Why dont atheists use the 'it is not a choice' argument to defend murderers like they do homosexuaIs?
54 comments
Good God you are stupid aren't you? We don't punish sociopaths because they are more likely to murder, or because they don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to murder. We punish people for knowingly murdering other people, regardless of whether they are sociopaths or not.
Its not a choice to be homosexual. Obviously it is a choice whether or not to commit a homosexual act. So far, so similar to our sociopath. However, if you weren't such a moron you would notice that a homosexual act is not murder, which is why the two are treated differently.
By your logic, Aileen Wournos was the ultimate warrior, then. Not only did she kill, she did it multiple times and all of her victims were men.
The fact that she was bisexual is inconsequential, as is the mention of any homosexuality in comparison to murder. There just really isn't any.
Maybe because murdering someone is a still a choice and causes harm, i.e. someone ends up dead.
You really can't see beyond your bigotry to figure this out, can you?
Murderers have warrior genes and higher levels of testosterone making them much more violent.
1) There is no such thing as "warrior genes".
There are people who are not in control of what they do or do not understand the difference between right and wrong when they kill. That's why we have secure psychiatric facilities.
As for the rest, "warrior genes" as an explanation for murder sounds as convincing to me as police departments 150 years ago measuring the size of murderers' craniums.
@ Detrs:
True in many cases, especially for rage killers, but not true of all. We still have to account for the premeditated, organised killer. We could possibly argue that organised killers are ASPD and rage killers have lacking function in the pre-frontal cortex but I don't think the evidence is there yet to make that assumption.
I agree, to a point, Night Jaguar. My argument goes something like this:
"Let us stipulate, for the moment, that sexual preference is a choice and is therefor not entitled to protection under the law. Using this criteria then ones religion, which is most definitely a choice, should not be protected under the law and we need to revisit the 1st Amendment."
This is the point where the person I'm arguing with either changes the subject, resorts to name calling, or goes completely silent.
"Murderers have warrior genes and higher levels of testosterone making them much more violent. They didn't make that choice, though."
Long-time Christians have the 'Faith' gene and lower levels of critical thinking making them much more like sheeple. There are [i]exceptions[/i], though
Homosexuals - in the privacy of their own homes - don't harm anyone else. I know man-on-man action happens in my locale, as well as other parts of my country. For as long as I've lived, certainly. Question, FastFAIL: Why am I still here? Therefore use of Bad Analogy. Your argument is invalid .
@Night Jaguar
It really doesn't matter if murderers are born or raised. They cause harm to others and take away others' right to live. Yes, some natural desires need to be suppressed for a healthy, functioning society. Homosexuality isn't one of them. We already make plenty of people and we don't really need homosexuals to produce any. And as they aren't hurting anyone what's the point in forcing them to go against their nature? The point behind stopping people from murdering each other isn't to appease some god, to prolong some arbitrary distinction, or to not have to be uncomfortable thinking about them doing their business in the privacy of their own home. We stop murderers from murdering to prevent people being killed.
Echoing others above ... it's not the cause, it's the consequences. Boinking members of the opposite sex harms no one (with a little care), while murdering people leaves at least one person dead by definition. It doesn't matter if a murderer has "bad genes"; he's a threat to society and if he truly cannot control himself its all the more reason to lock him up somewhere. Nor does it really matter if homosexuality is genetic, epigenetic, or behavioral, except that dooming 5% (+/-3%) of the population to frustration and misery is even more unjust if their mostly harmless desires are not the result of a conscious choice.
Sometimes this is true, some murders don't have a choice.
These people are called criminally insane serial killers.
Since they have a body count of (totally non-consensual) victims we, as a society, have no choice but the keep them in a straight jacket for the remainder of their life.
Not only is OP an idiot, he misrepresents an actual concept.
A "warrior gene", a variant of the MAOA gene, causes a more aggravated fight or flight response when the guy with it is upset. In other words, they slightly more upset than usual when something that is upsetting happens.
That may entice them into lashing out when they feel like the world is threatening them (ie, what causes non-carriers to turn to crime), but-and this is a big but-they're actually more calm than normal otherwise.
You want to "treat" the gene, you behave like a decent person towards everyone, including carriers of the gene.
Sort of like what you're supposed to do with homosexuality.
In other words, this guy just made the other side's argument towards equal rights.
(KittyKaboom)
(Rat lapses into a MASSIVE giggle-fit as he pictures the face of this woman...)
image
(...painted up like the face of this guy.)
image
ADDENDUM: (@ Tolpuddle Martyr)
Speaking of professional wrestlers, hello there, Brooklyn Brawler! *nostalgic smile*
It's not about whether or not there's a choice. It's about whether or not those involved consent to the acts performed. If a gay person raped a straight person, they would be prosecuted. However, if gay sex is consensual, there's no reason to suppress it. The only way murder could even stack up is if the victim was suicidal, but then American society treats suicide itself as a crime, so it's still not a perfect analogy.
@MrsBeez
'I'm going to get a lobotomy and apply for a job at Walmart'
I personally consider comments like this offensive. People who work at Walmart are far from stupid. They are normal, intelligent people, just like anyone else.
As for the OP, anything I could say in response has already been said.
Actually, the core of this argument isn't as terrible as it seems. The argument is really an a fortiori.
Basically, if you're willing to accept that homosexuality is not a choice based on weak evidence of genetic predisposition, then a fortiori you should be willing to accept that murder is not a choice on the same basis.
I'm not saying the argument is right, just that it's not as stupid as it first seems.
A similar argument can be made to feminists who accept that homosexuality is predetermined, but not differences between female and make personality traits. If you're willing to accept that homosexuality is genetic and embryological on weak evidence, then a fortiori you should be willing to accept that sexually dimorphic personality traits are genetic and embryological on much stronger evidence.
It's not just atheists that defend homosexuals, and we seldom use the argument "it is not a choice"; that's just a refutation of your favorite misconception. Our primary argument is that homosexuality causes no harm and is just a variation of sexual orientation, so it ought to be treated the same way as heterosexuality.
Murderers most definitely cause harm to people and to society.
“Why dont atheists use the 'it is not a choice' argument to defend murderers like they do homosexuaIs?”
“Murderers have warrior genes”
“and higher levels of testosterone”
“making them much more violent.”
“They didn't make that choice, though.”
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
