2875 réponses à ce sujet

[Saeran]

Perfect-Kenshin wrote...

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.

Whilst I understand your argument and as has been asked before in this thread in response to that, why would anyone ever make that decision? Even if it was the subcounscious deciding it? You learn pretty soon on what with the internetz and politicians all around the world.. There are a lot of places that REALLY don't like you. Your probably less likely to find your "ideal 1 in a million partner". Why would anyone ever subcounsciously decide that this is the way they want to live their life?

[Perfect-Kenshin]

Captain Jazz wrote...

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."

I misread your post. My brain registered the use of the words trillions
of years ago in your post, hence the wording of my response. Then again,
I'm not wearing glasses right now (although I should be)..

Anyways, 
if someone does punch you in the face, that's not really a matter of  free will, but reading your pain receptors telling giving you the sensation pain, followed by you saying "Damn, I deserved that because  I'm masochist!" or possible nothing at all if you've been engaged in  competitive boxing throughout most of your life. If free will operates to this extent, I see no reason as to why one couldn't "choose" to respond to what just happened. Obviously in this case, the choice seemed instant (but was actually just processed a lot faster than any other
choice you'd make), hence why you'd think it was automatic. Then again,  can thoughts be considered choice? Meh, too confusing, especially considering free will is merely a metaphysical concept which we cannot  by any means measure in order to gain information.

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?)

Not just terrifying, but something I have a lot of trouble even tryingn to process in my head.

And no, I don't have evidence of the existence of free will. I can provide evidence of true probability, but that merely enables the possibility of free will; from what I know so far, it doesnt prove it. Hence why I've been a bit hesitant to argue in favor of free will throughout this discussion.

Modifié par Perfect-Kenshin, 28 mars 2011 - 08:58 .

[G0A]

Perfect-Kenshin wrote...

I'm not here to argue against homosexuality.

So why are you here exactly?

[Centauri2002]

Perfect-Kenshin wrote...


And no, I don't have evidence of the existence of free will. I can provide evidence of true probability, but that merely enables the possibility of free will; from what I know so far, it doesnt prove it. Hence why I've been a bit hesitant to argue in favor of free will throughout this discussion.

Just approach it from a philosophical debate point-of-view. As long are your arguments are logically constructed, I'm all for the debate. :3

[Perfect-Kenshin]

Captain Jazz wrote...

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.

Alright, that makes sense. If that's the case, it's a different story. I'd still request those who say "no choice" to be mindful of where that leads, but not outright saying "no choice, so it's fine" is better than the alternative. Keeping that in mind, it makes sense why you brought up the harm principle earlier.

[Perfect-Kenshin]

centauri2002 wrote...

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?

Hmm. I'd say the limitations concern ideas/decisions which one cannot possible influence. For instance, existence or having magical super powers would be such limitations. Speaking from a more realistic standpoint however, the ability to choose whether or not you're born.

Modifié par Perfect-Kenshin, 28 mars 2011 - 09:04 .

[Centauri2002]

Perfect-Kenshin wrote...

Hmm. I'd say the limitations concern ideas/decisions which one cannot possible influence. For instance, existence or having magical super powers would be such limitations. Speaking from a more realistic standpoint however, the ability to choose whether or not you're born.

Guiding this back around to the argument at hand... are we in direct control over who we find attractive? I'm talking chemistry here. 

Modifié par centauri2002, 28 mars 2011 - 09:15 .

[Shawn Ogg]

Perfect-Kenshin wrote...

centauri2002 wrote...

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?

Hmm. I'd say the limitations concern ideas/decisions which one cannot possible influence. For instance, existence or having magical super powers would be such limitations. Speaking from a more realistic standpoint however, the ability to choose whether or not you're born.

Then you are implying that a person can actually decide how his body chemistry would perform (dont know how to say it better in english sorry) in front of a man or a woman? That a person have control over what are they attracted to.

[Perfect-Kenshin]

[quote]Incantrix wrote...

[quote]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.[/quote]



[quote]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"[/quote]According to what I've said here, I'm implying not to simply say "People don't have a choice in X, therefore X is okay". Nothing more and nothing less. It's true that the discussion of free will has come up in this thread several times. However, I assure you that the existence of choice is not the intent of what you're quoting.[quote]If you weren't implying what I thought you were, then disregard this post.[/quote]It depends. If I see anything in this post which I feel compelled to respond to, I will.

