Dewey wrote a book!
-
@Moonbat said in Dewey wrote a book!:
@Jolly said in Dewey wrote a book!:
@Moonbat said in Dewey wrote a book!:
Oh man i have not argued on the internet for so long. What political disagreement i have tend to be in person discussions with my wife's circle of friends where my wife is forever worried they will think i'm a Nazi. A rather different set of circumstances than 2007.
But for old times sake..
@89th said in Dewey wrote a book!:
I guess we should start with a base. I'd assert that it is the fundamental wiring of human sexuality to be attracted to the opposite sex for the purpose of procreating. It's why we have a penis and women have a vagina. It's why our hormones increase earlier in life, to begin the procreation process, and why the urges decrease over time as the need to procreate diminishes. Forget the meaning of "normal" but in the pragmatic sense, it is the norm for humans to be attracted to the opposite sex.
If you disagree with this, then ok... probably aren't going to do anything but argue in circles.
But if you agree with this, then to answer your question it's an impairment or whatever as an attraction to the opposite sex is on the spectrum of sexual attraction deviation. By default does this make it wrong? No. Religiously, sure... Culturally, some say yes, some say no... depends where values are at the moment, something that is always changing. Laws are just codified morality, after all. So if there is a sexual impairment or disorder, it is similar to other mental (or physical) malformations... biological diversity, to @Doctor-Phibes 's point, which I can see.
So i think you perceive structure and function in the anatomical and behavioural differences between the sexes - one that has a clear evolutionary origin. Consequently you classify deviations from this structure/function as impairment/disorder/etc.
So from a secular perspecttive the problem is that this attaches ethical significant to blind forces of evolutionary biology. Just because we are fashioned by natural selection does not automatically mean that we should classify about humans using an evolutionary perspective. This is particularly true when the words have some normative significance to them. Evolution by natural selection is a blind force it's crucial for understand how things are but totally inconsequential when deciding whether some aspect of human behaviour is good or bad. As there is no intention to evolution by natural selection there is no "fundamental" wiring, there is only wiring. There is no intrinsic order, there is just whatever emerges. To talk about homosexuality being an impairment is a bit like talking about a moon that rotates in the opposite direction to the planet that it orbits as an 'impaired' moon because the usual explanation for how planetary bodies form means they all rotate in the same direction. We don't speak like this because we aren't seduced into the idea that there is some intention that all planetary bodies are 'supposed' to rotate the same way, while the fact natural selection can look like design means people are seduced into talking as if it is design and that the designer has a specific purpose.
So to recap - from a secular perspective it doesn't really make sense to talk about some putative fundamental order that is being violated by X human behaviour.
Secondly if you were to be consistent you would have to call alot of behaviours that will seem normal or even desireable to be impairments or disorders. Use of birth control is the mother of all behavioural disorders (as an aside it is an amazing fact, and one that AI doomers are quick to point out, that evolution by natural seelction has continuously selected genes for their reproductive fitness for the best part of 4 billion years. Yet just doing that, just picking the best replicator again and again and again, ultimately built a machine that subverts it's own replication). Now you may be happy with that but how about acts of altruism - if you put yourself at risk to safe the life of a stranger, you are engaging in a behaviour that very clearly opposed to evolutionary drives.
Given the above two points and since people who are gay are totally fine living their lives provided they are treated like everyone else and crucially, absent religious indocrination do not view themselves as defective in any way. I don't think there can be any justification in defining them as such. Particularly given that such language is intrinsically judgemental and almost always carries stigma.
Are they fine? Really?
Homosexuals have a higher rate of failed and transient relationships. Since they tend to have more sexual encounters, they tend to have less commitment.
And since they are more promiscuous, using body parts for things nature did not intend for such use, they are more prone for some diseases, such as HIV.
Therefore, there are both psychological and biological reasons while homosexuality is neither a preferred form of human or even a evolutionary equal one.
I mean they are fine in the sense that they don't intrinsically view themselves as defective. I mean the fact on average they may have a different risk profile is neither here nor there. Does the fact that the Ashkenazi Jews are more likely to suffer from Tay–Sachs disease mean we should consider them defective as a people?
My nephew has a three-legged blue heeler that can retrieve ducks, an odd talent for a heeler. While he can do the job, he's not quite as proficient as a good lab.
I can assure you Indy does not view himself as defective, because he only has three legs, but he is.
-
Are Americans defective because they weigh more and die younger than their more virile, thrusting European competition?
-
@Moonbat said in Dewey wrote a book!:
@Tom-K said in Dewey wrote a book!:
@Moonbat said in Dewey wrote a book!:
Oh man i have not argued on the internet for so long. What political disagreement i have tend to be in person discussions with my wife's circle of friends where my wife is forever worried they will think i'm a Nazi. A rather different set of circumstances than 2007.
