Jump to content

Tolerance and Acceptance has its limits


thedemiace

Recommended Posts

Alarming title? Yes. That was intentional. Do I agree with it? Yes, I do. Why? My reasons are below.

 

While I was browsing different sexualities, I encountered a horrifying attempt of normalizing pedophilia. This new groups is pushing an agenda within the LGBT community to be recognized as pedosexuals. What's worst? Some were in fact supporting it. I even want it to punch my computer of how pissed I was, and in fact I am. I even had to post it here. However, this got me thinking further of how much emphasis there was in tolerance and acceptance, and adding post-modern ideas to do so within the LGBT community. This is when I realize how wrong this was.
 

First, post-modernism is a promotion toward relativism, and the rejection of absolute or objective truths. Some philosophies that promote this are nihilism, and somewhat existentialism (there are some exceptions).

Second, while this philosophy was an attempt to brake free from totalitarian and extreme religious truths, and to promote a more humanistic and realistic approach toward humanity, it has become the opposite to its intentions. While we must accept that there is indeed subjectivity and relativistic views in human life, it doesn't eliminate those objective and absolute truths. For instance, we do know humans need food to live, giving existence to an objective truth; however, we also know that what humans eat depend on culture and what he or she want decide to personality, giving existence to an subjective truth. However, it is when we become an absolute to either tendency that becomes irrational and dangerous.

 

Everything has it's limits, and this is where I say that tolerance and acceptance has its limitations. These two ideas have been romanticize and used to promote various genders and sexuality. However, when we reach to a point that endangers lives, and even creates unnecessary fears, it is when we reach the limits. I can even extend this to political views, like fascism and theocracies. It is important that we understand this and point this out to every community that we belong to. It is why I am posting this here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, thegrayace said:

...While I was browsing different sexualities, I encountered a horrifying attempt of normalizing pedophilia. This new groups is pushing an agenda within the LGBT community to be recognized as pedosexuals....

Yes. I think I understand what you mean and how you feel; when I heard asexual researcher, Anthony Bogaert say that he was studying pedophiles because he felt it might be a new sexual orientation, something that he felt they couldn't control, I didn't agree with it.

 

I've heard abusers claim that they couldn't stop themselves from abusing others, which isn't true at all, because not all children who grew up being physically, emotionally and/or sexually abused become abusers or pedophiles, themselves; some abuse survivors realize that they don't want to act abusive towards others because they realize it's wrong to take your stress out on others, so they make a conscious effort to try not to imitate their abuser(s).

 

Also, I've read articles from therapists who worked with pedophiles and/or abusive people. They said that some were able to learn and be taught how and why their abusive behavior was/is wrong and how to control their emotions or feelings so that they don't abuse or hurt others, anymore. 

 

The idea of pedophiles being given a category along with LGBT+ and a false excuse for the harm they caused in others' lives doesn't sit right with me, either; as an abuse victim, it feels insulting and hurtful, and I don't understand why an educated sex psychologist like Dr. Bogaert doesn't seem to understand this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know to what extent these people were trying to "normalize" pedophilia, but I should inform you that just as asexuals cannot change their not being attracted to anybody, pedophiles cannot change their attraction to children.  All they can do is control what they do about it (same as with *any* other sort of feeling or emotion), because yeah, actually acting upon it is against the law and stuff.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, InquisitivePhilosopher said:

Yes. I think I understand what you mean and how you feel; when I heard asexual researcher, Anthony Bogaert say that he was studying pedophiles because he felt it might be a new sexual orientation, something that he felt they couldn't control, I didn't agree with it.

The DSM-5 currently agrees though and considers pedophilia a mental disorder with no known treatment.

However, pedophile doesn't mean they are acting on that. It would be a hard argument to make to turn child abuse into a part of the LGBT movement, considering how it is illegal and all... ( Heck, just today I heard that India wants to pass a new law that will make sure child rapists have to be executed within 6 months after the crime, and despite being against capital punishment in general myself, I was nodding along when I heard this with a "sounds about right" going through my head)

 

That being said, none of the above is meant as a defense of pedophilia. I absolutely agree that it should not be part of LGBT and that pedophiles should seek immediate treatment.

