Wow... trying to repair the total fuck up of saying homosexuality is a choice and looking even more idiotic by stating that it is genetic. That is the definition of epic fail.
It's also confusing because often enough "nurture" can become "nature", for example, a father with a newborn baby will have his testosterone levels drop and become somewhat "feminised" in biology and attitude.
Circumcision: Go to an Orthodox Jewish Bris. After the foreskin is cut off of the infant he is placed in his father's lap. The father then lifts the infant to his mouth and licks the blood from the baby' penis. I am not bull shitting you. I have seen this.
I thought the rabbi did that, but yeah. A few boys died of that in New York recently by contracting herpes from the rabbi, and yet the only outcry from it was to defend religious freedom. Fuck that, religious freedom should only extend as far as not harming anyone but yourself, and chopping off a good deal of the nerves in a genitalia clearly harms someone.
Great!! I can't wait for your future videos. If you could, I would also like to hear more extrapolation on why you feel that male promiscuity is destructive because I am not sure what you mean by that. It seems to me(but I am unsure) that you are saying that male promiscuity is inherently destructive. To that I would disagree but I would say that male or female promiscuity can be bad, or destructive within certain contexts. However,I don't feel I am completely understanding your position on that
I agree that the nature/nurture debate is really really poorly framed. One example is like what I said in the last video with heritability and prenatal influences. The contribution of "Nature" to a trait can statistically seem to increase in a more homogeneous environment, thus obscuring the actual role of "nurture". Plus heritability research is not properly set up usually to quantify the prenatal environment (what with us using twin studies and all), which can have epigenetic consequences...
@squirrelywrath2 That is, I should say, the prenatal environment can have epigenetic consequences, not that twin studies can have epigenetic consequences
I think the terms Nature and Nurture are used for no other reason that they vaguely represent the concepts, and they sound very similar. It's kind of like when the media mashes two celebrity's names together when they become a couple. It's just one of those silly things that people do.
reminds me of the song (clears throat)...you say nurture, I say nature, you say pilchards, I say crater, nature, nurture, nurture nature, letscallthewholethingorrrrrf lol
I agree with pretty much every point raised. Its nice to see more people acknowledge that genetics are not deterministic (ie is "inevitable", cannot be fought etc) and gene expression is influenced by environmental factors.
I think its being a bit picky to read too much into the terms "nature and nurture", I don't think they were meant to be scientific terms, but used by laymen largely because of alliteration.
I do worry about how often people use "nature" to try to argue how it "ought" to be.
@Wolfau5 >I do worry about how often people use "nature" to try to argue how it "ought" to be.< Me too. I actually dislike this nature thing, forcing motivations upon us which we have not chosen for ourselves.
I would say you don't know shit until you know the mechanism. You can't know what part genetics really plays until you can say how those genes effect the mechanisms of sexual desire in the brain. All the statistics are just correlations with no explanation.
Right now, we aren't entirely sure about the neural mechanisms behind normal, or straight, sexuality.
@playgrrrr well it's a fuzzy line. language is natural, we have an innate tendency to learn language. So what about spanish? Spanish is an acquired behavior, we have to learn it, but we couldn't have acquired it if a module for language wasn't in our nature.
It's not just a question of "hard wired" or not. If we're not exposed to language at a young age we will never learn it. So both nature and nurture is required.
@Happypast - Your almost right. When not exposed to any particular language, a basic proto language is created. This has been seen among deaf communities where there wasn't a sign language, the children started developing one and by the next generation there was a fairly workable new language. No particular language will be learned but we always strive towards language. It is fascinating, and definitive evidence that capacity for language is built in our genes.
@ContraPoints It started as an abstract thing and can't be measured, so I understand what you're saying. But there are other, less conscious primates to compare against it though it only has hypothetical value, there are "natural human tendencies" which seem quite obvious (not sure with gender though - that'd require cruel withholding of individuals from culture or a large scale cultural shift which is even more unlikely to happen).
