Originally Posted by JayStar
I didn't say that wasn't my opinion, clearly it's my opinion. I just said that wasn't my only opinion. I'd be like declaring Einstein a creationist because he talks about God.
Additional thoughts on the matter don't make this one any less representative of your incredibly simplistic thought processes and conclusions.
Originally Posted by JaySTar
But it does... much of quantum theory is devoted to explaining the origins of our universe.
That's not quite right, in the same way that the theory of gravity is not "devoted" to explaining the movements of planets. Regardless, none of physics more than touches on philosophical questions. To postulate that quantum mechanics somehow explains its own existence is absurd.
Originally Posted by JayStar
So it seems that these penguins have "moved on". Perhaps conclusions of an animal's sexuality can be concluded by studying penguins in captivity. If that's the case, then I suppose we can conclude the sexuality is a choice. I mean, that seems apparent here doesn't it? One of the penguins decided to move on. In other words, decided to become heterosexual after being homosexual.
I'm sorry, did you just argue that a penguin made a conscious, cognizant choice, and that therefore this supports the idea that homosexuality is a conscious, cognizant choice?
Not to mention that animals are typically bisexual, not homosexual, and that there are MANY other gay penguins.
I'll just repeat myself until you acknowledge this: Indeed, then it would be "logical" to conclude that homosexuality is not a conscious choice, since animals do not make conscious choices. As such, judging them for this, or putting some insidious label of "unnatural" on them would be both unfair and "illogical."
Oh, and consider that your entire objection for homosexuality is "it's different."
Buy TC for a great price here! http://forum.toribash.com/showthread.php?t=240345
Buy VIP and Toriprime for a great price here! http://forum.toribash.com/showthread.php?t=237249
Hey look more than two lines.
Buy VIP and Toriprime for a great price here! http://forum.toribash.com/showthread.php?t=237249
Hey look more than two lines.
It's possible to determine someone's ethnicity by looking at their genes. There are many traits that define an ethnicity which can be associated to a certain region where those traits are typical. Got nothing to do with social constructs.
Certain traits can offer certain advantages at certain activities. Someone with a black skin will beat someone with a white skin at sunbathing contests but saying that one ethnicity is better at some physical competitions such as running for genetic reasons would be somewhat stupid.
Environmental factors are very important as well. Brazil and Argentine got a good football teams because they are crazy about it, not because they have amazing football genes.
It's possible to determine if someone is of jewish descent by looking at their genes.
Jews are a people and Judaism is a religion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_studies_on_Jews
-----
Also, I like how everyone discusses whatever they want in this thread.
xd
Certain traits can offer certain advantages at certain activities. Someone with a black skin will beat someone with a white skin at sunbathing contests but saying that one ethnicity is better at some physical competitions such as running for genetic reasons would be somewhat stupid.
Environmental factors are very important as well. Brazil and Argentine got a good football teams because they are crazy about it, not because they have amazing football genes.
It's possible to determine if someone is of jewish descent by looking at their genes.
Jews are a people and Judaism is a religion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_studies_on_Jews
-----
Also, I like how everyone discusses whatever they want in this thread.
xd
Last edited by Sacrafan; May 30, 2013 at 10:08 AM.
Reason: <24 hour edit/bump
nigerian PM
Originally Posted by Boredpayne
Additional thoughts on the matter don't make this one any less representative of your incredibly simplistic thought processes and conclusions.
If I were to draw one argument that you've made and label it as your entire opinion then conclude that as simplistic, would that really be fair? All I did was offer a personal opinion that was backed by how I reached the conclusion. It's not fact, and it's most assuredly up for debate. However, I didn't think the resulting argument would be about whether or not it was my over-all opinion.
Originally Posted by Boredpayne
That's not quite right, in the same way that the theory of gravity is not "devoted" to explaining the movements of planets. Regardless, none of physics more than touches on philosophical questions. To postulate that quantum mechanics somehow explains its own existence is absurd.
Now I'm "not quite right" where as before you stated quantum physics has absolutely nothing to do with the origin of our universe, which it clearly does. Again, quantum theory contains the furthest scientific progress to explaining our existence. Philosophy may offer more theories and explanations but none of those can be backed by anything more than speculation. Where as theories in quantum mechanics are constantly revised and reviewed and support/disprove past speculation.
Originally Posted by Boredpayne
I'm sorry, did you just argue that a penguin made a conscious, cognizant choice, and that therefore this supports the idea that homosexuality is a conscious, cognizant choice?
Not to mention that animals are typically bisexual, not homosexual, and that there are MANY other gay penguins.
No. I was actually mocking your argument that because two male penguins spent time together and sat on a rock it means that homosexuality is hereditary.
If you read the article I posted, it explains how one of those penguins left it's male companion for a female. Obviously the penguin wasn't born "gay" because it ended up with a female. And, again, I don't think it made the 'choice' to be straight either. Because you're so into philosophy, I'd speculate that the penguin ended up with the male first because that's what was around at the time. They weren't offered females until after their companionship started. Eventually the penguin made the choice to mate with a female. Yes, animals can make decisions, however their decisions usually aren't based off of rational thinking. Animals decide more by instinct and emotion. The penguin had the urge to mate (like all animals) and did.
