Why We Are Here

[trubble]

~ Kurt Vonnegut

[tg]

Jan 7, 2009 2:59:42 GMT cammie said:

I believe the existance of humans on earth is to learn spiritual lessons with each reincarnated lifetime until we are spiritually elevated enough to reside in heaven with our Creator.

I am almost afraid to contribute to this thread since I've just joined and have no wish to offend.

However I have to ask, do you really believe this? I mean any of it?

Specifially.

What leads you to believe that we are here to learn spiritual lessons?

I struggle at all levels with the idea of a 'ghost in the machine' or any kind of dualism. What leads you to believe in reincarnation?

Heaven and creator? Do you honestly subscribe to a teleological view of the world with Paley and his Watchmaker?

[june]

I'm here to
Do a little dance,
make a little love,
Get down tonight.

[alanseago]

Just keep buying the CDs and DVDs from the nice Southern Evangelist on Reality TV. You cannot go wrong. you don't even have to play them, just buy them.
It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a TV Evangelist to go bankrupt.

[riotgrrl]

I am here specifically as a result of the particular date, time and year my parents made love.

If they'd made love 4 weeks before, or 4 weeks after (and maybe they did but i don't like to think about it) then it would be somebody else who would be here not me.

It was just a random accident that I was the particular egg and particular sperm that got together that night . . .there were millions of sperm, but only one egg, but it's still a pretty random thing to actually have been created. Most people aren't. (if you follow me.)

[tg]

Apr 28, 2009 19:55:01 GMT @riotgrrl said:

there were millions of sperm, but only one egg, but it's still a pretty random thing to actually have been created. Most people aren't. (if you follow me.)

Good grief, you are right. So, we are all winners but when I look around at some people I know, I hate to think what the sperm that didn't make it would have created.

[randomvioce]

Apr 28, 2009 19:55:01 GMT @riotgrrl said:

If they'd made love 4 weeks before, or 4 weeks after (and maybe they did but i don't like to think about it) then it would be somebody else who would be here not me.

But is that true though? Maybe you would still be you. After all, you are more than just one sperm and a single ova? You are a whole bunch of things that happened over a life time, not just a point in time that you parents hooked up. You must be everything that has or could have have influenced your up bringing and existence.

[randomvioce]

Apr 28, 2009 20:00:08 GMT tg said:

Good grief, you are right. So, we are all winners but when I look around at some people I know, I hate to think what the sperm that didn't make it would have created.

No, it is not the sperm, it is the human conditions that create people.

[tg]

Apr 28, 2009 20:09:25 GMT @randomvioce said:

Apr 28, 2009 20:00:08 GMT tg said:

Good grief, you are right. So, we are all winners but when I look around at some people I know, I hate to think what the sperm that didn't make it would have created.

No, it is not the sperm, it is the human conditions that create people.

It was a lighthearted comment made in the context of riotgrrl's post.

What do you mean by 'human conditions'?

[Liberator]

Oh, we're 'ere because we're 'ere because we're 'ere because we're 'ere because we're 'ere because we're 'ere because we're 'ere because we're 'ere because we're 'ere because we're 'ere because we're 'ere because we're 'ere because we're 'ere because we're 'ere because we're 'ere because we're 'ere because we're 'ere because we're 'ere because we're 'ere because we're 'ere because we're 'ere .....

[tg]

Apr 28, 2009 20:08:07 GMT @randomvioce said:

Apr 28, 2009 19:55:01 GMT @riotgrrl said:

If they'd made love 4 weeks before, or 4 weeks after (and maybe they did but i don't like to think about it) then it would be somebody else who would be here not me.

But is that true though? Maybe you would still be you. After all, you are more than just one sperm and a single ova? You are a whole bunch of things that happened over a life time, not just a point in time that you parents hooked up. You must be everything that has or could have have influenced your up bringing and existence.

Is it not the case that meioisis causes every sperm cell to be different? So, unless you are a blank slate theorist prepared to rule out the genetic aspect of what makes us what we are, she is correct.

[riotgrrl]

Nature v nurture ..

But I would still be me, same name, same family background, etc. regardless of my upbringing. I'd just be a different me, like my evil twin or something.

Personalities are definitely heavily shaped by your childhood and environment, but they are also heavily shaped by your DNA. I wouldn't have a clue which was more influential.

The 'correct' way to think these days is that homosexuals were born homosexuals. Equally however, the 'correct' way to think is that sex monsters were shaped by horrendous childhood experiences.

Both these things cannot be equally true, but both are the current received wisdom of civilised society.

[june]

Apr 28, 2009 20:32:14 GMT @riotgrrl said:

Nature v nurture ..

