Also, I did not choose to have ADD, be lazy, be interested in sub cultures, be raised by a Jewish family, enjoy art work, enjoy video games, become addicted to Muds, or any other aspect of my personality. However, I have chosen how I live with those aspects of my life, quit Muds for over a year untill I understood that school comes before play, and did many other hard but worthwhile things to slowly move me away from the traits I had towards the traits I have.

Just because you were born with predispositions does not mean you don't have the power to change those views or act differently on them if you wish for the change to be made. I agree however, that there really isn't any reason for a person to change their sexual orientation these days. The governer of New Jersey had some 3 kids? I'm sure he didn't get them by having a stand in while the lights where off.

Daganev, money is just a representation.

eg. Take 1 billion dollars off Bill Gates. He can't afford to buy 500 Ferraris, or whatever. Then give that to a starving ethiopian, it doesn't mean there is suddenly going to be the food there for them to buy.

There are limited resources in the world. I'm not talking about metals, I am talking about food, water, medical products. It doesn't matter how the money is spread. Really try thinking about this. How much food would the people in your city eat? How much coca cola would it drink? Where does it all come from? Then try and imagine how much it would take to feed the other half of the world that is starving.

As for your comments on criminals and their genes. I am talking about people finding their own gender attractive. You are talking about (I assume) murderers, rapists, whatever.

Now, lets look at this. Criminals, often have not developed a strong sense of empathy, which happens during childhood. A lack of empathy is often a symptom of autism, which is effected by genes. This would result in people suffering mild autism to be more likely to become criminals.

They have little empathy, therefore they are more likely to commit a crime against another person.

Homosexuality, similar to autism is the root source. Then you have desire for the same gender (akin to the lack of sympathy in that it follows). Finally you have the sexual act itself, (which you are comparing to the criminal act, as they are both the one thing that can be decided in each of these situations).

The difference is, homosexual acts are not illegal, and do not effect others.

Rape is a crime of anger and power, not sexual attraction =)

I don't know who said this, but just a general question. I was unable to form valid points?

The U.S burns I think around 12 million tons of food a year to keep prices at a level that does not bankrupt farms. Yes there is a limit, but I do not think that limit is even close to being reached. In Israel for example, they have made a desert which gets less than an inch of rain each year to be the number 1 source of food for the country. If you gave those millions of dollars to people in Africa, and gave them governments that did not oppress them, then you would be able to build schools, which would lead to being able to build technologies which would lead to being able to raise food in thier area. Southern California has similarly turned its desert environment into a place to grow tons of food, and has since replaced that food with a new crop called the shopping mall.

I only use the example of criminals because it is a well studied and clear example of where society limits what they find acceptable even though genetics would imply they should not.

Homosexuals, and homosexual acts do not affect other people, assuming those people and acts live in a bubble. I just heard last night that people say that Spongebob is gay. The creators (I happen ot know one of them) denies on all possible levels that they had any intention on making Spongebob gay. Does holding hands with a male friend now entice people to ask you about your sexuality? Are cartoons made for children now given Sexual identities?

Why are we asking people who are pre adolesent to even think about what it means to have a sexual orientation? Is it really that big of a deal?

I'm not proposing that Homosexuality is a crime or should be a crime, but neither do I think its a harmless thing that you should just ignore, like weather or not I wear blue pants or black pants. But I also find it a bad argument to say that such things are not a choice, or that even if its genetic, that that means its ok. Because clearly, there are things that are genetic, that we don't say are ok or acceptable behaviours, and if you have those genes, you are informed to seek help and get treatment.

You can't rape someone unless the pipes are working.

If I understand that euphamism, I'll point out you're wrong. You can rape people with an inanimate object, working pipes have nothing to do with it.

yes, I understand that.. the refrence was to men in jails who after a long period of time take up the habbit of being releived by other men. It was an example of people changing what they became physically attracted to, even if they mentally were not.

Or if you prefer a less violent example.. Ancient greece comes to mind, where everyone who was anyone had a boy toy slave.

All I can say to you, Daganev (and please learn to spell correctly... it starts to hurt after awhile), is ask a couple simple questions:

Do you believe homosexuality is wrong?
Do you believe it goes against human nature?



Why?

Being gay and having sex with men do not have to be synonomous (sp?). Having sex with men is a choice, yes, but being truely gay is not IMO. If it were, I would choose heterosexuality in a second. I could choose not to sleep with men if I wanted to, but why should I deny an impulse I feel so strongly? The impulse makes me gay, not the choice.

Anything people do, obviously does not go against human nature.

I believe homosexual acts to be wrong for the same reason I think sleeping with a person before you are married is wrong.

Why? because I believe the power to create a human being should be reserved for such relationships where that becomes the ultimate goal.

(unfortunately for me, the majority of the world doesn't care what I think)

Again, I make no claims to alienate people who do things I don't agree with, but at the same time I would like people to recognize that they have a choice in thier actions and thier lifestyles.

I don't see Homesexuality as being a different charachter trait than the desire to read Mystery novels over Sci-fi, or a charachter trait such as humbleness or haughtiness, or having OCD or being left handed, or any other aspect of a human being.

And I will learn how to spell, when my brain allows the lessons to sink in and computers cease to have spellcheck functions.

If its the impulse that makes me who I am, then I am a tattooed, murdering, drunkard who eats nothing but pizza and icecream.

Ok, then I won't severely disagree with you

See, the key to my beliefs is quite simple: I'm a determinist. Essentially, I believe in fate. Everything is fated to be thus, and thus it is. All choice is an illusion (my beliefs on this are mathematically based).

However, I don't believe we have the capabilities of predicting said fate, on the limited data available and calculations we can make being severely limited. As thus, I deal with what capabilities I have as a human, and 'choose' things. However, choice to me is limited. When I open the fridge, and see blueberry pie, and my mouth waters, I grab the pie and eat it; whereas, if I'm sitting on the couch, and my stomach notifies me that I need sustenance, I consider what I should eat, and decide on a turkey and swiss sandwich. The first is not a choice, but merely biological impulses. The latter is a decision, of sorts.

One doesn't -choose- to be homosexual (as I didn't choose to be heterosexual); one doesn't -choose- to prefer mystery over sci-fi, that is a preference born out of one's history of reading materials (as an example, I really don't enjoy most 'classic American' literature (with few exceptions; I liked 'The Great Gatsby'); however, interests formed in my early grade school years culminated in my reading 'The Hobbit' at the age of nine, and I've been hooked on fantasy and the such ever since). When I look in a book store, I am drawn to the sci-fi/fantasy section instead of the mystery section, and that is not a choice, but an impulse.

Also, my morals are exceptionally odd.

I am not a Christian, and have not been religious since probably the age of thirteen to fourteen. However, I formed a serious set of moral beliefs from the ages of eleven to fourteen that I've always lived by:

No drugs, alcohol, etc.
No casual sex.

Simple, to me. However, through my time in my high school (www.nwmissouri.com/MASMC), I lived with 40 fellow students in my class (and in the following year, about 60+ a year younger). Different religions, different nationalities even, different moral codes (for one, one of my close friends didn't agree with marriage -at all-).

I've pretty much evolved my beliefs (and still stand by them) and do not care if my girlfriend consumes a glass of wine. It doesn't bother me in the slightest if one of my coworkers likes to smoke marijuana every once in awhile (as long as he doesn't come to work high - which has never happened). I do not force my morals onto others, at all. Makes living much easier.

Then why punish people with varying degrees of legality?

Wouldn't it make more sense to let all killers who kill their ex girlfriend or spouse live out the rest of their lives at home, since they didn't choose to murder people, it was just an impulse, and I doubt they will do it again?

People on a diet tend to see that blueberry pie, have thier mouth water, and then decide not to eat the pie because they have placed rules upon themselves that make that pie illegal.

I can understand the concept and there are numerous arguments why Choice must obviously be an illusion*, but in the end it comes down to, Why punish or reward if there is no choice?


*Such theories would include, mathmatics, quatum mechanics, divine involvement, Pananthiesm, Chemistry, Biology, Freud.. those are just the theories I know of.

In your example, murder.

Most humans who have the impulse to kill, resist that impulse (as you say, someone with a diet) - they've blocked that impulse, either through biology, or teaching.

Someone who kills (or me, who eats that blueberry pie - mmmm), does not have that impulse blocked. You can not trust that person -NOT- to kill tomorrow (as you can't trust me not to eat some more blueberry pie today, which I think I'll be doing ). So, you lock that person up as a pre-emptive measure, to keep him from killing again - obviously, this is a moral/etc. decision, but the impulse is usually to kill him in mob style - thankfully, the justice system stops such inanities. If I were on a diet, and my girlfriend saw me eating blueberry pie (mmmm), she'd get rid of the pie, as a protective measure for both of us. In the first case, you hide the person to protect society, on the other, you remove the temptation to protect the person.

Thankfully, my diet is not very restrictive, and I can have limited quantities of blueberry pie (mmmm) every day (down 9 lbs so far this month).

Thats why I made the example of murder in a case where its a person who killed his ex-girflfriend or the like. Just don't let him date and you don't have problems.

But either way, that person had no choice in the manner, its not exactly fair to punish them for things you don't have a choice in. In your case of the pie, its fine if your girlfriend took it away, but what if it was your neighbor who decided on their own that you need to be on a diet? You can't blame him for taking your pie away, because he had no choice in thinking you needed to be on a diet.

The question becomes even harder, why give grades in class? Why put effort into a class when what the Grade is going to be is allready predetermined.

You know what I find most rediculous about all the arguments about WMDs, Nuclear programs, chemical weapons, and the like? The fact that the USA has an INCONCIEVABLY large stockpile of these weapons, and they are also the only Nation to have EVER used Nuclear weapons in warfare.

You know, even if Iraq had WMDs, I didn't really care. WMDs are not things you commonly want to use, they're political devices, and they had every right to have those, North Korea is the same.

If I were given an ultimatum "Only one country in the world can have WMDs, which one would you LEAST like this to be", my answer would certainly have been the USA. America having nuclear weapons scares the bejesus out of me.

