You homophile people-of-faith bashing bigots need to open your closed, hate filled minds and stop discriminating against normal heterosexual people for exercising our equality and basic human and civil rights of freedom of association.
Your "born that way" hoax has been exposed for the shame scam it is, and by the creators of the hoax no less 9Marshal Kirk and Hunter Madsen.
When you bigoted homophile sex extremists attack and try to take away the basic human and civil rights of normal heterosexual people, a tactic from the published Homosexual Agenda propaganda psy-ops manifesto bible you homo-sex acts preachers proselytize and thump, history will look back upon your aggressive hate mongering bigotry as part and parcel for the Dark Ages you anti-progressive homosexualist sex extremist cavemen want to drag society back into.
We will not be cowed, intimidated, bullied and terrorized by your bigoted, heterophobic intolerance and mean spirited hate.
Also, I can't see how anyone can suggest that physical attraction is a choice. That makes no sense on its face. Sure, you can choose who to actually have sex with, that's true. But choosing who you are attracted to?
A good thought experiment is to think about someone you are attracted to, and then to choose to be unattracted to them. As you will discover in short order, such things are not conscious choices. If they were, then we could theoretically make choices about a whole range of things such as when to feel (or not feel) grief, stress, emotional pain, etc...
I think it may be possible to choose who you're attracted to, but only over the long term. In the moment, it's not a conscious decision, it's just an emotional reaction. But there's no such thing as magic, so our feelings must be happening some way, by some mechanism, and if that mechanism is mental there's no a priori reason to assume it's not maelable.
For example, we know the conscious mind can long term control the subconscious in cases such as playing the piano, or driving, where by constant repitition the conscious mind programs the subconscious to the point where our hands can acurately move over the controls without conscious thought of each and every move. That's an example of choosing your reactions. Maybe our feelings of attraction are similarly maelable through repetition. I don't know if it's maelable enough to allow for a different gender of person, but certainly it is maelable to an extent. I know I am attracted to a different sort of woman in my 30s than I was in my 20s.
I think it may be possible to choose who you're attracted to, but only over the long term. In the moment, it's not a conscious decision, it's just an emotional reaction. But there's no such thing as magic, so our feelings must be happening some way, by some mechanism, and if that mechanism is mental there's no a priori reason to assume it's not maelable.
For example, we know the conscious mind can long term control the subconscious in cases such as playing the piano, or driving, where by constant repitition the conscious mind programs the subconscious to the point where our hands can acurately move over the controls without conscious thought of each and every move. That's an example of choosing your reactions. Maybe our feelings of attraction are similarly maelable through repetition. I don't know if it's maelable enough to allow for a different gender of person, but certainly it is maelable to an extent. I know I am attracted to a different sort of woman in my 30s than I was in my 20s.
For example, we know the conscious mind can long term control the subconscious in cases such as playing the piano, or driving, where by constant repitition the conscious mind programs the subconscious to the point where our hands can acurately move over the controls without conscious thought of each and every move. That's an example of choosing your reactions. Maybe our feelings of attraction are similarly maelable through repetition. I don't know if it's maelable enough to allow for a different gender of person, but certainly it is maelable to an extent. I know I am attracted to a different sort of woman in my 30s than I was in my 20s.
You can choose your reactions, yes. But playing the piano is not a good analogy for something like love.
I would also suggest that if you are straight, no amount of "practice" will make you gay - you could go through the motions, sure, but you won't be changing your inherent nature in terms of being able to fall in love with someone through a "learned" act/behavior.
In any case, as I said in any earlier post...many of these questions have already been settled by science. There is a very real sense in which this part of the debate is analogous to debates people used to have about how "inherently" superior or inferior blacks were to whites - it's a debate that occurs in a vacuum of ignorance about the facts (and note that I say "ignorance" rather than "stupidity").
So there is an extent to which the premise of this part of the debate is actually unacceptable by any reasonable measure. The relevant question - to go back to the original point - is whether or not Tim Cook is right to take to Twitter to air views about anti-discrimination measures for employers. Given Apple's progressive history in this area, I'd say his stance is pretty consistent.
You can choose your reactions, yes. But playing the piano is not a good analogy for something like love.