Just want to be clear that pedophilia is not the same as child abuse, and that there is at least a logical argument to be made for its research and recognition. (Again: Not one that I agree with, but there is a case that can be made, given its current classification)

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, InquisitivePhilosopher said:

Yes. I think I understand what you mean and how you feel; when I heard asexual researcher, Anthony Bogaert say that he was studying pedophiles because he felt it might be a new sexual orientation, something that he felt they couldn't control, I didn't agree with it.

 

I've heard abusers claim that they couldn't stop themselves from abusing others, which isn't true at all, because not all children who grew up being physically, emotionally and/or sexually abused become abusers or pedophiles, themselves; some abuse survivors realize that they don't want to act abusive towards others because they realize it's wrong to take your stress out on others, so they make a conscious effort to try not to imitate their abuser(s).

 

Also, I've read articles from therapists who worked with pedophiles and/or abusive people. They said that some were able to learn and be taught how and why their abusive behavior was/is wrong and how to control their emotions or feelings so that they don't abuse or hurt others, anymore. 

 

The idea of pedophiles being given a category along with LGBT+ and a false excuse for the harm they caused in others' lives doesn't sit right with me, either; as an abuse victim, it feels insulting and hurtful, and I don't understand why an educated sex psychologist like Dr. Bogaert doesn't seem to understand this.

As a future doctor, and one who has a bachelor degree in biology, I see these behavior as traumatic experiences or a psychological pathology. It has been understood already that abusive behaviors and sociopathy exist because they were either abused in the past, lived in abusive household, or had traumatic experiences in the past. This can be also said with pedophiles. It has been seen that some are like this because of a learned behavior from their parents, or any other family member. Another could have been that they were sexually abused in the past, but I have not yet seen any investigation about this.

If there is a genetic connection, it doesn't mean that is should be accepted either way. There are other psychological diseases connected with genetics, like depression, bipolar behavior, and schizophrenia.

Moreover, how do we know or accept a sexual behavior? I say by looking at the social impact it has, and if it's done with two people capable of understanding what they are doing. If only one is capable, it must be frowned upon, and even be considered unethical and illegal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Philip027 said:

I don't know to what extent these people were trying to "normalize" pedophilia, but I should inform you that just as asexuals cannot change their not being attracted to anybody, pedophiles cannot change their attraction to children.  All they can do is control what they do about it (same as with *any* other sort of feeling or emotion), because yeah, actually acting upon it is against the law and stuff.

Wrong. It has been proved that it can be change via intense therapy. There is also some connection with culture, and even household experiences. However, if there is any genetic connection, it doesn't mean it should be normalize. There are other psychological diseases that are connected with genetics, like depression, bipolarity, schizophrenia, and psychopathy. However, while accepted, they are not normalized but treated. In other words, they must be treated.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Dreamer23 said:

Just want to be clear that pedophilia is not the same as child abuse, and that there is at least a logical argument to be made for its research and recognition. (Again: Not one that I agree with, but there is a case that can be made, given its current classification)

Pedophilic-actions are part of child abuse; however, child abuse is more of a spectrum of various actions, including inhumane child labor, and other violent actions upon a child.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The discourse of sexual orientations usually involves providing a justification for the types of behaviours people with that orientation might want to engage in. For that reason, it is understandable why people might have an issue with the notion of recognizing pedophilia as an orientation. However, psychologists who suggest that pedophilia is an orientation only mean to say that some people involuntarily experience sexual attractions towards children, as result of the way their brain has been wired through biological/environmental processes outside their control. The idea is that an accurate understanding of pedophilia may enable people to better manage the situation, so pedophiles do not act on their attractions. Thus, the idea is to assist the prevention of pedophilic behaviour.

https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2013/12/22/is_pedophilia_a_sexual_orientation.html
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34858350

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Pramana said:

psychologists who suggest that pedophilia is an orientation only mean to say that some people involuntarily experience sexual attractions towards children, as result of the way their brain has been wired through biological/environmental processes outside their control. 

There are better words that can be used than the words "sexual orientation". For instance, pathological behavior, psychological disease, and psycho-genetic disorder (if it is).

