Homosexuality is a Choice(Not!)

[Clutch]

There's a reason you have a right to speak your mind, but not the right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

Is that actually illegal?

[chrisd]

psy is mentioning morality. I have been stating before on these forums that I think the common assumptions regarding morality in our society are very defective. Morality is commonly regarded as a more or less rational field of study. Like, there are some moral principles and we can derive "true" moral judgements from them. Psychological research has revealed that is totally incorrect. People arrive at their moral judgements based on their feelings and after the fact make up a rational reasoning to justify it. And if their reasoning is proven to be incorrect people will just come up with a different, non necessarily more rational, justification again based on their feeling. The actual meaning of "this is wrong" is "if this happens, I feel bad about it". Obviously, we all have our feelings but the fact is that feelings are not the most advanced way of arriving at conclusions we have in our brain. The most advanced way of arriving at conclusions we have in our brain is rational thinking. The thing that feeling has going for it is that it is much faster than rational thinking, so feeling is going to be around for the forseeable future, but by treating morality as a rational field of study, we are actually WEAKENING our rational thinking by letting it be overriden by emotional concerns. The way to actually being a human as opposed to a mere mammal, or even a reptile, is to do it exactly the other way around, namely by deciding to let rational conclusions override the ones of the emotional mind. The quality of being able to do this is also known as "courage" and the fact that we are going against the emotional mind can be noticed by the tingling feeling in the tummy that is protesting against what we are doing. The way to be a (wo)man rather than a mouse is to sometimes do the morally incorrect, but rationally correct thing and learn to love the tingly feelings in the tummy that accompanies courage.

[Lucifer]

Chrisd, I normally agree with about 95% of what you say. However, in your previous post, I agree with 1% of it.

Oftentimes, I have found that what I "feel" is right is actually right, and my rational thinking interferes. Witness my first marriage. I knew it was wrong, I knew I shouldn't have done it, but rational thinking combined with morals and ethics compelled me to do it. But I felt that it was wrong. I should have trusted my feeling, really, because by marrying her, I significantly postponed the date when I could marry the woman I've got now. (long story, suffice it to say, I knew my current wife before my first wife)

Also, in working on cars, which should be a totally rational and logical field, I found that following my gut was more reliable than rationally thinking through things.

Your brain is quite capable of doing a lot of things, you just have to give it space to do it, and TRUST it to do the right thing. It is YOUR brain after all, and if you can't trust your own brain, whose brain can you trust? It does things in ways you don't understand, and can't understand, not now.

You have to give it room, and have the confidence to trust it. That's courage. Trusting your gut. Letting your brain figure things out in that mysterious way it has, and then going with it. Most decisions can't be based on rationality alone.

In the end, you have to accept the 1% of your post with which I agree. Humans reach a decision, and then later rationalize it. Accept that. Go ahead and make your decisions knowing damn well they don't make sense, and then understand them after the fact. You'll know damned well you're rationalizing, but let the focus be on understanding rather than rationalizing. You'll make better decisions that way.

I'm too cynical to offer my current marriage as proof of that, it's way too early, but I have to point out that we've already faced many of the same situations I saw in my first marriage, and she's responding so completely differently and unexpectedly, it's actually the way I wanted my first wife to respond to things. Should've gone with my gut the whole time, not just part of the time.

[Word]

Yeah, Löwenbräu used to be more well-known over here, kinda like Heineken (blech) is now. I was asking more about the popularity of Hacker-Pschorr; is it considered pedestrian, etc? Like, Budweiser is really popular and common, but it's awful beer. This Hacker-Pschorr Weiss is OK for what it is, I guess, but it's too light for my tastes, usually. It went well with stir-fry I made, though. Heavier beers just don't match with most Asian cuisine.

well, I don't live near Munich and Cologne has its own big brewerys - maybe that's why I can't see Hacker-Pschorr here, but I'm sure I've heard of it/seen it before. Can't find Löwenbräu in most supermarkets, either.

Also, we were recently at a market in the specialty/international section and there was this shaker container, all of the words on which were in German so neither of us knew what it said. Noted the name, Fondor, and looked it up. Learned about this Maggi brand and its apparent international commonality. No one I've asked has ever heard of it. How do you pronounced that, anyway, using American-English phonics?

Haha, that's a good question, I had that discussion a year ago (how it's pronounced in German), because there was a big exhibition about the company's history near our city. Everyone here says [ˈmagi] (even the advertisements) though the original pronounciation [madʒi] (which is, according to the German wikipedia, still common in Switzerland and Italy) is the correct name of the company's founder. Some of their advertising is as legendary as Coca Cola's in the U.S., e.g. this one or this one or this one or this one or this one. I have a few of them on DVD .

