[q=Emerald Aeris]"Perhaps it's possible that humans, as the leading sentient species on the planet, are able to transcend basic instincts sometimes?"

Someone who tries to "transcend" intrinsic parts of their humanity is a fool, as far as I'm concerned. Instincts are not inherently bad. Why should we be without lust? Would that be better? Would we be more desirably innocent?[/q]Hey, take it easy. What I meant with my statement is that humans are smart enough to avoid going, "hey, I'm feeling an instinctive urge! I'd better do what it says and fornicate with something!"
So if someone's got an idea in their heads, they can easily act on that idea and override instinct. Hell, the instinctive mating urge could be used as an excuse for rape, however we're expected to know better. Our knowledge of right and wrong is what prevents us from acting purely on instinct, knowing that reacting to lust and desire isn't necessarily the right thing to do. Eating, mating and fighting are all instinctive in one way; but our ability to fetter those instincts is a big part of what makes us human. I just reckon that these people, ignorant as they are, don't deserve to be lambasted simply for having been under-educated. They've not harmed anyone; they didn't choose to be ignorant; it's just what they were taught.
Throughout my life, I experience many instinctive urges: the desire to munch on a tasty morsel that presents itself; the desire to beat the snot out of some despicable lowlife; the desire to release sexual tension. Am I a "fool" for choosing not to act on these impulses? I'd say not; arguably my actions are reasonable when looked at in the context of what I know and believe.