If Mort Divine ruled the world

[CiG]

It's not a matter of interchangeability (or rather that doesn't matter in this case), I just don't see how it's a mockery.

Mockery; an absurd misrepresentation or imitation of something.

 

[CiG]

 

[Mort Divine]

Mockery; an absurd misrepresentation or imitation of something.

Even if we ignore the negative connotation that the word mockery holds and take the word simply by its definition, what makes it absurd?

 

[EternalMetal]

I love how liberals are now trying to call the SSB racist now. You know that verse that they never publicly sing, but still exists? It just might have racist undertones...

 

[Phylactery]

That's a very dishonest false comparison.

It is and I wasn't equating the two myself, I was just seeing if Lovecraft did.

'Fitness landscape' is an evolutionary biology concept that describes the relationship of a specific genotype or phenotype and its impact on the organism for survival. The fitness landscape is the analysis of various genes and traits in combination that dictate the survival success of an organism (each variable being given a numeric 'fitness' value). What I am saying is that the phenotype of 'homosexual' would have a negative effect on organism survival because it would interfere with reproductive success in such organisms. The reason why I made this point is because I often hear justifications for being gay based on it being an observable phenomenon in a number of species, which while very true, would still be an objectively negative trait in an organism that is required to breed to survive as a species. So yes, it does have to do with reproduction, but with the implications of species survival with regards to said phenotype. Note that this concept is not limited to Mendelian genetics, so im not trying to say that being gay is an inheritable trait; just an observable phenotype at this point in science.

To come full circle on the discussion, yes, being gay is inherently a deeply rooted mental condition (given that gay people cannot just stop being gay) that can objectively be viewed as undesirable because of its negative impact on species survival.

The reason I specifically said "people who don't identify as straight"' is because I was referring more than just homosexuality. Such as bisexuality, asexuality, and many others. Since it is has only ever occurred in a small minority of the population I don't think this fitness landscape stuff would ever be an issues. Besides, there are thing such as artificial insemination that mean gay and lesbian people can reproduce anyway. And obviously is not really an issue for someone who identifies as bisexual in the first place.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. At least you're not perpetuating the harmful claim that "it is a choice".

 

[CiG]

Even if we ignore the negative connotation that the word mockery holds and take the word simply by its definition, what makes it absurd?

It's absurd because you can't just remove your penis/have breasts added and become the other sex. How is it not absurd?

If Obama came out as a transwoman tomorrow, would that mean he was the first female president for example?

There's a reason it's a tragedy when a woman can't have kids. If men can be women and women can be men, it's not a tragedy because that would mean the ability to create life with a womb is not inherently female.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. At least you're not perpetuating the harmful claim that "it is a choice".

As opposed to the equally harmful "born this way" claim? I'd rather people just avoid simplistic, uneducated slogans altogether.

 

[EternalMetal]

The reason I specifically said "people who don't identify as straight"' is because I was referring more than just homosexuality. Such as bisexuality, asexuality, and many others. Since it is has only ever occurred in a small minority of the population I don't think this fitness landscape stuff would ever be an issues.

I dont think so either. Im just viewing the phenomenon as an objective scientist looking from the outside in at a species. The impact that homosexuality has on the human population is clearly negligible, but it is still a piece, albeit a very tiny piece, of the gigantic puzzle of our survival traits that reduces reproduction rates. People who are bisexual may or may not contribute to this depending on life choices and consequence, but asexuals would have the same impact as homosexuality.

Besides, there are thing such as artificial insemination that mean gay and lesbian people can reproduce anyway.

While true, it is still not a mutual sharing of genetic information. Unless both partners have their own child (by contributing sperm or by insemination), only one of them is contributing towards the progression of mankind. Inevitably this is a hetero coupling of genetic information, so only in an indirect way is a homosexual couple reproducing 'together'. I will concede that the net gain in population by these methods is a noteworthy rise in the fitness of homosexuality in mankind.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. At least you're not perpetuating the harmful claim that "it is a choice".

You do realize that I am using an evolutionary biology lens while looking at this topic, right? Im not even sure what you are disagreeing with. To be honest, I think that we both are in agreement on the issue, I was just proposing a counterpoint. I dont have any personal problems with homosexuality in the current state of human population (or in the foreseeable extended future). It is ok with me and I afford them the same justice as anyone else. This is not a homophobic argument.