[þsy]

Haha I really think we were saying the same thing in a subtle sort of way (Lucifer) - you suggest that laws aren't solely sufficient in allowing everyone to be equal, and that's down to social and cultural practices (such as the business example you gave about married men and single men)

But maybe we should just agree to disagree that maybe we do agree/disagree

And I'd definitely argue that your comment "You can't have pedophiles, or necrophiles" is one based on morality - at least partly. I mean, why can't we have people doing those things? To say it's simply 'wrong' suggests that there is some moral dilemma. Perhaps you could argue that it's wrong because it prevents freedom for everyone (at least for paedophilia), and thus effects equality. But I think for anyone to suggest that we shouldn't have paedophilia legalised, purely because of equality, seems fairly cold-hearted. So I would argue that a lot of points are based on morality

That's not to suggest that morality is a static thing - your examples again point out the fluidity of the Western moral compass

[Lucifer]

Haha I really think we were saying the same thing in a subtle sort of way (Lucifer) - you suggest that laws aren't solely sufficient in allowing everyone to be equal, and that's down to social and cultural practices (such as the business example you gave about married men and single men)

But maybe we should just agree to disagree that maybe we do agree/disagree

Sure, just because I don't want to belabor the point.

And I'd definitely argue that your comment "You can't have pedophiles, or necrophiles" is one based on morality - at least partly. I mean, why can't we have people doing those things? To say it's simply 'wrong' suggests that there is some moral dilemma.

There is no moral dilemma here. A child cannot give consent for sexual activity. Period. We can go to science for why, if you'd like, or you can just take it as granted. There are also legally recognized ages at which a person can give consent, and in the US those ages vary by state. If a child is under the legally recognized age at which he/she can give consent, then any sex act performed on the child (or to which the child is coerced to perform) must be considered non-consensual.

No morality is required. All that's required is that the government accept that any non-consensual sex is an infringement on the rights of the person that did not (or could not) give consent.

This is why the argument that allowing gays to be together leads to bestiality/child molestation/necrophilia is invalid. A gay couple consists of two consenting adults. None of the other situations have that. Government must recognize that consenting adults is fine, and let individuals decide exactly what's permissible to themselves, so long as nobody's rights are infringed.

Like I said, no morality, just a basis in recognizing natural rights and protecting individual liberty is all that's required.

[þsy]

If a child is under the legally recognized age at which he/she can give consent, then any sex act performed on the child (or to which the child is coerced to perform) must be considered non-consensual.

No morality is required. All that's required is that the government accept that any non-consensual sex is an infringement on the rights of the person that did not (or could not) give consent.

I disagree, that is an entirely moral position you've taken. There is no scientifically agreed age, universally, where a person can consent to sex or not. That is to say, there is no archimedean point upon which we can all agree that 16, 18, 21 etc. is the perfect age for consent. And anyway, who's to say we need consent from someone to have sex with them? That is itself a question of morality. If you look at Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, he describes a dystopia where you're obligated to have sex, whether you feel like it or not. That story is at times quite an uncomfortable read, principally because of how it conflicts with the readers own sense of morality.

The idea of 'rights' is also one based completely on morality. A basic human right - which we're hear a lot about - is a concept concerning a set of practices that any human is entitled to. Why? Who's to say?

I get the feeling that we may have different ideas about morality, which is why we're finding it difficult to see sense in the others points...

This is why the argument that allowing gays to be together leads to bestiality/child molestation/necrophilia is invalid. A gay couple consists of two consenting adults. None of the other situations have that. Government must recognize that consenting adults is fine, and let individuals decide exactly what's permissible to themselves, so long as nobody's rights are infringed.

Ahh , what the f*KREK! Who suggested that allowing gays to be together leads to those terrible things?!?

[chrisd]

Oftentimes, I have found that what I "feel" is right is actually right, and my rational thinking interferes.

Sure, but I really have not said that rational thinking is ALWAYS better than feeling. I have "only" stated that the usual way of thinking about morality is not a skillful way of handling either of the human abilities of thinking and feeling.

... marriage...

You know, I really was not talking about marriage. I was talking about morality. Regarding decisions surrounding a marriage or any kind of long term relationship you have to have both your rational and your emotional mind on board. Having only one of them on board leads to a bad decisions. Of course, I could also write a post about rational reasons to end a relationship, but that really is a different topic. In fact, I am quite certain that if I were to write a post about rational reasons to end a long term relationship, good reasons to end your first marriage would be included into it.... Of course, actually following the rational reasons for ending a relationship requires courage. People often stay too long together for moral reasons.... But this is what you are actually saying as well, so I think we actually may not be disagreeing....

... working on cars...

I was not really arguing against using your feeling and/or your intuition when working on cars. I was merely arguing against morality....

Your brain is quite capable of doing a lot of things, you just have to give it space to do it, and TRUST it to do the right thing. It is YOUR brain after all, and if you can't trust your own brain, whose brain can you trust? It does things in ways you don't understand, and can't understand, not now.

I disagree with this. The workings of the brain are actually rather well known, although this knowledge is still not mainstream. Our society as it is is ridiculously stupid because of a lack of knowledge of how our brain actually works and how it actually learns best. With such knowledge one can actually know when to trust ones brain and when not. For one thing, if airlines stopped using knowledge about when to trust human brains and when not, the amount of casualties in plane crashes would no doubt increase by a factor of 10, if not more. Airlines are smart enough to use knowledge about how the brain of their pilots actually works.

You have to give it room, and have the confidence to trust it. That's courage. Trusting your gut.