I would also suggest that if you are straight, no amount of "practice" will make you gay - you could go through the motions, sure, but you won't be changing your inherent nature in terms of being able to fall in love with someone through a "learned" act/behavior.
There is a definite difference between an automated action, such as playing the piano, and an automated evaluation, such as love. But there is also evidence we can change our evaluations over time. For example children who screw their face up at certain foods later grow to like them. Or you start off hating someone but learn to love them over time. I don't think there's a question that our evaluations are malleable, but there is a question of degree.
I do not know if it is possible to change what you love to the point of switching gender of partner, that is a pretty big change! If it were possible, I would suggest it would have to be a multi-step process. There are traditional female virtues such temperance, modesty, devotion, forbearance, mercy, etc and male virtues such as courage, strength, heroism, character, wisdom etc, you would almost have to list off the virtues of the gender you're trying to be attracted to and make yourself love each one. For example repeatedly looking at artwork depicting heroism until your subconscious starts to be attracted to men. Or of pure devotion to become attracted to women. Is it even possible? Probably not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ingsoc
You can choose your reactions, yes. But playing the piano is not a good analogy for something like love.
I would also suggest that if you are straight, no amount of "practice" will make you gay - you could go through the motions, sure, but you won't be changing your inherent nature in terms of being able to fall in love with someone through a "learned" act/behavior.
In any case, as I said in any earlier post...many of these questions have already been settled by science. There is a very real sense in which this part of the debate is analogous to debates people used to have about how "inherently" superior or inferior blacks were to whites - it's a debate that occurs in a vacuum of ignorance about the facts (and note that I say "ignorance" rather than "stupidity").
So there is an extent to which the premise of this part of the debate is actually unacceptable by any reasonable measure. The relevant question - to go back to the original point - is whether or not Tim Cook is right to take to Twitter to air views about anti-discrimination measures for employers. Given Apple's progressive history in this area, I'd say his stance is pretty consistent.
I'm not sure these questions are as settled as you think they are. If they are, why are there ongoing studies? The latest study I heard of came out only this year, and found a 30-40% genetic cause, with the other 60-70% being hormonal/social/environmental. In any event, it's best practice that premises to arguments be uncontroversial, not the topic of ongoing study.
As to whether Tim should air his personal views publicly, it doesn't bother me, I am a lover of Apple's products, not a shareholder. If it was me I wouldn't do it however, just based on the fact that most elections are won only 49-51 or 48-52. That is, it's easy to forget after 6 years of a Democratic president that 48% of your potential customers are actually conservative.
Comments
Your "born that way" hoax has been exposed for the shame scam it is, and by the creators of the hoax no less 9Marshal Kirk and Hunter Madsen.
When you bigoted homophile sex extremists attack and try to take away the basic human and civil rights of normal heterosexual people, a tactic from the published Homosexual Agenda propaganda psy-ops manifesto bible you homo-sex acts preachers proselytize and thump, history will look back upon your aggressive hate mongering bigotry as part and parcel for the Dark Ages you anti-progressive homosexualist sex extremist cavemen want to drag society back into.
We will not be cowed, intimidated, bullied and terrorized by your bigoted, heterophobic intolerance and mean spirited hate.
Heterophobic bigot
And heterophobic homosexualist bigots pushing their Homo Agenda onto society is acceptable?!
Also, I can't see how anyone can suggest that physical attraction is a choice. That makes no sense on its face. Sure, you can choose who to actually have sex with, that's true. But choosing who you are attracted to?
A good thought experiment is to think about someone you are attracted to, and then to choose to be unattracted to them. As you will discover in short order, such things are not conscious choices. If they were, then we could theoretically make choices about a whole range of things such as when to feel (or not feel) grief, stress, emotional pain, etc...
I think it may be possible to choose who you're attracted to, but only over the long term. In the moment, it's not a conscious decision, it's just an emotional reaction. But there's no such thing as magic, so our feelings must be happening some way, by some mechanism, and if that mechanism is mental there's no a priori reason to assume it's not maelable.