 

[Einherjar86]

There's no cognitive dissonance simply in non-heterosexual behavior, nor is non-heterosexual behavior necessarily indicative of psychological imbalance. Sexual behavior is evolutionarily productive, or it isn't; but sexual fetishization and attraction have as much to do with individual psychic histories as they do with biology.

I remember a professor who once asked what it would mean for a heterosexual person to be psychologically fixated on heterosexual reproduction. It would basically mean, he suggested, that one is attracted purely to the vagina or penis - no other bodily attributes. Which, of course, is ridiculous. People are attracted to members of the opposite sex for all sorts of reasons, and it rarely amounts to: "I only want the vagina" or "I only want the penis" (and lots of women, of course, find penises generally unattractive - the attractive penis is a male fantasy perpetuated by porn).

So, organs of sexual reproduction usually do not factor into equations of attraction. This isn't to say that sexual attraction has nothing to do with biology, but only that the dynamics of attraction exceed biology. All this is simply to insist that it's illogical to attribute a necessary connection between non-heterosexual practices and mental instability. If homosexuals are somehow mentally unstable in their attraction to members of the same sex, then it only makes sense that heterosexuals are as equally mentally unstable in their attraction to members of the opposite sex. If non-heterosexuals do often exhibit pathological tendencies, it probably has more to do with how society treats them than with any biological issue or cognitive rupture.

All of that is beside the point of evolutionary theory, which while almost certainly true has little to no bearing on the current social value of homosexual behavior.

 

[Phylactery]

Im not even sure what you are disagreeing with. To be honest, I think that we both are in agreement on the issue, I was just proposing a counterpoint.

I disagreed with you saying that people who exhibit non-heterosexual behaviour have deeply rooted mental issues, but Einherjar pretty much summed it up.

 

[EternalMetal]

There's no cognitive dissonance simply in non-heterosexual behavior, nor is non-heterosexual behavior necessarily indicative of psychological imbalance.

Dissonance as per transgender people maybe not, but it is a sort of paradigm shift in psychology. I think that it is obvious that homosexuality is a thought aberration given that heterosexual relations are the ones that lead to propagation.

Sexual behavior is evolutionarily productive, or it isn't; but sexual fetishization and attraction have as much to do with individual psychic histories as they do with biology.

I remember a professor who once asked what it would mean for a heterosexual person to be psychologically fixated on heterosexual reproduction. It would basically mean, he suggested, that one is attracted purely to the vagina or penis - no other bodily attributes. Which, of course, is ridiculous. People are attracted to members of the opposite sex for all sorts of reasons, and it rarely amounts to: "I only want the vagina" or "I only want the penis" (and lots of women, of course, find penises generally unattractive - the attractive penis is a male fantasy perpetuated by porn).

So, organs of sexual reproduction usually do not factor into equations of attraction.

I agree, it's irrelevant. I rarely ever see the genitalia of the people I interact with, so to think that it is a prime mover of motivation in attraction would be quite a stretch. Men do fixate a lot on 'getting pussy', but I dont think this has to do specifically with genitalia itself, but more to do with the package deal. It's like only listening to metal for guitar riffs

This isn't to say that sexual attraction has nothing to do with biology, but only that the dynamics of attraction exceed biology. All this is simply to insist that it's illogical to attribute a necessary connection between non-heterosexual practices and mental instability. If homosexuals are somehow mentally unstable in their attraction to members of the same sex, then it only makes sense that heterosexuals are as equally mentally unstable in their attraction to members of the opposite sex. If non-heterosexuals do often exhibit pathological tendencies, it probably has more to do with how society treats them than with any biological issue or cognitive rupture.

For the most part this is probably accurate. Becoming comfortable with sexuality is a common stage in adolescence for straight and gay people alike.

All of that is beside the point of evolutionary theory, which while almost certainly true has little to no bearing on the current social value of homosexual behavior.

This is pretty much the summation of what im getting at. I am trying to make the assertion that homosexuality, while acceptable, is an objectively negative trait with regards to species survival (social norms be damned). I may have made connections between cognitive dissonance and homosexuality, and if I did, I will definitely retract those statements. It can however be a fundamental change in thought, like preferring hip-hop to heavy metal. Neither preference is right or wrong with regards to current social values. As a society we are currently far beyond the 'we need to propagate to survive' stage, so we are allowed to indulge ways of life that do not target this one primitive aspect of survival.