@ContraPoints I'd give examples of what looks like such traits to me, but I'm not sure how much you want to constrain it to gender development, and most of them are common sense anyways (or not so common, I don't know of any person equally conscious of and disgusted by the conflict between the animal "human" and the intellect "human", between what we want and what makes sense to do, as me).
So, does this mean (speaking on a philisophical level quickly) you agree with the naturalistic fallacy as a legit criticism of any secular ethical systems? What's your take on it in general?
Have you ever read Matt Ridley's book 'the agile gene' or the same book of a different title 'nature via nurture'? He does a good job of clearing up misconceptions I had about this 'nature vs nurture' debate, where he demonstrates in his book that nature and nurture rather work in sync rather than work against each other, i.e. nature heavily influences nurture and nurture can heavily influence the nature of an individual.
Wow... trying to repair the total fuck up of saying homosexuality is a choice and looking even more idiotic by stating that it is genetic. That is the definition of epic fail.
salahhe 2 weeks ago
isnt nurture just a subset of nature?
Tryambakam 1 month ago
It's also confusing because often enough "nurture" can become "nature", for example, a father with a newborn baby will have his testosterone levels drop and become somewhat "feminised" in biology and attitude.
niriop 1 month ago
Circumcision: Go to an Orthodox Jewish Bris. After the foreskin is cut off of the infant he is placed in his father's lap. The father then lifts the infant to his mouth and licks the blood from the baby' penis. I am not bull shitting you. I have seen this.
gimbutas1 1 month ago
@gimbutas1 As is circumcision wasnt bad enough. The abrahamic god loves blood sacrifice. ;)
MrImmobile 1 month ago
@gimbutas1
I thought the rabbi did that, but yeah. A few boys died of that in New York recently by contracting herpes from the rabbi, and yet the only outcry from it was to defend religious freedom. Fuck that, religious freedom should only extend as far as not harming anyone but yourself, and chopping off a good deal of the nerves in a genitalia clearly harms someone.
tipoomaster 1 month ago
a great series of videos.
SkidRowRadio 1 month ago
It's the nature of feminists to see everything a nurture
sausage4mash 1 month ago
Sexuality is a profoundly fluid thing but created from within based on given stimuli.
Buntzums 1 month ago
Great!! I can't wait for your future videos. If you could, I would also like to hear more extrapolation on why you feel that male promiscuity is destructive because I am not sure what you mean by that. It seems to me(but I am unsure) that you are saying that male promiscuity is inherently destructive. To that I would disagree but I would say that male or female promiscuity can be bad, or destructive within certain contexts. However,I don't feel I am completely understanding your position on that
jarredf30 1 month ago
I agree that the nature/nurture debate is really really poorly framed. One example is like what I said in the last video with heritability and prenatal influences. The contribution of "Nature" to a trait can statistically seem to increase in a more homogeneous environment, thus obscuring the actual role of "nurture". Plus heritability research is not properly set up usually to quantify the prenatal environment (what with us using twin studies and all), which can have epigenetic consequences...
squirrelywrath2 1 month ago
@squirrelywrath2 That is, I should say, the prenatal environment can have epigenetic consequences, not that twin studies can have epigenetic consequences
squirrelywrath2 1 month ago
I think the terms Nature and Nurture are used for no other reason that they vaguely represent the concepts, and they sound very similar. It's kind of like when the media mashes two celebrity's names together when they become a couple. It's just one of those silly things that people do.
ChuckMeIntoHell 1 month ago 6
reminds me of the song (clears throat)...you say nurture, I say nature, you say pilchards, I say crater, nature, nurture, nurture nature, letscallthewholethingorrrrrf lol
zezt 1 month ago
These videos are just terrific. Subscribed.
rmc12354 1 month ago
I agree with pretty much every point raised. Its nice to see more people acknowledge that genetics are not deterministic (ie is "inevitable", cannot be fought etc) and gene expression is influenced by environmental factors.
