Der & Jer, a convo on homos...

After our conversation on January 8, 2007, I took the time to go over our entire log and analyze your arguments thoroughly. One of your major arguments was that since there existed some Greek city-states in which a majority of the populace was bisexual, how could it possibly be that, if homosexuality was a somewhat of a constant percentage of the population, how could it be that a majority were practicing bisexual acts. I presented my arguments to you by saying that since these were just certain cities, that perhaps they were a Greek equivalent to San Francisco, where men who practiced homosexual acts congregated to be among like-minded individuals where these men were the dominating nobility law makers. Your response to that was to flat out deny any such possibility of an homosexual nobility and urged me to ask my local anthropologist if there was even a remote possibility of such a thing and not even the most right-wing nut job would suggest my hypothetical possibility. Well after reading Wikipedia’s article on Homosexuality in Ancient Greece (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Greece), I noticed this little tidbit:

Although this perspective is the scholarly consensus in North America and Northern Europe, some scholars believe that homosexual relationships, especially pederasty, were common only among the aristocracy, and that such relationships were not widely practiced by the common people (demos). One such scholar is Bruce Thornton, who argues that insults directed at passive homosexuals in the comedies of Aristophanes show the common people's dislike for male homosexuality.

This also coincides with homosexuality in the Greek military since much of the military of Greece was of the aristocratic population, who could afford the arms and armour at the time. Even if somehow all this were not the case, and that bisexuality was common among both the aristocracy and the common people, how could such a thing happen? If such a thing as bisexuality had become a tradition among an aristocratic class, anyone whom wished to be a part of the aristocracy within the bisexual city states, it is reasonable to say, would have to share common practices with the prevailing members, with the requirement of becoming an aristocrat being a bisexual lifestyle. Well, the question is, how could any seemingly, strict “heterosexual” male do such a thing as copulate with another male (in Greece, according to Wikipedia, it was most often young boys)? A similar type of situation can be seen in modern times; only it is practically the exact opposite. A seemingly normal man, often with a wife and family, is found to be a closet homosexual and secretly goes about having affairs with men. These closet cases are often men with high positions in society, who, although having a sexual appetite for men, have still risen to becoming respected members of society, until their affairs are discovered and their reputation suffers, often quite extremely to say the least. So lets compare such modern cases with a heterosexual male in a bisexual aristocracy. Is it not conceivable that perhaps, like the modern closet case, the heterosexual, too, acts how the other members of his populace act, and hides how he truly feels about his sexuality? Does the fact that a modern closet homosexual has sexual relations with a woman make him a heterosexual? Likewise, does a man who looks to gain a position of power in ancient Greece who has a sexual relation with a boy, strictly speaking, make him homosexual?

Here the question becomes, well if he has sex with another male, and even if reluctantly, doesn’t that make him a “bisexual”? This brings up the question of what is bisexuality. Strictly speaking, it is a sexual attraction to both sexes, so in the case mentioned above, and in the modern day closet case, both (if not attracted to male or females respectively) are what many would say they are: the Greek man being a heterosexual male, and the closeted man being a homosexual.

My hypothesis on the perceived variance between the percentages of homo/bisexuals of these certain Greek city-states and today is attributable to either a) their was a congregation of homo/bisexuals who sought their own kind, which drove up the proportion, or b) if one takes a view of the entire Greek populace, rather than certain cities, the percentages would probably be somewhat equivalent to today’s, with any small differences due to the loose laws which encouraged the exposure of homo/bisexuals.

Your next argument was that taste in woman has changed with time and cultures. You were claiming that in the past, different cultures found heavy-set women attractive, whereas today’s society found slim women to be preferable. You were trying to claim that the difference in preference is attributable to society’s conditioning of the male population to prefer certain types of women. You said that Marilyn Monroe, being somewhat heavy set, was the preferred type of women in her time, versus the skinny Paris Hiltons of today’s time period. You said that such a thing cannot be genetic in origin and is due (presumably) entirely due to societies attitudes at a certain time. This argument is an interesting one, however it is overlooking a few things. What exactly makes a society? Is it what the media portrays as being “normal”? Really, a society is made up of people themselves, who have their own opinions. Of course attitudes will change with time, because new generations are being born who have their own attitudes. These attitudes go on to constitute an overall society. So in effect, the society is just a representation of a majority of opinions and attitudes of the people. But what about the most extreme of cases, such as (as you had brought up) the paintings in the Sistine Chapel, where women of what could easily be considered obese women, were attractive? Here, the question is, what exactly do we (or more appropriately the men living at the time) mean by “attractive”? Attractiveness can be more than *sexual* attractiveness, in that obese women in areas of poor nutrition, were often of the aristocracy, who could afford as much food to achieve their weight. The attractiveness may not have been “sexual” attractiveness, but rather “social” attractiveness on account of their wealth and aristocratic position, something that other women sought to be, perpetuating an “attractiveness” of over-weight women. Perhaps it wouldn’t hurt to also mention that obese women weren’t a common sight in the brothels, where men *paid* to copulate with slender women (proof of this is seen in the art work depicting the brothels of these civilizations, a famous one being the frescoes of the brothels of Pompeii, among others). Perhaps, they too, “had to put up with” the slim women when they paid for them and advertised for them? America’s preference for thin women over heavy-set women is due to the removal of the common social status of heavy women. In America, it is more often the slender women who will be successful. That, as well as their obvious physical attractiveness, combines to make them the usual choice of preferred woman in America, whereas, slender women in other cultures, more frequently represent the poor and malnourished… not very attractive, sexually or otherwise. The revulsion that many have for the severely obese women is not something unexpected, nor is it an anomaly, since in a nation such as America, where the representation of the heavy as the wealthy is nonexistent, people will focus solely on the shortcomings and what people consider lack of self control, which they view as unattractive.

Next, you tried to say that certain dress fashions and the idea that taste is subjective try to prove the idea that, homo/bisexuality is subjective. Here are some of your examples:

*Asked to remove quotes*

All these things, although they are seen as “attractive” to many, do not define what people are attracted to, and I highly doubt that a preference, which can change with time, in any way correlates to attractiveness to certain sexes. I can’t imagine a person saying such a thing as: “We all thought women were hot in the 80’s, we all laugh at ourselves now.” Tastes can change, and that can be influenced by society to a certain extent, because when majorities of people share similar views, small differences from time to time aren’t going to drastically change anything. As the conversation went on, at certain times you had expressed a view that I sounded like a conspiracy theorist in my arguments. Well, let me turn the tables on you. When you make it sound like if it were that men had only not been influence by the extreme bias of society against those of homo/bisexual orientation, they would realize that, hey, they too could be lured to a homo/bisexual lifestyle since the whole sexual orientation thing is simply a matter of how one is brought up, meaning I guess, that if a man were brought up in a completely neutral environment (an impossibility except for perhaps a boy who survived as an orphan on a desert island), he would be (perhaps) equally accepting of both a homo/bisexual lifestyle as compared to a heterosexual lifestyle, presumably without question (RIIIIIIIIGHT…). A man cannot be reasonably compared to a woman, as a woman dressed a certain way is compared to a woman dressed a different way. In the end, the latter are both woman, and you are trying to cross a huge bridge by trying to compare a man to a woman as you did.

Another one of your argument was the so-called “raver” groups, that experimented with mind altering drugs and bisexual acts. Here you tried to make the comparison between the *physical* effects of drugs, perhaps altering a person’s hormonal levels, to that of social conditioning:

*Asked to remove quotes*

So you honestly believe in a comparison between the effects of a potentially mind altering drug to what people tell you? Believe me, if *anybody* is subjugated, belittled, whatever, such as a medieval serf being threatened and oppressed by a lord, they are going to keep their mouth shut, not because they have never thought about hating their masters, but because they value their lives and are motivated by *fear* and the physical threat to their humanity. The peasant revolts were obviously results of people speaking out. I suppose they never even conceived of it too? Really, people aren’t as dumb as you seem to think they are. They know when they are being wronged, and if they can get away from that position, hopefully with their lives, they will do it.

Then you try to compare your above statement to people believing that the Earth was flat:

*Asked to remove quotes*

Comparing the belief that the Earth was flat to whether or not a serf has an idea in his head of hating his lord and protesting against him is quite ridiculous. The serf is obviously going to protest against his lord, even if he never says it out loud, but only in his head, and he sure will wonder about the consequences of speaking out. That same serf, however could not prove whether the Earth is flat or not, yet he didn’t need to prove his own emotions. These two things are really quite incomparable.

Next came an argument on whether or not homo/bisexuality preferences can be comparable to tastes in food (of all things):

*Asked to remove quotes*

The comparison between food preferences and sexual orientation you made here is probably the most ludicrous of all your comparisons. Ironically, this is a perfect example of comparing apples and oranges (pun intended). Yeah, food preferences would vary depending on how you were raised. But here’s one: can a lactose-intolerant person suddenly drink all the milk he wants if he chose, because he was raised to not drink milk? Obviously, the answer is no, but *why* is the answer no? Well, according to your logic, it was because he was *raised* not to drink milk, and if he only threw off that social construct of lactose intolerance, he would understand all the joys of milk that has been missing:

*Asked to remove quotes*

…and not the fact that he lacks the proper enzyme to digest the milk.

