Bruce/Caitlin afraid of going to men's jail

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-10-2015, 07:15 PM)Bengalholic Wrote: Here's my thing with that, and the overall point I was trying to make. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the science concludes that homosexuality is purely a 'choice'. My point to those that oppose equal rights to gays...why does it even matter? 


Why should a girl being with a girl or a guy with a guy...be any different than or matter any more, than a sexy chick being with an ugly old man...a white man being with a black woman, a midget being with a 7 footer, etc, etc. Even if it's just a choice...who cares and what business is it of anyone else. 


For those who harp on the 'choice' thing...guess what? Everyone of us (straight, gay, bi, trans) makes a 'choice' about who we want to be with, have sex with, or marry. Even if your a guy attracted only to women...you are making choices (based on personal preferences) about what kind of woman you like, what shape gets you stiff, what personality you can co-exist with, etc. 


I think this a mistake that the LGBT community has made. It might very well be the case that being straight or gay is genetic...but, it's probably also the case that some just 'prefer' the same sex...even after previously being straight and enjoying that. They shouldn't let the word 'choice' be turned into something taboo. Whether they're 'born gay' or 'chose' to be gay...it shouldn't matter on damn bit when it comes to them having the same exact rights as everyone else.

I get it.  The people who care based upon religion believe it is a sin.  So some believe it is their duty to help "save" that person.  While others believe at the very least they won't condone sin just by accepting others can make their own choices.

[*bfine32*]

(09-10-2015, 07:27 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: A protective reflex evoked by my finger about to gouge your eye out.  A reflex doesn't involve a conscious decision because it doesn't involve the part of the brain where conscious thoughts occur.  If you had to decide to shut your eyes before I jabbed my finger in your eye instead of closing them due to a reflex you would be blind after conducting that experiment two times.  A reflex tract doesn't involve the decision making part of the brain.

Once again you try to bring conscious thought into the matter when I keep telling you it happens outside of your consciousness

Quote:In physiology, sensory transduction is the conversion of a sensory stimulus from one form to another.


Transduction in the nervous system typically refers to stimulus alerting events wherein a physical stimulus is converted into an action potential, which is transmitted along axons towards the central nervous system where it is integrated.
A receptor cell converts the energy in a stimulus into a change in the electrical potential across its membrane. It causes the depolarization of the membrane to allow the action potential to be transduced to the brain for integration.

oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote:No. How do you make decisions totally unaware of the decision making process?

Through the sub or unconsciousness. You and Sigmund Freud definitely disagree on this matter

Quote:"When making a decision of minor importance, I have always found it advantageous to consider all the pros and cons. In vital matters however ... the decision should come from the unconscious, from somewhere within ourselves."

[*bfine32*]

(09-10-2015, 07:29 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: You tell me.

You do realize that was a response to his question introducing morality don't you?

[Bengalholic]

(09-10-2015, 07:24 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Without getting into the morality, I think it would matter greatly when it came to cases of discrimination. How could I rightfully refuse to provide you with a service if you are "born that way"; such as skin color, sex, handicap, ect.. Now ask how could I rightfully refuse you service simply because you make a choice?
 

Continue...

[*bfine32*]

(09-10-2015, 07:52 PM)Bengalholic Wrote: Continue...

It could easily be argued that I can choose not to serve you because you choose to do something. For instance if you choose not to wear shoes when you come into my restaurant and have feet, I can rightfully tell you to leave. If you come into my restaurant with no shoes because you were born with no feet, I cannot rightfully ask you to leave.

Whether someone thinks it is a right to eat without shoes plays a small role. Hope that helped with the confusion.

[SunsetBengal]

My, oh my!  How this thread has grown into another polarizing debate.  Anyone that knows me, would surely know that my intent of posting this thread was merely to point out the irony of the situation.  Here we have a faded glory Olympic champion who decided to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on making himself into the appearance of a woman.  All the while, there has been this legal case lingering in the background...

Perhaps it never even occurred to anyone that maybe he/she should have spent more of that cash on better legal defense, in light of the direness of the situation?  Did he/she think that by putting themselves back into the media spotlight would gain favor with a judge and jury?  I don't think that is a good way to prepare for homicide defense.  So, now that the other shoe has hit the floor, so to speak, he/she is now crying about the thought of going to men's jail, after spending most of his/her life on this earth as a man..

You don't find humor in the irony?  Sucks for you to lack a sense of humor...

[BmorePat87]

(09-10-2015, 05:50 PM)bfine32 Wrote: We've had this discussion before, just because it doesn't make sense to you, doesn't mean it is incorrect. Why aren't you attracted to all women? The brain is a miraculous organ. Read up on the unconscious mind.

Thanks for unknowingly admitting that it isn't a choice. 

[BmorePat87]

(09-10-2015, 08:03 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: My, oh my!  How this thread has grown into another polarizing debate.  Anyone that knows me, would surely know that my intent of posting this thread was merely to point out the irony of the situation.  Here we have a faded glory Olympic champion who decided to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on making himself into the appearance of a woman.  All the while, there has been this legal case lingering in the background...

Perhaps it never even occurred to anyone that maybe he/she should have spent more of that cash on better legal defense, in light of the direness of the situation?  Did he/she think that by putting themselves back into the media spotlight would gain favor with a judge and jury?  I don't think that is a good way to prepare for homicide defense.  So, now that the other shoe has hit the floor, so to speak, he/she is now crying about the thought of going to men's jail, after spending most of his/her life on this earth as a man..