But I would still be me, same name, same family background, etc. regardless of my upbringing. I'd just be a different me, like my evil twin or something.

Personalities are definitely heavily shaped by your childhood and environment, but they are also heavily shaped by your DNA. I wouldn't have a clue which was more influential.

The 'correct' way to think these days is that homosexuals were born homosexuals. Equally however, the 'correct' way to think is that sex monsters were shaped by horrendous childhood experiences.

Both these things cannot be equally true, but both are the current received wisdom of civilised society.

I think you need to have a Goatee to be an official evil twin

[june]

Apr 28, 2009 20:32:14 GMT @riotgrrl said:

Nature v nurture ..

But I would still be me, same name, same family background, etc. regardless of my upbringing. I'd just be a different me, like my evil twin or something.

Personalities are definitely heavily shaped by your childhood and environment, but they are also heavily shaped by your DNA. I wouldn't have a clue which was more influential.

The 'correct' way to think these days is that homosexuals were born homosexuals. Equally however, the 'correct' way to think is that sex monsters were shaped by horrendous childhood experiences.

Both these things cannot be equally true, but both are the current received wisdom of civilised society.

I can see how both can be true when you look at sexuality being pre determined but that sexual preference being a reaction to your upbringing.

Without even going into sexual crime not being about sex, we need to consider that there is a choice about committing a violent sexual act (sex offenders have 'normal relationships' so violence does not need to be present to allow sex to happen), whereas most homosexuals cannot get a rise with the wrong gender.

[randomvioce]

Apr 28, 2009 20:32:14 GMT @riotgrrl said:

Both these things cannot be equally true, but both are the current received wisdom of civilised society.

Why not? Surely you accept that your childhood shapes who you become and how you act?

By the same token, sexual attraction must be pretty much hardwired.

[riotgrrl]

Apr 28, 2009 20:48:28 GMT @june said:

Apr 28, 2009 20:32:14 GMT @riotgrrl said:

Nature v nurture ..

But I would still be me, same name, same family background, etc. regardless of my upbringing. I'd just be a different me, like my evil twin or something.

Personalities are definitely heavily shaped by your childhood and environment, but they are also heavily shaped by your DNA. I wouldn't have a clue which was more influential.

The 'correct' way to think these days is that homosexuals were born homosexuals. Equally however, the 'correct' way to think is that sex monsters were shaped by horrendous childhood experiences.

Both these things cannot be equally true, but both are the current received wisdom of civilised society.

I can see how both can be true when you look at sexuality being pre determined but that sexual preference being a reaction to your upbringing.

Without even going into sexual crime not being about sex, we need to consider that there is a choice about committing a violent sexual act (sex offenders have 'normal relationships' so violence does not need to be present to allow sex to happen), whereas most homosexuals cannot get a rise with the wrong gender.

What if the comparison was strictly between homosexuals, and peadophiles (who are attracted only to children sexually, and who aren't using sex as a control/power mechanism while also having normal heterosexual relations with another adult.)?

Are you born genetically attached to one sex or the other predominantly?

And if so, are you born genetically attracted to children?

Also - I'm not sure I really get the difference you're making between sexuality and sexual preference.

[randomvioce]

Apr 28, 2009 20:28:10 GMT tg said:

So, unless you are a blank slate theorist prepared to rule out the genetic aspect of what makes us what we are

I cannot accept that our behaviour is down to 'genetics' in the broad sense. You may have genes that influence what you can do to an extent, but I cannot accept that people are evil or good based on genes.

[riotgrrl]

Apr 28, 2009 20:52:09 GMT @randomvioce said:

Apr 28, 2009 20:32:14 GMT @riotgrrl said:

Both these things cannot be equally true, but both are the current received wisdom of civilised society.

Why not? Surely you accept that your childhood shapes who you become and how you act?

By the same token, sexual attraction must be pretty much hardwired.

Yeah RV, but what I'm asking (stumbling towards) is what if your sexual attraction is hardwired to fancying children? The prevailing pyschological theory seems to me that peadophiles are often victims of childhood sexual abuse themselves.

Or am I mixing up different things here?

[riotgrrl]

Apr 28, 2009 20:55:52 GMT @randomvioce said:

Apr 28, 2009 20:28:10 GMT tg said:

So, unless you are a blank slate theorist prepared to rule out the genetic aspect of what makes us what we are

I cannot accept that our behaviour is down to 'genetics' in the broad sense. You may have genes that influence what you can do to an extent, but I cannot accept that people are evil or good based on genes.

Isn't it that genes give you a propensity towards certain behaviours, not that they control them?