My own feelings about sexual orientations and preferences, as I have described to you before, in my opinion, and the opinion of many, is due to varying levels or either testosterone or estrogen within the body. Articles on the topic can be found on Google. Tests have been done on rats at varying stages of their lives, where males rats are castrated and display distinct female characteristics, the more so the earlier they are castrated, and where females rats display distinct male characteristics when they are supplied with testosterone shots. It is my opinion, that we are not much different from the rats, and that we too are exposed to the possibility of abnormal hormonal chemicals that can alter the brain. Our most susceptible time is of course when humans are developing as fetuses and the brain is just being formed. Pregnant women share their hormones with the baby and if any of these levels are off balance, the baby can be affected, in my opinion in the form of sexual preferences later in life. Interestingly enough (as a side note), chemicals called xenoestrogens, which are estrogen-mimicking chemical (and are often many times as potent) can be found in our drinking water. One xenoestrogens, in particular called bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, is found in every city’s drinking water, and ironically, its primary purpose was to allow the clear, plastic bottles (such as coke, pepsi, aquafina, etc) to be flexible, otherwise the would peel and crack from being too brittle. Well, things like that, which have been introduced in relatively recent years should be concerning, that is, unless you believe that homo/bisexuality is a result of one’s environment and society.

Where to start, well, maybe with a quote:

"Many sexologists believe that the majority of homo sapiens have the inherent capacity to be attracted to both males and females (a kind of universal potential bisexuality). " -= Wikipedia, 'Human' article

Or:

"Judgement of attractiveness of physical traits is partly universal to all human cultures, partly dependent on culture/society or time period, and partly a matter of individual preference." -= Wikipedia, 'Attractiveness'

Or how about:

"A sufficient body of research exists on the various factors affecting physical attractiveness judgments to develop this comprehensive model which integrates these studies into a system that includes biological, cultural, target and judge factors. The studies cited suggest that once the target surpasses a threshold of biological ugliness, historical, socio-cultural and individual differences factors strongly affect a judge’s physical attractiveness judgments." -= Don R. Osborn, Ph.D in psychology, presented at the 16 th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Society

"It is my opinion, that we are not much different from rats, and that we too are exposed to the possibility of abnormal hormonal chemicals that alter the brain."

I own 6 rats ... I think they are great, and I love their personality quirks. However, their range of behaviors is fairly limited and they are easily conditioned in their behavior - you make a sound, and they come. Humans are, I think, somewhat more complex in our tastes and varied in our cultures.

Of course it is not black and white. If you castrate someone at a young and pump them full of hormones of course you can affect their fundamental experience of sexuality and perhaps shift their orientation, but as the above excerpt indicates there are many other factors. Entire communities of individuals have killed themselves with poisoned Kool-Aid because of mind-altering social circumstances that wer NOT physically invasive. Is it such a stretch to think that people's sexual preferences - not even an explicit matter of life and death - could also be shaped by social factors? No, a person on a desert island would not be *equally* likely to swing either way - but they would be less conditioned toward straightness than someone raised in America (especially 50 years ago).

My various attempts at analogizing were probably all flawed - I was using them more as rhetorical devices - something that might help you realize the complexity of human experience, which is shaped at a fundamental by our cultural contexts and by paradigm shifts. None of them were directly intended to prove my point.

The one that I think is somewhat more closely aligned with my core argument concerns the shifting nature of opposite-sex attraction, which pertains directly to the point. Namely, if what people are attracted to in the same sex changes radically from time to time and place to place it follows, by extension, that attractiveness is fundamentally shaped by societal as well as innate factors.

Let's shift the focus from strictly the numeric - since that kind of statistical information is problematic to obtain (self-reporting being the only real source) and virtually impossible in certain cases to even guess at. Consider, for a moment, the *ways* in which "homosexuality" has manifested in various cultures and at various times:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_sexuality

The term "homosexuality" was invented in the 19th century, with the term "heterosexuality" invented later in the same century to contrast with the earlier term. ... This points out that the history of sexuality is not solely the history of different-sex sexuality plus the history of same-sex sexuality, but a broader conception viewing of historical events in light of our modern concept or concepts of sexuality taken at its most broad and/or literal definitions. ... However, many, especially in the academic world, regard the use of modern labels as problematic, owing to differences in the ways that different societies constructed sexual orientation identities and to the connotations of modern words like "queer." For example, in many societies same-sex sex acts were expected, or completely ignored, and no identity was constructed on their basis at all. Academic works usually specify which words will be used and in which context. Readers are cautioned to avoid making assumptions about the identity of historical figures based on the use of the terms mentioned above."

I mean, if you think about this carefully, it is mindblowing - like trying to imagine what it was like when people thought the world was flat (hence why I brought it up). Some societies *didn't even care* about homosexual acts, some cultures *expected* them - and on top of all this (the real heavy-hitter) the concepts we are using in this conversation *are only a few centuries old." You made a comment about comparing apples and oranges. Well, how can you even compare sexualities from age to age and culture to culture when the terms you are using to make your argument (that there is a static percentage of all populations that is homo- or bisexual) *would not even be comprehensible to some of the cultures in question.* This is a classic problem of anthropology - applying current conceptual frameworks to radically different cultural contexts. By that token, I am less so arguing for varying populations of different sexual orientations so much as questioning the a priori nature of these simplistic classifications.

Finally, I found your section on the consensus nature of taste highly disturbing. If I am reading it correctly, you are asserting that tastes change because majorities shift, which in turn occurs because of new people being born with different innate or intrinsic preferences, rather than all of this being caused by societal changes:

"You were trying to claim that the difference in preference is attributable to society’s conditioning of the male population to prefer certain types of women. Really, a society is made up of people themselves, who have their own opinions. Of course attitudes will change with time, because new generations are being born who have their own attitudes. These attitudes go on to constitute an overall society."

So in ancient Greece a lot of pedophiles were born, hence pederastic sex? In India, people born (coincidentally?) into different castes happened to prefer different things out of the following list: adultery, homosexuality, transgenderism, exhibitionism, prostitution, sadism/masochism, zoophilia, and necrophilia - all of which were accepted at times and in places BUT not in others? Of course society isn't some outside entity which "conditions" a passive populous - they are mutually shaped by one another, society and people. Still, dominant trends do emerge - as with the above examples from the history of sexuality - all of which are shaped by global and local political, economic and cultural factors. And, in turn, these trends fundamentally change and are changed by the way we view reality and the behaviors we engage in within it. Some cultures are vegetarian, others practice cannibalism. Some cultures embrace war and hatred more than any other in the world, slaughtering millions of innocents, then two generations later embrace peace. Why, then, is sexuality sacred in your mind? If men can become mass-murderers because of circumstance, why can't they be attracted to other men just as easily or perhaps more so?

I'm not saying nature doesn't play a role, but nurture plays one as well - and there is no way to determine objectively just how much, though the existence of societies where radically different sexual practices were not only allowed but in many cases widespread suggests strongly, to me, that enivornmental factors are a strong determinant of sexual behavior. If you disagree I honestly believe you are overlooking both empirical evidence and intuitively obvious aspects of the nature of taste as it changes over time. You'd like Kant, you'd hate Hume.

I own 6 rats ... I think they are great, and I love their personality quirks. However, their range of behaviors is fairly limited and they are easily conditioned in their behavior - you make a sound, and they come. Humans are, I think, somewhat more complex in our tastes and varied in our cultures.

I guess owning rats makes you an expert on them.

Of course it is not black and white. If you castrate someone at a young and pump them full of hormones of course you can affect their fundamental experience of sexuality and perhaps shift their orientation, but as the above excerpt indicates there are many other factors. Entire communities of individuals have killed themselves with poisoned Kool-Aid because of mind-altering social circumstances that wer NOT physically invasive.

They probably killed themselves because they were suicidal, not because society made them suicidal. The people that commit mass suicide are usually those who are already suicidal, meet up with others like themselves, and then kill themselves. I think it is a stretch to say that society told them to commit suicide, even subliminally, seeing as suicidal people are usually psychotic in other ways as well.

Is it such a stretch to think that people's sexual preferences - not even an explicit matter of life and death - could also be shaped by social factors? No, a person on a desert island would not be *equally* likely to swing either way - but they would be less conditioned toward straightness than someone raised in America (especially 50 years ago).

If such a person were not *equally* likely to swing a certain way, how much would they swing towards homosexuality or heterosexuality, and how could that possibly be determined, and why is it that they are not *equally* likely?

The one that I think is somewhat more closely aligned with my core argument concerns the shifting nature of opposite-sex attraction, which pertains directly to the point. Namely, if what people are attracted to in the same sex changes radically from time to time and place to place it follows, by extension, that attractiveness is fundamentally shaped by societal as well as innate factors.

How is what people are attracted to being *changed*? I do not see that to be the case at all, rather just the number of open homo/bisexuals is changing, and that is up to debate, because of what those numbers of homosexuals constitute: either a separate group entirely or a smaller part of the larger culture. You are assuming that it is what people are actually attracted to that has changed, rather than whether such feelings of attraction have been allowed to be acceptable in the varying societies, which in my opinion, does not actually change the people’s attractions to the genders, but will change the numbers of the people who openly practice.

Let's shift the focus from strictly the numeric - since that kind of statistical information is problematic to obtain (self-reporting being the only real source) and virtually impossible in certain cases to even guess at. Consider, for a moment, the *ways* in which "homosexuality" has manifested in various cultures and at various times:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_sexuality

The term "homosexuality" was invented in the 19th century, with the term "heterosexuality" invented later in the same century to contrast with the earlier term. ... This points out that the history of sexuality is not solely the history of different-sex sexuality plus the history of same-sex sexuality, but a broader conception viewing of historical events in light of our modern concept or concepts of sexuality taken at its most broad and/or literal definitions. ... However, many, especially in the academic world, regard the use of modern labels as problematic, owing to differences in the ways that different societies constructed sexual orientation identities and to the connotations of modern words like "queer." For example, in many societies same-sex sex acts were expected, or completely ignored, and no identity was constructed on their basis at all. Academic works usually specify which words will be used and in which context. Readers are cautioned to avoid making assumptions about the identity of historical figures based on the use of the terms mentioned above."