[quote]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.[/quote]
On the contrary, being able to distinguish one's behavior from oneself is a very good philosophy and can be very instrumental in bringing about peace if applied. We can believe other people are wrong (and given history, human beings will continue to do that), but that doesn't mean we can't work together and thrive towards absolute unification.

[quote]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? [/quote]I mean no offense, but it doesn't seem like you're happy with your sexuality when you say things like "If I could restart my life, I'd choose to be heterosexual."  I sense a lot of anger and self-loathing here. Unfortunately, I don't have the means to help you while on a message board. I think you should consider a psychologist as no good will come from keeping these feelings repressed and only presenting them on a online forum.

Modifié par Perfect-Kenshin, 28 mars 2011 - 09:25 .

[Perfect-Kenshin]

Sorry for the slow responses everyone. I'm kind of multi tasking here. But don't worry, I shall address everyone!

[JediMB]

That's contradictory. You argue that there is a gene that makes you gay, making it a non-choice, and say that there are people with the gene who are not gay, which makes it a choice.

The only logical conclusion is that this supposed gene does not dictate your sexuality. It is within the realm of possibility that it is a contributing factor, however.

Modifié par JediMB, 28 mars 2011 - 09:35 .

[NeoGuardian86]

centauri2002 wrote...

Perfect-Kenshin wrote...

Hmm. I'd say the limitations concern ideas/decisions which one cannot possible influence. For instance, existence or having magical super powers would be such limitations. Speaking from a more realistic standpoint however, the ability to choose whether or not you're born.

Guiding this back around to the argument at hand... are we in direct control over who we find attractive? I'm talking chemistry here. 

in my opinion and experience at best i think it's very limited.

From genes, societal role pressures, and our own socialization experiences all compounds into what we eventaully see as our sexual identity..

At least that's what i think.

[moilami]

Captain Cornhole wrote...

Well shoot, I totally derailed this thread didn't I. Oh well.

Saying this again, it is my understanding there is a Gay Gene of sorts, but weather it make those who have it gay currently seems very unlikely. There are billions of straight individuals have this gene, and yet they are not gay.


If it was not a choice, then why are those billions of people still straight? This is not to say other outside factors cannot play a role in a persons sexual orientation, it seems to me environmental factors can play a roll in the person's choice of sexual orientation.

Evidence points to it being a choice just like how anything else that is a choice can be gene related. That said ultimately more scientific research in needed.

For me homosexuality is not a choise. But I am not a homosexual, so I am not the best to say it. Maybe a poll should be made is homosexuality a choise?

[Centauri2002]

Captain Cornhole wrote...

Well shoot, I totally derailed this thread didn't I. Oh well.

Saying this again, it is my understanding there is a Gay Gene of sorts, but weather it make those who have it gay currently seems very unlikely. There are billions of straight individuals have this gene, and yet they are not gay.


If it was not a choice, then why are those billions of people still straight? This is not to say other outside factors cannot play a role in a persons sexual orientation, it seems to me environmental factors can play a roll in the person's choice of sexual orientation.

Evidence points to it being a choice just like how anything else that is a choice can be gene related. That said ultimately more scientific research in needed.

I completely blame all of this on you. 

My warning came too late though, the flood came not long after. >.>

[moilami]

centauri2002 wrote...

Perfect-Kenshin wrote...

Hmm. I'd say the limitations concern ideas/decisions which one cannot possible influence. For instance, existence or having magical super powers would be such limitations. Speaking from a more realistic standpoint however, the ability to choose whether or not you're born.

Guiding this back around to the argument at hand... are we in direct control over who we find attractive? I'm talking chemistry here. 

Well they say God gave you free will. So.

[Centauri2002]

moilami wrote...

For me homosexuality is not a choise. But I am not a homosexual, so I am not the best to say it. Maybe a poll should be made is homosexuality a choise?

There's too much focus on homosexuality. It is just another sexuality. So, if you know that your own heterosexuality is not a choice, you'll know homosexuality isn't one either. 

[Shawn Ogg]

Perfect-Kenshin wrote...

Incantrix wrote...
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?

