2875 réponses à ce sujet

[Perfect-Kenshin]

Captain Jazz wrote...

Perfect-Kenshin wrote...

Shawn Ogg wrote...

Perfect-Kenshin wrote...

3) Sexual orientation is no less of a choice than any other behavior. I've already laid out a case for why this is so. If you have no intention of addressing my points, there's nothing else for you to say.

Sexual behaviour IS  a choice.
Sexual orientation IS NOT a choice.

behavoiur =/= orientation

Let me clarify. I consider myself a casual gamer (bonus points if you can tell me whether I've chosen to be a gamer or if that was simply a result of my experiences:P). As a casual gamer, I'd adhere to a certain set of behaviors. In other words, casual gamer behaviors. The question is this: Does status equal behavior? For istance, if I'm "angry", the term anger dictates behaviors which fall under anger. If I'm sad, the term sad dictates behaviors which fall under sadness. This is what I mean. The trait is umbrella for a set of behaviors.


At any rate, it doesn't matter. The main point consider is that going by the reasoning behind why orientation isn't a choice (genetic/environmental influence), one can make the same argument for any other behavior (or in your case, status which dictates behaviors).

How about ignoring the question of whether or not sexuality is a choice (I know I never chose to be straight btw...) and focussing on what harm is caused by consentual sex. It may be possible to argue that a murderer had no choice but to be a murderer, it may even be logical, but the fact is that acting on murderous impulses results in suffering and death. Meanwhile acting on sexual (****** or hetero) impulses in a consentual relationship results in pleasure and happiness.

No thanks. I'm not interested in focusing on any harm it may or may not cause as I'm not concerned with it. Again, I've claimed that individuals with same-sex preferences should have the same liberties as everyone else. I'm not here to argue against homosexuality.

[Perfect-Kenshin]

Captain Jazz wrote...

Perfect-Kenshin wrote...

MaximusPhoenix wrote...

Perfect-Kenshin wrote...




At any rate, it doesn't matter. The main point consider is that going by the reasoning behind why orientation isn't a choice (genetic/environmental influence), one can make the same argument for any other behavior (or in your case, status which dictates behaviors).

/facepalm

Orientation is not behaviour though....

Translation: "Nuh-uh."

I don't want to sound needy here or anything... but why are you continuing with the "homosexuality is a choice" argument (and when did you choose your sexuality btw?) and ignoring the issue I raised that whether it's a choice or not (it isn't) it has no effects on anyone beyond those who indulge in homosexual relationships while your example raised in opposition of the argument causes demonstrable harm?

I didn't see your post until recently. And I've already responded to it. The "choice" argument is what interested me. The "demonstrable harm" argument does not interest me. For one, I think everyone should have the same liberties. That's all that is necessary to argue in favor of equal rights for individuals of different sexual preferences. No need to go any further.

For two, although I strongly disagree with the harm principle, I didn't come into this thread to argue over it. I feel I've spent enough time on the argument I have challenged. If you want, send me a PM, and I can discuss my reasoning against the harm principal in detail.

[Perfect-Kenshin]

Dark83 wrote...

Perfect-Kenshin wrote...
"I assure you that I'm well aware of the general consensus on sexuality within the scientific community. The point I'm making however is that genetical/social factors are what determine behavior period and that one cannot argue in favor of "lack of choice" without considering this.

Unless you can choose the "genetic, biological, psychological and social factors" that determine your sexual orientation, you have no choice over your sexual orientation.

Unless you can choose the "gentic, bioloical, psychological and social factors" that determine your decision to use this website, you have no choice over wehther you use this website.

PS: You "can't" choose them.

Modifié par Perfect-Kenshin, 28 mars 2011 - 08:18 .

[Captain Jazz]

Perfect-Kenshin wrote...

Captain Jazz wrote...

Perfect-Kenshin wrote...

Shawn Ogg wrote...

Perfect-Kenshin wrote...

3) Sexual orientation is no less of a choice than any other behavior. I've already laid out a case for why this is so. If you have no intention of addressing my points, there's nothing else for you to say.