I mean, if you think about this carefully, it is mindblowing - like trying to imagine what it was like when people thought the world was flat (hence why I brought it up). Some societies *didn't even care* about homosexual acts, some cultures *expected* them - and on top of all this (the real heavy-hitter) the concepts we are using in this conversation *are only a few centuries old." You made a comment about comparing apples and oranges. Well, how can you even compare sexualities from age to age and culture to culture when the terms you are using to make your argument (that there is a static percentage of all populations that is homo- or bisexual) *would not even be comprehensible to some of the cultures in question.* This is a classic problem of anthropology - applying current conceptual frameworks to radically different cultural contexts. By that token, I am less so arguing for varying populations of different sexual orientations so much as questioning the a priori nature of these simplistic classifications.

Again, even though societies attitudes towards sexuality has varied, that is not an indicator of a change in homosexual numbers amongst the entire population, especially when in ancient cultures, such as the Greeks, there existed different societies as a part of a much larger population. A society that *expected* homo/bisexual behavior most likely consisted primarily of homo/bisexuals. That doesn’t mean that that society was the prevailing society amongst the majority of the Greeks (or any other society), but simply a subset of the rest of the population. This is seen in every human population, which segregates themselves into their respective groups based on common characteristics. I think it is flawed thinking to say that “homosexuality” was a term that was *invented*, since it is much more accurate and less misleading to say that it was *defined* since homosexuality (or homosexual acts) *is* something that has been understood by man much later than the 19th century. Wikipedia will point out the various cultures and their attitudes towards same sex relations. Please don’t try to tell me that since they had never heard of the word “homosexual” that they were ignorant of the meaning of its definition.

Finally, I found your section on the consensus nature of taste highly disturbing. If I am reading it correctly, you are asserting that tastes change because majorities shift, which in turn occurs because of new people being born with different innate or intrinsic preferences, rather than all of this being caused by societal changes:

"You were trying to claim that the difference in preference is attributable to society’s conditioning of the male population to prefer certain types of women. Really, a society is made up of people themselves, who have their own opinions. Of course attitudes will change with time, because new generations are being born who have their own attitudes. These attitudes go on to constitute an overall society."

So in ancient Greece a lot of pedophiles were born, hence pederastic sex? In India, people born (coincidentally?) into different castes happened to prefer different things out of the following list: adultery, homosexuality, transgenderism, exhibitionism, prostitution, sadism/masochism, zoophilia, and necrophilia - all of which were accepted at times and in places BUT not in others? Of course society isn't some outside entity which "conditions" a passive populous - they are mutually shaped by one another, society and people. Still, dominant trends do emerge - as with the above examples from the history of sexuality - all of which are shaped by global and local political, economic and cultural factors. And, in turn, these trends fundamentally change and are changed by the way we view reality and the behaviors we engage in within it. Some cultures are vegetarian, others practice cannibalism. Some cultures embrace war and hatred more than any other in the world, slaughtering millions of innocents, then two generations later embrace peace. Why, then, is sexuality sacred in your mind? If men can become mass-murderers because of circumstance, why can't they be attracted to other men just as easily or perhaps more so?

How is it outlandish to say that each person can develop their own opinions, which are not necessarily the opinions of a prevailing society? And how is it any more outlandish to say that the varying opinions of people change not because society changes, but because the numbers of people who support a certain type of opinion become more prevalent, or are allowed to become more prevalent. By the way, those sexual deviant acts that you listed are not unique to any one culture. Their acceptance in one culture versus their acceptance in other cultures does not mean those who practiced it did not exist in the culture that did not allow it, and I think this is where you are wrong in your ideas. You are placing the acceptance of “deviant acts” of sexuality as a true indicator of the presence (or lack thereof) of the practitioners, whereas I believe they are there, whether or not it is accepted. The lack of acceptance does suppress the amount of acts, but does not dissuade the people from an “attraction” to the act (which I think is your problem with accepting my argument since proving such an idea would be problematic).

I'm not saying nature doesn't play a role, but nurture plays one as well - and there is no way to determine objectively just how much, though the existence of societies where radically different sexual practices were not only allowed but in many cases widespread suggests strongly, to me, that enivornmental factors are a strong determinant of sexual behavior. If you disagree I honestly believe you are overlooking both empirical evidence and intuitively obvious aspects of the nature of taste as it changes over time. You'd like Kant, you'd hate Hume.

Sure environmental factors were a factor in the *rate of occurrence* of sexual behavior, but it does not *determine* whether or not a person would have a desire for that sexual behavior. The “evidence” that you presented, I have already given a possible explanation for.

owning rats doesn't make me an expert on them. regardless, that was anecdotal - i didn't claim to be an 'expert.'

as for you weird thing about suicidal people seeking each other out - see: the milgrim experiment. because if you think that people are just suicidal because of, what, how they were born? then shouldn't people be homicidal for the same reasons? this experiment proves otherwise. a lot of jews were killed by germans in world war two ... so what does that tell us? by your logic people who liked to kill jews slowly gathered in germany over the course of, what, a couple hundred years? and then when the time was right, they started killing jews. or was there just a genetic defect in that generation that caused them all to think 'gee, wouldn't it be neat to kill 5 million jews?' it had nothing to do with the social, economic and political pressures in the region.

if people aren't equally likely to turn to either homosexuality or heterosexuality (let's accept these constructs for the moment) how is it determined? genes, hormones ... as you say ... plus environment, upbringing, etc... there is a strong correlation between males without strong father figure and homosexuality. it's a mix, and if you're religious, i suppose you could add in 'choice' or 'free will'

ok, and you say the population don't change ... fine ... so there are either more or less people in the closet at one time? but they all KNOW they're gay on your account, right? so all those people who get to middle age and say 'shit, this isn't working ...' and realize they are gay - they're just liars, right? they knew all along but pretended otherwise? cuz there sure are a lot of liars out there then ... wouldn't it have been easier to come out sooner? save themselves the heartache of broken kids and marriage? and concerning other sexual practices ... ok, so um, you were just 'lucky' then that you weren't born to be a necropheliac? cuz those poor suckers who are born attracted to corpses, man, i pity them.

do you have any - ANY - knowledge, experience, etc... concerning the evolution of concepts, paradigm shifts, etc...? i mean, you seem to think you could go back 2000 years, sit down with any old guy, and once you got the language thing solved you'd be like two peas in a pod. this is why i wanted you to talk to a #@$#@ anthropologist. ask them and they'll tell you - other cultures *even in our time* and *especially* if you include past times have experienced reality in different ways. but all of that aside: you keep talking about 'subsets of cultures' when the link i provided you cited *entire nations* yes that's right - political entities that people are *born into* like the caste system in india which had particular beliefs about what was good and bad sexuality. sorry, but this notion of societies-choosing-what-they-want-by-consensus - i challenge you to find a singel remotely reputable sociologist, anthropologist, political scientist or friggin even an acupuncturist who believes that. i mean, why even bother having these fields at all, for that matter. if all societies are just the sum total of everyone's individual opinions we might as well jetison everything but the study of individuals, right? in fact, terms like 'society' and 'culture' become meaningless because, on your logic, they don't exist - it's only 'majority' and 'minority' ... sounds tyrranical to me.

look, have you ever been to a single foreign country? have you talked extensively with a foreigner? do you understand how fundamentally different the perception of reality varies from culture to culture, the value systems, the loves and hates, the tastes, the attitudes?

<<How is it outlandish to say that each person can develop their own opinions, which are not necessarily the opinions of a prevailing society? And how is it any more outlandish to say that the varying opinions of people change not because society changes, but because the numbers of people who support a certain type of opinion become more prevalent, or are allowed to become more prevalent. >>

Ok, we have come down to a fundamentally philosophical problem here. What do you mean by: 'each person developing their opinions.' How does that work? What goes into that? If you believe that genetics shape at a fundamental level *who we are* then where is 'choice?' How do you come to your opinions if you're just born to have certain opinions and society is merely the sum total of everyone's 'opinion' who happens to be around at the time? Do they come out of the blue? Out of your ass? What is the framework within which you create opinions? Language? Abstract thought? And do you think these are static over time, from society to society? Do you think your thought process and/or linguistic framework is very close to that of a pirate sailor in the 1500's, Jolly Roger? The kinds of inclinations a pirate had, do you think they were similar to yours? In short: *what is the basis for your opinions if not enivornmental and biological factors or god*

Here's a question for you, a very simple one:

If you believe (as you claim) that an inclination to either be attracted to males or females is something you are born with, then what about the impulse to cause harm or murder people? I mean, it's not like people are going to *die* based on whether you are gay or straight, so it seems less fundamental to the human condition than, say, the willingness to kill. and yet, people have been easily duped in simplistic psychology experiments to *consistently and predicably cause harm regardless of their past histories or other aspects of their personalities.* If you believe we are like rats, then presumably we can be equally easily conditioned *by enivornmental factors* (such as society), as such experiments demonstrate.

See: Milgram Experiment

Then get back to me ...

Meanwhile ponder this: why are children who are abused many more times likely to become subsequent child abusers? obviously this disproves that their attraction is based on genetics. what if you were sleeping with a woman and then found out (soap-opera style!) that she were your sister? i bet you'd never be attracted to her again. so i wonder, where does genetics fit into this scenario? there are infinitely more where those came from ...

as for you weird thing about suicidal people seeking each other out - see: the milgrim experiment. because if you think that people are just suicidal because of, what, how they were born? then shouldn't people be homicidal for the same reasons? this experiment proves otherwise. a lot of jews were killed by germans in world war two ... so what does that tell us? by your logic people who liked to kill jews slowly gathered in germany over the course of, what, a couple hundred years? and then when the time was right, they started killing jews. or was there just a genetic defect in that generation that caused them all to think 'gee, wouldn't it be neat to kill 5 million jews?' it had nothing to do with the social, economic and political pressures in the region.