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, thegrayace said:

There are better words that can be used than the words "sexual orientation". For instance, pathological behavior, psychological disease, and psycho-genetic disorder (if it is).

From a neutral evolutionary biology perspective, is there any difference between experiencing that type of attraction versus any other type of attraction, such that it would merit the term disease? Obviously, there are serious moral problems with pedophilic behaviour, but that doesn't entail that the attractions themselves are a disease.

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, thegrayace said:

Wrong. It has been proved that it can be change via intense therapy. 

Science never proves, it only supports, and behavioral therapeutic interventions can be difficult to study. You're dealing with the human element, after all. Additionally, don't most modern behavioral therapeutic interventions target response to a trigger? So, in these studies, would success be defined as a change in attraction or a change in behavior? Do you happen to have the references? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Pramana said:

From a neutral evolutionary biology perspective, is there any difference between experiencing that type of attraction versus any other type of attraction, such that it would merit the term disease? Obviously, there are serious moral problems with pedophilic behaviour, but that doesn't entail that the attractions themselves are a disease.

First, we must understand that evolutionary biology doesn't have a perspective. As a biologist myself, evolutionary theory hold an explanation based on the evidence given. This scientific theory is based on facts made by different areas of science, including biology, chemistry, physics, and even mathematics. It doesn't hold any ethical value, and nor refutes ethics. It doesn't even plan to do that. It can even help it explain why it's needed, or why it even exists. This means that using evolution to support any ethical or moral dilemma is wrong, and even ignorant. For instance, evolution has demonstrate why infanticide exists in some animals, which is to eliminate potential diseases in a population, or is done to compete against other genetics of the same type of animals. A good example is the lion, which the male lion kill the offsprings of the previous male lion if the previous is killed.

However, lets be the devil-advocate, and present you why it's wrong. Pedophilia is done toward children that are before puberty. Before puberty, children can't provide offsprings; therefore, it is meaningless to sex with them. If it's toward children of post-puberty (13-17), this children don't have the enough capacity to take care of a child, providing less intelligent offsprings, and a less progressive society that could lead itself to their own extinction.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Wrong. It has been proved that it can be change via intense therapy.

You cannot "treat" who you are attracted to any more than you can "cure the gay" out of a homosexual.

 

Also, as someone that actually has had therapy before for depression, I should tell you that "therapy", for the most part, isn't usually used for treating things, and if that's the expectation one has upon going to therapy for anything, they will more likely than not end up disappointed.  It's more like teaching you how to cope with and deal with those things in a healthy way, because they are things that cannot usually be fixed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, thegrayace said:

First, we must understand that evolutionary biology doesn't have a perspective. As a biologist myself, evolutionary theory hold an explanation based on the evidence given. This scientific theory is based on facts made by different areas of science, including biology, chemistry, physics, and even mathematics. It doesn't hold any ethical value, and nor refutes ethics. It doesn't even plan to do that. It can even help it explain why it's needed, or why it even exists. This means that using evolution to support any ethical or moral dilemma is wrong, and even ignorant. For instance, evolution has demonstrate why infanticide exists in some animals, which is to eliminate potential diseases in a population, or is done to compete against other genetics of the same type of animals. A good example is the lion, which the male lion kill the offsprings of the previous male lion if the previous is killed.

However, lets be the devil-advocate, and present you why it's wrong. Pedophilia is done toward children that are before puberty. Before puberty, children can't provide offsprings; therefore, it is meaningless to sex with them. If it's toward children of post-puberty (13-17), this children don't have the enough capacity to take care of a child, providing less intelligent offsprings, and a less progressive society that could lead itself to their own extinction.

I don't think you understood what I wrote in my initial post. I agree it doesn't follow from pedophilic attractions being natural to pedophilic behaviour being ethical. But you're making the same logical error in reverse, because you're assuming that because a behaviour is unethical it must result from a disease or a disorder.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, thegrayace said:

Pedophilic-actions are part of child abuse; however, child abuse is more of a spectrum of various actions, including inhumane child labor, and other violent actions upon a child.

