Where did these come from? I agree with what is said about justice and rights.

The argument about innocence doesn't seem very convincing though. It is true that killing innocent people will hurt the nation they are a part of, and it may further the cause of the persons/organization doing the killing, if their only cause is to hurt some nation. It doesn't follow that those people aren't innocent though. In fact, that they are involved in such unfortunate business independent of any direct action on their part actually highlights their innocence rather than denies it.

I agree completely with you, manored, but I would like to add one thing:

Good/Evil: Why do we need such black and white categories? Why must they be deemed so very absolute when I feel these classifications rely heavily on one's viewpoint. Does the enemy in war ever consider themselves the bad guy? Isn't the "villain" always looing to benefit himself/herself? From a biological standpoint, this selfishness isn't a bad thing. I find this a bit of our world that serves to confuse us as we grow beyond the black and white and float around in the gray area.

It sounds extreme, but the words themselves are supposed to carry an extreme connotation.

I disagree that human behaviour is the result of genetics.

Having studied psychosexuality in the realm of developmental psychology extensively, I find it appalling that anyone can consider behaviour to be determined wholly by invisible DNA molecules.

It has the ring of 'the devil made me do it' to it. It serves to try and convince people to be slaves to their subconscious desires and it completely ignores the way in which human behaviour generally improves in society.

Its fatalistic. And worse than this, it can become justification for genocide.

What gene could possibly have LESS survival value than the so-called 'homosexuality gene'?
Perhaps a gene for suicide?
A gene for celibacy?

How can 'science' have degraded to such an extent that it can even consider such possibilities. And when you look at the studies they are ridiculous.

Some guys even observed fruit flies allegedly doing homosexual things, and then concluded that it was genetic. They just watched fruit flies! Thats all they did.

If human behaviour such as intelligence was determined by genes, then books would not exist. We learn behaviours by observation, then choose.

Leave a child in the wild it becomes an animal. Bring up a pet in loving family and you get a lovely pet. How is it that 'scientifical' sounding over-complexities manage to pull the wool over the eyes so easily so that common sense observation (empirical) is just ignored?

I disagree that human behaviour is the result of genetics.

Having studied psychosexuality in the realm of developmental psychology extensively, I find it appalling that anyone can consider behaviour to be determined wholly by invisible DNA molecules.

It has the ring of 'the devil made me do it' to it. It serves to try and convince people to be slaves to their subconscious desires and it completely ignores the way in which human behaviour generally improves in society.

Its fatalistic. And worse than this, it can become justification for genocide.

What gene could possibly have LESS survival value than the so-called 'homosexuality gene'?
Perhaps a gene for suicide?
A gene for celibacy?

How can 'science' have degraded to such an extent that it can even consider such possibilities. And when you look at the studies they are ridiculous.

Some guys even observed fruit flies allegedly doing homosexual things, and then concluded that it was genetic. They just watched fruit flies! Thats all they did.

If human behaviour such as intelligence was determined by genes, then books would not exist. We learn behaviours by observation, then choose.

Leave a child in the wild it becomes an animal. Bring up a pet in loving family and you get a lovely pet. How is it that 'scientifical' sounding over-complexities manage to pull the wool over the eyes so easily so that common sense observation (empirical) is just ignored?