Yes, I believe that the majority of suicides (that are voluntary- not accidental or political suicides such as Rommel or things like that) are due to mental illness related to the physical state of their brains, which manifests itself in extreme emotions that can (and often do) lead to suicide. Do a Google search on suicide and mental illness, and you will come up with many sites dedicated to it. On the first site I visited, it said:

Studies have shown that over 90% of people who die from suicide have one or more psychiatric disorders at the time of their death. http://www.stopasuicide.org/suicide.html

The National Institute of Mental Health lists suicide *as a mental disorder of its own*. Here is their site on suicide:

http://www.nimh.nih.gov/suicideprevention/suicidefaq.cfm

See these topics:
Is suicide related to impulsiveness? …
What biological factors increase risk for suicide? …
Can the risk for suicide be inherited? …
Does depression increase the risk for suicide? …

I guess NIMH is “weird” to you. As for homicide, yes I believe homicidal behavior, too, can be attributed to mental disorders which can passed on genetically, much like suicide. I do not see that the Milgram Experiment proved your point. It even showed that the sadistic (which is attributable to mental health) acted like sadistic people should, and those who conscientiously objected, did so. That even a majority of people continued with the experiment to the end still does not surprise me. If we are correlating the experiment to murder (which in my opinion makes the whole thing seem skeptical), it fits in with the fact the most people have thought about killing someone in their lives, which is in fact homicidal. Whether or not a person carries out those homicidal acts, in my opinion, correlates to the degree of mental disorder and with the culture of society at the time. In ancient societies, wars, duels, murders were nothing uncommon, and it is still that way today. The media is full of murder movies, murder/war oriented games (cough*Bolo*cough), books, etc, which all appeal to a person who does not find murder/death of others to be horribly sickening to them. How often do you mourn at the loss of an LGM der? Do you realize you just killed a human being, who had most everything human about him that you or I have? Yes, it is not strictly a human being, but why is it that such games that imitate the deaths of simulated people appeal to us? Is it because they are taught to be homicidal by their families? Did your daddy tell you der that killing fake humans on a computer screen was something socially acceptable? Or did you come to it out of a natural inclination to something that appealed to you as being “fun” which also happened to keep playing… instead of drifting off to play a more neutrally oriented game, where the deaths of simulated humans was not involved? The Germans during the Second World War exercised their homicidal nature, and as you pointed out became a “peaceful” society. Does a “peaceful” society have games where people kill one another? Does a “peaceful” society have an army? Does a “peaceful” society sell armaments to other nations? Does a “peaceful” society have a murder rate that is virtually on par with that of a militaristic society? Germany and the Germans have not changed their attitudes towards murder at a personal level over 40 years, nor would any other culture for that matter. Their actions during the World Wars were simply an outlet for their personal homicidal characteristics, which I believe the majority, rather than a minority, of the human population harbors. Whether or not they carry out homicidal behavior (much like my argument of a homosexual carrying out homosexual acts) depends on circumstances and societies “allowance” of their behavior. The majority of civilizations that have had opportunities for war, allowed and encouraged militarism, and then went to war. The civilizations that lacked the opportunity for war simply meant that their outlets were limited to acts such as homicide, which aren’t much different from that of the militaristic societies. The people with the most severe mental disorders used homicide as their outlet, while the less severely affected used war. They are both a means to an end: killing people. The social, political, and economic pressures, were not causes as you say, but were merely *excuses* for war/murder, which provided an excellent outlet for their homicidal characteristics, which in my opinion, still exist today (in the majority of societies) in the much *subdued* form of such things as “war games” and other examples I have already mentioned.

if people aren't equally likely to turn to either homosexuality or heterosexuality (let's accept these constructs for the moment) how is it determined? genes, hormones ... as you say ... plus environment, upbringing, etc... there is a strong correlation between males without strong father figure and homosexuality. it's a mix, and if you're religious, i suppose you could add in 'choice' or 'free will'

What would make a person who is genetically/hormonally oriented to one sex, “freely choose” to be sexually attracted to another sex? And does that “free will” actually make them homo/bi/heterosexual? Can I “choose” to be a woman? I can choose to act like a woman, but would I have a disposition to do it simply because I *could* do it, or even if a society told me to do it unless I actually *was* of that predisposition?

ok, and you say the population don't change ... fine ... so there are either more or less people in the closet at one time? but they all KNOW they're gay on your account, right? so all those people who get to middle age and say 'shit, this isn't working ...' and realize they are gay - they're just liars, right? they knew all along but pretended otherwise? cuz there sure are a lot of liars out there then ... wouldn't it have been easier to come out sooner? save themselves the heartache of broken kids and marriage? and concerning other sexual practices ... ok, so um, you were just 'lucky' then that you weren't born to be a necropheliac? cuz those poor suckers who are born attracted to corpses, man, i pity them.

Yes, they know what is or isn’t attractive to them. A lot of liars are out there? I’d say almost everyone is a liar. But it’s not so much as they are lying than they are confused sexually… they are encouraged to have a sexual preference one way, but their nature/instincts tell direct them towards another sexual preference. Whether or not they actually told themselves that “Yes, I am homosexual,” is not so much the point, as is that they see that homosexuality is something that’s seems like it is their normal sexual preference. Whether or not the exhibit their preference openly, I feel is attributable to societies degree of acceptance/lack of acceptance of a homo/bisexual lifestyle, but I do not believe that because they choose not to openly display their sexual orientation, that makes them heterosexual (if their preference is bi/homosexual). Whether or not it is “easier” to come out sooner depends on the personality of the people and, as I stated, the degree of acceptance of their orientation socially. Whether a person comes out at 16 or 60 depends on how they feel they will be accepted and whether or not they realize what they truly are, and that their orientation differs with the mainstream orientation. As for necrophilia, I believe that is like any other sexual orientation: some people, when presented with the opportunity will do it (even if society discourages it) and some people won’t do it (even when society says it’s acceptable).

do you have any - ANY - knowledge, experience, etc... concerning the evolution of concepts, paradigm shifts, etc...? i mean, you seem to think you could go back 2000 years, sit down with any old guy, and once you got the language thing solved you'd be like two peas in a pod. this is why i wanted you to talk to a #@$#@ anthropologist. ask them and they'll tell you - other cultures *even in our time* and *especially* if you include past times have experienced reality in different ways. but all of that aside: you keep talking about 'subsets of cultures' when the link i provided you cited *entire nations* yes that's right - political entities that people are *born into* like the caste system in india which had particular beliefs about what was good and bad sexuality. sorry, but this notion of societies-choosing-what-they-want-by-consensus - i challenge you to find a singel remotely reputable sociologist, anthropologist, political scientist or friggin even an acupuncturist who believes that. i mean, why even bother having these fields at all, for that matter. if all societies are just the sum total of everyone's individual opinions we might as well jetison everything but the study of individuals, right? in fact, terms like 'society' and 'culture' become meaningless because, on your logic, they don't exist - it's only 'majority' and 'minority' ... sounds tyrranical to me.
look, have you ever been to a single foreign country? have you talked extensively with a foreigner? do you understand how fundamentally different the perception of reality varies from culture to culture, the value systems, the loves and hates, the tastes, the attitudes?

The society of post-World War 2 America is dramatically different from the society of today. Why is that derami? If those who were raised under the society of the 1950’s embraced their parents cultural beliefs, how did we get the “free love generations” of the 1960’s? Obviously the culture, the people, and therefore the society changed, quite dramatically. There were more people who supported a certain type of culture, so it became fairly prominent. If a culture doesn’t have the numerical standing, then it is very unlikely it will become prominent. How is this so hard for you to accept? If there are more people who believe in a certain set of values (free love vs. religiosity), then that particular culture may come to dominate. The free lovers obviously didn’t follow in their parent’s footsteps, which was the prevailing social structure at the time, so when the “free lovers” gained enough numbers, their ideas began to become dominant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society:

Ontology

As a related note, there is still an ongoing debate in sociological and anthropological circles as to whether there exists an entity we could call society. Some Marxist theorists, like Louis Althusser, Ernesto Laclau and Slavoj Zizek, have argued that society is nothing more than an effect of the ruling ideology of a certain class system, and shouldn't be used as a sociological notion. Marx's concept of society as the sum total of social relations among members of a community contrasts with interpretations from the perspective of methodological individualism where society is simply the sum total of individuals in a territory.

<<How is it outlandish to say that each person can develop their own opinions, which are not necessarily the opinions of a prevailing society? And how is it any more outlandish to say that the varying opinions of people change not because society changes, but because the numbers of people who support a certain type of opinion become more prevalent, or are allowed to become more prevalent. >>

Ok, we have come down to a fundamentally philosophical problem here. What do you mean by: 'each person developing their opinions.' How does that work? What goes into that? If you believe that genetics shape at a fundamental level *who we are* then where is 'choice?' How do you come to your opinions if you're just born to have certain opinions and society is merely the sum total of everyone's 'opinion' who happens to be around at the time? Do they come out of the blue? Out of your ass? What is the framework within which you create opinions? Language? Abstract thought? And do you think these are static over time, from society to society? Do you think your thought process and/or linguistic framework is very close to that of a pirate sailor in the 1500's, Jolly Roger? The kinds of inclinations a pirate had, do you think they were similar to yours? In short: *what is the basis for your opinions if not enivornmental and biological factors or god*

‘Choice’ I believe can be influenced by social aspects of the time (religion, education, psychology, etc), however, it is the *type* of society (of which there are usually more than one, since even the most homogenous of peoples have divisions between them) and what social aspects they embrace that people will support due to their genetic predisposition, as in the case of sexuality. In other words, a naturally homosexual male, when presented with a choice in societies will support a society where homosexuality is allowed versus one where it is suppressed. Linguistics, for all intents and purposes, are irrelevant.

