Coming to terms with Nature Vs Nurture

I know that I should be working on getting a job instead of writing another essay, but I keep getting caught in a loop between "nature" vs "nurture." It’s been running around in my head, and this helped me come to terms with it. Enjoy.
Here’s the dilemma: Person A doesn’t like fat people. Person B is fat, and of the opposite sex. Person A won’t date person B for no other reason than A doesn’t find B attractive. In this instance, I believe A is not wrong. A has a preference, and that preference is completely personal and within A’s jurisdiction. After all, nobody may tell you who to date, right? This would hold true for B being of another race, of a different religion, the same sex as A, or from the "wrong" side of the tracks. This is strictly because A has rights, too, and one of those rights is to have a "preference" in a mate, if not hard and fast policies against inclusion of certain characteristics.
Now, let’s say person B is now applying for a job with A’s company, and A is doing the hiring. B has admitted to being a drug addict in the past, has three children to three different mates, was caught stealing from B’s last company, been to jail, rehab, in and out of the juvenile justice system, is now stable and has all of the qualifications for the job. Regardless of personal opinion, A should be very wary of hiring this person, since all of the above instances were wrong choices B made in the past. But, there’s B, telling A all about the "new leaf" and B’s desire to take care of the children, go to school, get a better apartment, move into a better school district, etc.
The question I’m bringing up is not whether or not A should hire B. I do not even want to discuss it, since there are a lot of other factors involved in such a decision. Instead, let’s assume that A judges B for the indiscretions of the past. A does not trust B, A does not want to know B, A believes that B is one of "those" people.
Two questions: Is A wrong for judging B? Is B a product of B’s environment, and does it make a difference?
Second question first. B was brought up in a broken home, had no real standard of discipline, born to parents who were far less than perfect. One would like to assume that if B was taken from the parents at an early age, given every advantage and a nurturing environment, B would not have made the bad choices. Is this true?
Let’s assume, first, that it is. In that case, is it really B’s fault to be born damned? If B is simply a product of the environment, how then should we approach B’s indiscretions? Of course, we as a society may not excuse illegal or immoral behavior because of how one was raised or no one would be accountable for anything. We may not excuse illegal behavior, but you have to admit the real damage being done is to B more so that to anyone else, with the possible exception of the B’s children because the cycle is being repeated. Also, now that the "damage" has been done to B, is there any redemption to be had? If A chooses to not want to know B, is that just another part of the cursed-ness of B’s life?
Let’s assume that, despite the home in which B was raised, there were still ample examples of doing the "right" thing, that B knows right from wrong. If this is true, then the culture in which B was raised may only account for so much. If asked, "Did you know this was wrong?" B will most assuredly answer in the affirmative. The culture, then, is one where right and wrong are acknowledged but ignored. "It’s OK unless you get caught." Doesn’t this still makes B one of "those people?"
But let’s look at it from B’s point of view. Or, more specifically, your own point of view. How much of your religion, body type, sexual orientation, race, parents, country, and neighborhood makes up "who you are?" I’ve heard people say, "I was raised a Steelers fan." In this case, the person is excusing this conditioning as a positive influence and part of the general make up of his personality. Is this OK? If it’s excusable in this instance, then, "I was raised to steal" is excusable too, isn’t it? By excusable, I mean that it is acceptable to consider this part of "who you are." If it’s part of "who you are," then isn’t it acceptable to judge you base upon that claim?
Imagine if you were raised with any given set of values, be it religious, moral, cultural, societal, or class-based. (Examples: The father gives the daughter away at the wedding, you may only have one sexual partner at a time, always set the table for dinner, you have to fight the person your mate cheated with, make the bed in the morning, you open your Christmas presents on Christmas morning, etc.) These "rules" are taken for granted. They are so assumed that you never give them any thought, you just do them. Conditioning like this takes place in every family, in things mundane as well as large life events. As Americans, mostly Christians, and mostly surrounded by those of the same race, it is easy to see these cultural mores as universal. When we are faced with those who are "not like us" our first impulse is that they are "those" people. Well, it’s true, they are "them."
