h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Oh, and it's certainly not *evil*...just ignorant, violent, and domineering. But that is facism for you.

Why am I thinking of Nuremberg?

"I was only following orders" was not accepted as a defence then and it should not be accepted now. There is no excuse for "choosing" to accept the KKK line and following it.

As for being born gay, there is a great deal of anecdotal evidence available in the gay community. Many people who are gay, have always known that they were. You don't choose to be gay in the same way that you may choose to be intolerant of gays.

Ok, so you are saying that everyone can resist programming? Even when it occurs from conception? That it is a matter of choice? Go check out some psychology facts...it's not just *other people* that fall under conformity...

I'm certainly not saying it is acceptable, just that it happens, and condeming people when it simply wasn't their fault, is not constructive. The human mind is very easily manipulated. If you had been alive in Nazi Germany, chances are you would have gone along with it like everyone else.

There isn't as much evidence as you might think as to the origin of being gay (nature vs. nurture). I certainly wasn't implying that people choose to be gay. And I certainly don't think it matters either way.

Oops. The phrase "(unless you can show me specific evidence)" should have been included in the last paragraph after the first sentence.

'I certainly wasn't implying that people choose to be gay'

Saturnine - I would say that you *were* implying just this earlier when you said

'I also don't believe there is any scientific evidence to suggest that anyone is born gay (feel free to prove me wrong) aside from a bunch of animals humping the same sex, and a German doctor who has been looking at sections of the brain. My psychology teacher by the way, had a ten minute rant about this man, saying that it was prejudiced to research this. (I actually don't understand why there is a need to prove that being gay is natural - does it matter?'
(Those bunch of animals humping each other are about as much proof as you need surely)

Saturnine, you are saying that being Anti-Nazi and being a Racist is the godamn same thing - and it isn't. You cannot be born a Nazi in the same way you are not born a Racist or Paedophile.

What is the difference between being Black and being a Nazi? In your logic this has the same value.

I think you are discussing for the sake of discussion, Saturnine. And we're getting OT.

HELL

No, I was just saying I haven't heard any solid evidence for it. There has to be more than animal observations to prove a theory. It's a good start, but there has to be better evidence than that.

The main problem that psychology has with being gay, is that it doesn't really fit in with the idea of evolution...which is probably why there isn't any current evidence. I'd argue that it is a completely personal choice, and it is damaging to insinuate that someone is *more gay* because it's on their DNA, than someone who chooses to live their life that way...

GRMPF! So first you say someone is born a KKK or born a Paedophile or born a Nazi. Then you say people choose to be gay...

What now?

H

No, I say both occur.

Will you lot read my posts properly!!

I think we are reading your posts properly but are a bit baffled by them ...........
'I certainly wasn't implying that people choose to be gay' followed by
'I'd argue that it is a completely personal choice'

You've had your moments before but this is ridiculous.

Oh stop with the patronising. It's so annoying.

If I'm not making myself clear, then apologies. I MEANT to put across that it is a personal choice which origin of being gay you believe in. In my opinion it can be either through genetics, or through influence...however, just remember that in most cases, you still end up being conceived by people in a heterosexual coupling...

It's just the nature vs. nurture debate, which has been going on for years. I wouldn't entertain the thought that either is more vaild than the other.

Right, does everyone understand, or do I have to get the crayons out and draw some pretty pictures?

In fear of repeating myself, Salman Rushdie once said "With the freedom of speech comes the to offend".

I don't condone nazi-ism, anti-semitism, or any of the other -ism's and -obias but so far as I'm aware bigotted, narrow mindedness is still permitted in the supposedly free world. However loathesome and despicable they are, preventing people stating their own personal beliefs is worse, than anything they may have to say.

People will always be offended if you take a particularly strong stand point for anything at all - there is afterall a difference between being anti-[insert subject of choice] and going on a personal crusade to wipe out the entire [insert subject choice] race/colour/creed/religion ...

Going back to Nazis, I would still dispute that you can be born one - born into a Nazi family & brought up as one, yes, but that is a cultural nurturing as opposed to being genetically determined a certain colour or race.

You can choose to reject the culture you are brought up in, as you can also choose to adopt a viewpoint.

Back to Noddy - I think there was also some disquiet about Big Ears. Gollywogs now have to be called Gollies because w*g is considered a derogatory term - I believe it was originally an acronym - 'Western Oriental Gentleman'.

Ekki: "...bigotted, narrow mindedness is still permitted in the supposedly free world. However loathesome and despicable they are, preventing people stating their own personal beliefs is worse, than anything they may have to say."

True. "I could kill you for what you said, but I'll kill for your right to say it." (some French revolutionary?) You should not prevent people from saying things. However, the things they say may have consequences, and according to the consequences one should react.

Or, another example: Suppose I meet a 90 year old deaf and blind nazi, muttering about the past, how things were better then, and that Hitler after all had a point. I say OK, that man can't do much harm - he's probably ga-ga. If I meet an anti-nazi hooligan demolishing a lawyer's car because he thinks the lawyer is a nazi, I say the hooligan should be sued or put in jail.

The difference here is not the people's position but what they do. The 90 year old nazi might be immoral, and the anti-nazi guy might be morally correct.

The difference lies deeper, methinks: there's a moral difference between being an anti-nazi and a racist or paedophile. Saturnine was saying it's all the same.

HELL

Sorry, what was I saying?

At the risk of getting back to the original point, some of Charles Darwin's work could be construed as racist. Some people took his theory of evolution, and warped it to justify colonialism - the white man was superior to the black man, so would naturally take over. Therefore stealing land, and killing natives was just part of nature, and acceptable. Darwin wasn't 100% on this but some of his work agrees with this. However, this was in a climate where racism was certainly more prevalent than today, so I don't think it takes away from his acheivements.

Saturnine - you are not born a nazi. You can be indoctrinated into Nazism, but that's a different issue.

Matter of opinion then? I can't be a**ed to argue.

No, I don't think it's a matter of opinion. I think that you're just wrong.

Depends on your opinion of what a birth is. I'm not incorrect in what I am saying - if a baby is born to a KKK couple, then it is predestined to be a KKK member. Therefore it is born a member of the KKK. It has as little choice about what beliefs about the world are being fed into it, as a kid does about the pigmentation of it's skin, or the mental illnesses it will inherit. Just because it is not a physical genetic thing, it doesn't ment to say it is any the less there.

"I'm not incorrect in what I am saying - if a baby is born to a KKK couple, then it is predestined to be a KKK member."

That's rubbish. I grew up going to a Catholic school, and attending mass every day. I'm now an athiest. Neither of my parents left school with qualifications. I'm at university. So I *know* that your parents cultural biography - if that's a term that makes sense - does no determine who you are. Influence, yes, but determine, no.

We are all descended from people who inhabited a racist past. But today, we live in a society that isn't nearly as xenophobic as 100 years ago. How did this happen, if the beliefs of one generation automatically passed to the next?