Originally Posted by Boredpayne
I'll just repeat myself until you acknowledge this: Indeed, then it would be "logical" to conclude that homosexuality is not a conscious choice, since animals do not make conscious choices. As such, judging them for this, or putting some insidious label of "unnatural" on them would be both unfair and "illogical."
It would be just as logical to conclude that homosexuality is not hereditary, since the penguin ended up with a female mate after being gay.
And on what world do animals not make conscious choices? Who's making the choices if they don't? I'd agree animals don't rationally think and make choices based off of such thinking, and act mainly on instinct and emotion. But, if they aren't making choices, why did my dog end up sitting by me 5 minutes ago? Did some superficial power animate his body and force him to go there? I believe he wanted to be pet and decided to come to a being that would provide the act.
Originally Posted by Boredpayne
Oh, and consider that your entire objection for homosexuality is "it's different."
I don't understand what/how you want me to consider...
Last edited by JayStar; May 30, 2013 at 11:15 AM.
Originally Posted by Sacrafan
It's possible to determine someone's ethnicity by looking at their genes. There are many traits that define an ethnicity which can be associated to a certain region where those traits are typical. Got nothing to do with social constructs.
Certain traits can offer certain advantages at certain activities. Someone with a black skin will beat someone with a white skin at sunbathing contests but saying that one ethnicity is better at some physical competitions such as running for genetic reasons would be somewhat stupid.
Environmental factors are very important as well. Brazil and Argentine got a good football teams because they are crazy about it, not because they have amazing football genes.
It's possible to determine if someone is of jewish descent by looking at their genes.
Jews are a people and Judaism is a religion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_studies_on_Jews
-----
Also, I like how everyone discusses whatever they want in this thread.
xd
Yet those won't tell you anything about the person's race. A native from Australia will have dark skin like a person from Africa, a person with sickle cell anemia can come from central Africa or the Mediterranean. The environment on Earth has so much overlap that genes are not unique to any given location or "race".
And a person of Jewish descent comes from the same lineage as a Middle Easterner. What gene can we isolate in people who are Jewish that we cannot find in a Middle Easterner? Genetic variation between humans is so minuscule that it's laughable anybody would try to pin down "race" to any one of those few genes. You find more genetic variation between penguins of the same species than you do between humans of different "races". Heck, you'll see almost a hundred times more genetic variation between fruit flies than you will between
"races". Yet I don't see anybody going out of there way to categorize penguins or fruit flies "races" within their own species. Yet there'd be more basis within biology to do that rather than classify humans under "races".
It's also probably important to impart where the concept of "race" really originated as well. It was a concept introduced by rich, British colonists in the Americas when they realized they done goofed and brought 100 Africans to America for every 1 European, and then had massive riots on their hands from both indentured Africans and indentured Europeans. Rather than concede and give land, and wealth, to the lowest rungs of society, they instead took a strategy of divide and conquer. How did they do that? They told the indentured Europeans, don't worry about Africans because you're superior because you're White. In fact, as proof of your superiority, you will get better jobs than Africans and be treated better than those Africans. This took away almost all support indentured Europeans had for indentured Africans, because now they were now "superior" to them and now had a stake in the ruling power to lose. The result was the riots were crushed from overwhelming unity by both rich and poor Europeans, rallying under the banner of Whiteness.
The definition of Whiteness also was changed routinely within the 1700s to try to deny Africans in America the rights of citizens. Initially it was people of "good Christian faith" until Africans started converting to Christianity. Then it was people who were of British descent. Then it was people who were of British or similar descent, because they wanted to include everybody who had money. Racism was started because of an attempt to preserve class segregation. Nothing more, nothing less. Every attempt at proving it based on "science" has been a ridiculous attempt to justify blatant discrimination for superficial features.
It did not arise because somebody discovered differences in genetics. It did not arise when somebody realized somebody was darker skinned or looked different from another person. It started because somebody needed a convenient excuse to pull the wool over the populations eyes to maintain power, while preserving as much power as they possibly could in the process.
nyan :3
Youtube Channel i sometimes post videos of other games
Youtube Channel i sometimes post videos of other games
Originally Posted by Oracle
There isn't a gene that dictates race. You can quickly do any search and you will find that the concept of race as biologically defined among humans is horribly outdated. Race is a social construct.
There isn't 1 gene.. no. But genetic information is what dictates race among humans.
Outdated? What do you think causes a person to be black or white? It is not a social construct, the 3 major races that I pointed out are derived from location of origin of each race. Mongoloid (Asian region), Caucasian (European region), and Negroid (African region and the birth place of all humans). The rest, Latino, Eskimo, Native American, etc.. are all mixes of genetic code from these base 3 races.
Again... the rest of what you said seems completely out of place. Why are you talking about sports?
