is not what IT is at the moment.

Let me offer that I feel it is a lot more than what is biological and what is circumstantial. The word itself means definitively "one sex" which means an alienation of the other of the two universal paradigms. What causes this alienation can be any number of things; but before we will ever know that we must effort to understand that male/female universal paradigm. If we do eventually understand that, homosexuality will in and of itself...............begone along with all the other "things" created by such an autonomous man including war. To imagine those consequences is much to horrible to imagine what they might be if WE don't effort to understand collectively what that universal paradigm represents and all that IT IS.

William

What you say is totally rubbish is my opinion.

What exactly are you trying to say?
0 Replies
 
polpol
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Apr, 2010 05:44 pm
@Ali phil,
Dear Ali, I just remembered something that might be of interest to you regarding gender and the question you raise. In Inuit traditional culture, (up till the 70's ? ), it was possible to raise a boy from birth to puberty-adolescence as a girl. Inuit beleaved in re-incarnation and when a child was born, they would figure out who he was, whose incarnation he or she was notwithstanding his biological sexual identity. A boy who was beleaved to be the incarnation of some granny was raised as he was "granny" but what is surprising is that once the boy came to the age when the other girls became women, he had to switch in becoming a man, capable of acting as such. Very interesting, isn't it?
0 Replies
 
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Apr, 2010 06:35 pm
@HexHammer,
xris;157883 wrote:
Bit strange how she admires a non dogmatic open minded dalai lama but proposes a dogmatic view of science.

She seems to be very open minded to me, but I do realize that she is human and can be wrong at times. Cant we all be? If you will listen to more of what she has to say you will see that she does not think that she knows it all.

HexHammer;157894 wrote:
It was a long cosy chitchatter, not really a sientific informative interview.

She clearly didn't really have anything to say.


I think that HexHammer is very smart after reading many of his post. [now find a needle and pop that ego bubble] but if I took one of your post and used it as a example of how I think that you are interesting, there may be some people that think you are some what stupid.
Whithout reading more about your thoughts, They are making a poor evaluation in my opinion.

Yes I am sure that she may come across some what squeeky and cosy but give her a chance and listen to some of her other work before making a decision about her. I hope that people give you the same chance.
This is her talking about reasoning, [Start with this Part 4] I would suggest all of them:detective:YouTube - Part 4 - Pat Churchland at Beyond Belief: Enlightenment 2.0
HexHammer
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Apr, 2010 09:22 pm
@reasoning logic,
reasoning logic;158135 wrote:
I think that HexHammer is very smart after reading many of his post. [now find a needle and pop that ego bubble] but if I took one of your post and used it as a example of how I think that you are interesting, there may be some people that think you are some what stupid.
Whithout reading more about your thoughts, They are making a poor evaluation in my opinion.
First you say I'm intelligent, then you say I'm stupid, please make up your mind. And please provide some examples of why you think I'm stupid and make a poor example of describing anything.

In the last vid, she covers an interesting topic, but explains it in a very clumbsy way. I might resort to describing her as a low ranged philosopher/professor.
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Apr, 2010 12:25 am
@HexHammer,
HexHammer;158202 wrote:
First you say I'm intelligent, then you say I'm stupid, please make up your mind. And please provide some examples of why you think I'm stupid and make a poor example of describing anything.

In the last vid, she covers an interesting topic, but explains it in a very clumbsy way. I might resort to describing her as a low ranged philosopher/professor.


'Wow' I nead to learn how to be more clear about what I am saying, let me try again.
Sorry about that I would never call anyone stupid as I would find a different way to interact with people that I disagree with.

I think that HexHammer is very smart after reading many of his post. [now find a needle and pop that ego bubble] but if I took one of your post and used it as a example of how I think that you are interesting, there may be some people that may disagree with me and think you are some what stupid.
Someone that would disagree with me by only reading one of your post and then come to such a conclusion, I would think that they do not have enough info about HexHammer to make such a bold claim
Whithout reading more about your thoughts, They are making a poor evaluation in my opinion.
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 04/24/2024 at 07:28:12