"Adultery" site sued

Originally posted by lemon lime
Being a part of a different culture isn't enough to change our DNA, or able to change what it takes to create a normal environment for offspring

.....

...Eagles don't dream up lofty sentiments and rules for themselves when it comes to mating, because they don't need to. They simply mate for life because it makes inherent sense to do so... it's a bit sad that more men and women aren't as sensible as some birds.😞

I have to point out that Eagles don't mate for life dues to their intelligence. I also have to point out that adultery is most definitely in our DNA, and from an evolutionary stand point is quite sensible. I would like to think that our greater intelligence would enable us to overcome nature rather than your implication that we are better of succumbing to our nature.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I have to point out that Eagles don't mate for life dues to their intelligence. I also have to point out that adultery is most definitely in our DNA, and from an evolutionary stand point is quite sensible. I would like to think that our greater intelligence would enable us to overcome nature rather than your implication that we are better of succumbing to our nature.

And I would like to think that our greater intelligence would enable us to recognize the difference between simply succumbing to a base nature, or submitting ourselves to the most prudent and expedient use of action based on that same nature. Eagles and apes and ants "succumbing" to their nature is good for them, not bad for them. So I'm not sure how you are able to define man as being somehow exempt from the rest of the animal kingdom in this regard, unless you now believe as Christians do that man is inherently wicked and inclined to sin... ?

Originally posted by lemon lime
So I'm not sure how you are able to define man as being somehow exempt from the rest of the animal kingdom in this regard, unless you now believe as Christians do that man is inherently wicked and inclined to sin... ?

No, I do not believe in sin. I do however think that humans can act morally if they choose to do so rather than selfishly.

Originally posted by FMF
You said this right? [my slight paraphrase]: 'Being a part of a different culture isn't enough to [be] able to change what it takes to create a normal environment for offspring'. Surely, you have now just conceded that ~ to the contrary ~ culture CAN change what it takes to create what is seen as being a normal environment for offspring, right? We're not talking about "inanimate objects" or "water flowing uphill".

That's what I thought. Your only interest in this discussion is to find fault with what I'm saying. I haven't conceded anything or contradicted myself, but don't let that stop you from trying to make it happen.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, I do not believe in sin. I do however think that humans can act morally if they choose to do so rather than selfishly.

I think you and I define sin differently, because if you don't believe in sin then why would humans need to choose between acting morally rather than selfishly? In the absence of sin there would be no immorality or selfishness.

Originally posted by lemon lime
I think you and I define sin differently, because if you don't believe in sin then why would humans need to choose between acting morally rather than selfishly? In the absence of sin there would be no immorality or selfishness.

I used the word 'sin' as it is generally used by theists: 'doing something God doesn't like'.
You seem to define it as 'immoral'. Is that correct?

Anyway, I do believe that humans are inclined to be selfish in preference to moral to some degree. Its in our DNA as I already stated. The prevalence of adultery bears this out.

Originally posted by lemon lime
That's what I thought. Your only interest in this discussion is to find fault with what I'm saying. I haven't conceded anything or contradicted myself, but don't let that stop you from trying to make it happen.

It caught my interest because it seemed that ~ by kind of contradicting yourself ~ all you are really saying - sum total, so to speak - is that human culture is human culture. I am curious as to why you think this needed to be said.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Would you describe yourself as someone who is opposed to people making personal attacks on each other on message boards?

Originally posted by josephw
Adultery is a direct threat against the fabric of all civilization.

What makes you say "all" civilization in this way?

And how can it really be a "direct threat against the fabric of all civilization" when it also an ever present and integral part of the fabric of civilizations of every shape form or duration since civilization started?

Originally posted by FMF
It caught my interest because it seemed that ~ by kind of contradicting yourself ~ all you are really saying - sum total, so to speak - is that human culture is human culture. I am curious as to why you think this needed to be said.

Look at the message you wrote in response to my message... and then look again at what I said that prompted your reply. You said:

Are you claiming that culture does or doesn't have a key effect on "what it takes to create a normal environment for offspring"?

