My opponent's lack of acceptance of the premise I believe to have already established is to be expected.
I haven't accepted my opponent's premise because, even through his third reply, I have seen absolutely nothing that proves the premise, save for
piles of rhetoric.
I think schrodingers dog's premise can be summed up by a statement in his first post:
1. My premise is based on the principle that only the "observer" can assign the label of "deviant behavior" onto a "subject." The broader the
definition of "deviant behavior", the more frequent and commonplace it becomes. Further establishing its observation and interpretation by the
"observer" as "a natural" and "inherent" trait of his nature. And though neither natural or inherent equates to "genetic", this broader
definition of the topic at hand, has brought me significantly closer to reaching my burden of proof, COMPLETELY.
So, to clarify, my opponent suggests that only the "observer" can define the behavior of the "subject". So if we assume this to be true (and I
don't buy this premise), then my opponent must prove that the "observer's" genetics are responsible for the judgment of deviant. He
has done NOTHING to illustrate this.
It almost seems that my opponent has a fundamental misunderstanding of the term "genetic".
Earlier, my opponent, in bold letters, made the distinction:
What my opponent calls "murder" and qualifies as "deviant behavior" in the case of the milkman's murder he does as the observer, but it does not
make it so. In nature, lions kill rivals every day to protect their mating rights, yet we do not call that "murder." Nor do the lions call it murder
or see it as "deviant behavior."
Because only humans are genetically empowered to make these observations and to qualify them!
My opponent suggests that only humans are "genetically" empowered to make observations of behavior, and animals are not. He then contradicts
himself by saying:
So if I understand you correctly what you are saying is the following: You are correcting me by saying that BOTH animals and humans exhibit the same
inherently natural behavior through their own observation. I had not thought about that, it seems almost, oh what is the word Im looking for:
COMPLETELY GENETIC IN NATURE.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
The term "genetic" does not mean the ability to distinguish behavioral characteristics.
My opponent, just one post earlier, said that, "[sic] Only humans are genetically empowered to make these observations and to qualify them!
suggesting that only humans benefit from being able to make behavioral observations.
Socratic Question #1
- Does the ability to make behavioral observations completely
depend on genetics?
Socratic Question #2
- Do you have a single shred of evidence to support that one's ability to make observations is "completely genetic in
I argue that, in order for one to make behavioral observations, one must rely on their gathered perception of society and reality.
Allow me to clarify.
If I make the judgment that someone's behavior is "deviant", is that because my genetics inform me to do so, or is it a culmination of my
in life that have informed me that said "behavior" is "deviant"?
How could I call prostitution "deviant" without have some frame of reference in which to do so. To suggest that this "frame of reference" is
completely genetic in cause would preposterous. The frame of reference must be mostly societal and environmental, not genetic.
This is the reason my opponent's premise holds no water.
Let's go back to my opponent's argument with prostitute:
Allow me to introduce a better example of how this is manifested across the world.
Let's imagine an ordinary eighteen year old girl. Let's call her Maria.
Now let's imagine that Maria was born and raised under three different scenarios:
Life 1: She is born and raised in Thailand, under relative poverty, and is now a prostitute in Bangkok. The law in Thailand is clear, if you register
with the state and take monthly std tests, it is legal to work as a prostitute. Not only that but the profession does not even carry much stigma. It
is definitely considered neither illegal nor deviant. It is simply within the norm of their society. source
Life 2: She is born and raised in the US under the same circumstances. But as prostitution is illegal, she spends her time in and out of jail. She is
considered by society as low level criminal and some people might label her deviant.
Life 3: She is born in Saudi Arabia. You can see where this is going. Let's assume that a sequence of events leads her to one night take money from a
man for sex and the man rats her out. Imagine the way that society would judge and punish her. Their custom is to to jail victims of gang rapes.
So what do we have. The girl (subject) is the same in all three cases, that is to say that her genes are are the same no matter which country she
happened to born into. The only difference between the three lives are the societies which is to say the "observers" in which she was born. And in
each case, the individually and collectively assign criminality and deviance onto her, the only constant "subject" in all three lives.
Let's focus on the last portion that I have highlighted. In the Thailand case, my opponent argues that because it is not legal, it means that
prostitution is not considered "deviant" in Thailand. In the US, it is considered deviant by some and in Saudi Arabia prostitution is a crime
punishable by death.
So how does this serve my opponent's argument? It doesn't, and here is why:
I have proved that all three of my opponent's examples find prostitution to be deviant behavior. That's three unique societies in the world all
agreeing that this behavior is deviant, or "Differing from a norm or from the accepted standards of a society." Thailand allows prostitution
because it accounts for nearly 4% of the countries GDP, not because they think it is deviant behavior. Is my opponent suggesting that governmental
greed is completely caused by genetics? I think it is money, and EXTERNAL stimuli that has nothing to do with the human genome.
A person's or society's genetics do not inform behavioral observations because this would be impossible. If we take the US as an example,
prostitution is largely considered "deviant" because we are raised with that perception of it. We see prostitutes arrested on television, we are
told stories of STD's and HIV, we are told that civilized societies do not engage in such behavior and we are bombarded with numerous other forms of
external stimuli that inform our behavioral observations, with few or even any of these stimuli being "genetic" in nature.
Therefore, according to my opponent's own argument, genetics have virtually no role in behavioral observation.
My opponent has said:
Socratic Question #3
Genes and DNA are of course physical in nature. That is to say they are simply "things". They as of themselves do not observe or interpret anything
external, including social behavior, deviant or otherwise. They have no values, morals, they surely do not recognize laws or customs and know not if
their host is gambling legally in Vegas or illegally in New York City.
- If what you say is true, "They (Genes and DNA) as of themselves do not observe or interpret anything external,
including social behavior, deviant or otherwise", then how can genes or DNA be completely responsible for the "observer's" interpretation of
Again, I think what my opponent is trying to say is that, because humans or animals have the ability to observe behavior therefore it must must be
genetic in nature.
This concept is blatantly false. My opponent did not define "genetics' from the onset of this debate, and I can see why. Allow me...
Socratic Question #4
Genetic - ge·net·ic (j-ntk)
1. a. Of or relating to genetics or genes.
b. Affecting or determined by genes: genetic diseases.
2. Of, relating to, or influenced by the origin or development of something.
3. Occurring among members of a family usually by heredity; "an inherited disease"; "familial traits"; "genetically transmitted
- Based on this definition, how would "genetics" completely cause "deviant behavior", or in your premise, the
behavioral observations of deviance?
[B]Geneticaly: Consider this, the probability of a behavior exhibited by almost every human ever born, since the start of our existence, every day,
everywhere, billions of times a day, and even by most animals, not being Genetic by nature. Interacting and observing each other and our environment
is in fact the single most documented behavior in the history of man.
So what does that have to do with this debate? Further, what does this statement (the only argument thus far to even come close to explaining how
genetics play a role) do to suggest that genetics are "completely" the cause for this behavior or behavioral observation?
It's great that my opponent has shown that we observe one another, but that is all he has shown. There is not causal link defined genetically. That
was the task of this debate.
You know, I was going to do the whole science thing, I still might in my closing statement, but it is so boring. Plus I enjoy making my opponent wait.
Ah, yes, having to introduce "boring" science that might substantiate some of these arguments by my opponent. What a burden!
I open the floor to my opponent...