Moonbat, your wife's friends must be right out of the 4th International Trotskyists to think you are a Nazi. Good you're back.
It's a funny thing, but I think it's because the battle lines in the culture war have moved on. If I come here, ....
That is a very interesting point you make. Here in America the culture war really hasn't moved on...or at least very much. As a matter of fact where I live in Florida, things have become must less progressive than they were 10 years ago. for an example they used to have PRIDE banners hanging off of the light poles in town during PRIDE month. They abolished that. Little things, but they add up. Something like Jolly's point on view on gays, while not quite perfect in the more trendy establishments in New York or Los Angeles resonates quite well in the American heartland. I take it things are different in Europe. Most of the supporters of the gay(ish) agenda here are European, Klaus, and you seem sanguine with that whole worldview and Phibes seems to be vigorous projecting the view that you can't be a proper British toff if you haven't been a Lancer in the Punjab. All good, but our continents seem to be sailing away from each other.
-
@Moonbat said in Dewey wrote a book!:
Instead i think that popular progressive movements have gone nuts. Then again maybe that's what you guys thought 20 years ago.
No, that's a more recent development. Not terribly surprising after decades or centuries of repression. I see some small signs that we're returning to some sort of sensibility.
-
-
@Axtremus said in Dewey wrote a book!:
@Jolly said in Dewey wrote a book!:
Are they fine? Really?
Homosexuals have a higher rate of failed and transient relationships.
Protestants have higher rate of divorce. Are they fine?
Depends on what you define as Protestant, I guess.
Always remember, Operation Valkyrie was an act of sedition.
Warning: I post things that interest me. Read and comment at your own discretion. -
-
@Jolly said in Dewey wrote a book!:
@Axtremus said in Dewey wrote a book!:
@Jolly said in Dewey wrote a book!:
Are they fine? Really?
Homosexuals have a higher rate of failed and transient relationships.
Protestants have higher rate of divorce. Are they fine?
Depends on what you define as Protestant, I guess.
I suppose whatever can be said of homosexuals also depends on what one defines as homosexuals then.
-
@Tom-K said in Dewey wrote a book!:
@Moonbat said in Dewey wrote a book!:
@Tom-K said in Dewey wrote a book!:
@Moonbat said in Dewey wrote a book!:
Oh man i have not argued on the internet for so long. What political disagreement i have tend to be in person discussions with my wife's circle of friends where my wife is forever worried they will think i'm a Nazi. A rather different set of circumstances than 2007.
Moonbat, your wife's friends must be right out of the 4th International Trotskyists to think you are a Nazi. Good you're back.
It's a funny thing, but I think it's because the battle lines in the culture war have moved on. If I come here, ....
That is a very interesting point you make. Here in America the culture war really hasn't moved on...or at least very much. As a matter of fact where I live in Florida, things have become must less progressive than they were 10 years ago. for an example they used to have PRIDE banners hanging off of the light poles in town during PRIDE month. They abolished that. Little things, but they add up. Something like Jolly's point on view on gays, while not quite perfect in the more trendy establishments in New York or Los Angeles resonates quite well in the American heartland. I take it things are different in Europe. Most of the supporters of the gay(ish) agenda here are European, Klaus, and you seem sanguine with that whole worldview and Phibes seems to be vigorous projecting the view that you can't be a proper British toff if you haven't been a Lancer in the Punjab. All good, but our continents seem to be sailing away from each other.
It's funny you say in America things haven't moved on because from my perspective the zeitgeist topics and some of the crazier progressive attitudes around them i.e. the 'woke' stuff that all seems to come from you guys - though we seem to be importing it.
I guess this is still compatible with your statement i guess it just means everyone is becoming more polarised which i suppose we already know. Kind of sucks though.
-
@Tom-K said in Dewey wrote a book!:
@Jolly said in Dewey wrote a book!:
Depends on what you define as Protestant, I guess.
I'm of the belief that you kill them all and then let God sort it out!
So you’re a Presbyterian.
"My pronouns are FA/FO." - Mik, 2024
-
@Mik said in Dewey wrote a book!:
@Tom-K said in Dewey wrote a book!:
@Jolly said in Dewey wrote a book!:
Depends on what you define as Protestant, I guess.
I'm of the belief that you kill them all and then let God sort it out!
So you’re a Presbyterian.
DAMN!!! (And I mean that literally and figuratively) You're analysis is right! Though Thomistic theology is somewhat predeterministic.
