_Vols in NC...get out and vote!!! Need your help. MAY 8

[Thrasher865]

Thanks for raising awareness, so reasonable people will get exposed to this bill and vote no!

:good!:

 

[utvolpj]

WTF? A crusade? Are you serious? Check my very first post in this thread, before I respond to any more of your defamatory posts! Good day, sir!

defamatory? hmy: Must still be using that word of the day calendar you got for xmas.

and I apologize if you took it that way but when you go to extremes to prove a point it does make sense (like the previously mentioned dog example)

 

[therealUT]

I sort of had some of the thoughts that are buried in all that. What it goes back to for me is the fact that a genetic mutation that causes homosexuality is not going to produce a positive effect on the lineage of man, so I would call it a disorder.

1. I still do not see how that lack of reproduction is opposed to order. Homosexuality is a genetic anomaly; however, I am still not convinced that it is a genetic disorder (are mules a disorder?)

2. Here are the problems I am thinking of that could be associated with your claim, coupled with an argument against homosexual marriage/equal treatment:

a. As PJ has pointed out, any couple that is not able to reproduce, would be categorized as 'disordered'. According to certain theories that place inherent value in order, one could argue that these arrangements would need to be ordered, i.e. corrected.

b. If measures can be taken to somehow correct arrangements of couples that cannot reproduce, on what grounds could one argue against measures being taken to insure that couples that can reproduce do reproduce.

c. If measures can be taken to ensure that couples reproduce, then on what grounds could one argue against measures being taken to force virile young men and fertile young women into reproductive arrangements?

At some point, someone will step in and say that such a line of reasoning is absurd and that these individuals have the liberty to choose their reproductive partners, as well as when and if they want to reproduce. Yet, this argument, the argument that keeps one from taking the absurd lines of argument (2a-c) is the very same argument that is being used to argue for equal treatment of homosexuals with regard to marriage.

 

[Thrasher865]

What about schitzophrenic murders? Guess they chose to be that way and so did they...

Or Downs children or any of the trisomy syndromes or MD or....should I go on or do you get my point?

To some it may be a choice, but I am convinced beyond the shadow of a doubt that some are born that way.

This is kinda the point I was trying to make. Maybe I worded it poorly. If we accept people with other "mutations" like down syndrome, etc, then we need to accept gay people.

I was just exploring OS's point about the definition of marriage and got lost in my own discussion.

 

[utvolpj]

This is kinda the point I was trying to make. Maybe I worded it poorly. If we accept people with other "mutations" like down syndrome, etc, then we need to accept gay people.

I was just exploring OS's point about the definition of marriage and got lost in my own discussion.

Are genetic traits and genetic disorders really the same thing?

 

[Thrasher865]

1. I still do not see how that lack of reproduction is opposed to order. Homosexuality is a genetic anomaly; however, I am still not convinced that it is a genetic disorder (are mules a disorder?)

2. Here are the problems I am thinking of that could be associated with your claim, coupled with an argument against homosexual marriage/equal treatment:

a. As PJ has pointed out, any couple that is not able to reproduce, would be categorized as 'disordered'. According to certain theories that place inherent value in order, one could argue that these arrangements would need to be ordered, i.e. corrected.

Ah, okay I see where PJ was going. I forgot which side of the argument I was pursuing for a moment.

That is a good point, and I see where he was coming from. I was arguing that it would still be a disorder, but I was not trying to proclaim that they should not be able to wed.

 

[Thrasher865]

Are genetic traits and genetic disorders really the same thing?

Depends on how you want to classify it. Is Down syndrome simply a trait? I think you could argue yes. Have you met someone with Down syndrome that was happier than someone without. I'm sure.

Growing a tail would be considered a disorder by society, unless the majority of babies started popping out with tails. I think because it presents an evolutionary disadvantage, and thus will always be a trait that is in the super minority, it would be considered a disorder. I mean no condescention. I think probably every person has at least one genetic disorder, however minor or even unnoticeable.

 

[utvolpj]

having an extra chromosome is not really a trait

 

[PKT_VOL]

I think your use of 'disease' here was a bit careless. You would have been fine to simply stop after "genetic anomaly"; I, too, sometimes get carried away trying to emphasize a correct point and make an egregious error.

I am pretty sure that you did not mean "disease".

I was viewing it from a genetic determinism point of view where genes are almighty. From that philosophy, it is absolutely a disease. From a humanist standpoint, you are correct

 

[PKT_VOL]

I guess you and I have a different intent when we refer to it as "natural."

I can see how you would define a genetic abnormality that also occurs in nature "natural", so I can't fault your logic.

I guess accomodating to homosexuals' lifestyles is no different than trying to accomodate any other genetic disorder. We generally try to accept those with genetic disorders into normal society.

I am not trying to talk down to gay people by calling their sexual orientation a genetic disorder. That is simply what I believe to be true.

So we are pretty much on the same page.

 

[Thrasher865]

having an extra chromosome is not really a trait

I guess not... But if you want to broaden the definition of "trait", then it could be. An extra chromosome is atypical, so it should be deemed a disorder, correct?