Sexual behaviour IS  a choice.
Sexual orientation IS NOT a choice.

behavoiur =/= orientation

Let me clarify. I consider myself a casual gamer (bonus points if you can tell me whether I've chosen to be a gamer or if that was simply a result of my experiences:P). As a casual gamer, I'd adhere to a certain set of behaviors. In other words, casual gamer behaviors. The question is this: Does status equal behavior? For istance, if I'm "angry", the term anger dictates behaviors which fall under anger. If I'm sad, the term sad dictates behaviors which fall under sadness. This is what I mean. The trait is umbrella for a set of behaviors.


At any rate, it doesn't matter. The main point consider is that going by the reasoning behind why orientation isn't a choice (genetic/environmental influence), one can make the same argument for any other behavior (or in your case, status which dictates behaviors).

How about ignoring the question of whether or not sexuality is a choice (I know I never chose to be straight btw...) and focussing on what harm is caused by consentual sex. It may be possible to argue that a murderer had no choice but to be a murderer, it may even be logical, but the fact is that acting on murderous impulses results in suffering and death. Meanwhile acting on sexual (****** or hetero) impulses in a consentual relationship results in pleasure and happiness.

No thanks. I'm not interested in focusing on any harm it may or may not cause as I'm not concerned with it. Again, I've claimed that individuals with same-sex preferences should have the same liberties as everyone else. I'm not here to argue against homosexuality.

So why are you arguing that homosexuality is a choice while all the evidence suggests otherwise? You've made a number of comments quoting articles that you say support the idea that it is a choice, when they're saying that it is caused by a number of influences including genetics and environment, ergo not a conscious choice... what's the point of that?

Modifié par Captain Jazz, 28 mars 2011 - 08:20 .

[Eternal Phoenix]

This whole topic sucks. People call me a homophobe. However having a phobia is to fear something and no one fears gays thus homophobia does not exist and whoever created the word "homophobe" (to mean hate gays) is an obvious idiot and was obviously trolling. See what I did there?

Modifié par Elton John is dead, 28 mars 2011 - 08:23 .

[Shawn Ogg]

Quantum mechanics? Srly?

Let's say for a momment I agree with you theory, I dont since I dont need science or theories when I have lived it first hand, but let's say I agree. Then tell me:
When do you exactly make the choice?
Can it be reverted? (who knows maybe Im still in time to become straight)

[Srs Bzns]

snfonseka wrote...

The romances in Dragon Age 2 are for everyone, says the games lead writer, not just for the straight, male gamer.
Read the full article in here.

What I think what BW has done is totally dumb. They should have introduced some characters as straight, some as bi and some as gay. It is more realistic than turning all the romance-companions into bi characters.  They should have approached this sexuality issue in more creative manner, where the sexuality is part of the characters' personality. For example, Merrill is straight and Isabela is bi.  Well..., BW you have done the character development in your past games in great manner, so don't try to dumb down the character development now.

Something irks me very much in this message, and it's probably been thrown around a lot in these 100 pages, but I'll address it anyway.

Why do you think that what's realistic in our world has any meaning in the world of Thedas. Why can't this be a society where sexuality isn't questioned in any way and where it's considered perfectly normal for someone to be attracted to both sexes. To be honest we have yet to see a homophobic character in DA or anyone who even remotely shows disdain towards homosexuality. On the other hand we have a plethora of characters that have no problem being attracted to the same sex.

[Centauri2002]

Perfect-Kenshin wrote...

I'd argue that quantum mechanics favor behavior centric free will . Nonetheless, I don't think I can do this conclusively (at least not without having a much deeper grasp of the concept, which I probably will by the summer ).

Don't think I didn't notice you being sneaky and avoiding answering the question. 

Well, get back to me in the summer then and I'll bring my quantum physicist friends to translate.

[Perfect-Kenshin]

Captain Jazz wrote...

Perfect-Kenshin wrote...
I get the gyst of what you're saying though. However, I'm not here to discuss free will. I am both unprepared and uninterested at this point in time, hence why none of the premises of my points rely on it. All I know is that quantum mechanics enables the possibility of it.

*cough*
Does quantum mechanics apply on a macroscopic scale? Is that why I sneezed earlier and appeared outside?

