₦airaland Forum

allonym:
or the guy has a large drive but the wife only feels like it once a month. . . lotsa frustration there that isn't cured by knitting

In that case, he needs to use his hand for something else besides knitting

As many as she's comfortable with

Seun:
The fewer the better.

Why?

In detetermining what is righ or wrong, I use 2 guiding principles:

1. reciprocity, which basically comes down to the following: do not do to other what you dont want to be done to yourself
2. utilitarism: what is good is what brings most happiness to the largest amount of people

If you apply these principles to concrete situations, you will find out that your actions will be described and acknowledged by most people as good

otokx:
@nferyn: is your wife nigerian?

Yes, she is.

@everybody
The rest of my account follows later tonight. I haven't had as much time as I wanted, so sorry for the delay

@ allonym

If I understand correctly:
1. you agree with the premise that genetics determine the boundqries of behaviour
2. you disagree with my opinion that chemical castration should be employed as a punishment because in your opinion, the link betzeen the two is too weak to justify the use

We both have different opinions on valid grounds. My starting point is the protection of society and therefore, I look at the impact on the complete population. You start from the the link between the individual perpetrator and his punishment

Let's agree to disagree

allonym:
well, actually, we could have a nice argument about hitler, though not in the way its been originally brought up.

Even if I would accept your argument that genetics provides some bounds for behavior, I'm sure you know that a lot of the characteristics of a mass murderer - I'm trying to guess what kind of heinous crime you mean - are some of the same characteristics of other powerful (and non lethal) people in our society. Screening by genetics would then remove both sets of people.

No, I didn't know that. Could you bring some evidence for that statement. I suspects it's a little more complicated than that.
And, once again, I'm [b]NOT [/b]advocating screening for genetical dispositions.

allonym:
- This is assuming I agreed with the premise of genetics setting bounds for behavior.
- Look at the mob justice in Nigeria - is that a heinous crime deserving of capital punishment or chemical castration - it would seem many Nigerians possess such a "gene".

I did bring some reputable sources for my premise. You haven't done the same for the opposing point of view.
And mob justice is not exactly the type of crime I was thinking of.

allonym:
Even if I accepted that part of your argument, I still don' t feel castration is an adequate solution. I don't feel capital punishment is a solution - it isn't, - it's supposed to be a deterrant. Its been shown that in most cases, people who commit - higher "degree" crimes tend to have started from smaller ones. The solution would be to attempt to find a way to rehabilitate or remove problems which may cause entry into crime. Of course there will still be people who commit them. But this solution is better for a couple reasons.

I never advocated chemical castration as a solution for all society's ills. I was very specific.. Of course you're right when bringing up the fact that we should try to remove the causes for criminal behaviour. That's what Criminology is all about.

allonym:
1) Chemical castration only reduces any possibility of FUTURE offspring DIRECTLY from that person. Technology is moving to the point where you don't need sperm or egg to form a human being
2) The problem with the person still exists - and still needs a solution

1. Yes, and those criminals will have access to experimental reproductive medicine or a well equipped laboratory? The couples that turn to reproductive medicine are very thoroughly screened. This is a problem that does not exist.
2. I never said that chemical castration is sufficient as a solution

@ CimonJorr

OK, now I know what you mean with scaring you public. It's about the feeling of insecurity, not about preventing Joe Public from committing crimes. I misunderstood your point.

Concerning Hitler, I think you may watch too much of The History Channel
Anyway, his politics on racial purity and the preservation of the Arian race is based on a complete misunderstanding of genetics. It's not because the Nazi's claimed that their [i]science [/i]was based on genetics that it was more than anything even remotely resembling real science. Mentioning Hitler and the Nazi's in the context of genetics or evolution theory is mixing up things that really have nothing in common. In the same token, it's not because God is used to justify almost all actions of ethnic cleansing and/or genocide that religion as such is to blame for those crimes.