Well, your courage is not really courageous if you are not going against some part of yourself.... In my definition of courage one goes against ones emotions (which is, by the way, not the same as going against ones intuition, which I would in general not recommend).

Most decisions can't be based on rationality alone.

Sure, but I was not really arguing to base most or even any decisions on rationality alone.

In the end, you have to accept the 1% of your post with which I agree. Humans reach a decision, and then later rationalize it. Accept that.

The tron-personality known as "chrisd" was never based on such acceptance. It was always more about being truthful and provoking than being accepting....

[chrisd]

Ahh , what the f*KREK! Who suggested that allowing gays to be together leads to those terrible things?!?

Among conservatives in the US it is rather commonplace to suggest such terrible things... Another way of stating this is saying that social conservatives in the US really are fr**king b*dsh*t crazy.... Take Santorum. He has been arguing that the supreme court overturning sodomy laws is a tragedy because it interferes with the States ability to regulate masturbation..... talk about b*dsh*t crazy right there.... The fight for gay marriage in the US is about much more than gay marriage. It is about rejecting a Taliban-like religious interference in everybody's life....

[sinewav]

We're not so different you and I.

[syllabear]

sine, did you just call everyone on tron a bisexual?

Not to mention that if titan's becoming a priest (and thus, celibate) that he shouldn't really fit into either circle...

[Phytotron]

Badshit? It's batshit, man. "Badshit" sounds like it belongs somewhere in Get on the Good Foot.

Feminism attempts to identify gender performativity, recognising that we ascribe to gendered identities and that it's not 'natural' behaviour.

Um, no, it doesn't. "Gender performativity" is a very particular "theory" within a particular strain of feminism. As a gender studies student you should be aware that there are several strains (and a few 'waves') of feminism. And that is one particularly silly one.

And phyto, I have no time for someone who disregards an entire philosophical paradigm - especially one so fundamental to contemporary academia - as 'jibber-jabber'.

We already covered this in that music thread, didn't we. Here again you're scolding someone for being dismissive and disregarding a philosophical paradigm by yourself being dismissive and disregarding another philosophical paradigm. See how that works? Well, you're typical of postmodernists, anyway, so yeah, well done there, chap; you're well on your way to good marks. Performative contradiction in full display, a hallmark of postmodernism.

Here's the thing: Postmodernism is aggressively anti-Enlightenment, anti-science, anti-reason, anti-intellectual, and oftentimes comically anti-comprehension. It is solipsistic, relativist so as to render meaninglessness, and practically nihilistic. It is, in sum, Fashionable Nonsense. I have no time or use for that.

As for your assertion about it being fundamental to contemporary academia, I don't know what it's like in the UK—though Dawkins suggests its quite a problem—but I would not describe it as fundamental. Fashionable, yes. Still, it's far too pervasive, and I would say pernicious. It is an assault on academia, and happily, there has been a continuing, and growing, counter-movement to it, both within and without academia.

To paraphrase and repurpose Lincoln: I hold that science must be prior to, and independent of, philosophy; that, in fact, any worthwhile philosophy is the fruit of science, and should not be given consideration if science is not first given consideration; that science can exist without philosophy, but that philosophy should not be given consideration without science. Hence I hold that science is the superior – greatly the superior – of philosophy. I do not deny that there is, and probably always will and should be, a relation between science and philosophy. The error, as I hold, is in assuming that the whole science of the world exists within that relation.
— Adapted from: Lincoln, Abraham. "Annual Address Before the Wisconsin State Agricultural Society, at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, September 30, 1859." Heh.

Short version: In this day and age, any philosophy worth consideration must begin with, be grounded in, and follow from a scientific understanding of reality. Otherwise, it's just as useless as religious or other supernatural faith claims; indeed, there's quite the romance between postmodernism and flakey new agers.

Take the exchange between Lucifer and Chrisd on moral philosophy. Both are (or attempt to be) based on a naturalistic, scientific understanding of how the brain works, even though they each come to different conclusions of what to take from that. I'm not even gonna argue with either of them, though I may add some stuff later. But for now, ballgames!

[INW]

sine, did you just call everyone on tron a bisexual?

The diagram shows that homosexuals and heterosexuals both play tron.

Simply that.

[sinewav]

sine, did you just call everyone on tron a bisexual?

The diagram shows that homosexuals and heterosexuals both play tron.

He was just kidding around. He knows how to read a Venn diagram (I assume).

Not to mention that if titan's becoming a priest (and thus, celibate) that he shouldn't really fit into either circle...

Celibate only until he gets a taste for altar boys, then we'll put him in the "same gender" side.

[Z-Man]

<nerd mode>

He knows how to read a Venn diagram.

He does. The diagram says: there are people who have sex with the same gender. There are people who have sex with the other gender. There are those who do both, and those are exactly the people who play Tron. Every Tron player is bi, every bisexual person plays Tron. Do you see a single pure gay or straight person in the diagram playing Tron? No? Or a single bisexual person not playing Tron? Sure, it wanted to say something different, but that's what it really says. To say what you really want to say, you need to use three circles.</nerd mode> Then, of course, it loses all meaning, so for the intended purpose, that still was the right diagram to draw, even though it is wrong.