I disagreed with you saying that people who exhibit non-heterosexual behaviour have deeply rooted mental issues, but Einherjar pretty much summed it up.

"Issue" denotes a problem that must be fixed, in which ive tried to be objective enough not to make this claim. Our current state of affairs as a species makes the marginal impact of homosexuality on reproduction an absolutely minute problem. Our limiting factor as a species makes homosexuality a completely benign issue. Therefore there is no reason to be offended or against it. I am saying that homosexuality is more of a paradigm shift in preference that is in conflict with species survival needs, but considering its relatively low relevance, it is a benign issue. Things would be different if two guys wanted to be lovey dovey and there were only 50 people left in the entire human race.

 

[Einherjar86]

Dissonance as per transgender people maybe not, but it is a sort of paradigm shift in psychology. I think that it is obvious that homosexuality is a thought aberration given that heterosexual relations are the ones that lead to propagation.

This is pretty much the summation of what im getting at. I am trying to make the assertion that homosexuality, while acceptable, is an objectively negative trait with regards to species survival (social norms be damned). I may have made connections between cognitive dissonance and homosexuality, and if I did, I will definitely retract those statements. It can however be a fundamental change in thought, like preferring hip-hop to heavy metal. Neither preference is right or wrong with regards to current social values. As a society we are currently far beyond the 'we need to propagate to survive' stage, so we are allowed to indulge ways of life that do not target this one primitive aspect of survival.

I'm not sure if you associated them or not; someone else may have earlier in the discussion. I'm also not entirely clear on what homosexuality as a "thought aberration" means, unless it derives from your reference to paradigm shifts... but even then, I'm a bit fuzzy. "Aberration" strikes me as a value-judgment, and I don't think even Thomas Kuhn goes so far as to call new epistemological structures "aberrations" - but I could be misremembering.

Regarding your entire argument, my point of disagreement isn't located within the network of terms and concepts as you outline them, which is pretty clear for the most part. I simply always take issue with the possibility of there ever being such a thing as an objectively negative or positive trait (fact, quality... truth), but this is another argument entirely. You do clarify that you're talking about species survival, thereby restricting your sense of objectivity to the discourse of biology. But for me, that undermines its objectivity, since it's privileging one discourse over others. There is probably a whole lengthy argument to be had about whether biology is a superior field/discourse, but that's not a discussion that I'm even remotely prepared to have.

 

[SentinelSlain]

Is it interchangeability or discernability or formulatability?

 

[EternalMetal]

^^ if I understand what you are getting at, discernibility id say.

I'm not sure if you associated them or not; someone else may have earlier in the discussion. I'm also not entirely clear on what homosexuality as a "thought aberration" means, unless it derives from your reference to paradigm shifts... but even then, I'm a bit fuzzy. "Aberration" strikes me as a value-judgment, and I don't think even Thomas Kuhn goes so far as to call new epistemological structures "aberrations" - but I could be misremembering.

ab·er·ra·tion
ˌabəˈrāSH(ə)n/
noun

1. • BIOLOGY
     a characteristic that deviates from the normal type.

I can see aberration being used in a negative fashion, and sometimes it is, but it is usually a more value-less term with regards to science/biology. In nature, an aberration could either be positive, negative, or neutral. There is no real judgment involved, but I guess you could argue that I am suggesting that homosexual inclinations are somewhat negative given the context.

Regarding your entire argument, my point of disagreement isn't located within the network of terms and concepts as you outline them, which is pretty clear for the most part. I simply always take issue with the possibility of there ever being such a thing as an objectively negative or positive trait (fact, quality... truth), but this is another argument entirely. You do clarify that you're talking about species survival, thereby restricting your sense of objectivity to the discourse of biology. But for me, that undermines its objectivity, since it's privileging one discourse over others. There is probably a whole lengthy argument to be had about whether biology is a superior field/discourse, but that's not a discussion that I'm even remotely prepared to have.