[edit] and... do we really want to imply that our decisions are a result of a causal chain of thoughts and influences that
starts with an essentially random quantum event? That's starting to make thinking look like a fools game all together.

The way I see it, our thoughts/actions aren't the result of some event which took place trillions of years ago, but that this randomness is constant. There's no guarentee that we'll do one thing or the other. Quantum mechanics maintains true probability. IF free will exist, I'd say that although social/genetic factors influence us and can help up with our decisions, we ultimately decide for ourselves what to do. That free will is something trumping force that isn't bound for cause and effect.

[Dark83]

Jalem001 wrote...

But it does subtract when everyone simply shrugs and says "Eh, you're Hawke.  I'll go for it."

It would be as if everyone in Thedas were straight or gay.  It doesn't make much sense, does it?  In the real world - from our sense of people - people have sexual orientations.  To find so many people who wouldn't care what gender you are is odd.  And in Bioware's case, it certainly feels like a cop out and just being plain lazy.

What bioware needs to do is not ever touch the "Everyone's bi!" thing again, and create characters who have sexualities.  Maybe one game we have one striaght option, two homosexual options, and one bi character.  Its far, far, far better than making everyone the same sexuality (Which is Hawke.  THey're all Hawke sexuality.  Except Isabella).

Inclusivity is superior to exclusivity.

Besides of which, the Hawke-sexual companions is only odd from a metagame perspective.

As far as bi-man-Hawke is concerned, he picked up two girls, one gay dude, and a slave who had to do "anything" his master desired. As far as hetero-man-Hawke is concerned, he picked up two girls, one gay dude who hit on him, and the rest - from his perspective Fenris isn't even a romantic interest, and ends up hooking up with Isabela if Hawke doesn't. As far as Hetero-Fem-Hawke is concerned, she picked up a girl, a lady who can't keep her legs shut to anyone, and two straight dudes.

The only bisexual a Hawke notices is Isabella, and one Hawke can "turn" due to Merrill/Fenris having their respective issues. It is only either Merrill or Fenris who ends up not caring what sex Hawke is.

It's about on par with which sibling dies. Within a particular narrative, there is no issue.

[Perfect-Kenshin]

centauri2002 wrote...

Perfect-Kenshin wrote...

I'd argue that quantum mechanics favor behavior centric free will . Nonetheless, I don't think I can do this conclusively (at least not without having a much deeper grasp of the concept, which I probably will by the summer ).

Don't think I didn't notice you being sneaky and avoiding answering the question. 

Well, get back to me in the summer then and I'll bring my quantum physicist friends to translate.

Which question? I did competitional debate, so if I did avoid one without making it obvious, you'll have to forgive me as that's a bad habit.

And yes, we shall reconvene during the summer.

[Centauri2002]

Elton John is dead wrote...

This whole topic sucks. People call me a homophobe. However having a phobia is to fear something and no one fears gays thus homophobia does not exist and whoever created the word "homophobe" (to mean hate gays) is an obvious idiot and was obviously trolling. See what I did there?

Actually, the meaning of the word doesn't follow the same definition as most other phobias. It's usually used to describe an unfounded hate, instead. However, it's thrown around all-too-easily these days and has lost any impact it should have.

That said, there are quite a number of people who apparently fear homosexuals. Why else would they try to impede another person's basic human rights? I'm not talking about anyone here on this forum, of course, but I'm referring to serious hate crimes.

[Centauri2002]

Perfect-Kenshin wrote...

Which question? I did competitional debate, so if I did avoid one without making it obvious, you'll have to forgive me as that's a bad habit.

And yes, we shall reconvene during the summer.

Ooh another debater. *flexes argument muscles* 

The question boiled down to: Do we have direct control over everything about ourselves? I asked this because you were referring to the belief in free will. 

[Perfect-Kenshin]

Captain Jazz wrote...

Perfect-Kenshin wrote...

Captain Jazz wrote...

Perfect-Kenshin wrote...

Shawn Ogg wrote...

Perfect-Kenshin wrote...