I mean no offense, but it doesn't seem like you're happy with your sexuality when you say things like "If I could restart my life, I'd choose to be heterosexual."  I sense a lot of anger and self-loathing here. Unfortunately, I don't have the means to help you while on a message board. I think you should consider a psychologist as no good will come from keeping these feelings repressed and only presenting them on a online forum.

Ok now you went too far.

You have no idea what people have to suffer because of just being gay. not the slightest one. If you had you wounldnt answer like this. No once chooses his cards when born but since there is only one chance to live you just do the best you can with those cards.

Its not anger or self-loathing is just logic.  A poor man would prefer to have born in a wealthy family just because everything would have been easier. The same applies here.

Im happy now.: yes. but also im aware of that happiness would have been a lot easier to achieve if being born straight.

[moilami]

JediMB wrote...

That's contradictory. You argue that there is a gene that makes you gay, making it a non-choice, and say that there are people with the gene who are not gay, which makes it a choice.

The only logical conclusion is that this supposed gene does not dictate your sexuality. It is within the realm of possibility that it is a contributing factor, however.

It is called speculating. It is usually done when something is wrong and peeps try to figure out why it is wrong.

[moilami]

Seifz wrote...

moilami wrote...

The slider gives new possibilities to develop scenes and NPCs exactly like you said.

A dev can make an NPC who is gay and who harasses hetero player characters but does not harass gay characters who reject her. That was just one example. It makes it possible to make more defined NPCs instead of pixelhumpable egobooster clones.

Remember the computer is the DM in cRPG. The computer would know what is your char's sexuality in the same way as real DM would know just by asking it, and after that playing the NPCs in whatever  or :innocent: or  he wants.

So you want to actually change how the NPCs behave and what they say based on this pre-defined slider?  You think that this is somehow better than actually role playing your character and having the NPCs respond to that?  Why?

Can you rephrase please.

[moilami]

Captain Jazz wrote...

Seifz wrote...

moilami wrote...

The slider gives new possibilities to develop scenes and NPCs exactly like you said.

A dev can make an NPC who is gay and who harasses hetero player characters but does not harass gay characters who reject her. That was just one example. It makes it possible to make more defined NPCs instead of pixelhumpable egobooster clones.

Remember the computer is the DM in cRPG. The computer would know what is your char's sexuality in the same way as real DM would know just by asking it, and after that playing the NPCs in whatever  or :innocent: or  he wants.

So you want to actually change how the NPCs behave and what they say based on this pre-defined slider?  You think that this is somehow better than actually role playing your character and having the NPCs respond to that?  Why?

Because it sounds better if you can fit it into a roleplaying issue instead of it being a personal ickiness issue?

Not wanting to have gays hitting on you? Heh, well. It is certainly personal issue. Very personal.


Edit: Please remember I am not ur pixel humpable barbara.

Modifié par moilami, 28 mars 2011 - 09:47 .

[moilami]

sereture wrote...

Dark83 wrote...

moilami wrote...

If you RP and create a char to play you need to know how is his sexuality so you can chose his actions in DA and ME series.

Knowing your sexuality does not require preselecting options. I know my man-Hawke is straight. When Anders hit on me, I reject him.

Look, I rp-ed straight Hawke properly, do I get a benny?

This.

No.

You get Fenris 

[MSparkyPants]

I don't understand why people think that these characters should be stuck with static sexualities. Everything depends on on the player. Fenris could be straight one playthrough and gay the other. What does it matter what happened previously? That was a story for a different Hawke.

Dear BioWare,
Thank you for making the romance options Hawke-sexual.
Less than three, Sparky

[Captain Jazz]

moilami wrote...

Captain Jazz wrote...

Seifz wrote...

moilami wrote...

The slider gives new possibilities to develop scenes and NPCs exactly like you said.

A dev can make an NPC who is gay and who harasses hetero player characters but does not harass gay characters who reject her. That was just one example. It makes it possible to make more defined NPCs instead of pixelhumpable egobooster clones.

Remember the computer is the DM in cRPG. The computer would know what is your char's sexuality in the same way as real DM would know just by asking it, and after that playing the NPCs in whatever  or :innocent: or  he wants.

So you want to actually change how the NPCs behave and what they say based on this pre-defined slider?  You think that this is somehow better than actually role playing your character and having the NPCs respond to that?  Why?

