Virtue Ethics

Laughing Man:

What?

We are talking about whether desires can be destroyed. First you said yes, then no. Care to clarify?

Laughing Man:

You say that, then you say we're not talking about Christians and homosexuals?

I say that sarcastically, paraphrasing the many Christians who believe preferences are choices that can be destroyed (notice the scare quotes). This has nothing at all to do with Christianity or religion at all... at all. Just an incredibly naïve mindset.

liberty student:

This presumes gender identity is a preference.

Not at all. And really identity in terms of cosmetic looks is a preference these days.

Daniel:

What does it mean to be "born straight"?

Are you being coy? 

Born* with an attraction to the opposite sex

*whether that means its caused by genetics, culture, environment, ..., or temperature of their mother's uterus, or a mix I don't know. But it doesn't matter, the point is they cannot just stop.

Laughing Man:

Not at all. And really identity in terms of cosmetic looks is a preference these days.

What does this have to do with gender identity?

Angurse:

We are talking about whether desires can be destroyed. First you said yes, then no. Care to clarify?

In the mind of those who have desires yes it can be. You cannot destroy the desires of another person.

Angurse:

I say that sarcastically, paraphrasing the many Christians who believe preferences are choices that can be destroyed (notice the scare quotes). This has nothing at all to do with Christianity or religion at all... at all. Just an incredibly naïve mindset.

Ok so you are making a sarcastic remark that I am behaving like a Christian yet...this has nothing to do with Christianity? If it has nothing to do with Christianity then why did you even bring it up?

Angurse:

I say that sarcastically

You waste sarcasm on the chronically clueless.  Laughing Man doesn't even understand the topic without sarcasm, introducing humour is completely outside his capacity to comprehend in this debate.

In general, the ignorance in this thread is disgusting.

liberty student:

What does this have to do with gender identity?

A man can turn himself into the look of a woman and vice versa. The only thing you cannot change is your chromosomes and DNA. Therefore gender identity concerning the look of an individual is preference.

Laughing Man:

A man can turn himself into the look of a woman and vice versa.

That has nothing to do with gender identity.  Your ignorance is mind boggling.

Angurse:

Daniel:

What does it mean to be "born straight"?

Are you being coy?

Angurse:

Born* with an attraction to the opposite sex

*whether that means its caused by genetics, culture, environment, ..., or temperature of their mother's uterus, or a mix I don't know. But it doesn't matter, the point is they cannot just stop.

So that attraction doesn't have to be sexual?

Laughing Man:

In the mind of those who have desires yes it can be.

So its a yes. Yes you can stop being gay.

Laughing Man:

Ok so you are making a sarcastic remark that I am behaving like a Christian yet...this has nothing to do with Christianity? If it has nothing to do with Christianity then why did you even bring it up?

To point out that you are behaving like one. (I'm sure there are other people who feel the same way as you and the particular Christians about sexual preferences, Christians are just the most obvious.)

Daniel:

So that attraction doesn't have to be sexual?

No, its pretty much a definite sexual attraction. Look the terms up.

(are you trying to lead somewhere with this or are you genuinely asking questions?)

Angurse:

To point out that you are behaving like one.

His behaviour has nothing to do with Christianity, and Christianity doesn't have a uniform position on homosexuality.

Angurse:

So its a yes. Yes you can stop being gay.

Sure. If someone wants to. The key terms wants to.

Angurse:

To point out that you are behaving like one. (I'm sure there are other people who feel the same way as you and the particular Christians about sexual preferences, Christians are just the most obvious.)

So this does have something to do with Christianity. Therefore your earlier comment about how this has nothing to with Christianity is a disingenuous one.

liberty student:

That has nothing to do with gender identity.  Your ignorance is mind boggling.

So self-identification concerning sexuality cannot include gender modification?

krazy kaju:

Upon examination, I have recently found that virtue ethics has had a greater and greater appeal to me.

Kaju, let me know if you want to save this thread, and I will delete all of the offtopic posts.

Angurse:

Daniel:

So that attraction doesn't have to be sexual?

No, its pretty much a definite sexual attraction. Look the terms up.

(are you trying to lead somewhere with this or are you genuinely asking questions?)

I understand it now. I'll let you be to the flame war between LS, LM, and you.

liberty student:

Angurse:

I say that sarcastically

You waste sarcasm on the chronically clueless.  Laughing Man doesn't even understand the topic without sarcasm, introducing humour is completely outside his capacity to comprehend in this debate.

In general, the ignorance in this thread is disgusting.

I sincerely apologise, feel free to remove it all, I don't want to damage Kaju's thread on virtue ethics any further. Did you at least see the sarcasm originally? (My English cannot be that poor)

 

Laughing Man:

So self-identification concerning sexuality cannot include gender modification?

You don't understand what gender identity is or what a nightmare it is for people who get trapped in a body that doesn't match with their identity.  The body can be changed, but gender identity cannot.  To claim it is a matter of desire or willpower is so grossly idiotic, but not totally unexpected from you.

To highlight what a complete ignoramus you are, the statements you have made are tantamount to claiming that black people can be white, if they just want it bad enough.

Seriously, turn off your computer for the night and let this thread die.  You've made a complete jackass of yourself.

liberty student:

You don't understand what gender identity is or what a nightmare it is for people who get trapped in a body that doesn't match with their identity.  The body can be changed, but gender identity cannot.  To claim it is a matter of desire or willpower is so grossly idiotic, but not totally unexpected from you.