I think its being a bit picky to read too much into the terms "nature and nurture", I don't think they were meant to be scientific terms, but used by laymen largely because of alliteration.
I do worry about how often people use "nature" to try to argue how it "ought" to be.
Wolfau5 1 month ago
@Wolfau5 >I do worry about how often people use "nature" to try to argue how it "ought" to be.< Me too. I actually dislike this nature thing, forcing motivations upon us which we have not chosen for ourselves.
playgrrrr 1 month ago
oh this wounderful
Darkwolverine06 1 month ago
I would say you don't know shit until you know the mechanism. You can't know what part genetics really plays until you can say how those genes effect the mechanisms of sexual desire in the brain. All the statistics are just correlations with no explanation.
Right now, we aren't entirely sure about the neural mechanisms behind normal, or straight, sexuality.
zarkoff45 1 month ago
I don't understand the confusion. Natural=innate tendencies, nurture=acquired behaviour.
playgrrrr 1 month ago 3
@playgrrrr well it's a fuzzy line. language is natural, we have an innate tendency to learn language. So what about spanish? Spanish is an acquired behavior, we have to learn it, but we couldn't have acquired it if a module for language wasn't in our nature.
It's not just a question of "hard wired" or not. If we're not exposed to language at a young age we will never learn it. So both nature and nurture is required.
Happypast 1 month ago
@Happypast - Your almost right. When not exposed to any particular language, a basic proto language is created. This has been seen among deaf communities where there wasn't a sign language, the children started developing one and by the next generation there was a fairly workable new language. No particular language will be learned but we always strive towards language. It is fascinating, and definitive evidence that capacity for language is built in our genes.
Jaelra 1 month ago
@Jaelra Cool :)
Happypast 1 month ago
@playgrrrr It turns out to be very difficult to separate the innate "tendencies" from their realized actuality as "acquired" behavior.
ContraPoints 1 month ago 6
@ContraPoints It started as an abstract thing and can't be measured, so I understand what you're saying. But there are other, less conscious primates to compare against it though it only has hypothetical value, there are "natural human tendencies" which seem quite obvious (not sure with gender though - that'd require cruel withholding of individuals from culture or a large scale cultural shift which is even more unlikely to happen).
playgrrrr 1 month ago
@playgrrrr *But there are other, less conscious primates to compare against and though it only has hypothetical value
Sorry for the fuck up. Just fell out of bed 20 minutes ago.
playgrrrr 1 month ago
@ContraPoints I'd give examples of what looks like such traits to me, but I'm not sure how much you want to constrain it to gender development, and most of them are common sense anyways (or not so common, I don't know of any person equally conscious of and disgusted by the conflict between the animal "human" and the intellect "human", between what we want and what makes sense to do, as me).
playgrrrr 1 month ago
No keep your videos nice and lengthy! :)
georgemc25 1 month ago
Genetic and environmental influences?
iviewthetube 1 month ago
This was really boring
lovingsingleton 1 month ago 2
@lovingsingleton You thought the VIDEO was boring, try reading your comment!
TheLaughingOut 1 month ago
biology and society?
Coquipirate 1 month ago
So, does this mean (speaking on a philisophical level quickly) you agree with the naturalistic fallacy as a legit criticism of any secular ethical systems? What's your take on it in general?
Sloth7d 1 month ago
@ContraPoints - Off topic but relevant: do you believe "free will" exists?
PainAddict666 1 month ago
Have you ever read Matt Ridley's book 'the agile gene' or the same book of a different title 'nature via nurture'? He does a good job of clearing up misconceptions I had about this 'nature vs nurture' debate, where he demonstrates in his book that nature and nurture rather work in sync rather than work against each other, i.e. nature heavily influences nurture and nurture can heavily influence the nature of an individual.
Pentazoid111 1 month ago
Circumcision! :[
BetterLivinThruJesus 1 month ago