Mei tsuki7
(?)Community Member
- Report Post
- Posted: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 21:12:51 +0000
Major Lima Charlie
Mei tsuki7
Comrade Kotka
Mei tsuki7
Omorose Panya
.......How did you manage to miss that I just gave you evidence? The entire post explained how it is nonsensical. Or do you not understand the construction of race or how genes work and you're asking for evidence that you do not yet possess the prerequisitory knowledge to understand?
I just explained how it makes no sense. Your job is to refute the points offered.
Do you know how they determine sexuality scientifically in most cases? Arousal based on visual stimuli. I am not talking about race I'm talking about visual stimuli. Yes some people are not attracted to black women due to racist views gained through institutionalized racism in our culture. But there are people who are honestly not physically aroused by certain visual stimuli such as a certain skin color just as there are people not physically aroused by certain visual stimuli such as certain sexual organs. If arousal is biologically determined, which by proving that there is a gene that makes you more likely to be physically aroused by the same sex it is proven it is, then not being aroused by a certain skin color is also biological.
This is my point. That arousal/attraction or lack there of is not based on the false concoction of race but on visual stimuli.
Now there is a difference between saying "I am not attracted to X." vs "I will/do not date X." The first is biological preference for a certain visual stimuli while the second is most likely cultural/social and probably racist.
I don't think you can disconnect those things. Socialisation can inform arousal, not just who one is willing to date.
Perhaps I'm an unusual case, but that has been my personal experience.
I disagree. Socialization can effect expression but not the arousal itself. If it did then those homosexuality cures would work and those who have undergone treatment would no longer be aroused by the same sex. It has been proven that that is not the case.
Care to explain why you're equivocating the two?
Also, would you like to explain how such a thing would be summarily coded in such a way so as to not require substantially different DNA than the next person? Which is to say, there is only so much room for differences between people in coding. If what you're arguing is true, then people must have much more difference than the evidence suggests, which you should probably know is impossible. For the record and all.
Because it's all based on visual stimuli that causes arousal. If you can't help that you get aroused by one type of stimuli then how can you help getting aroused by another type of stimuli?
I don't understand why you would need substantially different DNA if arousal is hard coded into it. After all, there are billions of different people in the world all with different DNA who have substantial physical differences and yet they don't have substantially different DNA. Another thing is, while we have mapped the entire genome we have no idea what most of the code relates to. For all we know your entire personality could be shown in your DNA.