I would personally like to see the world put complete economic sanctions on the USA until it dismantles its' nuclear weapons program. Its only fair, noone has the right to have them, especially people who have proved they cannot be trusted to not use them.

America was also the first one to suggest that the world not use them after having seen what it can do.

America did not use the weapon to start a war, they used it to end a war.

When it says in your LAWS that you plan on destroying the countries around you, its a bit different than a country that has once, 50 years ago used them.

When countries stop publicly saying they plan on destroying America, then perhaps America can think about not having weapons that tend to deter such countries from attacking.

And as far as I know, most European countries are not asked to destroy their weapons for the same reasons.

On the choice beleifs, I am going to speak as a minister, and apprentice pastor real quick. So yes, this is going to be 'tainted' with christanity.

The idea that no one has a choice, to me, is the most incorrect thing I have ever heard in my life. Ants do not have a choice, they are born, eat fungus until they grow legs, then they run back and forth getting more food for more baby ants to eat, and grow to get yet more food. That is an example of no choices.

Now, we add in 'fate.' Everything is ordered long before, and long ahead of now. Everything happens because it is planed. This to me, is an excuse people use to give reason for their complete lack of a moral code, or other things they feel guilty about. It is common for a murderer to decree after he killed someone and got caught, that something made him do it.

The biggest problem in your theory I saw was that you have no choice but to obey your impluse, but you can block your impulse? That is a choice.

God gave us a free will so we would be the keepers of his creations. We were made to keep and protect all his creations on this world. Of course, free will entered here and messed up his plans. Eve made her choice, and now we live with the conclusion of that choice. We can choose to learn something from Eve, or we can choose to ignore that lesson, but the fact of the matter is, it is our choice.

Ok, end religious aspect...


Onto WMD.

I will quote President Trumen, "If I had not used the bomb, and it was later found out I had a weapon that could end the war, I would of been stoned."

Truth of the matter, our droping the bomb was a choice made for the benefit of the United States. We were at WAR with Japan, a war THEY started. No one living and fighting at that time made any secrets about they fact they cared little for what happened to Japan until they surrundered. Furthermore, the use of the bomb saved more lives, American and Japanese, then killed. Japan wasn't giving any land to anyone without everyone able to fight dieing first. Do you think the fighting would of been less bloody in Tokyo?

If we hadn't of used the bomb, there is a strong chance Japan would be nearly annhilated.

Most importantly, President Trumen made a decision to end a war that was killing hundreds of thousands of American Soliders. Considering it was a war, he acted as a Commander and Chief should. He choose to save his troops.

We do keep a stock pile of wmds, and do you want to know why? If North Korea, if India (which has threatended to use them on bordering nations.), if China, knew that they could launch a nuke without the US firing back, well most of Asia would end up kinda a glowing green.

Do you punch the guy, or his friends if you only have a small pistol and he is in a tank? Our possesion of WMDs is a deterent to those others with them who would have no problem using them. Hussein was a person who didn't give a shit about the US's WMDs, because he knew we wouldn't use them unless he did, and that we would use a conventinal strike first. He was right about the second part, just wrong about hte time frame.

Since the devolpment of the Atomic Bomb, the US has fought in Korea, Cuba (Bay of Pigs), Vietnam, Iran, Iraq, Afhganistan, and Iraq again. Not to mention countless peace keeping operations with NATO and the UN in Africa (Blackhawk Down... that was the death of American Soliders. Note, even though every nation wanted a say in the operation, only America and England sent troops. {A French General who got both massacured does not count as sending troops.}) and South America.

The United States has been the strongest opposition to South Pacific Piracy, and that has a MINOR effect on American Shiping, because most American buisness in Asia goes through Japan and Korea.

Guys, rather you like it or not, just like Europe under the Roman Empire, the world is a lot better for our helping, and even for our atomic bombs. And all those who look forward to the fall of the US, I say look to Africa, because that is what the world will be like.

One little historical point - the attack on Pearl Harbor, while a failed logical plan, was instigated by the US - Japan was dead in the water without some sort of attack, as they had no oil, no money to buy oil, at the time.

Back to choice.

Free will is an illusion. Neural synapses firing are predetermined by mechanical cause and effect, governed by the laws of mathematics and physics (note, this is my opinion - not a dogma I force others to hold).

Now, this is obviously no way to live a life - I have a moral code, and one I hold onto very strongly. I am, after all, only human, and am acting by the very mechanical actions of my highly evolved brain.

As an aside, I am agnostic, not an atheist. I do not prescribe to know if there is a god or gods or anything else out there, as such is beyond the realm of my logical understanding (however, the Bible reads as a mythological text - that isn't to say there might not be truth in it, as there may be in the Greek myths - I didn't experience the events, so I can't say).

Your mention of ants is interesting - why did the ant pick up the left piece of food rather than the right piece of food? Was that an exhibition of choice, or a purely mechanical process?

Why did the human eat the blueberry pie, instead of the cherry pie? Was that an exhibition of choice, or a purely mechanical process?