You don't find humor in the irony?  Sucks for you to lack a sense of humor...

I thought the point of this thread was that you didn't actually watch the interview and wanted to just make up shit.

Your big issue was that the "first thought" of the interview was that Jenner was afraid of going to a men's jail. However, if you watched the interview, it was neither the first thought of the interview nor the first thought of the accident. 

You literally just made up something and walked away after you were called out on it.

[*bfine32*]

(09-10-2015, 08:50 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Thanks for unknowingly admitting that it isn't a choice. 

Not sure where you got that, but you're welcome.

Let's see if I can go 2 for 2:
 
Do you think humans can make decisions outside of their consciousness?

[Bengalholic]

(09-10-2015, 07:57 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It could easily be argued that I can choose not to serve you because you choose to do something. For instance if you choose not to wear shoes when you come into my restaurant and have feet, I can rightfully tell you to leave. If you come into my restaurant with no shoes because you were born with no feet, I cannot rightfully ask you to leave.

Whether someone thinks it is a right to eat without shoes plays a small role. Hope that helped with the confusion.

So, what if a person 'chooses' have sex with short people, tall people, fat people, bald people, old people, ugly people, or whatever the case may be?  What if a business owner doesn't like that particular 'choice' and doesn't want to serve that person?

[jakefromstatefarm]

(09-10-2015, 09:06 PM)Bengalholic Wrote: So, what if a person 'chooses' have sex with short people, tall people, fat people, bald people, old people, ugly people, or whatever the case may be?  What if a business owner doesn't like that particular 'choice' and doesn't want to serve that person?

Not that this is news to anyone, but I personally believe that there's a large difference between a government discriminating against someone for various reasons and a private business owner doing it.

[*bfine32*]

(09-10-2015, 09:06 PM)Bengalholic Wrote: So, what if a person 'chooses' have sex with short people, tall people, fat people, bald people, old people, ugly people, or whatever the case may be?  What if a business owner doesn't like that particular 'choice' and doesn't want to serve that person?

The owner should be required to serve those; as folks are born to all those things.

[BmorePat87]

(09-10-2015, 09:00 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Not sure where you got that, but you're welcome.

You suggested that the brain does this unconsciously and we have no choice/control over it.

Quote:Let's see if I can go 2 for 2:

 
Do you think humans can make decisions outside of their consciousness?

I think our brain is capable of making decisions or acting on instinct and genetic code outside of our awareness. It's like how I don't look at people and make a decision whether or not I find them attractive. You just see someone and that thought occurs.

[*bfine32*]

(09-10-2015, 09:14 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: You suggested that the brain does this unconsciously and we have no choice/control over it.




I think our brain is capable of making decisions or acting on instinct and genetic code outside of our awareness. It's like how I don't look at people and make a decision whether or not I find them attractive. You just see someone and that thought occurs.

I'll take that as a yes; so thanks.

[BmorePat87]

(09-10-2015, 09:13 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The owner should be required to serve those; as folks are born to all those things.

What about people who choose to be fat or bald? Or Christian?

[BmorePat87]

(09-10-2015, 09:16 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'll take that as a yes; so thanks.

You're welcome. It's was a pleasure explaining to you how you just argued that being gay is not a choice. 

[*bfine32*]

(09-10-2015, 09:17 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: What about people who choose to be fat or bald? Or Christian?

Folks don't choose to be fat or bald. Folks that are genetically predisposed to be fat will be if they don't monitor their diet and exercise; however, there are folks that just cannot be fat no matter how much they choose to be. Folks can also choose to shave their heads but they cannot choose to lose their hair or grow it back; although they can choose not to maintain it. Do you know about this genetics thing?
 
As to religion (we circle back to the morality), no; it is a protected class and addressed in the 1st Amendment of the Constitution

[Bengalholic]

(09-10-2015, 09:13 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The owner should be required to serve those; as folks are born to all those things.

 Let's get a bit more specific then. What if a person 'chooses' to be tattooed, have short hair, long hair, wear too much makeup, wear nice clothes, wear shabby clothes, have piercings, etc, etc. Should the business owner, serving the general public,  be able to refuse service based on his/her personal objection to any of those things? 

[*bfine32*]

(09-10-2015, 09:20 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: You're welcome. It's was a pleasure explaining to you how you just argued that being gay is not a choice. 

Perhaps I argued that being gay is not a conscious choice, but I cannot see where I have argued what you suggest.

We all derive pleasure from different activities; sometimes outside of our consciousness.

But the Matador has grown tired of dancing with the blind shoemaker. The game is on

[*bfine32*]

(09-10-2015, 09:30 PM)Bengalholic Wrote:  Let's get a bit more specific then. What if a person 'chooses' to be tattooed, have short hair, long hair, wear too much makeup, wear nice clothes, wear shabby clothes, have piercings, etc, etc. Should the business owner, serving the general public,  be able to refuse service based on his/her personal objection to any of those things? 

Well the clothes are debatable (dependent on reasoning for the "shabby" clothes), but basically yes ,many places have dress codes. As to the rest: Yes, he or she could rightfully argue this.