Well sexual identity is a produce of our consciousness. It is not apart of our genes. It is not written into our DNA. It is a state of mind. Why do you assume we cannot choose to live in such a state? We are not slaves to our consciousness, we are masters of it.

liberty student:

To highlight what a complete ignoramus you are, the statements you have made are tantamount to claiming that black people can be white, if they just want it bad enough.

Seriously, turn off your computer for the night and let this thread die.  You've made a complete jackass of yourself.

Just so you know I have put in a complaint about your comments in this thread. I'm tired of being insulted in such a fashion. You are breaking the forum rules when you are suppose to be upholding them.

 

Laughing Man:

I define it as having sexual satisfaction with the same sex. That is it. There is no differing in the state of mind of homosexuals, that would lead to a belief in polylogism.

1. If you were to possess a different set of taste receptors than the set which you currently possess, such a difference would probably affect some of your preferences.

2. If you were to lose your right leg in a car accident, such a loss would probably affect some of your preferences.

I. Ryan:

1. If you were to possess a different set of taste receptors than the set which you currently possess, such a difference would probably affect some of your preferences.

2. If you were to lose your right leg in a car accident, such a loss would probably affect some of your preferences.

You talk the lose or the unrealization of certain human things. There is nothing biologically different from a heterosexual and a homosexual in terms of biology. There can be perhaps unrealized or disadvantages like mental disabilities or being confined to a wheelchair but this doesn't create a whole new man or a whole new world of logic.

Laughing Man:

Well sexual identity is a produce of our consciousness. It is not apart of our genes. It is not written into our DNA. It is a state of mind.

Wow...

Perhaps consciousness allows us to comprehend & create concepts such as "sexual identity" (for without consciousness, we would have no concept of sexual or gender identity). 

HOWEVER, that is a vastly different thing than saying "sexual identity is a product of consciousness"

1.)  Genetics comes before consciousness (or before the brain is fully formed), I'm afraid, the moment sperm & egg get down to business & start creating a child, unless you want to argue some philosophic tangent regarding consciousness becoming before birth (this thread is already enough off-topic, though).   
     
      1a.) How do you explain pollutions effects on fish, turning them androgynous and/or changing their hormones? 
              Last I check, fish were not conscious, so they cannot have a state of mind. 

              Why do you assume that sexual identity is divorced from genetics, & comes purely from preferential / cognitive origins? 
              It really seems like you are more or less proposing this.   

2.)  How do you explain prisoners?
       Does everyone who go to prison happen to be genetically pre-disposed to being homosexual? 

      Or is there a possible difference between sexual acts & gender identity?  If you have read accounts of normally heterosexual men/women engaging in homosexual acts (but ultimately deriving no sexual pleasure / response from such acts, & going right back to heterosexual acts in accordance with their gender identity, i.e. experimentation, possible occurrences of same sex rape, etc.), would you even allow the possibility that there might be a difference between "preferences", acts, & gender identity? 

       2a.) How do you define preferences that would classify someone as homosexual anyway? 
               Is someone homosexual for preferring tomboys instead of submissive maidens? 
               Female bodybuilders over skinny waifs or softer Rubensque types? 
               For preferring S&M over traditional sexual activity?   

Laughing Man:

Why do you assume we cannot choose to live in such a state? We are not slaves to our consciousness, we are masters of it.

Why do you assume? 
    
Saying sexuality and/or gender identity is merely preferences is throwing the debate into a massive subjective black-hole that only really serves either ignorance of genetics or a politically correct agenda, neither of which is really productive, I'm afraid.

I'd have to agree with LS that is on par offensive such as claims that there are no race, or that race doesn't matter, and that if someone of one color tries hard enough, they can be another color! 

I'm sure I could get all the surgery in the world, provided enough money, to become that blonde-haired, blue-eyed female bombshell I'm sure in some parallel universe I might've been destined to be, but psychologically I could never become female, nor genetically would I truly be female sans physical & chemical appearances. 

I also don't remember humans being able to change their genes in real-time into different genes, so I think that remains an impossibility, sans perhaps cloning. 

Until the Transhumanist Revolution occurs, & we all become cyborgs capable of changing, re-designing, or inventing our own sexes, I'm afraid gender identity wins out over this "preferences" argument.

EDIT: Seeing as how I contributed to this thread, I will consider forking the thread accordingly to get it back on topic while preserving existing tangential discussions. 

I'm actually unsure of any solid evidence that says sexuality (as in what gender you are attracted to) is genetic.

Eioul:

I'm actually unsure of any solid evidence that says sexuality (as in what gender you are attracted to) is genetic.

There is evidence for it (one of a few links one could find, sans a lazy link to wikipedia: http://www.scq.ubc.ca/genetics-of-sex-and-gender-identity/ ), if the study of biology isn't evidence itself (which of course is revised continualyl per the scientific method), but it seemed that LM was throwing the idea of it altogether, which is what I oppose. 

Both genetic & non-genetic means attribute to gender-identity, since environments can influence genetics (i.e. the environment of the womb to a baby, freashwater to certain fish, etc.), & genetics can influence environment (i.e. diseases, people with certain IQ's, people with certain disorders only able to live in certain environments, etc.).

I would describe myself as a virtue ethicist, using virtue in the sense of 'moral excellence' and 'efficacy'; while at the same time recalling a framework of ethical norms akin to Aristotle and Confucious; IE ethics as dealing with reality in an effective manner and taking civilization and stability over delusion and sentiment.