Because it sounds better if you can fit it into a roleplaying issue instead of it being a personal ickiness issue?

Not wanting to have gays hitting on you? Heh, well. It is certainly personal issue. Very personal.


Edit: Please remember I am not ur pixel humpable barbara.

Just so you know, every time you freak out minor interactions, a creepy, creepy gay fantasises about you. Every time. And they never, ever stop.

[moilami]

Jalem001 wrote...

Seifz wrote...

Jalem001 wrote...

I loathe to continue on the political aspect of the topic because it seems like a surefire way to get this topic locked a temp ban, but against my better judgement...

Why do you say that it's a political issue?  It's not a political issue.  It's a human issue.  Either you consider homosexuals and bisexuals equal to heterosexuals or you don't.  There's nothing political about that.

I fail to see how the wikipedia article helps your argument.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but some of these studies seem to point to what the poster you were condemning was saying, which is that there are indicators that biological factors can play a role in homosexuality, but it does not -make you homosexual-.  And some certainly do suggest that there is no choice in a factor, but -none of them conclude any facts-.

So you give me evidence which isn't so much evidence as it is...maybes.  And some of those maybes contradict your stance.

1.  As I said, it doesn't matter why sexual orientation isn't a choice.  What matters is that sexual orientation isn't a choice.
2.  The vast majority of studies and evidence show that sexual orientation is not a choice.  Nearly all studies suggesting the opposite are funded and/or performed by conservative religious organizations with obvious motives to show certain results.

On to the homophobic:

I haven't seen anyone hating on homosexuals here, although I'm not saying there hasn't been.  I've skimmed through some pages, and read only a handful. There's simply way too much here to through all of it.

There's been plenty of it and I've been careful to reserve the term "homophobic" for the few posters who have deserved it.

However what I have seen is a whole lot homophobic being thrown around because people disagree with the other person said.   You were targetted because I just happened to be on the same page at the time, and because I disagree with your reasoning for throwing the term around.  Someone does not have a hatred/fear of homosexuals simply because they believe it is a choice.  Its similar to calling someone a racist if they state "I believe the black community doesn't do itself any favors by retaining victim status".  The argument itself gives no indication that the person believes that blacks are inferior or any less human.  Likewise saying that homosexuality is a choice does not mean that the poster believes homosexuals are inferior or worthy of hatred.

But the reason the two are connected (in the homosexual case) is that by making it a choice, it strips you of your ability to connect it to the civil rights movement.  So, you're being a demagogue.  You're throwing a term which (in theory) would be a very negative thing in our culture (hate in general) and using it in an attempt to silence anyone who has a difference of opinion, regardless as to if that term actually fits them.

No, you misunderstand.  People who believe that sexual orientation is a choice are simply wrong.  People who believe that homosexual behavior is unacceptable or somehow not equal to heterosexual behavior are homophobic.  Orientation and behavior are not the same thing.

While we're on the subject, there seems to be a common misunderstanding here that homophobia refers strictly to fear of homosexuals and/or homosexual behavior, but that isn't true in common usage.

Sorry for continuing the pyramid here. I'm lazy and have replied to 4 or so times in the last hour.  Do not want to start doing anything other than hitting the "Quote" button .

I call it a political issue because, like it or not, it is. This topic will survive only as long as the mods feel it touches to Dragon Age and the characters within.  Once it starts straying into broader terms of homosexuality, they will say its political in nature and squash it.

Virtually all political issues can be made an either or issue like you just did, I fail to see how you seeing homosexuals are equals suddenly doesn't make it a political issue.

I don't really want to touch on much past this, because I feel like I'll just be repeating myself.  But I will say this:

1.  You justify taking offense to the fact that there is a debate (over if homosexuality a choice) by stating that there -is no debate-. 

2.  My memory might be off here, because names and posts are blurring together, but the person you called homophobic when I originally replied (He had a rainbow colored sig is all I remember) was making no point other then he believed homosexuality was a choice.  That would make him wrnog, not a homophobe by what you just told me.  But obviously, thats not what I remember you saying.  Again, I concede, I could be wrong.  The smart thing to do would be to just go back and look.  But yeah.  Lazy as covered at the start of this post

I think Anders did not have choise?