Tbh this is a bunch of horseshit. Objective findings/observations under a previously specified framework is how almost all scientific phenomena are studied. Value judgments can be given if parameters are properly defined. An organism that exhibits traits that deter it from breeding is objectively negative with regards to species propagation. Other factors may be/are at play, but im attempting to make a focused and coherent conclusion rather than get lost in convolution. I feel like you are undermining the objectivity of biological science. Multi-disciplined approaches are good for projecting the biggest picture, but it doesnt always provide for the best resolution.

 

[Einherjar86]

Tbh this is a bunch of horseshit. Objective findings/observations under a previously specified framework is how almost all scientific phenomena are studied. Value judgments can be given if parameters are properly defined. An organism that exhibits traits that deter it from breeding is objectively negative with regards to species propagation. Other factors may be/are at play, but im attempting to make a focused and coherent conclusion rather than get lost in convolution. I feel like you are undermining the objectivity of biological science. Multi-disciplined approaches are good for projecting the biggest picture, but it doesnt always provide for the best resolution.

But if only multi-disciplined approaches can provide the "biggest" picture, then how can any single discipline ever hope to be objective, or to provide an objective position? Inevitably any such discipline must be necessarily less than (or less comprehensive than) a multi-disciplinary approach.

We might just be defining the word differently, but I'd assume that many scientists don't perceive their findings as "objective." I think that most scientists probably consider their findings to be verifiable, since falsifiability is often taken as a measuring rod of legitimate scientific claims. But a non-falsified claim isn't necessarily an objective statement about reality. According to Kuhn, who wrote the book on paradigm shifts in the sciences, scientific knowledge is less a series of objective claims than a series of predictions based on previously observed phenomena. Science develops as new observations fail to align with previous predictions.

A scientist might place a drop of water on the same surface ten times, and nine out of ten times it moves in a particular direction. The scientist may then advance a claim that further drops of water placed on this surface will roll in this particular direction, but this isn't an objective claim. Even the observed phenomena aren't perfectly objective, since they're being observed under certain conditions and they're being examined by an observer who cannot help but have some impact (however minimal) on the outcome. The perfect science experiment is an unobserved experiment - and hence, of course, no longer an experiment.

 

[SentinelSlain]

I was joking, it's a reference to an old post an old member once made.

In all seriousness, here's my point:

Maybe all of the SJW shit is ultimately the result of the splitting, both formally and informally of philosophy and science.

 

[Dak]

Maybe all of the SJW shit is ultimately the result of the splitting, both formally and informally of philosophy and science.

I think the NRX critique of SJWism is much more accurate. There's absolutely no legitimate philosophical underpinning or justification for SJWism. It's simply a holiness signalling spiral. If there's any relation to science or philosophy it is in that God Died and we need substitutes.

 

[Baroque]

It is such a waste presently, all these potential intellectuals wasting their abilities focusing on discussing the genitals of themselves and other people.

There are many other more productive things to discuss and discover. Simply let people have sex however they want but then move on to do great things. One shouldn't spend their lives/careers focusing on what's in their damn pants unless it is to cure some kind of actual disease. Gender studies should not be a major. There is a whole damn world and universe out there not just dicks and vaginas

 

[CiG]

Not even sure what genital attraction has to do with any of this. You may be attracted to a woman for her opinion on x subject, her delicate shoulders, her hair, her skin quality, her healthiness or accent, but the end game is putting your penis in her vagina.

This is the overwhelming reality.

 

[SentinelSlain]

I think the NRX critique of SJWism is much more accurate. There's absolutely no legitimate philosophical underpinning or justification for SJWism. It's simply a holiness signalling spiral. If there's any relation to science or philosophy it is in that God Died and we need substitutes.

To understand my train of thought, ponder this; as far as I can tell, modern science points heavily in the nature corner of the nature vs nurture battle. There seems to be no real political movement born out of that. Also, the mental fog necessary to accept modern SJW ideas points towards eastern philosophy.

 

[Einherjar86]

Not even sure what genital attraction has to do with any of this. You may be attracted to a woman for her opinion on x subject, her delicate shoulders, her hair, her skin quality, her healthiness or accent, but the end game is putting your penis in her vagina.

This is the overwhelming reality.

I realize that, but as I already said: it matters when someone tries to make some kind of association between non-heterosexual behavior and psychology, which was being tossed around earlier in the discussion. I was only trying to emphasize that attraction has as much to do with psychology as it does with biology. So exactly what people find themselves attracted to matters.