3) Sexual orientation is no less of a choice than any other behavior. I've already laid out a case for why this is so. If you have no intention of addressing my points, there's nothing else for you to say.

Sexual behaviour IS  a choice.
Sexual orientation IS NOT a choice.

behavoiur =/= orientation

Let me clarify. I consider myself a casual gamer (bonus points if you can tell me whether I've chosen to be a gamer or if that was simply a result of my experiences:P). As a casual gamer, I'd adhere to a certain set of behaviors. In other words, casual gamer behaviors. The question is this: Does status equal behavior? For istance, if I'm "angry", the term anger dictates behaviors which fall under anger. If I'm sad, the term sad dictates behaviors which fall under sadness. This is what I mean. The trait is umbrella for a set of behaviors.


At any rate, it doesn't matter. The main point consider is that going by the reasoning behind why orientation isn't a choice (genetic/environmental influence), one can make the same argument for any other behavior (or in your case, status which dictates behaviors).

How about ignoring the question of whether or not sexuality is a choice (I know I never chose to be straight btw...) and focussing on what harm is caused by consentual sex. It may be possible to argue that a murderer had no choice but to be a murderer, it may even be logical, but the fact is that acting on murderous impulses results in suffering and death. Meanwhile acting on sexual (****** or hetero) impulses in a consentual relationship results in pleasure and happiness.

No thanks. I'm not interested in focusing on any harm it may or may not cause as I'm not concerned with it. Again, I've claimed that individuals with same-sex preferences should have the same liberties as everyone else. I'm not here to argue against homosexuality.

So why are you arguing that homosexuality is a choice while all the evidence suggests otherwise? You've made a number of comments quoting articles that you say support the idea that it is a choice, when they're saying that it is caused by a number of influences including genetics and environment, ergo not a conscious choice... what's the point of that?

I'm arguing that the "if it's a choice, it's okay" argument is not a good argument to use since the same can be said about any trait/behavior.

I've yet to quote an article and say it agrees with me that it is a choice. What I have done is quote several articles and say that it agrees with me that it is a combination of genetical/environmental factors. This applies to any other trait/behavior. My point is that if one is going to say it's not a choice on that basis, one should be wary of the only logical conclusion one has to arrive it when adhering to this claim.

Now if anyone who adheres to this claim is cool with determinism and the idea that all traits/behaviors are okay/justifiable, then it's a different matter.

Modifié par Perfect-Kenshin, 28 mars 2011 - 08:34 .

[Captain Jazz]

Perfect-Kenshin wrote...

Captain Jazz wrote...

Perfect-Kenshin wrote...
I get the gyst of what you're saying though. However, I'm not here to discuss free will. I am both unprepared and uninterested at this point in time, hence why none of the premises of my points rely on it. All I know is that quantum mechanics enables the possibility of it.

*cough*
Does quantum mechanics apply on a macroscopic scale? Is that why I sneezed earlier and appeared outside?

[edit] and... do we really want to imply that our decisions are a result of a causal chain of thoughts and influences that
starts with an essentially random quantum event? That's starting to make thinking look like a fools game all together.

The way I see it, our thoughts/actions aren't the result of some event which took place trillions of years ago, but that this randomness is constant. There's no guarentee that we'll do one thing or the other. Quantum mechanics maintains true probability. IF free will exist, I'd say that although social/genetic factors influence us and can help up with our decisions, we ultimately decide for ourselves what to do. That free will is something trumping force that isn't bound for cause and effect.

Hooray for massive oversimplification.
Our thoughts/actions aren't the result of some event which took place trillions of years ago. Our thoughts/actions are the result of thought/actions/influences which took place trillions of microseconds ago. Even if we have free will in some intelligible sense, someone punching you in the face will still cause you to think something like, "damn, that hurt."
If will is essentially deterministic, then each thought/action is caused by something which is caused by something else which is..... *chamber music* .... which is the result of some event which took place trillions of years ago.
The idea of quantum free will is quite literally terrifying... and also suggestive of choosing to do one thing and it's negation at the same time. Cool.
(Do you have any supporting evidence for the existence of free will outside of cause and effect?)

[Captain Jazz]

Perfect-Kenshin wrote...

