Nature vs Nurture
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-06-2013, 08:46 AM
RE: Nature vs Nurture
Chas is correct and he's not making a semantic argument.

You, as a male, are either born with a preference for other males or for females or, both.

Your environment will determine, for lack of a more appropriate descriptor, your fetishes.

A few examples... sexual abuse at infancy followed by psychical abuse throughout childhood can create a person who is highly promiscuous and enjoys bondage. If male and heterosexual, he'll fantasize about females in bondage. If female and heterosexual she'll fantasize about males in bondage.

Of course, sexual abuse can also cause a person to become asexual.

Environment can cause myriad variations in sexual preference but it cannot change one's gender preference.

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like bbeljefe's post
06-06-2013, 09:43 AM
Nature vs Nurture
(06-06-2013 08:46 AM)bbeljefe Wrote:  Chas is correct and he's not making a semantic argument.

You, as a male, are either born with a preference for other males or for females or, both.

Your environment will determine, for lack of a more appropriate descriptor, your fetishes.

A few examples... sexual abuse at infancy followed by psychical abuse throughout childhood can create a person who is highly promiscuous and enjoys bondage. If male and heterosexual, he'll fantasize about females in bondage. If female and heterosexual she'll fantasize about males in bondage.

Of course, sexual abuse can also cause a person to become asexual.

Environment can cause myriad variations in sexual preference but it cannot change one's gender preference.

How would someone's sexual orientation be known just from looking at genetics? Checkmate.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-06-2013, 10:13 AM
RE: Nature vs Nurture
(06-06-2013 09:43 AM)I and I Wrote:  
(06-06-2013 08:46 AM)bbeljefe Wrote:  Chas is correct and he's not making a semantic argument.

You, as a male, are either born with a preference for other males or for females or, both.

Your environment will determine, for lack of a more appropriate descriptor, your fetishes.

A few examples... sexual abuse at infancy followed by psychical abuse throughout childhood can create a person who is highly promiscuous and enjoys bondage. If male and heterosexual, he'll fantasize about females in bondage. If female and heterosexual she'll fantasize about males in bondage.

Of course, sexual abuse can also cause a person to become asexual.

Environment can cause myriad variations in sexual preference but it cannot change one's gender preference.

How would someone's sexual orientation be known just from looking at genetics? Checkmate.

We don't yet know how, or if it can. The evidence points to an in utero differential level of hormones being causal or at least implicated.
The development is directed by DNA, so no checkmate for you.

You still haven't defined your terms. What is nature and what is nurture?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-06-2013, 10:20 AM
RE: Nature vs Nurture
(06-06-2013 09:43 AM)I and I Wrote:  How would someone's sexual orientation be known just from looking at genetics? Checkmate.

I didn't say we could look at genetics and determine someone's sexual orientation.

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-06-2013, 12:50 PM
Nature vs Nurture
(06-06-2013 10:20 AM)bbeljefe Wrote:  
(06-06-2013 09:43 AM)I and I Wrote:  How would someone's sexual orientation be known just from looking at genetics? Checkmate.

I didn't say we could look at genetics and determine someone's sexual orientation.

Then how would one come to the conclusion that sexual orientation is due to genetics?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-06-2013, 02:53 PM
RE: Nature vs Nurture
(21-05-2013 12:03 PM)I and I Wrote:  Can one take up the Nature side of the debate and still be an atheist?

I completely am on the nurture side, everything that make you you, is a result of influences that are made on your brain through outside input.

The Nature side gets kind of woo woo. Does anyone here believe in the nature side of this debate?

You are correct and measuraably so. The nature side of the argument has on it's side only the genetic predisposition to potential. There can be no evidence of behavior of any kind to be geneticaly inhereted simply because behavior is a learned process and there is tons of evidence to show that both plant and animal behavior is strictly the focus of environmental influences. Remember Elsa, the lioness in the film "Born Free?" One pillar of evidence to support the Nature side of the argument is the ignorance of just how information is stored in the animal brain. As long as this information is unknown then the assumptilon of free will and the genetic disposition to generate behavior will be considered as valid. The origin of behavior is obvious to those who have a knowledge of conditioning, tropistic behavior and associative memory. This information flies in the face of this socio-economic system that governs human culture. Until the world of economics, politics, and religion are replaced with the principles of science applied to the social scheme, the kind of world we live in i.e. the world of cultural law, religion, assumptions of non-physicality, free will....is the kind of world we are stuck with. Nothing can nor will happen until this very primitive and presumptive cultural breaks down and the principles of science are called upon to rebuild and focus upon the future of life on this planet.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-06-2013, 03:12 PM
RE: Nature vs Nurture
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-06-2013, 07:55 PM
RE: Nature vs Nurture
(06-06-2013 12:50 PM)I and I Wrote:  
(06-06-2013 10:20 AM)bbeljefe Wrote:  I didn't say we could look at genetics and determine someone's sexual orientation.

Then how would one come to the conclusion that sexual orientation is due to genetics?

The scientific method.

But I think you're under the impression (still) that I've argued that homosexuality is genetic. I haven't. Both Chas and I have mentioned that it is most likely the result of a hormonal phenomena that happens in the womb. That's not genetic.

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-06-2013, 08:54 PM
RE: Nature vs Nurture
(06-06-2013 02:53 PM)Joemailman Wrote:  
(21-05-2013 12:03 PM)I and I Wrote:  Can one take up the Nature side of the debate and still be an atheist?

I completely am on the nurture side, everything that make you you, is a result of influences that are made on your brain through outside input.

The Nature side gets kind of woo woo. Does anyone here believe in the nature side of this debate?

You are correct and measuraably so. The nature side of the argument has on it's side only the genetic predisposition to potential. There can be no evidence of behavior of any kind to be geneticaly inhereted simply because behavior is a learned process and there is tons of evidence to show that both plant and animal behavior is strictly the focus of environmental influences. Remember Elsa, the lioness in the film "Born Free?" One pillar of evidence to support the Nature side of the argument is the ignorance of just how information is stored in the animal brain. As long as this information is unknown then the assumptilon of free will and the genetic disposition to generate behavior will be considered as valid. The origin of behavior is obvious to those who have a knowledge of conditioning, tropistic behavior and associative memory. This information flies in the face of this socio-economic system that governs human culture. Until the world of economics, politics, and religion are replaced with the principles of science applied to the social scheme, the kind of world we live in i.e. the world of cultural law, religion, assumptions of non-physicality, free will....is the kind of world we are stuck with. Nothing can nor will happen until this very primitive and presumptive cultural breaks down and the principles of science are called upon to rebuild and focus upon the future of life on this planet.

Genes are not the only nature item. The chemical balance of individuals also has a huge influence.

There is no nature or nurture, it's both.

[Image: dobie.png]

Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-06-2013, 09:35 AM
RE: Nature vs Nurture
(06-06-2013 07:55 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  
(06-06-2013 12:50 PM)I and I Wrote:  Then how would one come to the conclusion that sexual orientation is due to genetics?

The scientific method.

But I think you're under the impression (still) that I've argued that homosexuality is genetic. I haven't. Both Chas and I have mentioned that it is most likely the result of a hormonal phenomena that happens in the womb. That's not genetic.

So you agree with me that genetics doesn't determine sexual orientation. What you are saying is that it's hormones. Then I ask the same question for hormones....how do you make a hormone....no wait...how do you determine ones sexual orientation from measuring hormone levels?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: