|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: I call all homophobes to Hell - especially Russ
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
dyfrig: Because of the set up of my desk, I will drink it using my left hand, despite being right handed. How deviant is that?
Coffee will make your hair go red too.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
JonahMan
Shipmate
# 12126
|
Posted
I'm reminded of Joe Haldeman's The Forever War in which the protaganist is forced to adapt to futures further and further away due to the effects of time dilation. Near the end of the book he becomes the commander of a battle group whose sexual orientation is entirely homosexual and he is referred to as a deviant, an 'old queer'. Babies in this society are 'quickened' artificially (and are clones in any case) and heterosexuality is viewed as being not only perverted but largely unnecessary (the hero does eventually shack up with his long term - and I'm talking thousands of years here - partner in a sort of eugenic back-up for heterosexuals, just in case something goes wrong with cloning).
In this scenario, sexuality has been divorced from procreation, and being not-gay is a serious social handicap.
As an aid to thinking about how we should think about sexuality it's at least as useful as Ingob's hypothetical gay spaceship.
[ 18. August 2015, 12:23: Message edited by: JonahMan ]
--------------------
Thank God for the aged
And old age itself, and illness and the grave
For when you're old, or ill and particularly in the coffin
It's no trouble to behave
Posts: 914 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Which side of the mug has the picture?!???!![/b]
Seriously, you think being a Hell Host means you can ask such personal questions?
Pervert.
LeRoc, this may explain my chest hair.
Jonah, tell me more about gay spaceships. Are they like the ships in Iain M Banks' Excession?
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Which side of the mug has the picture?!???!!
Seriously, you think being a Hell Host means you can ask such personal questions?
Pervert.
You might think that what you do with your own beverages is nobody's business but yours, but I'm here to tell you that there is a right way and a wrong way to use your coffee. And your hands.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
I have to analyze the implications of a recent High Court judgement, so I do not have time for this petty vulgarity and double-entendreness. In no way am I leaving this conversation because you have somehow bested me with your wit or the skill of your riposte, leaving me with insufficient ability to come back at you with anything more sophisticated than "yeah? yeah? well.....yeah"
I have work to do - do you hear me? - Work.
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
It's okay, I already know in my heart that I'm on a roll.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Assume we are sending a generation ship to an earth-like planet a few light years away.
...
Thanks a lot, IngoB and Russ. Now I'm wondering whether a spaceship crewed entirely by pedophiles can successfully colonize a planet. ![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It's okay, I already know in my heart that I'm on a roll.
Deviant. Rolls are for eating not seating.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JonahMan:
Ingob's hypothetical gay spaceship.
I so need to write this.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Which side of the mug has the picture?!???!!
More importantly, is it an authorised and approved mug, or some perverted heretical mug?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Oh my God.
They're all for left-handers.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Nope, they're ambidextrous. (They have pictures both sides - except for maybe the MW one - but I did just check Heaven, Hell and SoF.)
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Oh my God.
They're all for left-handers.
![[Frown]](frown.gif) You have noticed what you should not and you have revealed it to the masses.
Run now or embrace your fate. It was nice knowing you.
Everyone else: avoid the folks in black suits and look away from the red flash of light.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Oh my God.
They're all for left-handers.
You have noticed what you should not and you have revealed it to the masses.
Run now or embrace your fate. It was nice knowing you.
Everyone else: avoid the folks in black suits and look away from the red flash of light.
ETA: curse your crosspost, Ck!
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
lB - I was torn between correcting the mistake and laughing at the conversation. However, there is still a supply of mugs that I am sure Simon would like to sell, so it seemed better to point out that there are pictures on both sides.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Oh, Ck. You must have looked into the light. The mugs have been switched and you think they were always this way.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
What I have said is that homosexuality is not like hair colour and handedness, biologically speaking
Homosexuality is a minority sexual orientation. The things that it is like are minority sexual orientations.
Totally bleeping obvious. But it seems people don't want to go there.
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
What I have said is that homosexuality is not like hair colour and handedness, biologically speaking
Homosexuality is a minority sexual orientation. The things that it is like are minority sexual orientations.
Totally bleeping obvious. But it seems people don't want to go there.
Because all minority positions are the same?
What is bleeping obvious is that they are not. Now be a good little boy and go play with the traffic.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Homosexuality is a minority sexual orientation.
And so, the fuck, what?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
What I have said is that homosexuality is not like hair colour and handedness, biologically speaking
Homosexuality is a minority sexual orientation. The things that it is like are minority sexual orientations.
Totally bleeping obvious. But it seems people don't want to go there.
It is also like majority sexual orientations too in that it is, first and foremost, a sexual orientation.
Whether it is majority or minority one is immaterial, and I'll bet that my supposed majority sexual orientation is, if you look at it closely enough, a minority one.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
This is a significant biological difference.
No, it isn't, italics notwithstanding. You've identified a biological difference. You've completely failed to demonstrate its significance except for its significance to a specific environment, namely, monocultures on spaceships. This is zero proof of its significance in any other environment.
The impact on "passing on one's genes" of different colours of hair is clearly marginal. We have to construct very specific situations to get any effect at all. The impact on "passing on one's genes" of homosexuality is clearly crucial and universal. By and in itself, it will make it impossible, and some kind of increased chance through siblings relies necessarily on the absence of homosexuality in them. This is clearly a significant biological difference then, basically independent of any specific environment. The thought experiment with the spaceship simply illustrated this, it is not at all a necessary condition.
Since you apparently are "exclusively" homosexual, it follows that your genes will disappear from the gene pool. At best you can hope that part of your genes will be passed on through siblings, but obviously only if they are not homosexual themselves. The same would not be true if your hair was red. This would not decrease your own chances to pass on your genes, at least not strongly.
If the difference between eliminating your genes from the gene pool or not is not biologically significant, then nothing is. As I keep saying though, what social significance one assigns to this is a different matter.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
St Deird
Shipmate
# 7631
|
Posted
So, IngoB, what you're saying is that there is no significant biological difference between bisexuality and red hair?
--------------------
They're not hobbies; they're a robust post-apocalyptic skill-set.
Posts: 319 | From: the other side of nowhere | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
Now you got me thinking about a spaceship full of red-haired bisexuals ...
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Homosexuality is a minority sexual orientation.
And so, the fuck, what?
So if you put forward an ethical theory of sexual orientation which addresses what is morally right, wrong, or neutral about the whole range of minority orientations (or as the traditionalists would call them, perversions) and that theory is convincing, then you may well persuade people like me that the traditional view is wrong.
That would be a reasoned argument.
Without that, it's just special pleading.
The analogy with left-handedness is helpful in getting across what your viewpoint is. But it doesn't convince that it is the right viewpoint. Because there's no intrinsic similarity.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Since you apparently are "exclusively" homosexual, it follows that your genes will disappear from the gene pool. At best you can hope that part of your genes will be passed on through siblings, but obviously only if they are not homosexual themselves.
See, it's like you almost know something, but then you miss the point SO badly with your confusion between a human being and humanity.
There is only one of me. Even I was straight, there is only one of me.** Best enjoy me while I can. This particular combination of genes won't be here again, and that would still be true if I was a good Catholic with 13 children.
None of my genes are "mine". My sister has a fair few of the same ones, my cousins have quite a few of the same ones, and my next door neighbour probably happens to have some of the same ones as well. By the time my nephew was 6 months old, people who'd never met him before could tell that some of my genes were in the next generation. There were jokes about it.
My genes aren't disappearing from the gene pool, you moron, any more than whichever genes contributed to your particular brand of stupid are going to disappear should you and your offspring all die in a fireball. If I wanted to eliminate all 'your' genes from the gene pool, I would have to kill millions of people before probably shooting myself.
** Really, Ingo, did you flunk biology SO badly that you think having children guarantees the survival of all your genes? How many of your genes do you think each child has? Are you employing some kind of IVF lab to ensure that child no.2 has the exact opposite set of genes to child no.1, or are you risking overlap?
[ 18. August 2015, 23:23: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Homosexuality is a minority sexual orientation.
And so, the fuck, what?
So if you put forward an ethical theory of sexual orientation which addresses what is morally right, wrong, or neutral about the whole range of minority orientations (or as the traditionalists would call them, perversions) and that theory is convincing, then you may well persuade people like me that the traditional view is wrong.
That would be a reasoned argument.
Without that, it's just special pleading.
The analogy with left-handedness is helpful in getting across what your viewpoint is. But it doesn't convince that it is the right viewpoint. Because there's no intrinsic similarity.
Yeah, because the whole point about how left-handers were persecuted and ostracised for centuries just passed you by, didn't it?
Left-handedness is actually correlated with homosexuality. Did you know that? No, why should I assume you know anything about the subject other than having an ability to use words like "defect" and "perversion" and shout "BIBLE!" in your sleepwalking.
[ 18. August 2015, 23:06: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
So if [long rambling excuse], then you may well persuade people like me that the traditional view is wrong.
Before you go fuck yourself - this time - let me comment thusly:
Your definition of "traditional" is arbitrary. You're picking a tiny sliver of human societal norm as being "right", when other various arbitrary slices would vehemently disagree (with similar pointless merit). Meanwhile, in context of the rest of the animal kingdom, so-called "minority" sexual orientations are not only commonplace but also recognized as being potentially useful aspects of various survival strategies. (That's right, fuck you too, IngoB.)
But nobody is actually expecting you to have any kind of objectivity. Because people don't actually think as a primary function very much, but rather more often merely as a way to justify how they happen to feel.
Now go fuck yourself. Again.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
"exclusively" homosexual
Why does this get quote marks, anyway? Are you exclusively having sex with your wife, or should we allow for the possibility that you'll stray by saying you are "exclusively" having sex with your wife? Do dogs "exclusively" have sex with other dogs, meaning there's a risk that one of them will turn on a sheep it's supposed to be herding?
You're right, Ingo. I have to admit that I don't walk around with a 20-metre female exclusion zone shouting "Stay away from me! KEEP THAT VAGINA AWAY FROM MY PENIS, I'M EXCLUSIVE!"
EDIT: No doubt you think that your exclusive heterosexuality is ensured by whatever it is you have jammed so firmly up your butt.
[ 18. August 2015, 23:46: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Homosexuality is a minority sexual orientation. The things that it is like are minority sexual orientations. ...
So, Russ, what are all those other "minority orientations"? Or is that just your code word for anybody and anything "not straight"? And how does that fit in with the observed reality that sex is not binary, gender is a social construct, and orientation is a spectrum?
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Homosexuality is a minority sexual orientation. The things that it is like are minority sexual orientations. ...
So, Russ, what are all those other "minority orientations"? Or is that just your code word for anybody and anything "not straight"? And how does that fit in with the observed reality that sex is not binary, gender is a social construct, and orientation is a spectrum?
It's code for pedophilia.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
So if you put forward an ethical theory of sexual orientation which addresses what is morally right, wrong, or neutral about the whole range of minority orientations (or as the traditionalists would call them, perversions) and that theory is convincing, then you may well persuade people like me that the traditional view is wrong.
Russ, how the fuck have you failed to notice that the people you are arguing with do have ethical theories that are capable of addressing, and distinguishing between, the morality of all manner of minority (and majority) sexual orientations? The precise details might differ slightly between individuals, but I'd bet that almost everyone who is disagreeing with you would have consent, equality, likelihood of causing harm, respect for others, and some form of the Golden Rule as important constituent parts of their ethical systems.
Your ethical system, if you have one, is something that you have conspicuously failed to articulate clearly at all, which is probably just as well as if you were able to articulate it, it is doubtful that it would survive any serious analysis.
The bit of IngoB's analogy that seems most important to me is that even if you say (as you might if you want to be tactless and offensive) that homosexuality is a 'defect' in some technical biological sense, there is simply no easy way of getting from that purely technical classification to a conclusion that acting on a homosexual impulse is morally wrong. Lactose tolerance is likely a 'defect' in that technical sense (ancestral humans probably did not metabolise lactose post infancy, because until we learned to domesticate livestock we would have had little reason to maintain that ability into adulthood - but once milk was available as a staple supply of nutrition, an 'error' in copying or combining some genes that would fortuitously enhance a person's capacity to exploit that resource would be selected for) but no one suggests that any moral argument about the wrongness of strawberry milkshakes follows if that is right.
Your problem is that you don't seem to have any clear idea about why you think homosexuality is wrong, although you've been told it is wrong, aren't willing to question that idea, and think that perhaps the clue is that it is a minority position or that it arising from something going wrong with a process that 'ought' (biologically) to default to heterosexuality. But that's all bullshit. No one thinks that the 'perversions' which we universally condemn are wrong because they are rare, or because they might be the result of something going wrong with biological functions. We think they are wrong because they violate ethical norms about (for example) harm which we hold as moral principles in relation to both sexual and non-sexual behaviour. If you could grasp that, and stop making stupid and offensive comparisons, you'd get a better hearing for such arguments that you might have that are not stupid and offensive (if any).
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Without that, it's just special pleading.
Have you actually read any of this thread or the DH thread from which it was spawned? It appears you have no more understanding of the definition of this term than you do anything else so far discussed.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by JonahMan:
Ingob's hypothetical gay spaceship.
I so need to write this.
The World Well Lost by Theodore Sturgeon published in 1953 covers a version of the Gay Spaceship.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Phantom Flan Flinger
Shipmate
# 8891
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'm enjoying this significant difference bit too much.
I can fit an episode of classic Doctor Who in a half hour slot. I can't fit an episode of NuWho in a half hour slot. Oh my God they're significantly different TV shows!
Oh, please don't start that argument ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
http://www.faith-hope-and-confusion.com/
Posts: 1020 | From: Leicester, England | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by St Deird:
So, IngoB, what you're saying is that there is no significant biological difference between bisexuality and red hair?
For the purposes of the principle argument made here, yes. That's really like asking whether I think grey is white, when I'm trying to argue that white is not black. As far as principle arguments of not-being-black go at least, grey is like white.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Really, Ingo, did you flunk biology SO badly that you think having children guarantees the survival of all your genes?
I'm familiar enough with genetics, at a decent high school biology level plus some popular science reading. I of course understand that a child is not simply a clone (and for that matter that even a clone will have different epigenetics). It was me, after all, who first mentioned that your genes could be partly passed on through your siblings. It was also me who first mentioned the possibility of group selection based on that fact. You can now pretend that you are teaching me these things, but that just makes you look silly. The common expression of "passing on your genes" is not intended to convey a 100% genetic overlap, but rather the typical 50% overlap between parent and offspring. A full sibling will also have 50% genetic overlap, hence their offspring will only have 25% overlap with your genes (all on average). Thus as far as "passing on your genes" go, it is half as efficient. And a full calculation of whether it makes biological sense for you to sacrifice your own procreation for an increase of the procreation of your sister basically will have to compensate for that. So a scenario where you have two kids and your sister has two kids is roughly "genetically equivalent" to you to a scenario where you have no kids and your sister has six instead. I'm not sure whether your sister finds your homosexuality that helpful to her child raising?
As far as homosexuality may be genetically affected in the first place, which is uncertain at this point in time, it may be due to some kind of kin selection. It may also be just a common disease with congenital factors, like say epilepsy. This is also unclear. The mere fact that there may be some advantage to kin from homosexuality is not sufficient, that could be accidental. That advantage has to be strong enough to be selected for, i.e., it has to overcome the disadvantage of reducing genetic overlap in more distant kin. Now, I see some chance that this could be the case in an ancient setting for male homosexuality. Basically, if women are having many children, many of whom die, then having an extra male but homosexual provider / guardian may increase the survival rate considerable and lead to a net genetic gain. This does not explain female homosexuality though, making it more likely that such explanations are spurious even in the male case. And furthermore, since you are so keen on evaluating traits in their setting, of course this would be a complete maladaptation in the modern setting, where women have few children, almost all of which survive. At best then, homosexuality might be an ancient group-based adaptation in males which does not fit into our times at all. Biologically speaking.
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Meanwhile, in context of the rest of the animal kingdom, so-called "minority" sexual orientations are not only commonplace but also recognized as being potentially useful aspects of various survival strategies. (That's right, fuck you too, IngoB.)
Beats me why you are addressing me here. I've acknowledged this possibility from my first "spaceship" post on, basically in every post. Mind you, as just explained above the chance that homosexuality is due to some kind of kin selection is rather marginal in my opinion. But it certainly is a possibility. My main point above however was quite simply that homosexuality is unlike handedness and hair colour, and should not be equated for rhetorical purposes. The very fact that we have to argue at length about the genetic consequences of homosexuality shows this. We do not have to argue likewise about handedness and hair colour. If at all, there are sexual and social selection effects for these, which really only apply to specific human societies and their cultural peculiarities.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Why does this get quote marks, anyway?