Sorry, to clarify: My point was that pedophile actions are not the same as pedophilia. One of them's a crime, the other a mental disorder.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Evolution doesn't have a goal, but that doesn't mean we can't use the lens of evolutionary biology to explain natural behavior. There's a reason biological and ecological systems function the way that they do. Humans abide by the same paradigm as any other living creature on this planet, but we have the added benefit of overthinking things and assigning things like mores, ethics, and norms to behavior that's ultimately dictated by tens of thousands of years of selection and adaptation. No, ethics aren't determined evolutionarily, but it's likewise simplistic to say that we've pulled them out of nowhere.

 

I can't even believe that I'm doing this, but for the sake of accuracy, pubescent children are capable of caring for a child, and in fact, that was the norm for most of our existence as a species, back before our mean lifespan expanded beyond four decades.

 

Man, I'm getting the heeby-jeebies even just typing that out, because I happen to also agree that pedophilia is not an acceptable "orientation." It's unequivocally not okay to have sex with children. 

 

Also, for what it's worth - you'll learn this in medical school, but being able to toss around phrases like  "psycho-genetic disease" and "pathogenic behavior" may earn you passing grades, but you may find it impedes your ability to build rapport with the people you're meant to be helping. 

Which begs a broader question - could "normalzing" pedophilic attraction allow this population of people greater access to helpful resources that may prevent them from offending?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your description of their attempt at normalization seems bizarre and horrifying. 

 

Side note that might piss people off: I think there's a tendency to automatically conflate anyone with those terrible urges with the abusers. The former does not necessarily mean they're the latter. Personally I wouldn't consider a pedophile a bad person by default unless they acted on it, and there are a lot of studies and ongoing research about treatment that could reduce the instances of abuse. 

 

There are also treatments that have been demonstrated empirically, and some are more controversial than others, but if it aids the prevention of child abuse then all avenues need to be considered. Problem is that this is a conversation very few people are willing to have (understandably) because it's painted in such a simplistic way. 

 

Back on the topic of the thread, tolerance can go too far, for sure. Acceptance of others who cause no harm is generally good, but people get so wrapped up in the virtues of acceptance and tolerance that they might not be thinking properly about what that acceptance entails. Acceptance is different from blind adoption. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously- this is like telling people that psychopaths are normal enough to function and function well in everyday society. PEDOPHILIA IS NOT PART OF US AS LGBTQIA+, AND IT NEVER WILL BE!!! *Glass shatters because of my yelling*

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Side note that might piss people off: I think there's a tendency to automatically conflate anyone with those terrible urges with the abusers. The former does not necessarily mean they're the latter. Personally I wouldn't consider a pedophile a bad person by default unless they acted on it, and there are a lot of studies and ongoing research about treatment that could reduce the instances of abuse. 

However much it might piss people off, this person gets it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Pramana said:

I don't think you understood what I wrote in my initial post. I agree it doesn't follow from pedophilic attractions being natural to pedophilic behaviour being ethical. But you're making the same logical error in reverse, because you're assuming that because a behaviour is unethical it must result from a disease or a disorder.

Because of the unethical behavior, it means that these people need a treatment, either medical or psychological. You do realize there is another pathology that follows this sort of logic, right? Psychopathy is seen as pathological, and these kind of people can even be held in a psychiatric institution. These kind of disease follows pathological lies, lack of remorse, violent behavior, and even murder.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jade Cross said:

 

Im probably goi g to get flamed for this.

 

Im extirely againts the act but Im afraid in a purely logical sense, you couldn't really label pedophiles as the exceptions of orientations when society has already accepted (to some degree) homosexuals, transgenders and other orientations that at one point have also been considered "mental disorsers".

 

If you go back even as early as 40 to 50 years ago, homosexuals were considered to be mentally ill patients because they did not act in a way "normal" people did and many were subjected to methods, often cruel in order to "cure" them of their "affliction" And even today the "you just need to get a good fucking from a real woman" is still a phrase you hear, much like how aces get told that once they have sex, they will "wake up".

 

Again, Im not saying the act should be permitted but at the same time, you cant really witch hunt pedophiles without dragging the rest of the LGBT comunity with it.  Its an uncomfortable thought but a reality nonetheless.

