buiq

In the John/Joan case, the answer is yes that different brain biology does influence behavior. As chronicled in the book, the child was dressed as a girl, provided toys typically for girls, and raised as a typical girl. This child did not like any of the feminine clothing and prefer playing with toys typical for boys. The child was much more aggressive than the girls attend school with and often involved in fights...etc. He preferred physical activities much more than other girls. Interestingly, the boy preferred to pee standing and this horrified the family and teachers. The child never felt that he was a girl despite the efforts from the parents and Dr. Money's treatment. The "not fitting in" was as a result of the knowledge of something was wrong as you states was not the case. The child was raised a a girl and everyone treated him as a girl. There was no out side knowledge provided to him. Introspectively, the child knew something was wrong but did not know why or what caused this feeling. It may be of interest if you read on the John/Joan case or the book on David Reimer. It is a good book. The Boy raised as a Girl: As Nature Made Him by John Colapinto Harper/Collins, 2000. As an aside, in the mid 1960s and early 1970s, the feminist movement used Dr. Money's published articles that claimed gender assignment was a success as a platform for their cause. Currently, the gay community use the same case and others (because of the failure of gender assignment) as the basis to argue that gays are born that way.

In discussing genetic determinism, are you aware of Dr. John Money's research on the famous John/Joan case? In 1965, the parents of twin boys brought their children to a doctor to have the boys circumcise for they had phimosis. The procedure went wrong and one of the boys penis was burned so badly and it could not be repaired. Subsequently, the parents saw Dr. Money on TV and took the child to see him at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore. Dr. Money persuaded the parents to raise the injured boy as a girl. He reasoned that nurture and not nature determines a child's gender. With his twin brother, this was a grand opportunity to study sex assignment. To make a long story short, the injured boy was raised as a girl, received hormonal shots...etc but never accepted the intended sex assignment. The injured boy grew up did not fit into society as a girl. He attempted suicide three times. Finally, he abandoned all treatment. Many years later, the truth was told to him. You may read a brief story of him at the link below. A book was also written about him. http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/reimer/ The point I am trying to make here is that biology does exert a significant force in behaviour, especially in this particular case, sex assignment. The boy was raised as a girl but never accepted the assignment of his sexual identity. With that being said, I do not agree that alcoholics or obese people should blame their alcoholism or obesity on their genes.

Hello: I have just begun reading Tractatus Logico Philosophicus. Has aony read this and what is/are your thoughts on this book? Thanks Q

Hi: The same-sex marriage debate here is quite interesting. If I may add, the opponents of same-sex marriage ignored the Equal Protection and Full Faith Credit clause. The U.S. Supreme Court consistently ruled that the Full Faith and Credit Clause require each state to honor the court judgments of other states. Also, marriage laws are under the jurisdiction of the state. It would be interesting to observed whether the amendment proposed by Bush would be ratified by the states. Q

Hello: I do not know if this topic has been discussed before. If it has, please pardon me. I am interested in your thoughts and opinion regarding a particular psychological condition: Conversion Disorder. My appology for the lengthy quote (This is from Emedicine.com. I do not think I have violated copyright of Emedicine-If I do, I request the moderator remove my quote.) Do you think the rationale to explain Conversion Disorder by psychodynamic theory and learning theory are valid? Thanks Q

Stephen and Tom: Thank you.

Hello: In evolution, it is not the strongest that survives nor the weakest. It is the most adaptable to the environment survives. Base on the above statement, the environment then essentially affects the behaviours of the individual or group. The individual or group cognitively behaves one way or another to adapt to the environment to survive- B.F Skinner's point of view. Rand objected to behaviorism. Could you tell me where I can obtain her writing on the subject of behaviourism? Thanks. Q

Hi: Yes, I understand that religion relies on faith. However, as I have asked, at time zero, what happened? The mathematical explanation (I have read) could not answer the question. Before the Big Bang, what was there to create the Big Bang? Without knowing, are we to go on "faith" that there was something that created the Big Bang? I am interested in your thoughts. Q

When I am dead I will feed the maggots and worms. Q

Hi: I would like to know your opinions on this topic. Scientists and others refute Creationism for may reasons but one of the reasons is that "something from nothing" is contrary to the laws of physics. Lemaitre proposed the Big Bang theory and later it was "confirmed" by Hubble. However, at "time zero" or "singularity", supposedly, the mathematical model that explains the Big Bang theory disintegrates. The mathematical explanation implies that the Big Bang is probable and only that. Probable. IF (I am no mathematician) this is true, at time zero, something came from nothing and create this universe? IS creationism and Big Bang theory are similar? I am not saying that they are the same but similar. I am very interested in your thoughts on this. Q

