Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Bias and even a predisposition is NOT a causation as you correctly assert, the article while not making any truth claims, does however intimate thats its plausible that people have a 'less rewarding', experience with food which may lead to being more susceptible to obesity. If its not explicitly stated its certainly implied. This is misleading and ...[text shortened]... lied genetic predisposition or otherwise and its these actions themselves which define a person.
...people have a 'less rewarding', experience with food which may lead to being more susceptible to obesity (according to the link )
Yes, that is very clearly implied by the link.
This is misleading
why misleading? If some people being more predisposed to being obese is the truth, its not misleading to explain why.
why dangerous? What do you think could realistically go wrong by stating what the link said?
and in fact is the same kind of 'science', that was proffered to initiate a whole range of changes in legislation governing so called 'gay rights', for example in Scotland it was made possible to promote gayness in schools and colleges (the lifting of section 28) and was based on nothing more than conflicting scientific claims.
What the hell has one got to do with the other? Exactly how do they relate?
The first isn't a 'rights' issue while the second is. The first won't realistically lead to likely changes in the law let alone changes in the law for schools while the second one did.
And what is this “promote gayness”? LOL. I have never seen or heard of someone saying we should all be gay!
Existentialism naturally rejects claims of genetics as being a defining influence
Not particularly. I have certainly not heard of any existentialist that actually says he believes that! You can be an existentialist by assuming that, ultimately, each individual is always morally responsible for their own choices, but, without any logical contradiction and like I assume most existentialists would, still accept that some genes have a limited effect on psychology and therefore have some influence on the kind of choices we make albeit without making the choices we do make inevitable. After all, it is an undisputed scientific fact that many genes are essential for either brain development or brain function so it would seem to be pretty absurd that at least some of those genes or mutations or variants of those genes couldn't possibly have any effect on our psychology and therefore on which choices we are most likely to make!
arguing that we as free moral agents are responsible for our own actions irrespective of any implied genetic predisposition or otherwise
Why would saying that some genes make people more likely to choose to overeat and become obese contradict that? Why would person with such predisposition logically mean he is not morally responsible for his actions? It doesn't. He still makes a conscious choice
regardless of any unconscious bias put on that choice so merely having a predisposition or bias to choose one thing rather than another doesn't logically contradict existentialism. You clearly have misunderstood what existentialism actually says.
Incidentally, I wouldn't call myself an existentialist. Although I think most of us are generally morally responsible for our actions most of the time, there are plenty of exceptions. An extreme exception would be where a person has a naturally occurring chemical imbalance in the brain (perhaps via schizophrenia ) that causes him to go completely insane and kills someone because, say, he hallucinated that other person as being a terrifying monster -would he be morally responsible for his actions? I would call that diminished responsibility (legal term ) .