No offense taken, just be careful when bringing in Hitler into a debate, it's usually irrelevant and only brings up bad emotions;

nddy:
naw gay people with kids, gays don't need to pollute the mind of kids with their stupid belief, They are insane beings,

Raising the level of the debate, are we? Can you come up with arguments supporting your position?

CimonJorr:
If the gender was reversed, would your sentiments remain the same?? ...

That's actually a good observation. I haven't gone through this yet, but I would be very upset, but probably not as much as if I were a woman.
See, I still have to fight my own gender bias

Proud feminst here.

Seun:
There's no such thing as equality in life. Those who desire to be "on top" the most tend to get there and stay there. We men, thanks to our big and fragile egos, tend to be more determined to be on top, and that's why we will always remain on top. This state of affairs is not helped by the ladies' strong tendency to tear down there own kind and support the men.

This is projection, Seun, not necessary the way those women want it to be. I also think you're too much reasoning from the specific cultural context of Nigeria, this is certainly not universal

Seun:
Gender equality is not going to happen because it's a [i]solution in search of a problem [/i]that hardly exists. For some reason, most women are quite happy to be placed in the second position at home as long as they are well loved and cared for. And that is quite convenient, because men love to be on top and will not give up their "inheritance" without a fight!

Do you have any data to support this position, because it's certainly not my experience. Those men you describe should stop to act like children and enter in a relationship of equality. It's not because they like it a certain way and that some women tolerate this situation that this is the way things should be.

@CimonJorr
That's your choice. I am just expressing what I would do if I were a woman.
And it's not coming out of anger, a man who forgets his girlfriend's birthday, especially when they're still dating, doesn't have his priorities straight. He would need to have a very good excuse

CimonJorr:
[SNIP]
In life, we all have the ability to exert our free-will, that's what makes us the higher species of the animal kingdom.. By trying to assert that one's behaviour is a determinant of one's genetic make-up, we tend to allege that one becomes pre-disposed towards certain behaviour and actions as a result of one's genetics.. This now removes free-will from the equation.. This is not the case, we choose to commit a crime or not... we choose to take a life or not.. it is not a compulsion as a result of one's genetics..

This is a common flaw in the argumentation against the impact of genetics. No one every said that one's genes are the sole determining factor leading to a certain behaviour or that free will does not play it's part. On the level of the individual, it certainly does and that's why there is individual responsibility. On the aggregate level of the population, we can very clearly see the impact of the genes in an almost mechanical fashion.

Please read the book I mentioned. [b]Pinker [/b]can certainly express the argument way better than I can.

CimonJorr:
Adolf Hitler tried to espouse theories along similar lines.. [the superiority of a certain race as a result of their genetic superiority].. the world has proved him wrong today.. (the last comment is not meant in any derisory way, but just to highlight the flaws in such an approach to construing the problem of genetics being a pre-cusor to ones actions)..

Don't even think about bringing Hitler into the discussion. It is a meaningless appeal to emotion. I can pick this argument apart untill there's only dust left. PLease let it rest before this discussion ends up less civilised

CimonJorr:
All in all, I believe that only fear of experiencing a similar fate as one's victims would be the only way to check one's actions and behaviours in society.. And I'm not referring to the extreme hopeless cases of deviancy like the "Anti-Social Personality Dis-order" mentioned earlier, but crimes committed by Joe Public, who he feels he can get away with...

Then you're not talking about the type of crimes that could possibly justify capital punishment. What scares Joe publis is irrelevant in this case, although it certainly is relevant for [i]small [/i]crimes .

@ CimonJorr
These are indeed your sentiments.
There are no indications that homosexuality is a learned behaviour and there are several indications that it is caused by a genetical condition. Your sentiment is thus just based on your feelings, not on solid data.
As queen2 already mentioned, the children raised by a homosexual couple are no more or no less likely to become homosexuals than children raised by a heterosexual couple.

Will never happen.
If I were a woman, I'd drop him on the spot

queen2:
Studies show that children raised by homosexuals are themselves homosexual just as often as children raised by heterosexuals and are less likely to endulge in bigotry and intolerance. therefore the answer is YES

Exactly. I'm very happy to see more and more opinions that are based on real data instead of hearsay and bigotry. Thumbs up

Finally, the accounts start flowing, especially from the ladies
A lot of very touching and emotional stories. I thank you all for them, they make me feel warm inside

I'll write up part 4 some time tomorrow - helps to relieve the tension of being away from you wife for so long

allonym:
Culling the gene pool of the future by selectively castrating people who we feel are supremely deviant is not an acceptable solution to the problem. While you may be able to show me some evidence which ties genetics to behavior, there is lots more stronger ties between behavior and environment. Further, a society which accepts chemical castration as a solution to a problem is a society which will breed someone who feels that the solution to HIS problems is chemical castration of everyone else. And this society is not one which I am willing to help create.

Actually, I'm not talking about people who we feel are supremely deviant, but rather people who have committed a horrible crime. Big difference.
Let's get back to my argument. The boundaries of behaviour are determined by genetical factors. the exact expression thereof is mainly influenced by the environment. This differentiates rates of behaviour across societies and shows which policies are successful. As long as you do not tackle the ultimate determining factor in behaviour (genetics), you cannot possibly [i]solve [/i]the problem, you can only contain it

And, all in all, chemical castration is a less drastic and more humane solution than capital punishment.

You last statement does not logically follow from your previous arguments, so whether or not you're willing to help create it is irrelevant as long as you have not established your last statement

Seun:
The gargantuan premise for the aforeseen situation as regards infant mortality and corporal punishment, when advanced with the theorems regarding chemical castration, capital punishment, and other melodramatic accomplishments of martial law and criminal di-empowerment, are a nullity!

Problems reading the above paragraph? That is what it's like to follow these complex debates between nferyn and allonym!

The difference, Seun, is that I'm trying to get a point across. And that I'm trying to formalize my arguments a little so that allonym, as an engineer, can easily follow my line of thinking. On the other hand I would be glad to explain anything I wrote if it's not entirely clear. So just fire away the questions

But - and here's the big but - you need a little understanding of the methodology of social sciences to get into the argument. Too much research in this area is so-so and I hate it when people are trying to press their politics using scientific arguments, while their whole research is anything but scientific.

Actually this last paragraph is about another discussion I have with allonym on the arguments against living together before marriage

You're messing up somebody else's relationship and cannot possibly have any idea what the consequences will be. This definitely is bad.
Of course you can have your fun, but go and look for it outside of somebody else's relationship instead of willingly intruding where you have no business

allonym:
I was not advocating chemical castration as a solution to any problem. I was attempting to point out how ludicrous that idea - or any similar ones are.

Ludicrous? You haven't made any case for it being ludicrous. Maybe you don't agree with my motivation or presmisses, but it certainly isn't ludicrous

Scorpio:
eww, now i'm gettin d bumps just imaginin snakes on my neck, creepy!

They're not that scary. It's important that they just fed a short time ago. They won't do much then. Takes them an awfully long time to digest
I wouldn't go near any snake in the wild though

Sure, semantics aside, that media definition of love, the one that keeps you happy in a relationship, the one that makes you look at your spouse with tenderness and a caring eye, does die without work. Inside yourself, burried deep, maybe you still have that original love, but it won't come out anymore.

Not really role models (I won't step in their shoes), but people I admire:

Politics:
Mahatma Ghandi
Nelson Mandela
Willy Brandt
Rosa Luxemburg
Patrice Lumumba

Business/Economics:
Anita Roddick
Richard Branson
Jef Bezos (mixed feelings as well)
J.K. Galbraith

Science/Academics:
Leonardo Da Vinci
Andreas Vesalius
Ilia Prirogine
Richard Dawkins
Jared Diamond

Would have lots more to add, but these were of the top of my head

And of course - may she rest in peace - Rosa Parks

nike4luv:
woah..nice *claps*..sounds a cool story for the romeo/julliet case

No vendetta's here All mellow and sweet

Interesting stories. I have noticed that most Nigerians (and my wife's one of them) hate snakes with a passion.
Never had any snakes as pets and probably never will. They're reptiles and thus have a reptile brain. Can't really bond with these creatures.