Here's a question for you, a very simple one:

If you believe (as you claim) that an inclination to either be attracted to males or females is something you are born with, then what about the impulse to cause harm or murder people? I mean, it's not like people are going to *die* based on whether you are gay or straight, so it seems less fundamental to the human condition than, say, the willingness to kill. and yet, people have been easily duped in simplistic psychology experiments to *consistently and predicably cause harm regardless of their past histories or other aspects of their personalities.* If you believe we are like rats, then presumably we can be equally easily conditioned *by enivornmental factors* (such as society), as such experiments demonstrate.

See: Milgram Experiment

Then get back to me ...

See above comments.

Meanwhile ponder this: why are children who are abused many more times likely to become subsequent child abusers? obviously this disproves that their attraction is based on genetics. what if you were sleeping with a woman and then found out (soap-opera style!) that she were your sister? i bet you'd never be attracted to her again. so i wonder, where does genetics fit into this scenario? there are infinitely more where those came from ...

How does it disprove that attraction is based on genetics? Just because something may be based on a possible learned characteristic, that automatically means everything is?

Oh yeah, then there’s this too:

http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=51050

And just because we have sisters, doesn’t mean we don’t know whether or not they are attractive. If we have a sister that is 6’ blonde, blue eyes, etc, we know she’s going to be a hot commodity. The desire we have for her, however, is going to be restrained by society… but it doesn’t mean the attraction is not there. We just simply put it aside in favor of our moral beliefs.

There's a thread dedicated to homosexual necrophiliacs + banging a hot family member.. and I wasn't invited?

Enough with the text, please start posting images.

At the end of the day, the fundamenal and pervasive flaw in your arguments is that you provide no explanation for mechanisms of radical social change. Your theory of genetics influencing most of our dispositions contradicts your suggestion that majority opinion changes over time. If our *basic desires and orienations* were so fundamentally shaped by our genetics, culture wouldn't change over time. Yet you simultaneously indicate that culture *does change* because people change their opinions from generation to generation. Until now, our debate has been (essentially) nature vs. nurture - you arguing for nature, me arguing for nature + nurture, so unless you want to add the oh-so-controversial aspect of 'choice' to your argument (and try doing that via science, not god, and you'll run into problems) then I just don't see where you are goin. In a nutshell: if genetics are everything to you, then how do things change so much from generation to generation?

Hood, you wanted pictures, ok: http://www.amibearornot.com/ - now read the PPS and weigh in on the debate!

Jumping wayyy ahead for a minute: you asked if I had watched Bill O'Reilly today (because Steven Colbert was on the show) and I said I had. Well, there he was, the ultimate conservative bigot in-the-flesh saying that QUOTE Stockholm Syndrome was "almost impossible." He implied that the poor kidnapped kid could have left anytime! What do you think about that? Nawwww, his circumstances - being kidnapped and told that his parents didn't love him but this new guy did and that if he tried to escape him and/or his parents would be hurt - that had nothing to DO with what he did. If he had just *been born with* some bigger balls or had *made a choice* to escape he would have, right? There's just no way that his circumstances could have made him think he not only COULD but SHOULD stay with his kidnapper, right? So way to go - why don't you write into Bill and tell him you agree with him, he da man. Our upbringing doesn't mean jack - kids that don't run away from their rapist/kidnappers are just pathetic losers, right?

Jumping ahead again for a minute: You said that societies that don't have war as an outlet use homicide or war-games. I will believe you, kow-tow and forever trust anything you say if you can demonstrate this principle at even levels of *10 percent* or *one-tenth* of what you are arguing. Show me that Germans - who killed 5 million or more people *just in concentration camps, not even including active war* in a matter of years - SHOW me how they are letting that out in war games and murder. If you can show me that murders and war-game-deaths per, say, 5-year-period total even 500,000, i will forever agree with you.

So ok ... 90% of people who commit suicide have 'mental disorders.' THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR PROVING MY POINT. I am really impressed. I thought you were going to make me work for it. Jolly. How old is the *concept* of mental disorders? Or more specifically: how old are 'bipolar' and 'depressive disorders which the website *you quoted* blame for a lot of these suicides? 100 years? A bit more *maybeeeee*? THANKS, yes, exactly, psychologists attribute psychological diseases to disorders which are barely as old as your great-grandparents. And what about those before them? so try thinking critically about things for just ONE MINUTE PLEASE - why would this stat be floating around? which concerns the *subjective judgements* of psychologists - members of one of the newest academic fields known to man? perhaps because people can't accept that there isn't a reason? and in constructing a meaning we have to refer to an academic construct? The *only way* you can disagree with me - and please, ask a philosophy, psychology, anthropology, sociology, or any academic if you think I'm overstepping my points - is if you really think that truth is objective, and that scientific 'progress' leads us closer to a definable, absolute truth independent of perspective.

I really can't understand how you didn't change any part of your mind based on the Milgrim Experiment. I mean, come on Jolly. It is proof - actual, viable proof - that conditions strongly affect the way we think and behave. And your best counter-argument is that we are all killers deep down and that we let it out through video games? I'm sorry, but the 5-pixeled green man on my screen does not fulfil my primal desire to kill things. And even if it did, how did my parents cope, in a world largely without wars OR video games? Sorry dude, I just don't buy it, and I think you'd be hard-pressed to sell that to anyone else, either. Again: consult your regional academics - find me *someone* who thinks that the Milgrim Exeriment tapped into a primal urge, rather than just being a good demonstrator of the social factors that shape the way we think.

You know, I always wondered how people could believe in Jesus Christ for one simple reason: what about the people that came *before* Jesus? Any fair God wouldn't base salvation on when you were born, that just wouldn't be right. Anyone before Jesus is just fucked? Not cool. But I think I'm starting to get it, now, talking to you - someone I presume is secular. People just have an incredibly difficult time thinking about the different frameworks that inform peoples' perceptions of reality from one era, one epoch, even one generation to another.

So the 1960's ... what was that, exactly? You point that out as a case of culture changing. Why did it change? On your incredibly radical (and I say that because not a single academic/scholar I have ever met would remotely agree with you) interpretation it is because, what, people were born who had different opinions? Or maybe, just maybe, could it be because people were born *without* the impressions that their parents had, and therefore saw things in a different light and thus sought radical social change ... I mean, come on, tell me, honestly, which is more likely? A new set of people - with, as you describe it, a set of predetermined genetic dispositions shaping their entire lives - just spontaneously having radical different opinions, or a fresh set of people with new perspectives looking at the condition of the world and deciding to *fundamentally change the status quo* ...

Hehehehhehehe, "linguistics are, for all intents and purposes, irrelevant" ... oh really?

Language and culture
Language is an element of culture that contributes to every aspect of human relationships. Andy Clark’s assertion that language is the ultimate cultural artifact is backed by the countless functions that language serves. The role that language plays in human interaction transcends basic communication (such as commanding somebody to do something, or providing information when asked a question) to facilitate the existence of ethos and mythos. This cultural artifact encodes meanings through its ability to manipulate what others imagine. The existence of denotations, what we mean to point out or say, is often received as connotation, what people have culturally subscribed to understanding when something is pointed out. Because of language’s proficiency to encode an extensive range of meanings, and represent almost all ideas including thoughts, it is the ultimate cultural artifact.


Ahhhh Wikipedia.

But look, you can argue till you're blue in the face, but honestly all of your arguments seem to come out of your subjective 'gut'

If you are genuinely interested in learning *more* about these subjects, I highly recommend you read Derrida - or if it is too dense, then read someone who has written about him. Ponder what he is saying - language precedes our experience of reality. you think you see 'what is happening' but it is always filtered through language and cognition (if you don't believe me look at the example of the vase-and-face image, which reads as one or the other, but which is really hard to see as a pure line drawing). i mean, come on - can you really say you see 'a table' and don't instantly see it as 'a table'? Do you really think you construct it in your mind from all the little parts and then think 'table'? no, your mind recognizes the general form and says table before you can do much else.

i guess i'm rambling at this point, but i'm deeply confused by your arguments - i've never heard anything like them, for the most part, and your sources are less than compelling. what is your background? what is your interest in this subject (you never did say, even tho i have and i hope you'll agree that one's subjective interest in a subject effects their argument an understanding)?

-= dersuxor

P.S. "Whether a person comes out at 16 or 60 depends on how they feel they will be accepted and whether or not they realize what they truly are"

This is, I think precisely your sticking point. You *presuppose* that there is something that 'we truly are' that predates our birth, and is independent of our experiences in life. I doubt you'll find any scientist, academic, or whatever who agrees with you ..

P.P.S.