Captain Jazz wrote...

Perfect-Kenshin wrote...

No thanks. I'm not interested in focusing on any harm it may or may not cause as I'm not concerned with it. Again, I've claimed that individuals with same-sex preferences should have the same liberties as everyone else. I'm not here to argue against homosexuality.

So why are you arguing that homosexuality is a choice while all the evidence suggests otherwise? You've made a number of comments quoting articles that you say support the idea that it is a choice, when they're saying that it is caused by a number of influences including genetics and environment, ergo not a conscious choice... what's the point of that?

I'm arguing that the "if it's a choice, it's okay" argument is not a good argument to use since the same can be said about any trait/behavior.

I've yet to quote an article and say it agrees with me that it is a choice. What I have done is quote several articles and say that it agrees with me that it is a combination of genetical/environmental factors. This applies to any other trait/behavior. My point is that if one is going to say it's not a choice on that basis, one should be wary of the only logical conclusion one has to arrive it when adhering to this claim.

Now if anyone who adheres to this claim is cool with determinism and the idea that all traits/behaviors are okay/justifiable, then it's a different matter.

That argument is not, "if it's not a choice it's ok," the argument is, "look, it isn't a choice, so stop saying it is a choice to bolster the argument that it is not ok."
That might explain why there seems to be a miscommunication on the issue though.

Modifié par Captain Jazz, 28 mars 2011 - 08:38 .

[Perfect-Kenshin]

centauri2002 wrote...

Perfect-Kenshin wrote...

Which question? I did competitional debate, so if I did avoid one without making it obvious, you'll have to forgive me as that's a bad habit.

And yes, we shall reconvene during the summer.

Ooh another debater. *flexes argument muscles* 

The question boiled down to: Do we have direct control over everything about ourselves? I asked this because you were referring to the belief in free will. 

Ah, then my answer is no. We do not have direct control over everything about ourselves. No matter what we do, we cannot prevent ourselves from existing. Burned to death, ripped to shreds or otherwise, we still exist. We have just taken on a different form. Thus, going about it from this paradigm while advocating free will, I'd say that free will isn't absolute, but is at very least present.

[Centauri2002]

Perfect-Kenshin wrote...

Ah, then my answer is no. We do not have direct control over everything about ourselves. No matter what we do, we cannot prevent ourselves from existing. Burned to death, ripped to shreds or otherwise, we still exist. We have just taken on a different form. Thus, going about it from this paradigm while advocating free will, I'd say that free will isn't absolute, but is at very least present.

Then we agree, free will is present. But if it is not present all the time, what are its limitations?

[Shawn Ogg]

Ok Im not an english speaker and maybe I just keep losing myself between technicisms and words. But I think I can say that being gay is not a behavior as being blonde is not one either. Behavior is just the way in which someone behaves. So please tell me so we can make things clear and fool-proof, in your opinion: What exactly have someone to do to become gay?

[Perfect-Kenshin]

Shawn Ogg wrote...

Quantum mechanics? Srly?

Let's say for a momment I agree with you theory, I dont since I dont need science or theories when I have lived it first hand, but let's say I agree. Then tell me:
When do you exactly make the choice?
Can it be reverted? (who knows maybe Im still in time to become straight)

If we are to agree that free will exist, I can't say for sure. I don't think there'd ever be a case where one would wake up one morning and say "Hey, I've suddendly decided that I want to be homosexual." I think the desire would culminate over time and that the "choice" would be made subconsciously.

[Captain Jazz]

Shawn Ogg wrote...

Ok Im not an english speaker and maybe I just keep losing myself between technicisms and words. But I think I can say that being gay is not a behavior as being blonde is not one either. Behavior is just the way in which someone behaves. So please tell me so we can make things clear and fool-proof, in your opinion: What exactly have someone to do to become gay?

I'm pretty sure you just have to be attracted to members of the same sex as yourself.

[Incantrix]

Perfect-Kenshin wrote...

Just to clarify to everyone, I never said anything remotely homophobic. In my initial post, I flat out stated that homosexuals should have the same liberties as everyone else. I even gave a reason for this. My problem is the reasoning a lot of people are using ("no choice, therefore it's okay). It's both unnecessary and illogical.