I once went to a magicians show as a kid (I was about 10 then) and they asked for a volunteer for a trick with snakes. So I stepped forward and they put é snakes around my neck. The first thing that went through my head was just how heave these were. Those 2 snakes combined weighed almost as much as me. Walking around with snakes really is good exercise

Of course they do. Men that don't cry - or especially the ones that say they don't cry - are insecure in their manhood or messed up by their upbringing/education

part 3 - from this day forth...

Now, after all these tribulations our marriage day drew closer. We'd set it for February 14th and yes, it was possible on that day - lucky us. A Valentine's day marriage. It was a lovely day, sunshine, about 17 °C - very rare for February in Brussels. We had our marriage ceremony inside a castle of the commune of Molenbeek in Brussels. I didn't even know it existed: a small castle in the middle of the capital of Europe, surrounded by a park with a few ponds, lots of Oak trees and a well tended lawn. It was an absolutely splendid location and very fitting for the occasion.

The official part was a bit confusing. We actually decided to have our marriage in French, even though it's not my mother tongue. We did it because the document from the court that allowed us to marry was in French. Once everything got underway. My witness was supposed to be translating everything the official said to my wife, but as he's not that fluent in French (and you know how incomprehensible the official lingo can be ) another friend of mine had to step in to do the translation. After a few minutes everything went smooth, we put the rings on each others fingers, did the kissing thing and were off for a couple of hours of relative quiet with the invitees in our house before the real party would start.

Stay tuned for part 4....

damygurl:
"Love is an act of endless forgiving - a tender look which becomes a habit."

This one is so sweet

CimonJorr:
[SNIP]

But I still believe that these offenders are not genetically made that way, but rather are products of environmental factors and circumstance.. I do not believe ones genes pre-dispose one to commit crimes... So, going to the extent of saying that preventing such people having progeny would act as a form of punishment, to me doenst really cut it as per adequate punishment..

Of course they are also a product of their environment, but people usually don't believe that genetical factors play a much bigger role in shaping one's personality than the environment. The genes actually set the boundaries of personality development and those boundaries get narrower and narrower as research progresses. An interesting introduction into this subject is Blank Slate: Denying Human Nature in Modern Life by Steven Pinker
(see: http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0141885858/qid=1130796387/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_11_1/202-9068849-6947066)

Specifically concerning adequate punishment, I do disagree with your position. The goal [/b]of the [b]justice system is not to punish people, but to protect society. Wanting to use severe punishment may be emotionally satisfying, but it hardly solves the problem.

CimonJorr:
To me, such people should be tortured, repeatedly... and make to suffer, prior to being put to death.. But our "civil society" would frown on such attitudes as barbaric..

See above. I understand your position, but I consider it a futile gesture to make things right that are beyond repair

CimonJorr:
Life imprisonment to me would not be adequate as a form of punishment.. because in the final analysis, the victim is "dead", and the offender has his/her life... Life imprisonment assumes that such people can be reformed after a considerable period of time.. FOr some crimes, reform in not the answer, but accountablility for their actions and crimes..

Tell me, what exactly do you solve with capital punishment? I dread the fact that a society uses barbary to [i]solve, redeem or redress [/i]barbaric acts. If one sets such low standards for oneself, conditions may arise that make them feel it's justified to kill.

allonym:
I don't understand? You call castration a punishment? I thought you were for castration so that they could not create children of the same type.

So, are you saying castration is a punishment for a crime?

Or castration is a solution to future bad people?

If you are saying the first, then how exactly does chemical castration punish anyone - other than robbing them of the ability to procreate?

If you say the second, then what was wrong with what i said?

Its is actually both a punishment and a (possible) solution. Chemical castration not only robs the men of their ability to procreate, but also of the other advantages from testosterone, such as a sex drive, finding pleasure in sex and the health benefits testosterone gives to men.