If one who possesses any given sets of values was forced (and one would have to be forced) to come face-to-face with another set of mores, and if one were to be faced with the possibility that the other’s values were superior, how would that person respond? Someone who was very adept at facing the "real" world and never having had those values challenged, in my opinion, would be in the strictest denial. If I were raised Catholic, in a Catholic neighborhood in a predominately Catholic country to Catholic parents, and I am challenged with another religion, one that is (for the sake of argument) superior, pragmatic, and (imagine) provable, human nature would suggest that I would rationalize against it. After all, I have been practicing a certain faith all of my life. To admit that there is a superior religion, a better religion, is to admit that I’ve been wasting my time for years, that my parent, neighbors, and culture were wrong or at least mislead. That’s just not going to happen in most cases.
I was approached once by the retention officer on board ship while in the USNAVY. He wanted to know why I wasn’t going to reenlist. I knew that this man had been in for well-over fifteen years, and he had spoken at every opportunity the advantages of staying in for "your 20." On the worst day at sea, as consolation he’d say, "Well, at least it all counts towards your twenty." (In my opinion, when you’ve been up for over twenty four hours and in some case exhausted, in pain, and pissed off is NOT the time to think about doing it for twenty years.) So, he’s on the list of people I have to see before I get out of the Nav’. He’s looking me in the eye, and wants to know why I’m getting out. What possible reason could I give him? For him to accept that there is a very good reason to get out of the service is for him to accept that he may have wasted fifteen years of his life. He’s not going to do it. Furthermore, it’s his job to make sure I stay in. So, I simply said, "I think it’s just better for me." At that point, he gave up. It was a good compromise, I thought: he gets to think that there’s something wrong with me, and we agree to disagree.
Let’s go back to B. Let’s say that B’s children are taken away, transported to a tropical island, are taught by genius teachers, have the health of Olympic athletes, see race as nothing more than descriptive terms, play five different musical instruments, and are brought up in a loving and nurturing environment. After a few years, B is allowed to visit. Upon leaving the island, how is B going to feel? Is B going to be proud of how the children turned out? Not likely, since B had nothing to do with it. I believe that B would take every opportunity to tell them about the "real" world. B would say, "That’s all fine and great, but what are you going to do when somebody tries to break in your house?" Or, "It’s great that you can all get along on this island, but when you get to the ‘real’ world, you’ll be pulled over for the color of your skin."
These are drastic, I know, but think about it. I’ve seen many cultural values passed on and spoken out loud that I never heard when I was growing up. To these parents, it’s part of the "real" world. For them, it’s true. B’s children are going to be much better prepared for life in the world, regardless of what B thinks is "real" or not. However, to accept that there is a better way is to accept that part of what makes B "who B is" is somehow false, wrong, or inferior. B will never accept that. It’s human nature.
Granted, this is my opinion, but I feel very strongly about it.
We all have differences that we won’t let go. We cling to them as if they were are part of us, and who’s to say that they are not? When faced with change, we often will defend what we know against that which we don’t know or are not familiar with. So, is it true that how we are nurtured eventually becomes our nature? As long as we identify, are defined by, and cling to only those things we consider values, then why not judge us for it? If you’re one of "those" people, is it OK to hold it against you?
I did not chose to be American, but I would, now. I did not choose to be white, but if you give me a choice, now, I would. I have to accept the fact that I don’t know any better. Because of this, I cannot blame those with different social, cultural, or religious differences for not knowing any "better." What I will not do, is claim any sort of superiority for something I had absolutely no control over, just as I will not call you inferior for the same reason. I was born with some advantages, thanks Mom and Dad. If you were not, I’m not going to look down my nose at you.
Until, and unless, every human being becomes completely and totally open-minded, there will always be "those" people. The other exists, and you’re the other. It’s not your fault who you were born to or what you identify with. It’s not your fault where you were born. Furthermore, as long as you do not assume that your way is superior simply because it is the only thing you know, we can meet in the middle and discuss.
Back to A. Is it fair to judge B on the poor choices B made? If B is so completely alien to A, will they ever reach an understanding? Should they even want to? How much work will it take to open both of their minds enough to find some common ground? Is it worth the effort? Is there anything to gain? More importantly, does either have anything to lose?