Poète Lauréat Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 Well it was a question. If you think I misunderstood. Please clarify your point. Perhaps answering the question would be a good start. I don´t know how we are supposed to discuss, if we just dismiss other answers as signs of illiteracy. It's a stupid question which in no one way relates to what I said. I've clarified my point five bloody times. How three people can not understand such a simple concept his beyond me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The guy from the Vale Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 Perhaps it's because "primary" has two meanings, and depending on which meaning one reads, your statements have very different meaning? Maybe saying "original" instead of "primary" might resolve the differences? Just a hunch :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poète Lauréat Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 Perhaps it's because "primary" has two meanings, and depending on which meaning one reads, your statements have very different meaning? Maybe saying "original" instead of "primary" might resolve the differences? Just a hunch :) No. It is still the primary biological function of our existence. It is not as relevant as it once was, but it will still, and always, hold that status. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The guy from the Vale Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 Can't we choose ourselves what the primary function of our existence is supposed to be, and if we want it to be biological? :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poète Lauréat Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 Can't we choose ourselves what the primary function of our existence is supposed to be, and if we want it to be biological? :) Do we choose to have legs and arms when we are born, do we choose what gender we come out as, no? Can you stop with such nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The guy from the Vale Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 We can choose our gender nowadays. It's still hard, and still has social stigma attached, but yes, it is possible. There are also people who lost their arms or legs and still lived on. Some even were born with less arms or legs. Are they less worth as human beings than those of us who are still intact? Should they have fewer rights than the rest of us? Because, again, "primary" has both a temporal or causal meaning on the one hand, and an evaluating/moral meaning on the other hand. And while I?m with you on the temporal/causal meaning, people tend to then extrapolate into the moral meaning, and that is where my problem stems from. I think that naturalistic fallacy is a problem, and a better choice of words would help in not making that fallacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ormond Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 The idea that homosexuality is necessarily against reproductive success in "biological terms" shows an overly simplistic view of biology. Modern evolutionary biology is based on what's sometimes (itself oversimplistically) called the "selfish gene" theory. Organisms should be influenced toward behaviors which get their genes into the next generation, but that does NOT mean that one has to reproduce oneself to do this. There are plenty of examples in other species of individuals foregoing their own chances for reproduction when this greatly enhances the reproductive success of close relatives who share many of the same genes. African wild dogs, for example, have a system where only the dominant male and female in the pack reproduce, and the rest of the pack (who consist largely of siblings, older offspring, or aunts/uncles of the dominant pair) help raise the dominant pair's pups. So one biological factor in the existence of homosexuality could be that at some point in the past gay men and lesbians made really good uncles and aunts, foregoing their own personal reproduction in order to help ensure the success in that of their own siblings. And I hasten to add that's only ONE of the many possible paths by which homosexuality can be seen as being biologically "natural". I know unfortunately it's way too late to change this in modern culture, but I really wish we could get rid of the word "homophobia." As Terra said in his first post, "anti-gay bias" is a much better and more accurate term. Though there are a few people with anti-gay bias who are afraid of GLBT persons, I don't think the percentage is any higher than that of persons who are biased against any minority being afraid of them. We don't blame all racism, sexism, anti-Muslimism, anti-Semitism, etc. on people being afraid of Blacks, women, Muslims, Jews, etc. The emotion I think most extremely prejudiced persons express toward their targets most often is contempt, not fear. I believe it's been pretty well shown that contempt and fear are two different emotions -- they both have different universal facial expressions, for instance. Constantly using the word "homophobia" to describe anti-gay prejudice really does make it more difficult to counter it, as it is way too easy for the majority of anti-gay idiots who do not feel fearful around GLBT people to dismiss any arguments against their beliefs with the idea that they themselves are being unjustly accused of having a phobia, when they don't. But I know the word is too established in our culture to get rid of, sadly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon AS Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 No. It is still the primary biological function of our existence. It is not as relevant as it once was, but it will still, and always, hold that status. The "primary biological function of our existence" is the perpetuation of the species, which does not require every single individual to reproduce (and good thing, too, since there are plenty of people who don't for various reasons, some of them even biological). If reproduction at the individual level was the overriding imperative, everybody would be driven to it, just as we eat and drink and breathe in order to survive. The argument that, just because sex is traditionally required for reproduction, non-reproductive sex is "not functional" is specious, as sex can, and does, obviously fulfill other functions than reproduction, and not just for humans. ETA: Or what Ormond said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The guy from the Vale Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 Thanks Ormond and Jon AS :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poète Lauréat Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 We can choose our gender nowadays. It's still hard, and still has social