-
-
@Moonbat said in Dewey wrote a book!:
Oh man i have not argued on the internet for so long. What political disagreement i have tend to be in person discussions with my wife's circle of friends where my wife is forever worried they will think i'm a Nazi. A rather different set of circumstances than 2007.
But for old times sake..
So i think you perceive structure and function in the anatomical and behavioural differences between the sexes - one that has a clear evolutionary origin. Consequently you classify deviations from this structure/function as impairment/disorder/etc.
So from a secular perspective the problem is that this attaches ethical significant to blind forces of evolutionary biology. Just because we are fashioned by natural selection does not automatically mean that in everyday speech we should classify humans using an evolutionary perspective. This is particularly true when the words have some normative significance to them. Evolution by natural selection is a blind force, it's crucial for understanding how things are but totally inconsequential when deciding whether some aspect of human behaviour is good or bad. As there is no intention to evolution by natural selection there is no "fundamental" wiring, there is only wiring. There is no intrinsic order, there is just whatever emerges. To talk about homosexuality being an impairment is a bit like talking about a moon that rotates in the opposite direction to the planet that it orbits as an 'impaired' moon because the usual explanation for how planetary bodies form means they all rotate in the same direction. We don't speak like this because we aren't seduced into the idea that there is some intention that all planetary bodies are 'supposed' to rotate the same way, while the fact natural selection can look like design means people are seduced into talking as if it is design and that the designer has a specific purpose.
So to recap - from a secular perspective it doesn't really make sense to talk about some putative fundamental order that is being violated by X human behaviour.
Great line of reasoning, for sure. Why I can't get on board with that, which won't sway you, is I don't see human as essentially "just another evolutionary creature output that is changing over millions of years..." I believe humans are elevated and selected by the Divine. (Which I know you addressed as you spoke from a purely secular perspective)... We have advanced characteristics... curiosity, logic, creativity, intelligence, communication, morality, philosophy, culture. (Although animals do have their own talents.... survival, reaction speed, sensing weather changes...)
So yes, I could see how homosexual characteristics could be classified as evolutionary/diverse samples in the wider population. Just as all impairments, or maladies small and large. Need glasses? High blood pressure? Grout? Various maladies I have, even if minor... all deviations from the physical/mental health ideal. Doesn't mean they are inherently bad, at all. Just something we have to deal with. And when it comes to the norm for human sexuality, attraction to the opposite sex as one enters adulthood is the norm... homosexual or other sexual maladies across the spectrum of extremity, is just that.
Secondly if you were to be consistent you would have to call alot of behaviours that will seem normal or even desireable to be impairments or disorders. Use of birth control is the mother of all behavioural disorders (as an aside it is an amazing fact, and one that AI doomers are quick to point out, that evolution by natural seelction has continuously selected genes for their reproductive fitness for the best part of 4 billion years. Yet just doing that, just picking the best replicator again and again and again, ultimately built a machine that subverts it's own replication). Now you may be happy with that but how about acts of altruism - if you put yourself at risk to safe the life of a stranger, you are engaging in a behaviour that is very clearly opposed to the evolutionary forces that shaped you - should we call it a behavioural disorder?
Voluntarily taking medicine or other manual actions doesn't seem as an impairment to me. If the women is unable to ovulate, that would be. But if they take a pill to prevent ovulation, that is just a manual action. I did chuckle at the 4 billion years has led us to subvert our own replication lol.
Given the above two points and since people who are gay are totally fine living their lives provided they are treated like everyone else and crucially, absent religious indoctrination, do not view themselves as defective in any way. I don't think there can be any justification in defining them as such. Particularly given that such language is intrinsically judgemental and almost always carries stigma.
Understood, which is why I try to emphasize that my use of disorder does not have the intent to be insulting but a way of classifying behavior... if a man is unable to produce sperm, or a woman unable to ovulate, or a person attracted to the same sex, these are all forms of procreative defections, even if some can be mitigated by science. And the blunt purpose of sex is to procreate, although we know there are other benefits as well...
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in Dewey wrote a book!:
I don’t really understand the connection between being gay and having sex with your mother. Could somebody explain?
Depends if you're the daughter, I guess.
The serious answer... it's just a (real world) example of people drawing lines about what sexual behaviors or attractions are acceptable. 20 years ago I bet 0% of the world would say it's acceptable, now I bet 10% of the world thinks it's ok as long as the two people are consenting adults, as @Klaus said.
In other words, the facts haven't changed... I drew my line (mine, not others) a while ago and it hasn't changed, but it seems the line has changed for many people, politicians and young people especially, as compared to the 90s. The facts haven't changed about the sexual behaviors, just the cultural/pressure to be cool with it.