For example, we know the conscious mind can long term control the subconscious in cases such as playing the piano, or driving, where by constant repitition the conscious mind programs the subconscious to the point where our hands can acurately move over the controls without conscious thought of each and every move. That's an example of choosing your reactions. Maybe our feelings of attraction are similarly maelable through repetition. I don't know if it's maelable enough to allow for a different gender of person, but certainly it is maelable to an extent. I know I am attracted to a different sort of woman in my 30s than I was in my 20s.
Very well put.
For example, we know the conscious mind can long term control the subconscious in cases such as playing the piano, or driving, where by constant repitition the conscious mind programs the subconscious to the point where our hands can acurately move over the controls without conscious thought of each and every move. That's an example of choosing your reactions. Maybe our feelings of attraction are similarly maelable through repetition. I don't know if it's maelable enough to allow for a different gender of person, but certainly it is maelable to an extent. I know I am attracted to a different sort of woman in my 30s than I was in my 20s.
You can choose your reactions, yes. But playing the piano is not a good analogy for something like love.
I would also suggest that if you are straight, no amount of "practice" will make you gay - you could go through the motions, sure, but you won't be changing your inherent nature in terms of being able to fall in love with someone through a "learned" act/behavior.
In any case, as I said in any earlier post...many of these questions have already been settled by science. There is a very real sense in which this part of the debate is analogous to debates people used to have about how "inherently" superior or inferior blacks were to whites - it's a debate that occurs in a vacuum of ignorance about the facts (and note that I say "ignorance" rather than "stupidity").
So there is an extent to which the premise of this part of the debate is actually unacceptable by any reasonable measure. The relevant question - to go back to the original point - is whether or not Tim Cook is right to take to Twitter to air views about anti-discrimination measures for employers. Given Apple's progressive history in this area, I'd say his stance is pretty consistent.
You can choose your reactions, yes. But playing the piano is not a good analogy for something like love.
I would also suggest that if you are straight, no amount of "practice" will make you gay - you could go through the motions, sure, but you won't be changing your inherent nature in terms of being able to fall in love with someone through a "learned" act/behavior.
There is a definite difference between an automated action, such as playing the piano, and an automated evaluation, such as love. But there is also evidence we can change our evaluations over time. For example children who screw their face up at certain foods later grow to like them. Or you start off hating someone but learn to love them over time. I don't think there's a question that our evaluations are malleable, but there is a question of degree.
I do not know if it is possible to change what you love to the point of switching gender of partner, that is a pretty big change! If it were possible, I would suggest it would have to be a multi-step process. There are traditional female virtues such temperance, modesty, devotion, forbearance, mercy, etc and male virtues such as courage, strength, heroism, character, wisdom etc, you would almost have to list off the virtues of the gender you're trying to be attracted to and make yourself love each one. For example repeatedly looking at artwork depicting heroism until your subconscious starts to be attracted to men. Or of pure devotion to become attracted to women. Is it even possible? Probably not.
You can choose your reactions, yes. But playing the piano is not a good analogy for something like love.
I would also suggest that if you are straight, no amount of "practice" will make you gay - you could go through the motions, sure, but you won't be changing your inherent nature in terms of being able to fall in love with someone through a "learned" act/behavior.
In any case, as I said in any earlier post...many of these questions have already been settled by science. There is a very real sense in which this part of the debate is analogous to debates people used to have about how "inherently" superior or inferior blacks were to whites - it's a debate that occurs in a vacuum of ignorance about the facts (and note that I say "ignorance" rather than "stupidity").
So there is an extent to which the premise of this part of the debate is actually unacceptable by any reasonable measure. The relevant question - to go back to the original point - is whether or not Tim Cook is right to take to Twitter to air views about anti-discrimination measures for employers. Given Apple's progressive history in this area, I'd say his stance is pretty consistent.
I'm not sure these questions are as settled as you think they are. If they are, why are there ongoing studies? The latest study I heard of came out only this year, and found a 30-40% genetic cause, with the other 60-70% being hormonal/social/environmental. In any event, it's best practice that premises to arguments be uncontroversial, not the topic of ongoing study.
As to whether Tim should air his personal views publicly, it doesn't bother me, I am a lover of Apple's products, not a shareholder. If it was me I wouldn't do it however, just based on the fact that most elections are won only 49-51 or 48-52. That is, it's easy to forget after 6 years of a Democratic president that 48% of your potential customers are actually conservative.