[David Koresh]

Originally Posted by Pillbox Joe

Okay, then check this out.

Powell's Books - The Sambia: Ritual, Sexuality, and Change in Papua New Guinea (Case Studies in Cultural Anthropology) by Gilbert Herdt

In fact, the only animal that is proven to have sex purely for pleasure are humans (though some studies speculate that dolphins are the only other animal that share this trait).

I read the link. I don't doubt any of that is true and it is certainly very interesting. I don't think it offers very strong support for your argument though. I actually feel sorry for those young boys. They are being severely conditioned and instilled with great amounts of fear at a very young age. Any civilized country would consider that child abuse.

If you like anthropology you should learn about Napoleon Chagnon and his infamous study on the Yanomamo. He really pissed off a lot of his blank slate theorist colleagues back in the 70s

Napoleon Chagnon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Pillbox Joe]

Originally Posted by David Koresh

I read the link. I don't doubt any of that is true and it is certainly very interesting. I don't think it offers very strong support for your argument though. I actually feel sorry for those young boys. They are being severely conditioned and instilled with great amounts of fear at a very young age. Any civilized country would consider that child abuse.

LOL at "Any civilized country would consider that child abuse." They are an entire society that accepts these practices because they are, by their nature, learned behaviors. Nothing is absolute about human beings other than their geneotypical qualities.

[David Koresh]

Originally Posted by Pillbox Joe

No they don't.

You should really go to school and get an edumacation. Maybe unlearn that asexuality thing you got going on.

[Pillbox Joe]

Originally Posted by David Koresh

You should really go to school and get an edumacation. Maybe unlearn that asexuality thing you got going on.

You have no argument against me so you bash my sexuality. How very typical. Maybe you should go back to school and learn the difference between instinct and reflex.

[David Koresh]

Originally Posted by Pillbox Joe

You have no argument against me so you bash my sexuality. How very typical. Maybe you should go back to school and learn the difference between instinct and reflex.

I have presented plenty of argument and evidence for my case whereas you have produced one obscure anthro book and nothing more. You have also done an outstanding job avoiding almost every one of my questions and sources. Instead you just repeat yourself like a broken record and its getting a bit banal at this point.

I'll leave you with twin studies that further annihilate your primitive vision of the human condition:

Twin study - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Modern twin studies have shown that almost all traits are in part influenced by genetic differences, with some characteristics showing a strong influence (e.g., height), others an intermediate level (i.e. IQ) and some more complex heritabilities, with evidence for different genes affecting different elements of the trait - for instance Autism."

[Mithra]

Originally Posted by Pillbox Joe

The concept of evil is like the concept of religion.. it's the blight that corrupts the mind. There is no evil.

Don't get me wrong, I don't condone actions that are not in line with my own beliefs, and I'm willing to fight for what is good and what is bad in my own mind, but that doesn't change the fact that good and evil are only subjective ideologies.

How is the concept of religion a "blight that corrupts the mind"?

Religion, like any other societal/cultural institution can be both "good" or "bad" and it would not surprise me at all if the social benefits provided by religion outweighed the negatives.

Originally Posted by Pillbox Joe

Explain homosexuality then. Or even better, explain asexuality.

The result of genetic predispositions combining with a unique environment...

[Jerome_1]

Originally Posted by Pillbox Joe

If the majority doesn't determine what is right then who does? That's the entire point. No one can determine what is and what isn't moral because there is no standard for morality. My points aren't moot, but nice try.

The argument isn't how people behaved but whether they believe how they behave is right or wrong. You don't have a study of ancient Roman Emperors, or people who molest children in remote tribes evaluating whether they thought their actions were right or wrong. So your point is moot.

My argument is that people have an innate sense of morality, and they know, or can sense that certain things they do are wrong.

[Pillbox Joe]

Originally Posted by Jerome_1

The argument isn't how people behaved but whether they believe how they behave is right or wrong. You don't have a study of ancient Roman Emperors, or people who molest children in remote tribes evaluating whether they thought their actions were right or wrong. So your point is moot.

My argument is that people have an innate sense of morality, and they know, or can sense that certain things they do are wrong.

What the hell are you talking about? If the majority doesn't determine correct and normal acceptable behavior, or "morally correct" behavior, then who does? Morality changes based on external conditions, nothing inherent to it. If the majority is committing improper behavior and recognize this, they change their standard of what is morally acceptable. How freakin hard is that to understand?

[Pillbox Joe]

Originally Posted by David Koresh

Twin study - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Modern twin studies have shown that almost all traits are in part influenced by genetic differences, with some characteristics showing a strong influence (e.g., height), others an intermediate level (i.e. IQ) and some more complex heritabilities, with evidence for different genes affecting different elements of the trait - for instance Autism."

The twin study proves nothing of inherent and instinctual human behavior. It further proves that external stimulus guides human action through learned response and reflexive response combined with genetic disposition. Not through inherent knowledge or intelligence.

[Pillbox Joe]

Humans have evolved into the brain children of nature because we have been forced to through natural selection. We have no inherent instinctual defensive mechanisms (I don't mean natural immunities because these are natural responses) to defend ourselves and must therefore learn through collective knowledge.