stigma attached, but yes, it is possible. There are also people who lost their arms or legs and still lived on. Some even were born with less arms or legs. Are they less worth as human beings than those of us who are still intact? Should they have fewer rights than the rest of us? Because, again, "primary" has both a temporal or causal meaning on the one hand, and an evaluating/moral meaning on the other hand. And while I?m with you on the temporal/causal meaning, people tend to then extrapolate into the moral meaning, and that is where my problem stems from. I think that naturalistic fallacy is a problem, and a better choice of words would help in not making that fallacy. You're not getting it and baffling on about irrelevant nonsense. With a stick you are trying to poke a hole through a steel wall, trying to find ''this'' way and ''that''. At the end of the day, I am wasting my time and you're are wasting yours, and the steel wall stands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The guy from the Vale Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 No, I'm not getting why we should assign moral qualifiers to biological "facts" that, as Ormond and Jon AS showed, are not as factual as you wish them to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HexMachina Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 Wonderfully said Ormond Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Pepper Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 Damn, even the majority of the most vocal homophobes anti-gay biased people usually center their "think of the children" campaigns around the raising of kids rather than the way kids are created. This "think of the kids because penis in vagina sex is the only way to create them" campaign happening in this thread is some serious hardcore homophobic anti-gay ignorance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neumond Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 I love your posts: Ormond and Jon AS. Enmity is obviously the only one in this discussion who has the intellect to know exactly how other people should lead their lives.As you can see, we are all just asking stupid questions and don´t get the point. The imagery of a steel wall is also a really thought provoking killer argument.And if we still think, people should live as they like, we are just stupid.Yeah, I think, I get the point now... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biglose Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 The "primary biological function of our existence" is the perpetuation of the species, which does not require every single individual to reproduce (and good thing, too, since there are plenty of people who don't for various reasons, some of them even biological). If reproduction at the individual level was the overriding imperative, everybody would be driven to it, just as we eat and drink and breathe in order to survive. The argument that, just because sex is traditionally required for reproduction, non-reproductive sex is "not functional" is specious, as sex can, and does, obviously fulfill other functions than reproduction, and not just for humans. ETA: Or what Ormond said. Look, it is not even our goal to increase our population as fast as possible, because lets be honest we are more limited by limited ressources than we are limited by our ability to reproduce. The question becomes what is the intrest of the nation/country/society in general. And if you go down that line, anything which does not lead to stability, technological progress right now or the upbringing of a generation meeting certain criterias is irrelevant, because it does nothing for survival/general prosperity. So if you limit your question to what is needed or usefull and not to what is right, you have to be quite delusional to still get to the conclusions most people try to reach. But thats generally a problem in any discussion. We do not want to admit, that there is a price. But there always is. The real issue is, that as long as you have the money laying around you need to pay the price, it does not matter. The issue is not getting people to agree to something or to want something. It is to prevent them feeling the price. Thats where it is decided if any "social progress/change" will stay around or be lost! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neumond Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 And what exactly would this price be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyoshi Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 Damn, even the majority of the most vocal homophobes anti-gay biased people usually center their "think of the children" campaigns around the raising of kids rather than the way kids are created. This "think of the kids because penis in vagina sex is the only way to create them" campaign happening in this thread is some serious hardcore homophobic anti-gay ignorance.Agreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biglose Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 And what exactly would this price be? For what, exactly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poète Lauréat Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 I was fine debating one of you but not 6. I don't have the time nor the interest to converse in such irrational views, writing out walls of text. Keep thinking you're right and I'm deluded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon AS Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 Look, it is not even our goal to increase our population as fast as possible, because lets be honest we are more limited by limited ressources than we are limited by our ability to reproduce. The question becomes what is the intrest of the nation/country/society in general. And if you go down that line, anything which does not lead to stability, technological progress right now or the upbringing of a generation meeting certain criterias is irrelevant, because it does nothing for survival/general prosperity. So if you limit your question to what is needed or usefull and not to what is right, you have to be quite delusional to still get to the conclusions most people try to reach. But thats generally a problem in any discussion. We do not want to admit, that there is a price. But there always is. The real issue is, that as long as you have the money laying around you need to pay the price, it does not matter. The issue is not getting people to agree to something or to want something. It is to prevent them feeling the price. Thats where it is decided if any "social progress/change" will stay around or be lost! I have honestly no idea how any of this relates to my post. Could you elaborate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.