 

 

In what logical sense? Unlike pedophilia, homosexuality, transgender, and other orientation can be done by consenting adults. The people that identify as such mostly, if not all, have knowledge of their actions and intentions. Meanwhile, pedophilia is between an adult that knows what he or she is doing and a child that doesn't know what is going on or is too naive of the adult's intention. Therefore, it can be considered as a mental issue, either medical or psychological.

This is what I am criticizing in my original post. Just because there is subjectivity, it doesn't mean there isn't objectivity. There is a point that one has to say stop to the social changes. I mean, the same I can say with murder. Just because it has been seen as wrong in the past and present, it doesn't mean is wrong. I can go as far as adding disgusting and horrible actions, like rape and torture.

This is the issue with the argument you're presenting. If there is nothing wrong with it, then what makes it forbidden to do? Also, I can hunt pedophile without dragging the rest of the LGBT community as one is not harming families and the other is.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Deus Ex Infinity
10 hours ago, thegrayace said:

Alarming title? Yes. That was intentional. Do I agree with it? Yes, I do. Why? My reasons are below.

 

While I was browsing different sexualities, I encountered a horrifying attempt of normalizing pedophilia. This new groups is pushing an agenda within the LGBT community to be recognized as pedosexuals. What's worst? Some were in fact supporting it. I even want it to punch my computer of how pissed I was, and in fact I am. I even had to post it here. However, this got me thinking further of how much emphasis there was in tolerance and acceptance, and adding post-modern ideas to do so within the LGBT community. This is when I realize how wrong this was.
 

First, post-modernism is a promotion toward relativism, and the rejection of absolute or objective truths. Some philosophies that promote this are nihilism, and somewhat existentialism (there are some exceptions).

Second, while this philosophy was an attempt to brake free from totalitarian and extreme religious truths, and to promote a more humanistic and realistic approach toward humanity, it has become the opposite to its intentions. While we must accept that there is indeed subjectivity and relativistic views in human life, it doesn't eliminate those objective and absolute truths. For instance, we do know humans need food to live, giving existence to an objective truth; however, we also know that what humans eat depend on culture and what he or she want decide to personality, giving existence to an subjective truth. However, it is when we become an absolute to either tendency that becomes irrational and dangerous.

 

Everything has it's limits, and this is where I say that tolerance and acceptance has its limitations. These two ideas have been romanticize and used to promote various genders and sexuality. However, when we reach to a point that endangers lives, and even creates unnecessary fears, it is when we reach the limits. I can even extend this to political views, like fascism and theocracies. It is important that we understand this and point this out to every community that we belong to. It is why I am posting this here.

This is really alarming indeed. There must be no reason or excuse to ever accept or support pedophilia in any way! I totally agree with you. There's absolutedly a necessary limit to certain kinds of "acceptance" tor "tolerance" to stop supporting groups from pushing abusing acts against other people.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't make sense to have pedophiles become part of LGBT because the political goals of LGBT are to make it acceptable to have sex and romantic relationships with the same gender, not just to accept that they have same sex attraction. Pedophiles cannot ethically have them same political goals, but that doesn't mean the attraction in and of itself is wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Pramana said:

From a neutral evolutionary biology perspective, is there any difference between experiencing that type of attraction versus any other type of attraction, such that it would merit the term disease? Obviously, there are serious moral problems with pedophilic behaviour, but that doesn't entail that the attractions themselves are a disease.

what makes something a disease/disorder, then? psychologically, we are limited in assessing and understanding disease through how well an individual thrives and meshes whith their environment. would a schizophrenic appear abnormal in an environment caters to that is tolerant of how they might be different to you or I?

 

do I have a disease? I don't often consider myself in a world where I have adult attention deficit disorder, and I really don't appreciate the world where I do have that, but I am able to see where my behavior deviates predictably from the norm, and while I think ADD can mostly be atributed to societal lazyness (I may be biased) there is a sliver of that characteristic deviance that I exibit that does me harm. if there wasn't, would I still have AADD?