There are plenty of cases of people having an atypical number of chromosomes that does not produce any effects near as drastic as Down Syndrome. Should these still be deemed disorders?

Chromosomal abnormalities | Baby | March of Dimes

Triple X: About 1 in 1,000 females has an extra X chromosome (4). Affected girls tend to be tall. They usually have no physical birth defects, experience normal puberty and are fertile. Affected girls usually have normal intelligence, though many have learning problems. Because these girls are healthy and have a normal appearance, their parents often don’t know they have a chromosomal abnormality.

Is this extra chromosome now still a disorder? Or is it a trait?

 

[PKT_VOL]

Locke is the only social-contract philosopher of that ilk and, for Locke, there were no inalienable rights. One's life, liberty, and property belonged to the government as soon as the man consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to the government (at least, this is my understanding from his Second Treatise on Government).

Locke is not saying what you think. You are viewing it from a modern America perspective. Locke's "life" can be defined in more of a biological perspective. Basically, survival or undo physical harm. Very different than our idea of "life".

It is part of the reason (not the only reason) why Jefferson substituted in "pursuit of happiness" into the Declaration of Independence.

For Hobbes, there is no social-contract (especially not in the sense that Rousseau presents it); there is simply the natural right to life and the natural law: liberty is sacrificed to the Leviathan for greater liberty.

Locke and Hobbs had very similar concepts of right to "life".

Mandeville would say that man should do as he pleases, even if what he pleases is mostly vicious (short of murder) and that these acts will actually lead to the public good. Mandeville would be fervently opposed to any such laws restricting certain individuals from doing as they please.

I haven't read Mandeville's work so I will refrain from commenting.

Hume would simply say that if the passions drove one to marry another man, and that justice was not being violated in so doing, then go for it; after all, reason is, and ought to be, the slave of the passions.

Agreed. Although that is more along the line of morality.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

Locke is not saying what you think. You are viewing it from a modern America perspective. Locke's "life" can be defined in more of a biological perspective. Basically, survival or undo physical harm. Very different than our idea of "life".

It is part of the reason (not the only reason) why Jefferson substituted in "pursuit of happiness" into the Declaration of Independence.



Locke and Hobbs had very similar concepts of right to "life".



I haven't read Mandeville's work so I will refrain from commenting.



Agreed. Although that is more along the line of morality.

Solid

 

[JayVols]

What about schitzophrenic murders? Guess they chose to be that way and so did they...

Or Downs children or any of the trisomy syndromes or MD or....should I go on or do you get my point?

To some it may be a choice, but I am convinced beyond the shadow of a doubt that some are born that way.

Either this was a bad joke or no one got it......

 

[PKT_VOL]

Are genetic traits and genetic disorders really the same thing?

When they deviate from the "norm"? Yes.

I think you are talking about "phenotype" trait.

 

[PKT_VOL]

having an extra chromosome is not really a trait

How so?

 

[utvolpj]

How so?

been a long time since biology/genetics but I don't remember something like trisomy being hereditary. I was even told this by my genetics counselor when we ran into it.

of course I'm probably getting the technical definitions wrong and that's where the confusion comes

 

[PKT_VOL]

I guess not... But if you want to broaden the definition of "trait", then it could be. An extra chromosome is atypical, so it should be deemed a disorder, correct?

There are plenty of cases of people having an atypical number of chromosomes that does not produce any effects near as drastic as Down Syndrome. Should these still be deemed disorders?

Chromosomal abnormalities | Baby | March of Dimes



Is this extra chromosome now still a disorder? Or is it a trait?

I am with you on this one. I don't know what he means by "trait".

It will always be a genetic trait. It does not always translate into a phenotype. If it does translate to a phenotype, it is not always an adverse affect. Furthermore, and most relevant to this discussion, just because it is a negative phenotype, it does not necessarily translate into a negative social impact.

 

[Thrasher865]

Either this was a bad joke or no one got it......

I just thought it was a bad typo the first time I read it, but now that you point it out, I get it

Although, I don't think multiple personalities is actually a symptom of schyzophrenia. If it is, it's not a common one. It is commonly mixed up with Dissociative Identity Disorder, or "split personality disorder."

 

[PKT_VOL]

been a long time since biology/genetics but I don't remember something like trisomy being hereditary. I was even told this by my genetics counselor when we ran into it.

Yeah, it is only a slightly elevated chance of hereditary.

of course I'm probably getting the technical definitions wrong and that's where the confusion comes

I just don't know what you mean by "trait".

 

[therealUT]

Locke is not saying what you think. You are viewing it from a modern America perspective. Locke's "life" can be defined in more of a biological perspective. Basically, survival or undo physical harm. Very different than our idea of "life".

It is part of the reason (not the only reason) why Jefferson substituted in "pursuit of happiness" into the Declaration of Independence.