Now I don't know how this argument occured but according to what you've said here, you are implying that
"homosexuals are okay but they chose to be homosexuals"


If you weren't implying what I thought you were, then disregard this post.

Sorry, but that's like fundamentalist christians saying "Love the sinner, hate the sin"

Both statements are stupid, and should be frowned upon by the educated society.

First, are you gay? If you are not, stop trying to make your opinion legitimate because you don't know what it's like.

Secondly, answer me this. Who in this world would choose to enter a life of discrimination and hate? Who would do that unless you were masochistic? That's like cutting off both of your legs to become cripple...or willing accepting the HIV virus.

I am a homosexual, and I'm entirely offended by people who say it's a choice. If I could restart life again and make this "choice" on sexual preference, do you really believe I would choose to be gay? I'm comfortable with my sexuality, but don't you think I also want to live in a world where I can get married and have a nice house and live happily ever after with my spouse...and then have divorce and a fight to gain custody of my children?

How dare you even suggest the choice bull s hit. It is not a choice. I grew up in a stable household, so thats not an excuse.

I hope you become a bit more enlightened on different lives and lifestyles because one day, your ignorance will come back and bite you in the ass.

[Centauri2002]

Perfect-Kenshin wrote...

If we are to agree that free will exist, I can't say for sure. I don't think there'd ever be a case where one would wake up one morning and say "Hey, I've suddendly decided that I want to be homosexual." I think the desire would culminate over time and that the "choice" would be made subconsciously.

Okay, this you're going to have to explain a bit more. 

I think we're going to have to define a few things so we're not talking at cross-purposes. Sexual orientation, what is it? To me, it's who you're attracted to. Attraction is a physical allure based mostly in chemical processes. You don't have control over these so I'm inclined to say sexual orientation is not a choice. 

As other people have stated sexual behaviour is not sexual orientation. We have a choice on how we act upon our attractions, sure.

And, if it really was a choice based on environmental input, etc, then wouldn't it be more likely that a lot of homosexuals would turn out straight due to all the negativity towards us?

[Shawn Ogg]

Captain Jazz wrote...

Shawn Ogg wrote...

Ok Im not an english speaker and maybe I just keep losing myself between technicisms and words. But I think I can say that being gay is not a behavior as being blonde is not one either. Behavior is just the way in which someone behaves. So please tell me so we can make things clear and fool-proof, in your opinion: What exactly have someone to do to become gay?

I'm pretty sure you just have to be attracted to members of the same sex as yourself.

Yes I know I just wanted to see if he agreed with this.

Where I was trying go is that no one can control attraction as no one can make his/her heart stop beating. How it is possible that something you cant control is something you can choose?

I'm trying rly hard here to understand that poinr of view but no matter how I look at it I just cannot see it.

[Dark83]

Perfect-Kenshin wrote...
I'm arguing that the "if it's a choice, it's okay" argument is not a good argument to use since the same can be said about any trait/behavior.

That wasn't the argument, though. As someone mentioned, that's backwards.

Although that wasn't actually the initial arguement. Again, I was responsible for the original statement which brought race into it - a "no homosexuals" button would be as unacceptable as a "no black people" button, as the inclusion of such a feature is implicit endorsement of such discrimination.

The point there being "discrimination over something they had no choice over". It wasn't anything to do with civil rights, or black people specifically. It was that all of it - racisim, sexism, etc. is discrimination over something the victims have no choice over. In that way a "no ******" button would be the same as a "no blacks" or "no gingers" button.

In the attempt to not be associated with racism, the response hemmed and hawed over how it isn't similiar to racism. The obvious counter-arguement of "you can't choose your skin tone" pretty much implies that orientation is a choice, and gay people made the wrong choice to be gay.

Thus by appearing to to be trying to undermine the "gay isn't a choice" counter-counter-arguement you appeared to be supporting the aforementioned "I'm not like racists!" homophobes, thereby leading to heated replies to your posts repeating that orientation is not a choice.

Edit: The forums hate my spacing.

Modifié par Dark83, 28 mars 2011 - 08:56 .