 

I would say that the cowl of 'sexual orientation towards children' would be worn by something that very much causes disorder in our environment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a number of people here are conflating "providing support for pedophiles" with "encouraging pedophiles to carry out their attractions"

 

You can do the former without necessarily doing the latter.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Jade Cross said:

You're misunderstanding me. Im not saying to allow pedophiles to go out and have sex with children. As I said, Im entrirely againts the act. But that if you were to label pedophiles as "mentally ill" you would either have to brand the rest of the community as well because if the argument is they they dont behave "normal" as the rest of the world, that right there is the same argument that has also been used for homosexuals as well as any other orientation that differs from the established heteronormative.

 

As soon as you bring in something like biology, you're screwed becuase the argument loses validity as biology would defend that orgasnisms have sex to reproduce as opposed to the leisure activity society has pedestalised it as and neither pedophile nor homosexuals or even us aces for that matter fit that description of "normal".

 

 

I am not saying that you're in favor, but your argument is using their own argument for them to be label as such. Your argument is putting them as part of the LGBT community, and putting them in a higher stand than they are right now. Again, you can. Why? I can make the argument of psychopaths, again, as they are born such way. Because of this, should I then put them in then in the behavior of "normality"? No! It is consider a mental disorder! Why? Their behavior can be destructive against other people, and even themselves! Pedophilia is no different! It destroys the children life, and even family's are also heavily affected.

 

No I don't. I am a biologist myself. Just because it's in nature, it doesn't mean it should be accepted. For instance, infanticide and rape. These are in fact in nature. Lions do infanticide, and dolphins do rape. I assume they should be consider normal behaviors then?

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, thegrayace said:

 can make the argument of psychopaths, again, as they are born such way. Because of this, should I then put them in then in the behavior of "normality"? No! It is consider a mental disorder! Why? Their behavior can be destructive against other people, and even themselves! Pedophilia is no different! It destroys the children life, and even family's are also heavily affected.

You're going to be a doctor. Your goal ought to be to help people, not to categorize and subcategorize their various pathologies (unless you become a pathologist, in which case - welcome to the dark side). 

 

The point that some people are trying to make on this thread is that there's a difference between an urge and and an action; won't it be part of your job to identify people with the urges and help lead them to the resources that prevent them from acting on those urges?

 

We could make the argument that this requires acceptance of that person but denies tolerance of the behavior. Does that make sense? No one is saying we should tolerate the act of pedophilia.

 

39 minutes ago, thegrayace said:

No I don't. I am a biologist myself. Just because it's in nature, it doesn't mean it should be accepted. For instance, infanticide and rape. These are in fact in nature. Lions do infanticide, and dolphins do rape. I assume they should be consider normal behaviors then?

Again, two different things. Infanticide occurs throughout the animal kingdom. Fratricide is rampant. These are key cogs in the wheel of natural selection. They're very normal. That doesn't make them ethical in the constraints of human society, though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Chimeric said:

You're going to be a doctor. Your goal ought to be to help people, not to categorize and subcategorize their various pathologies (unless you become a pathologist, in which case - welcome to the dark side). 

Doctors categorize diseases. That is how we know what to treat.

 

10 minutes ago, Chimeric said:

The point that some people are trying to make on this thread is that there's a difference between an urge and and an action; won't it be part of your job to identify people with the urges and help lead them to the resources that prevent them from acting on those urges?

Urges can lead to those actions. Also, as a future doctor, I would treat these kind of people. To be treated, however, one HAS to categorize it as a mental health issue.
 

 

12 minutes ago, Chimeric said:

We could make the argument that this requires acceptance of that person but denies tolerance of the behavior. Does that make sense? No one is saying we should tolerate the act of pedophilia.

The only acceptance I will do is to accept that pedophilia is a mental disease that must be treated. Also, again, once more, accepting that pedophilia is a sexual orientation gives a lead to normalization, and potential tolerance.
 

 

14 minutes ago, Chimeric said:

Again, two different things. Infanticide occurs throughout the animal kingdom. Fratricide is rampant. These are key cogs in the wheel of natural selection. They're very normal. That doesn't make them ethical in the constraints of human society, though.

I never unify biology with the ethics. But to say we must accept something because it's in nature is ignorant.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...