Hello: I thought that I have ended the debate by conceding to the point of views of many here. However, I DID ask you for a solution which I do not see. Instead of offering one, I am being warned for being Intellectually Dishonest. I do take this seriously for it an attack on my character personally. This is the first time ever that I am being call as such. However, I also find it amusing at the same time. A friendly debate has lead to this. Let me say it clearly and LOUDLY, I DO NOT and have not LIE or DECEIVE anyone here at all. I have quoted Rand directly. If I have misquoted her, please point it out. IF I have taken her quote out of contex, please specifically point that out. Now, I have not read all her work and referenced the ones I have read. On any particular position (especially taxation), if she had clarified herself elsewhere and I have yet read it, please provide the source so I can find it and read it. I have no problem with that at all. However, claiming that I am intellectually dishonest is being DISHONEST. On the other hand, calling some one a liar, a rapist, a murderer, a looter.....for supporting Public Health is acceptable. That is a leap in logic yet tolerated. Attack someone on a personal level is acceptable? A friendly debate should remain a debate. Assuming and only assuming, If I had taken an opposite and unpopular position to fuel the debate and I do not tell you so, is that intellectually dishonest? As an aside, one should be reminded that despite holding a philosophy one must see the practicality of it. You and I objected the taxation system yet we still pay for it. How many, because of one's philosophy and conviction, has risen up to defeat the taxation system? (April 15 is coming near). None I say because we are here instead of jail. (AND I agree with y_Feldblum's opinion and that of Rand's quote). I came here to debate, have a little fun, learn....etc. Someone states that Objectivists may not have to be open minded but an active one. I agree but want to add that both may be needed. An active mind so ridgid would never learn. I hope that my mind is both active and open. For the short time being here, some you you (not all) have given me an experience similar to those when I debate with religious fundamentalists. An disagreement with the opinions of their leaders one would be labled as blasphemer and threaten to becasted out. I have remain polite, cordial, and I say pretty pleasant despite the hostility directed to me. Anyway, I am curious do you all found me to be intellectually dishonest? I hope not. Q

RadCap: First of all, let it be clear on one thing. I have no intention to smear you. I suppose my attempt to be light hearted failed. So, if you perceived that I smeared you, I will say it here that I did not mean to do so. I have conceded that public health should be financed on a volunteer basis as others have suggested. Never said that ideally I would behave one way and when the situation not ideal I would behave differently. My question was only to ask for a solution since we do not live in an ideal situation, especially the taxation system. I did not make any other impication with that question. I agree. Yes, you are correct regarding "Appeal to Authority". That is an error in my on my part: Just because some one say so, does not mean it is so. I should be more careful the next time. And, just because Rand was hostile to others as you have cited, it does not mean you should per your "Appeal to Authority" reasoning. It is true that I have yet read ALL Rand's work. However, you are incorrect by assuming that I have quoted her "flippantly" or dismissively. I have stated the above and you regard it as a lie. This is a direct quote from Rand. "The question of how to implement the principle of voluntary government financing-how to determine the best means of applying it in practice-is a very complex one and belongs to the field of the philosophy of law. The task of political philosophy is only to establish the nature of the principle and to demonstrate that it is practicible. The choice of a specific method of implementation is more than premature today-since the principle will be practicanble only in a fully free society, a society whose government has been constitutionally reduced to its proper, basic functions" Rand did state that the principle of voluntary government financing is complex and did defer it to the field of law. I did not make this up nor have I been dishonest. Rand also stated that it is premature to apply the principle of voluntary government financing and only in a truly society, meaning IDEAL. We are not living in the TRULY free society as described by her. So when I ask you and others for a solution recognizing that we are not living in an ideal world, you think that I endorse rape, murder, steal.... Through out this discussion, as I have mentioned, I conceded to yours and others' opposition to the taxation system to support public heath, my "pet project." I am perplexed to your hostility and your level of civility. You, me, and others will agree on many issues and disagree on many issues, but we should not forget to be civil in our exchange of thoughts, though may it be flawed. I believe that we have exhausted this debate and I do thank you all, including you RadCap. Q

I do not think after I deposit my sperms into a woman there would be a switch. OR there is one that I do not know about? Q

Hi: Regarding active or passive euthenasia, by choosing not to act is an act? Q

Hi: I have read through all the posts and find the arguements for and against abortion are very interesting. If I may add. Responsibility (not duty) was not mentioned much in this discussion. Knowing that having sex may lead to pregnancy, people chose to have unprotected sex. That is a conscious choice. Rand have stated " The obligation to keep one's promise is one of the most important elements in proper human relationships, the element that leads to mutual confidence and makes cooperation possible among men.... The acceptance of full responsibility for one's own choices and actions (and their consequences) is such a demanding moral discipline that many men seek to escape it by surrending to what they believe is easy, automatic, unthinking safety of a morality of "duty." They learn better, often when it is too late." Causality Versus Duty So, a pregnant woman (and the man who participated in the process) decided to have an abortion would abandon moral discipline, surrending to that which is easy, automatic, unthinking...... Rand supported abortion but would she consider those have abortions to be escaping from their responsibility? Q