In that, haven't they identified a genetic propensity to alcohol addiction, which doesn't mean everyone with those genes will become an alcoholic, but just that they're more at risk of it, like the genes for breast cancer.

[tg]

Apr 28, 2009 20:32:14 GMT @riotgrrl said:

The 'correct' way to think these days is that homosexuals were born homosexuals. Equally however, the 'correct' way to think is that sex monsters were shaped by horrendous childhood experiences.

Both these things cannot be equally true, but both are the current received wisdom of civilised society.

Research into child molesters consistently shows that they have a biological response to children. This is true whether they were abused themselves or not. So the fact that having suffered abuse may be a contributory factor does not make it an exclusive one. The two statements can be true.

[randomvioce]

Apr 28, 2009 20:57:47 GMT @riotgrrl said:

Isn't it that genes give you a propensity towards certain behaviours, not that they control them?

In that, haven't they identified a genetic propensity to alcohol addiction, which doesn't mean everyone with those genes will become an alcoholic, but just that they're more at risk of it, like the genes for breast cancer.

Yes, but that does not mean that you will become an alcholic. The main determining factor for that is culture and nuture.

I mean there must be, by the law of averages, muslims with the ‘alcholic’ gene, who never become addicted to beer, mainly because they live in a culture where it does not exist.


If you live in a culture or family where the main pastime is getting ripped to the tits every week then you are likely to become adicted to the stuff.

[tg]

Apr 28, 2009 20:55:52 GMT @randomvioce said:

Apr 28, 2009 20:28:10 GMT tg said:

So, unless you are a blank slate theorist prepared to rule out the genetic aspect of what makes us what we are

I cannot accept that our behaviour is down to 'genetics' in the broad sense. You may have genes that influence what you can do to an extent, but I cannot accept that people are evil or good based on genes.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'broad sense' and did not mean to suggest that genes are the sole determinant of behaviour. They are a factor but we are nt slaves to them.

[june]

Apr 28, 2009 20:54:38 GMT @riotgrrl said:

Apr 28, 2009 20:48:28 GMT @june said:

I can see how both can be true when you look at sexuality being pre determined but that sexual preference being a reaction to your upbringing.

Without even going into sexual crime not being about sex, we need to consider that there is a choice about committing a violent sexual act (sex offenders have 'normal relationships' so violence does not need to be present to allow sex to happen), whereas most homosexuals cannot get a rise with the wrong gender.

What if the comparison was strictly between homosexuals, and paedophiles (who are attracted only to children sexually, and who aren't using sex as a control/power mechanism while also having normal heterosexual relations with another adult.)?

Are you born genetically attached to one sex or the other predominantly?

And if so, are you born genetically attracted to children?

Also - I'm not sure I really get the difference you're making between sexuality and sexual preference.

Preference isn't an absolute - you can prefer dark hair but it does not preclude you from becoming attracted to a blonde.

But, if you are homosexual you are not attracted to the opposite sex.

rarely do paedophiles not form relationships with opposite sex adults - so I feel that debunks the pre programmed argument - they are acting on a preference not a compulsion.

But, generally I do not think anyone knows - we tend not to study this area much, I guess we are still Victorian in that we find it all too distasteful and brush it under the carpet.

[tg]

Apr 28, 2009 21:15:37 GMT @june said:

Apr 28, 2009 20:54:38 GMT @riotgrrl said:

What if the comparison was strictly between homosexuals, and paedophiles (who are attracted only to children sexually, and who aren't using sex as a control/power mechanism while also having normal heterosexual relations with another adult.)?

Are you born genetically attached to one sex or the other predominantly?

And if so, are you born genetically attracted to children?

Also - I'm not sure I really get the difference you're making between sexuality and sexual preference.

Preference isn't an absolute - you can prefer dark hair but it does not preclude you from becoming attracted to a blonde.

But, if you are homosexual you are not attracted to the opposite sex.

rarely do paedophiles not form relationships with opposite sex adults - so I feel that debunks the pre programmed argument - they are acting on a preference not a compulsion.

Yet a contraindication of this being the case would be the fact that they cannot be 'cured'.

[randomvioce]

Apr 28, 2009 21:11:40 GMT tg said:

I'm not sure what you mean by 'broad sense'

Let us say that you have 'the fat gene' for example. Being fat in this culture may make you worse off. It may limit you in ways that are not all that noticable. You may have fewer friends, you may not enjoy sports and therefor you might not mix with children. That may make you a loner and get buliied that makes you withdraw from school. By the time you leave, you may not have the ability to earn good wages.

I would say that the 'fat gene' made you worse off, but not directly in that it made you stupid, but our attidude to fat people clearly has.