"The society of post-World War 2 America is dramatically different from the society of today. Why is that derami? If those who were raised under the society of the 1950’s embraced their parents cultural beliefs, how did we get the “free love generations” of the 1960’s? Obviously the culture, the people, and therefore the society changed, quite dramatically. There were more people who supported a certain type of culture, so it became fairly prominent. If a culture doesn’t have the numerical standing, then it is very unlikely it will become prominent. How is this so hard for you to accept? If there are more people who believe in a certain set of values (free love vs. religiosity), then that particular culture may come to dominate. The free lovers obviously didn’t follow in their parent’s footsteps, which was the prevailing social structure at the time, so when the “free lovers” gained enough numbers, their ideas began to become dominant. "

In a nutshell, I shouldn't have really wasted any time writing anything else, because this paragraph *of yours* proves my point entirely. You basically acknowledge a radical paradigm shifts in the perspective of one generation to the next. If you were right, and most of what we are is passed on genetically, this kind of shift would be impossible. If I were right, and social/political factors play a larger role, and people are born more naively and genetically neutral, then this is precisely what one would expect - radical shifts in behavior, cognition, and perspective from one generation to the next *especially after* periods that had a profound psychological effect on a generation. people - because they *weren't bound by the genetics that determined the behavior of their parents* chose a radically different path than those parents. How do you *not* see this as precise proof of exactly my point?

put another way: if every generation was based on the genetics of the past generation, the generation that *didn't experience the atrocities of WWII* - that led to a shell-shocked conservative and protective vision of the future in my opinion - would have been born just as conservative as their parents. they would have had no reason to rebel, since dispositions would be based on the genetics of their parents. however, this new generation - born directly descended from the old - had a new and different perspective which allowed them to break free of old behavior.

.... if ... you ... disagree .... consult your local academic!

P.P.P.S Obviously you don't have a sister - or you have a way warped view of reality. I myself have no sisters, but I know that I don't find even my culturally-attractive cousins attractive.

At the end of the day, the fundamenal and pervasive flaw in your arguments is that you provide no explanation for mechanisms of radical social change. Your theory of genetics influencing most of our dispositions contradicts your suggestion that majority opinion changes over time. If our *basic desires and orienations* were so fundamentally shaped by our genetics, culture wouldn't change over time. Yet you simultaneously indicate that culture *does change* because people change their opinions from generation to generation. Until now, our debate has been (essentially) nature vs. nurture - you arguing for nature, me arguing for nature + nurture, so unless you want to add the oh-so-controversial aspect of 'choice' to your argument (and try doing that via science, not god, and you'll run into problems) then I just don't see where you are goin. In a nutshell: if genetics are everything to you, then how do things change so much from generation to generation?

I never said that society changed because our genetics changed. That you are implying that I did is putting words in my mouth. What I did say was that what a society is, is determined by the representation and prominence of different ideas and groups. If a society does not *allow* the representation of a certain group (even if it is a part of the population), then that society’s stance towards that group or ideas will not favor it. The radical change in culture can be attributed to the allowance of these groups or ideas into the mainstream culture, which then encourages those of these groups or ideas to display themselves publicly. The reasons for the allowances themselves can have a variety of causes (need, necessity, agenda, etc,), including the Greek aristocracy example, where individuals with certain attitudes (even if they are not the attitude of the ordinary man) seek to make that attitude socially acceptable by pushing their agendas. The pushing of agendas will change the overall culture to accept the attitudes, even if they are not the majority’s opinion. I never said genetics are everything, and I doubt you can quote me as saying such. Genetics are the primary determination of the *individual’s* predisposition. The change from generation to generation (in my hypothesis) is the change in the *allowance and acceptance* of groups and ideologies, which can be said to be societal.

Jumping wayyy ahead for a minute: you asked if I had watched Bill O'Reilly today (because Steven Colbert was on the show) and I said I had. Well, there he was, the ultimate conservative bigot in-the-flesh saying that QUOTE Stockholm Syndrome was "almost impossible." He implied that the poor kidnapped kid could have left anytime! What do you think about that? Nawwww, his circumstances - being kidnapped and told that his parents didn't love him but this new guy did and that if he tried to escape him and/or his parents would be hurt - that had nothing to DO with what he did. If he had just *been born with* some bigger balls or had *made a choice* to escape he would have, right? There's just no way that his circumstances could have made him think he not only COULD but SHOULD stay with his kidnapper, right? So way to go - why don't you write into Bill and tell him you agree with him, he da man. Our upbringing doesn't mean jack - kids that don't run away from their rapist/kidnappers are just pathetic losers, right?

You haven’t quoted what Bill O’Reilly’s hypothesis on why the kid didn’t run away:

On the January 15 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly said of Shawn Hornbeck -- who was abducted at the age of 11, held for four years, and recently found in Missouri -- that "there was an element here that this kid liked about this circumstances" and that he "do[esn't] buy" "the Stockholm syndrome thing." O'Reilly also said: "The situation here for this kid looks to me to be a lot more fun than what he had under his old parents. He didn't have to go to school. He could run around and do whatever he wanted." When fellow Fox News host Greta Van Susteren pointed out that "[s]ome kids like school," O'Reilly replied: "Well, I don't believe this kid did."

That, to me, seems more plausible than the kid being “brainwashed” into not going back to his parents (if he had any love for them or his old life). Being told “your parents didn’t love you” sounds so much like something out of Hollywood that it sounds ridiculous, unless it was actually true, or seemed that way to the kid (which I have no way of proving, just speculating). Sure being threatened or having your family threatened is one thing, but if they are being threatened and the guy is saying “they don’t love him” at the same time, then *something* should be clicking in the kid’s head if he had any sense at all.

Jumping ahead again for a minute: You said that societies that don't have war as an outlet use homicide or war-games. I will believe you, kow-tow and forever trust anything you say if you can demonstrate this principle at even levels of *10 percent* or *one-tenth* of what you are arguing. Show me that Germans - who killed 5 million or more people *just in concentration camps, not even including active war* in a matter of years - SHOW me how they are letting that out in war games and murder. If you can show me that murders and war-game-deaths per, say, 5-year-period total even 500,000, i will forever agree with you.

If you are talking about what I was talking about (i.e. video games), then 500,000 would be a *low* number in comparison to the number of simulated deaths in video games (which was what I was talking about, not military exercises which it seems like to are trying to portray me as saying). The number of people who play Halo or Grand-theft Auto (some incredibly violent video games which are quite realistic) number well into the millions (each of whom kills many simulated human beings). I would not expect murders to be at 1/10th of the level of a war, simply because 1/10th of the human population would not have the reasons, ability to get away with, and allowance of murder as during that of a war. As I said before, the majority of people are absolutely capable of murder, and certainly they have conceived of the possibility of murdering others, not because society told us about murdering people, but because it is basic human instinct to kill things, and on the extreme end of the spectrum, to kill people. War was simply an outlet and excuse to let one of our most basic animal behaviors loose. Our outlets (video games and the like) are much more subdued, but they still appeal to our killer instincts. But for those who cannot control themselves (a small minority and much less than 10%), they may resort to murder.

So ok ... 90% of people who commit suicide have 'mental disorders.' THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR PROVING MY POINT. I am really impressed. I thought you were going to make me work for it. Jolly. How old is the *concept* of mental disorders? Or more specifically: how old are 'bipolar' and 'depressive disorders which the website *you quoted* blame for a lot of these suicides? 100 years? A bit more *maybeeeee*? THANKS, yes, exactly, psychologists attribute psychological diseases to disorders which are barely as old as your great-grandparents. And what about those before them? so try thinking critically about things for just ONE MINUTE PLEASE - why would this stat be floating around? which concerns the *subjective judgements* of psychologists - members of one of the newest academic fields known to man? perhaps because people can't accept that there isn't a reason? and in constructing a meaning we have to refer to an academic construct? The *only way* you can disagree with me - and please, ask a philosophy, psychology, anthropology, sociology, or any academic if you think I'm overstepping my points - is if you really think that truth is objective, and that scientific 'progress' leads us closer to a definable, absolute truth independent of perspective.

I find myself wondering why you keep trying to argue that the diseases/disorders/whatever have been recognized for only a hundred years or so. So what if they are? So is nuclear physics. Does the age somehow discredit it in your mind? As to the subjective judgment, diagnosing mental diseases can be problematic and sometimes inaccurate, however, the disorders do exist, and they are due, primarily to biological factors. These mental disorders are hardly *concepts* but are real physical factors to those who are afflicted by it, and *that* you can ask any psychologist. I don’t know what it is that you are looking for in this, whether you are denying that these disorders have a genetic origin (a Google search of mental disorders and genetics will back this up), or whether you are saying these disorders are caused/diagnosed because of society?! You called me a conspiracy theorist before, now it looks as if you are the one who is the conspiracy theorist.

I really can't understand how you didn't change any part of your mind based on the Milgrim Experiment. I mean, come on Jolly. It is proof - actual, viable proof - that conditions strongly affect the way we think and behave. And your best counter-argument is that we are all killers deep down and that we let it out through video games? I'm sorry, but the 5-pixeled green man on my screen does not fulfil my primal desire to kill things. And even if it did, how did my parents cope, in a world largely without wars OR video games? Sorry dude, I just don't buy it, and I think you'd be hard-pressed to sell that to anyone else, either. Again: consult your regional academics - find me *someone* who thinks that the Milgrim Exeriment tapped into a primal urge, rather than just being a good demonstrator of the social factors that shape the way we think.

Florence R. Miale and Michael Selzer, from “The Nuremberg Mind: The Psychology of the Nazi Leaders,” The Nuremberg Mind (1975)
Psychotherapist Florence R. Miale and political scientist Michael Selzer believe that Milgram’s results are not as convincing as is often believed. They contend that the findings of these controversial experiments can be explained by individual differences in participants’ willingness to inflict pain on others.

The branch of evolutionary psychology follows the belief that biological and evolutionary forces motivate human actions. One such evolutionary psychologist, David Buss, wrote a book titled Murder Is In Our Blood. Your constant nagging of me to talk to people is not a very good argument. Fulfill probably isn’t the best word to use, but a more appropriate phrase to me would be *appeals to*, since a fulfillment is more of a requirement, something that I never argued for. As for past generations, examples would include sports, child games (such as Cowboys & Indians), the occasional fistfight, etc.