I can't imagine how you managed to believe I was anywhere close to making that claim. Many of your "are you claiming" questions appear to be manufactured out of thin air. I was saying cultures don't just spring up for no discernible reason. They come into being because of human nature, and not the other way around. Human nature isn't determined by cultures, cultures are determined by the people who inhabit those cultures. The idea that cultures only exist to determine human behavior is what I was referring to as putting the cart before the horse. Cultures do have influence over human nature in the sense that they provide a measure of control to insure the society/culture doesn't fall apart and succumb to anarchy... if there are no generally accepted rules (meaning rules accepted by most members of the community) then a culture can easily fall apart and dissolve into lone individuals living by their own rules. In groups where there are rules to insure some level of safety and freedom of movement, individuals don't need to spend every waking moment of their lives protecting themselves and their possessions... all anarchy can do for someone is to keep everyone so busy with survival issues there's no time for anything else.

Presumably your use of the word "normal" makes provision for it to be defined variously and according to the culture in which the said environment exists?

It's seem odd to me that whenever you are clearly making a declarative statement you will invariably end it with a question mark. So I must either assume a rhetorical question, or perhaps you attach question marks at the end simply out of force of habit...Reveal Hidden Content

You clearly wanted to make a point about normalcy without actually saying it, so all I could do was to make a distinction between the action of inanimate objects and animals exhibiting behavior. One can be defined as being normal and other can't.

It seems to you that I all was saying is human culture is human culture? I agree that doesn't really say anything, but you didn't say much of anything either so I didn't have much to work with. You can't protect yourself from criticism by only asking questions, because your own opinions and point of view clearly show through in those questions. So please stop trying to hide behind questions and just say what it is you want to say... I'm tired of constantly working to guess your meaning and attempting to respond to poorly worded (declarative) questions.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

I also for good reason regard him with deep disdain. I too find him ignorant, disingenuous and nonsensical. As well as narrow-minded and stereotypically emotive. A scurrilous bounder and cad if ever there was one.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I used the word 'sin' as it is generally used by theists: 'doing something God doesn't like'.
You seem to define it as 'immoral'. Is that correct?

Anyway, I do believe that humans are inclined to be selfish in preference to moral to some degree.

Its in our DNA as I already stated. The prevalence of adultery bears this out.

I've never seen a theist define sin in this way, nevertheless I cannot argue with your logic.

God doesn't exist
Sin is doing something God doesn't like
Therefore, sin doesn't exist

Anyway, I do believe that humans are inclined to be selfish in preference to moral to some degree.

I believe humans are more than inclined to be selfish rather than exhibiting a preference to being moral, and that we are more or less forced (rather than inclined) into making moral choices and decisions (in preference to anarchy). But until science can find and verify (without any doubt) the existence of a human 'morality' gene, then I must assume morality is a useful philosophical (or God given) construct rather than something that can be found in our DNA.

Its in our DNA as I already stated. The prevalence of adultery bears this out.

If everything we do and think about can be explained by DNA, then why do most people regard themselves as being more than robots who are incapable of independent thought and action? Criminal and immoral behavior is not generally excusable by virtue of (or due to) our DNA programming. If I was charged with committing a crime of passion, I doubt my saying "It's not my fault, my DNA made me to it!" would be much of a defense...

And yes, I know in the practice of law there can be exceptions to this. But we also know that exceptions to rules are not themselves overarching rules. So a prevalence of adultery can no more be explained by DNA programming than fidelity can be explained by DNA programming. If everything we do can be attributed to DNA programming, we would never see anyone talking about free will and choices. Because the very idea of free will, and an ability to make choices conflicting with innermost desires would be entirely unimaginable concepts.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I used the word 'sin' as it is generally used by theists: 'doing something God doesn't like'.
You seem to define it as 'immoral'. Is that correct?

Anyway, I do believe that humans are inclined to be selfish in preference to moral to some degree. Its in our DNA as I already stated. The prevalence of adultery bears this out.

I was getting ready to log off, but it occurred to me that I can argue with this logic. If we substitute the word donuts for sin then the argument would look something like this:

God doesn't exist
donuts are something God doesn't like
Therefore, donuts don't exist

no, say it ain't so!