Unfortunately, Locke very distinctly contradicts certain claims he makes regarding the inalienability of life, liberty, and property regarding that one is completely justified in using force to protect each (a Hobbsian 'right of necessity') about twenty pages later in the Second Treatise where he then states that these rights are handed over the government. This occurs in Chapter VIII, Sections 98-121, of the Second Treatise; it begins with the following passage:

For if the consent of the majority shall not in reason, be received, as the act of the whole, and conclude every individual; nothing but the consent of every individual can make any thing to be the act of the whole: But such a consent is next to impossible ever to be had, if we consider the Infirmities of Health, and Avocations of Business, which in a number, though much less than that of a Common-wealth, will necessarily keep many away from the publick Assembly. To which if we add the variety of Opinions, and contrariety of Interests, which unavoidably happen in all Collections of Men, the coming into Society upon such terms, would be only like Cato's coming into the Theatre, only to go out again. Such a Constitution as this would make the might Leviathan of a shorter duration, than the feeblest Creatures; and not, let it outlast the day it was born in: which cannot be suppos'd, till we can think, that Rational Creatures should desire and constitute Societies only to be dissolved. For where the majority cannot conclude the rest, there they cannot act as one Body, and consequently will be immediately dissolved again.

From there, Locke brings about the compact, by 'barely agreeing' and tacit consent; his next move is to subsume all rights, that one has in 'the state of nature' into the authority of the government.

It is tough to reconcile Locke's avid defense of the rights to life, liberty, and property in "the state of nature" and the how he abjures that position under a lawful government. Now, one thing that helps Locke is that he states that one who has only tacitly consented retains their right to life and liberty, and can leave the contract and the land to find another, more suitable government. However, for an individual who explicitly consents, he is indefinitely bound to acquiesce and abide by the directives of that government. The other thing that saves Locke is he does argue that no one is bound to an unjust and unlawful government; if one read's Locke as arguing for the supremacy of the rights to life and liberty, then one can of course make the argument (not a definitive proof based solely on Locke's works, though) that Locke would view a government that has denied the rights to life and liberty to its subject as an unjust, unlawful, and illegitimate government.

That, of course, is the course I try to take with Locke and I use Hobbes's notion that one has the right to resist even a legitimate government in order to preserve one's life as my backstop. Then, I smuggle in Locke's argument that liberty is essential to life to make the claim that Locke is a champion of individual liberty under the state.


Locke and Hobbs had very similar concepts of right to "life".[/QUOTE]

 

[JayVols]

I just thought it was a bad typo the first time I read it, but now that you point it out, I get it

Although, I don't think multiple personalities is actually a symptom of schyzophrenia. If it is, it's not a common one. It is commonly mixed up with Dissociative Identity Disorder, or "split personality disorder."

Semantics should never get in the way of a joke.

 

[Thrasher865]

Ok, agreed. Good joke.

But it's the politics forum. I had to try extra hard to sound smart.

 

[JayVols]

Ok, agreed. Good joke.

But it's the politics forum. I had to try extra hard to sound smart.

Understood.:good!:

 

[PKT_VOL]

Unfortunately, Locke very distinctly contradicts certain claims he makes regarding the inalienability of life, liberty, and property regarding that one is completely justified in using force to protect each (a Hobbsian 'right of necessity') about twenty pages later in the Second Treatise where he then states that these rights are handed over the government. This occurs in Chapter VIII, Sections 98-121, of the Second Treatise; it begins with the following passage:



From there, Locke brings about the compact, by 'barely agreeing' and tacit consent; his next move is to subsume all rights, that one has in 'the state of nature' into the authority of the government.

It is tough to reconcile Locke's avid defense of the rights to life, liberty, and property in "the state of nature" and the how he abjures that position under a lawful government. Now, one thing that helps Locke is that he states that one who has only tacitly consented retains their right to life and liberty, and can leave the contract and the land to find another, more suitable government. However, for an individual who explicitly consents, he is indefinitely bound to acquiesce and abide by the directives of that government. The other thing that saves Locke is he does argue that no one is bound to an unjust and unlawful government; if one read's Locke as arguing for the supremacy of the rights to life and liberty, then one can of course make the argument (not a definitive proof based solely on Locke's works, though) that Locke would view a government that has denied the rights to life and liberty to its subject as an unjust, unlawful, and illegitimate government.

That, of course, is the course I try to take with Locke and I use Hobbes's notion that one has the right to resist even a legitimate government in order to preserve one's life as my backstop. Then, I smuggle in Locke's argument that liberty is essential to life to make the claim that Locke is a champion of individual liberty under the state.


Locke and Hobbs had very similar concepts of right to "life".

[/QUOTE]

Well, I guess i should start out by illuminating the fact that Locke never meant for his writings to be viewed as a philosophical work/system. He was merely writing a political proposal in hopes of persuading the general public to support his friends in the legislature that were very anti-James II. In fact, Locke, at the time of writing the Second Treatise was in political exile in France (from James II). Locke's work was suppose to help bring about a revolution against King James II. The Glorious Revolution finally happened in 1688. That is some background.

The part about the difference between "the state of nature" and a legal government (social contract) are pretty straight forward.

I think the part you quoted was more along the lines of saying that everyone must consent for the social contract to take affect. He was more or less rejected the divine intervention which was heavy at the time due to Filmer.

There are some real discrepancies between Locke's First Treatise, his Second Treatise, and his Essay on Human Understanding.