So the 1960's ... what was that, exactly? You point that out as a case of culture changing. Why did it change? On your incredibly radical (and I say that because not a single academic/scholar I have ever met would remotely agree with you) interpretation it is because, what, people were born who had different opinions? Or maybe, just maybe, could it be because people were born *without* the impressions that their parents had, and therefore saw things in a different light and thus sought radical social change ... I mean, come on, tell me, honestly, which is more likely? A new set of people - with, as you describe it, a set of predetermined genetic dispositions shaping their entire lives - just spontaneously having radical different opinions, or a fresh set of people with new perspectives looking at the condition of the world and deciding to *fundamentally change the status quo* ...

My example of the change in culture in the 1960’s was to point out how numbers and prominence are a factor in the way a society manifests itself, which you had trouble believing. I never attributed a change in numbers to genetic changes; you simply assumed that was what I was claiming. The argument that I was trying to make was that the numbers, both before and after the changes with a society, were somewhat static, yet with the new generations, what had changed was the tolerance of different ideologies, that allowed those who held those ideologies to show themselves publicly, in essence increasing their numbers in the public eye and therefore changing the overall society and culture.

Hehehehhehehe, "linguistics are, for all intents and purposes, irrelevant" ... oh really?

Language and culture
Language is an element of culture that contributes to every aspect of human relationships. Andy Clark’s assertion that language is the ultimate cultural artifact is backed by the countless functions that language serves. The role that language plays in human interaction transcends basic communication (such as commanding somebody to do something, or providing information when asked a question) to facilitate the existence of ethos and mythos. This cultural artifact encodes meanings through its ability to manipulate what others imagine. The existence of denotations, what we mean to point out or say, is often received as connotation, what people have culturally subscribed to understanding when something is pointed out. Because of language’s proficiency to encode an extensive range of meanings, and represent almost all ideas including thoughts, it is the ultimate cultural artifact.


Ahhhh Wikipedia.

I still don’t see how this is relevant at all to our discussion. Ok, so language is an expression of society, yes, and your point is? People can learn to speak other languages, which are far removed from their own, but just learning the language does not convert those who speak it into adopting their society or its values. Me speaking Chinese does not make me Chinese der, nor even does my understanding of the meaning being conveyed by Chinese make me Chinese. We can learn to do things, yes, but simply learning things does not make us those things. Example: I can learn to throw a ball with my left hand, but unless I do so continually, I will eventually revert to throwing with my right hand because I have a natural disposition to be right handed, not because I was used to being right handed. That might be a poor example for language, but I am applying it more to a learning process, which language is.

P.S. "Whether a person comes out at 16 or 60 depends on how they feel they will be accepted and whether or not they realize what they truly are"

This is, I think precisely your sticking point. You *presuppose* that there is something that 'we truly are' that predates our birth, and is independent of our experiences in life. I doubt you'll find any scientist, academic, or whatever who agrees with you ..

Again: Evolutionary Psychology
That you are saying no one agrees with me is a really poor argument.

P.P.S.

"The society of post-World War 2 America is dramatically different from the society of today. Why is that derami? If those who were raised under the society of the 1950’s embraced their parents cultural beliefs, how did we get the “free love generations” of the 1960’s? Obviously the culture, the people, and therefore the society changed, quite dramatically. There were more people who supported a certain type of culture, so it became fairly prominent. If a culture doesn’t have the numerical standing, then it is very unlikely it will become prominent. How is this so hard for you to accept? If there are more people who believe in a certain set of values (free love vs. religiosity), then that particular culture may come to dominate. The free lovers obviously didn’t follow in their parent’s footsteps, which was the prevailing social structure at the time, so when the “free lovers” gained enough numbers, their ideas began to become dominant. "

In a nutshell, I shouldn't have really wasted any time writing anything else, because this paragraph *of yours* proves my point entirely. You basically acknowledge a radical paradigm shifts in the perspective of one generation to the next. If you were right, and most of what we are is passed on genetically, this kind of shift would be impossible. If I were right, and social/political factors play a larger role, and people are born more naively and genetically neutral, then this is precisely what one would expect - radical shifts in behavior, cognition, and perspective from one generation to the next *especially after* periods that had a profound psychological effect on a generation. people - because they *weren't bound by the genetics that determined the behavior of their parents* chose a radically different path than those parents. How do you *not* see this as precise proof of exactly my point?

put another way: if every generation was based on the genetics of the past generation, the generation that *didn't experience the atrocities of WWII* - that led to a shell-shocked conservative and protective vision of the future in my opinion - would have been born just as conservative as their parents. they would have had no reason to rebel, since dispositions would be based on the genetics of their parents. however, this new generation - born directly descended from the old - had a new and different perspective which allowed them to break free of old behavior.

.... if ... you ... disagree .... consult your local academic!

Again:
I never said that society changed because our genetics changed. That you are implying that I did is putting words in my mouth. What I did say was that what a society is, is determined by the representation and prominence of different ideas and groups. If a society does not *allow* the representation of a certain group (even if it is a part of the population), then that society’s stance towards that group or ideas will not favor it. The radical change in culture can be attributed to the allowance of these groups or ideas into the mainstream culture, which then encourages those of these groups or ideas to display themselves publicly. The reasons for the allowances themselves can have a variety of causes (need, necessity, agenda, etc,), including the Greek aristocracy example, where individuals with certain attitudes (even if they are not the attitude of the ordinary man) seek to make that attitude socially acceptable by pushing their agendas. The pushing of agendas will change the overall culture to accept the attitudes, even if they are not the majority’s opinion. I never said genetics are everything, and I doubt you can quote me as saying such. Genetics are the primary determination of the *individual’s* predisposition. The change from generation to generation (in my hypothesis) is the change in the *allowance and acceptance* of groups and ideologies, which can be said to be societal.

And

My example of the change in culture in the 1960’s was to point out how numbers and prominence are a factor in the way a society manifests itself, which you had trouble believing. I never attributed a change in numbers to genetic changes; you simply assumed that was what I was claiming. The argument that I was trying to make was that the numbers, both before and after the changes with a society, were somewhat static, yet with the new generations, what had changed was the tolerance of different ideologies, that allowed those who held those ideologies to show themselves publicly, in essence increasing their numbers in the public eye and therefore changing the overall society and culture.

P.P.P.S Obviously you don't have a sister - or you have a way warped view of reality. I myself have no sisters, but I know that I don't find even my culturally-attractive cousins attractive.

Well I’m sorry to hear that you think your cousins are ugly. I’ll use your example on this one: what if you were sleeping with a woman and then found out (soap-opera style!) that she were your sister? i bet you'd never be attracted to her again. That we would be attracted to the person in the first place proves that there is an attraction there. If you think that attraction would suddenly disappear, you are lying to yourself. You are simply restraining your attraction for them and telling yourself that attraction doesn’t exist (which it obviously does since you were attracted).

<<My example of the change in culture in the 1960’s was to point out how numbers and prominence are a factor in the way a society manifests itself, which you had trouble believing. I never attributed a change in numbers to genetic changes; you simply assumed that was what I was claiming. The argument that I was trying to make was that the numbers, both before and after the changes with a society, were somewhat static, yet with the new generations, what had changed was the tolerance of different ideologies, that allowed those who held those ideologies to show themselves publicly, in essence increasing their numbers in the public eye and therefore changing the overall society and culture. >>

You are talking in circles, and overtly contradicting yourself. The 'numbers and prominence' changed ... ok, not through genetics, then how? If their 'numbers' changed that suggest that the conservative bloodlines somehow died off - but then you say the numbers were 'somewhat static.'. If their prominence changed, how could this happen unless environmental factors (society) was changing? Why would a liberal ideology magically come to the forefront? Then you attribute change to 'tolerance of different idelogies?' Why would the new generation be more tolerant? If you're saying that homosexuality and a war-like nature are both genetic, wouldn't (in)tolerance be as well? Dude, if it isn't genetics, and it isn't society, how is this change happening? If you don't want me to speculate on what mechanisms you attribute social change to, then make them clear.

Alright, I'm going to keep this brief:

1) The mere fact that you would side with Bill O'Reilly over a wealth of evidence and the beliefs of most psychologists makes me think it's really not worth me having a conversation with you. No offense, it just leads me to think our different reference frames are too far removed from one another.

2) This is reinforced by the derogatory title you gave this thread - which ALSO leads me to believe you don't have any 'out' gay friends (because if you did, you wouldn't use 'homo' so casually). I say 'out' because, statistically, you probably have gay friends too scared to tell you they are.

3) Language and understanding are fundamentally linked. I suggested you read Derrida, but obviously you didn't. I can't begin, here, to explain the radically and fundamentally different ways in which different cultures in different times and places experience reality. If you travelled somewhere non-Western, you'd start to understand. Otherwise, read some books or essays on the subject (anthropology, sociology). I have written extensive papers on these issues and even *I* have to think about it hard to understand it - it is hard to think outside of your own experience, societal knowledge and familiar upbringing.

-= Der

Patricia Shaw commenting on Elizabeth Hurst after her kidnapping:

"You've, in a way, given up, you've absorbed the new identity they've given you. You're surviving -- you're not even doing that – you're just living while everything else is going on around you," she said.

Hearst said that for some time after Elizabeth is back with her family she may still believe "her kidnappers have some sort control over her."

Hearst said she didn't feel free until she faced her abductors in court and "knew for sure that they could never, ever hurt me again."

Elizabeth's father, Ed Smart, also believes his daughter was brainwashed. He and his family have not pressed her for details to spare her further trauma.

