One reference taken in one country with a specific culture-layer? Eh. I don't wish to argue it any further, but it's hardly proof when it comes down to the 3 billion females we have in the world.Lil devils x said:
Sexuality, mice and medication What if medication can control sexuality?
- Thread starter Lil devils x_v1legacy
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Fucking disgusting. When will people realise that 'playing god' is how scientists made the leaps in knowledge to save lives with new cures for diseases. If you want to bash scientists for 'playing god' then I don't think you should be allowed to be hooked up to machines when you're old or treated with medicine when you're sick.TheXRatedDodo said:
OT: I think more research needs to be done to determine exactly what 'made' him homosexual and a gambler...maybe the drug just removed his inhibitions. I doubt it'll have any effect on the 'homosexual community', which is a term that I don't think should exist but that's another rant for another day. The argument that it's a chemical imbalance in their brain is one that's been fielded by many and still homosexuals the world over are happy being gay, if you're not happy as a homosexual then you're not a homosexual and no drug in the world will make you think otherwise...society however will though because psychological conditioning is way more powerful than a drug.
That can be argued, not everything is black and white. War is necessary sometimes, not every conflict can be solved with words. Then there's the whole deterence theory which holds some credence. I'd much rather have soldiers fighting with rifles than bow and arrows.Anchupom said:
Also, the technology in those inventions does not exist in a vaccuum. Like I said, every discovery has the potential to be misused. Explosives are incredibly valuable in mining, demolition, and keeping asteroids from destroying Earth.
This has probably already been said, but I don't think such a medication should be made available at all, because in certain areas, it may not be voluntary, but indeed forced
Considering the number of women still actively oppressed in the world, I think it would be very difficult to get an accurate "world study".Realitycrash said:
I figured that was pretty much common knowledge, since the majority of women I know are generally more accepting of relations with other women.
This is a hard path to walk, but not just because of the ethical questions (like people sneaking it into each other's food or something). It's also because it will reveal a lot of twisted logic.Lil devils x said:
On one hand, people as a whole really, really enjoy being told that things are "genetic" or "caused by a chemical imbalance." It alleviates any sense of responsibility (note well that I did not say "fault"). This is why, nine times in ten, someone won't just say, "I'm sad." They'll say, "I'm clinically depressed," even with no credible diagnosis. Adding that qualifier to the beginning is a way of letting you know that you can't argue with them, and that they are automatically worse off than you, with your "normal" depression.
At the same time, if we keep insisting that everything is genetic or a result of a chemical imbalance, people are going to find ways to manipulate it. Furthermore, we will remove all sense of responsibility. Oh, you raped someone? Chemical imbalance. Can't show up to work on time? It's genetic. You're just a plain old jerk to everyone you meet? Not your fault--you were born that way!
There are two sides to everything--the biological, and the psychological. When we only focus on one (whichever it is), we handicap ourselves in ways we can't begin to imagine.
If everything is biological, then there's absolutely nothing wrong with forcing a change in someone's biology, right? After all, they'll believe that it's what they really want, because biologically that's what their body will tell them. No harm, no foul.
If everything is psychological, then there's no reason to medicate people with severe problems. They're obviously just not trying hard enough, right?
In both camps, you've got people trying to "figure out" people. The inevitable result, once either side feels they've got us all mapped, is that people will be treated as something less. This pill could represent one extreme, but overreacting to it just represents the other. And that's the thing about balance beams--you're hurt exactly the same if fall off either side.
Yes, and I know more female bisexuals than male bisexuals as well, but what WE know, us two, can't be used as facts. And then there is the case of male bisexuals still being looked down upon as "gay", with all the stigma that gets, while women bisexuals get the "Ooh, girl on girl action, sweet"-response. This is from men, anyway. I don't know overall how women react to female bisexuals, but I'v never met any who've disapproved.Lil devils x said:
This leads to the case that male bisexuals might be hiding their bisexuality from the public, this making it seem like it's "less common".
Do you feel the same way about sex changes?NightRavenGSA said:
I am surprised by the sheer number of people who would deny one persons right to choice because of the possibility of anothers actions.
I am not sure which is worse, Heterophobia or homophobia. Both seem absolutely mad to me.
Well seeing how homosexuals aren't harming anyone by doing what they do then I doubt that anyone would classify it as a disease but more as a quirk. The reason it is feasible to say "It's just the way I am" is that we live in a civilized world where the rights of the individual trumps the comfort of the majority.Jonabob87 said:
You don't think this is a contradiction? We are responsible, that is correct..And then "Just because I can", is all the motivation we need? Do you really need examples on how bad this kind of reasoning can turn out for the world? And already have?Abandon4093 said:
I don't want to quote the obvious ones, because of Godwin's Law..
True with the explosives bit, and as sad as I am to admit it, I also have to concede that war probably is necessary at times. Being pacifist, I hate war, I hate the senseless loss of lives and I hate how deterence theory seems to be biting us in the arse and sparking wars anyway. (i.e. the whole George Bush debacle)varulfic said:
Just because we can, does it make it right? Because, as you put it, we are the authority, and noone can stop us?Abandon4093 said:
No I don't. and I just think it would be far too easy for a community to "fix" homosexuals by enacting legislation making medication compulsory. I personally think they should have a right to choose for themselves however my faith in humanity is sadly lacking in these respects, and as such I'd rather people be stuck how they are, than have them forced to change by a society that considers them "un-natural" or wrongLil devils x said:
I think think from a personal standpoint true heterophobia would be worse due to the fact that they're the majority, and from a societal standpoint I think homophobia is worse due to the fact that homosexuals tend to make up a minority
However we shouldn't confuse homophobia (fearing homosexuals) with hating homosexuals as they should be two different things, two things that shouldn't be but, two things none the less