I honestly think you disprespect the victims and undermine their suffering by even speculating that they were too weak or somehow content with their conditions to escape - or that their understanding of their own imprisonment was as laughably simplistic as you imagine (limited to their physical confinement). We are talking about people who have been systematically beaten, raped, caged and subjected to unknown horrors that would make most POW camps like summer camps. I've broken my neck and subsequently had holes drilled in my head and a 3-month body cast put on ... but I can't begin to fathom an experience like what these people go through. Can you? The woman above was raped, beaten and stored in a closet. She was later seen out walking with her kidnappers, when she might have signalled someone of her plight. Now you tell me what you think: was she happy and content or was she beaten, broken, confused and brain-washed? And those who slaughtered Jews in the Holocaust - you honestly believe that if it weren't for societal 'constraints' we would all go about killing 26 million people again? How naiive and depressing.

EVEN IF Bill O'Reilly were a knowledgable psychologist - rather than an overly-opinionated bigot - what is the point of such speculation? If the child's parents hear about this, what are they to think? But the ethics of what he said aside, consider the quote above from a kidnap victim who was completely subsumed in their new identity, even though *they were kidnapped in college and not at an impressionable young age of 11* If a girl in college can be that radically reshaped by her experience, what do you think would happen to a pre-teen?

However, I *do* find this to be consistent with (and to some extent explanatory of) your other stated beliefs related to the human condition. For some reason, you are convinced that we are fundamentally who we are, whatever life throws in our way. Well, to be frank (and perhaps somewhat conescending, sorry) I think that you must have lived a fairly sheltered life and are ignoring glaringly obvious examples - such as twin studies which show how divergent adult personalities are even amongst genetically identical individuals.

But I digress.

Let's keep this simple.

You shot your own credibility to hell in the very first thing you did in this conversation: labeling this forum. Trying to support your arguments with (and supporting the arguments of) a well-known idiot like Bill O'Reilly is just icing :D

-= Der

You are talking in circles, and overtly contradicting yourself. The 'numbers and prominence' changed ... ok, not through genetics, then how? If their 'numbers' changed that suggest that the conservative bloodlines somehow died off - but then you say the numbers were 'somewhat static.'. If their prominence changed, how could this happen unless environmental factors (society) was changing? Why would a liberal ideology magically come to the forefront? Then you attribute change to 'tolerance of different idelogies?' Why would the new generation be more tolerant? If you're saying that homosexuality and a war-like nature are both genetic, wouldn't (in)tolerance be as well? Dude, if it isn't genetics, and it isn't society, how is this change happening? If you don't want me to speculate on what mechanisms you attribute social change to, then make them clear.

If a society is comprised of a certain number of individuals, and that their number is static within a society, it goes to say that their influence in that society will correlate somewhat to their numbers, power, and wealth. If a “change” happens to that society, and their numbers do not change (because they are static), then the change can be attributable to an increasing influence coming from those groups, in the form of propaganda, bias, widespread indoctrination, fear, etc. This is where a “society” comes into play. It affects how prevalent those of a particular group or ideology are in the sense of publicity. If a “society” becomes quite lenient, or even promoting of an ideology (due to the reasons previously stated), then those who are brought up in that type of environment will not necessarily support it, and may even be actively against it, but they keep their mouths shut (tolerance) because they must live among the people who do support this prevalent ideology. In addition, those who are members of the group/ideology, will become active in the “public eye” and will have a much greater affect on the makeup of the society than if they had been suppressed and maintained their secrecy. Whether or not intolerance is genetic or not I think depends upon what a person is being tolerant/intolerant of. Some things are learned and others are due to human biological. Whether or not a person likes paper bags versus plastic is not something determined by a human’s biology, and is thus subject to “society’s” influence.

By the way, I never said “numbers and prominence changed”. I said numbers and prominence are a factor in the way a society manifests itself. For example, the “free lovers” did not come to be through genetics. I was simply pointing out how numbers are a factor in the makeup of society, something you didn’t believe. Homosexuals, who I believe to be determined by biological factors, do not change their numbers within a population (except in the San Francisco analogy which that particular argument was pertaining to), but what does change is their social standing and the tolerance towards them (which is societal). The changes in the society are obviously societal. Why? Because society is changing! If it were the biology of the population that was changing, then one wouldn’t say it is only society was changing (which it does since society is an expression of those who it is comprised of), but instead we would say that the *population* was changing. I hope I made that clear enough.

1) The mere fact that you would side with Bill O'Reilly over a wealth of evidence and the beliefs of most psychologists makes me think it's really not worth me having a conversation with you. No offense, it just leads me to think our different reference frames are too far removed from one another.

Just what “wealth of evidence” are you referring to here? Can you tell me how Bill O’Reilly is mistaken in his argument? Because other people believe that it was Stockholm syndrome is not proof that Bill O’Reilly is wrong in his ideas. Well guess what. It turns out that Devlin was not a sexual predator from another state. The only crimes that Mr. Devlin had committed were two traffic violations. We don’t know whether or not Shawn Hornbeck was abused and we shouldn’t be making the assumption that Mr. Devlin did abuse Shawn. What if Shawn was a run-away child (which Bill O’Reilly’s arguments suggests) who found a man that would harbor him, and when they were eventually discovered, claimed he was kidnapped? If you go by what O’Reilly is saying that the kid was doing, such as not going to school, talking with his friends who knew his parents were looking for him, posting about his parents on the internet, walking around town ALONE, etc, then his scenario is not only a possibility, but in my opinion, a probability. But that is going on that evidence. If you have contradicting evidence, I would like to hear it.

2) This is reinforced by the derogatory title you gave this thread - which ALSO leads me to believe you don't have any 'out' gay friends (because if you did, you wouldn't use 'homo' so casually). I say 'out' because, statistically, you probably have gay friends too scared to tell you they are.

When I made the title, I didn’t care whether or not it was derogatory, I simply chose “homo” because it rhymed with “convo”. And I do not care whether or not a person is homosexual. Have I offended you by saying “homo”? Is homo that much different from homosexual that one is derogatory and the other is not?

3) Language and understanding are fundamentally linked. I suggested you read Derrida, but obviously you didn't. I can't begin, here, to explain the radically and fundamentally different ways in which different cultures in different times and places experience reality. If you travelled somewhere non-Western, you'd start to understand. Otherwise, read some books or essays on the subject (anthropology, sociology). I have written extensive papers on these issues and even *I* have to think about it hard to understand it - it is hard to think outside of your own experience, societal knowledge and familiar upbringing.

Your suggestion of me reading a book does not advance your arguments.

I honestly think you disprespect the victims and undermine their suffering by even speculating that they were too weak or somehow content with their conditions to escape - or that their understanding of their own imprisonment was as laughably simplistic as you imagine (limited to their physical confinement). We are talking about people who have been systematically beaten, raped, caged and subjected to unknown horrors that would make most POW camps like summer camps. I've broken my neck and subsequently had holes drilled in my head and a 3-month body cast put on ... but I can't begin to fathom an experience like what these people go through. Can you? The woman above was raped, beaten and stored in a closet. She was later seen out walking with her kidnappers, when she might have signalled someone of her plight. Now you tell me what you think: was she happy and content or was she beaten, broken, confused and brain-washed?

Again, I haven’t seen any evidence that Shawn Hornbeck has undergone any of the conditions you mentioned. Enlighten me if you know otherwise.

And those who slaughtered Jews in the Holocaust - you honestly believe that if it weren't for societal 'constraints' we would all go about killing 26 million people again? How naiive and depressing.

If given open license to kill, the average man would kill if it were to his obvious benefit to do so. This is also the reason why the majority of wars have happened in the past: one nation had the opportunity to take advantage of another, and did so through war. Can you tell me that the majority of murders are because of society, and not because: A) the murderer had the opportunity to murder (and for the greater majority of people, the opportunity to get away with it); B) the murderer was willing and able to commit murder (instinctually); C) the murderer had something to gain from the murder (even that last one sometimes isn’t needed). You need at least the first two for a murder to happen, and if the third one is also the case, a murder is very likely. In war, all three are usually the case, otherwise why would there ever be war? Nations don’t usually go to war simply on the whims of others, even if they are high ranking, unless it was the “whim” of the nation itself.

EVEN IF Bill O'Reilly were a knowledgable psychologist - rather than an overly-opinionated bigot - what is the point of such speculation? If the child's parents hear about this, what are they to think? But the ethics of what he said aside, consider the quote above from a kidnap victim who was completely subsumed in their new identity, even though *they were kidnapped in college and not at an impressionable young age of 11* If a girl in college can be that radically reshaped by her experience, what do you think would happen to a pre-teen?

I’m not denying that undergoing those kinds of experiences changes a person significantly, however I do not believe that it can affect the biological determinations of a person. I do not see this as proof that it does either.

However, I *do* find this to be consistent with (and to some extent explanatory of) your other stated beliefs related to the human condition. For some reason, you are convinced that we are fundamentally who we are, whatever life throws in our way. Well, to be frank (and perhaps somewhat conescending, sorry) I think that you must have lived a fairly sheltered life and are ignoring glaringly obvious examples - such as twin studies which show how divergent adult personalities are even amongst genetically identical individuals.

Twin studies are not as conclusive as you may think they are. They are a good indicator, but have been subject to criticisms. Personality among twins who are raised together, for example, will have a higher rate of dissimilar personalities than that of twins raised separately, probably due to conscious will. Not only that, but the developing fetuses of the twins receive different treatment from the mother since they often share the same umbilical cord. The result is a blood supply that circulates through one infant before it reaches the second. This blood is depleted in oxygen and hormones. That is a large factor that is not often taken into account in twin studies.

But I digress.

Let's keep this simple.

You shot your own credibility to hell in the very first thing you did in this conversation: labeling this forum. Trying to support your arguments with (and supporting the arguments of) a well-known idiot like Bill O'Reilly is just icing

You criticize me for “labeling”, yet you label Bill O’Reilly. No double standard there. Anyways, it doesn’t matter if the man is an idiot or not if he is right. You can’t criticize an idiot if he says fire is hot.