It just sounded a bit odd, like I was saying that being homosexual is all that you are and do. But I merely wanted to express that you will not likely have sex with women. The quotation marks were supposed to weaken the "exclusivity" in that sense.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
St Deird
Shipmate
# 7631
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Now, I see some chance that this could be the case in an ancient setting for male homosexuality. Basically, if women are having many children, many of whom die, then having an extra male but homosexual provider / guardian may increase the survival rate considerable and lead to a net genetic gain. This does not explain female homosexuality though
...an extra female provider/guardian?
--------------------
They're not hobbies; they're a robust post-apocalyptic skill-set.
Posts: 319 | From: the other side of nowhere | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
Or there's a very strong selection bias against mating with anyone who may turn out to be IngoB...
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by St Deird:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Now, I see some chance that this could be the case in an ancient setting for male homosexuality. Basically, if women are having many children, many of whom die, then having an extra male but homosexual provider / guardian may increase the survival rate considerable and lead to a net genetic gain. This does not explain female homosexuality though
...an extra female provider/guardian?
Possibly. The question would basically be what the biggest threat factors and conversely the biggest gains by dealing with those threats might have been in prehistoric to iron age times. I may be caught up in romantic "Conan the Barbarian" thinking if I say that these threat factors are more on the "male" side of things. It is entirely possible that "male" threats like tribal warfare were more spectacular, but that "female" threats like lack of child supervision were in fact equally or even more important.
[ 19. August 2015, 09:13: Message edited by: IngoB ]
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
St Deird
Shipmate
# 7631
|
Posted
...gathering food, tending the fire, caring for the sick, fending off predators, finding new places to camp, cooking, making clothes, making tools, making weapons...
--------------------
They're not hobbies; they're a robust post-apocalyptic skill-set.
Posts: 319 | From: the other side of nowhere | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by St Deird:
...gathering food, tending the fire, caring for the sick, fending off predators, finding new places to camp, cooking, making clothes, making tools, making weapons...
Indeed, though I do not pretend to really know what the average "responsibility split" of these and other activities across the sexes would have been, nor to what degree they would have contributed to offspring survival. It is not enough that there is some advantage from having extra hands for some activity, for a genetic net gain it is necessary that the advantage is so strong as to compensate for the reduction in genetic overlap. So perhaps this is more about midwifery than about cooking.
Anyway, point taken, and that particular comment of mine wasn't particularly thought through and quite possibly beholden to romantic hero worship rather than a pragmatic calculus of neolithic survival...
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Ingo, I didn't criticise you for referring to passing on genes, I laughed at you for saying that my genes would be removed from the gene pool. As if I owned the sole surviving copy.
It's the difference between saying I can pass on my particular copy of The Lord of the Rings (and heck, maybe it'd even be a good idea with some benefits), and darkly suggesting that if I fail to pass on my book then The Lord of the Rings will disappear from the library.
You consistently veer, in your misguided attempts to prove why homosexuality is wrong and bad, towards some kind of moral obligation on each individual to procreate. Which is a source of constant amusement given that your own clergy tell against there being any such moral obligation.
Mind you, there is still something terribly odd about an organisation that shouts "DON'T BREED!" at one group of people and shouts "BREED LIKE RABBITS!" at a different group of people. Especially when it then wonders why the non-breeding group is becoming scarcer. It's almost like you're trying to breed high levels of religiosity and lifelong devotion to God out of the Catholic population.
By the same token, if you think homosexuality is bad, you really shouldn't be encouraging me to breed. Because either I might pass on a genetic predisposition to it, or if it's purely cultural I'm likely to influence my children to have a sympathetic view towards it. Either way, it's a loss for your viewpoint.
Now all you have to do is solve the problem that heterosexuals keep raising the likes of me as well...
[ 19. August 2015, 10:03: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
St Deird
Shipmate
# 7631
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
It is not enough that there is some advantage from having extra hands for some activity, for a genetic net gain it is necessary that the advantage is so strong as to compensate for the reduction in genetic overlap. So perhaps this is more about midwifery than about cooking.
Agreed that midwifery is possibly more important, but the importance of cooking to survival should not be dismissed. Not only does proper cooking ensure less food poisoning and disease, but it increases how many people can be fed (soups, flours, etc) which gives a real advantage when resources are scarce.
--------------------
They're not hobbies; they're a robust post-apocalyptic skill-set.
Posts: 319 | From: the other side of nowhere | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The very fact that we have to argue at length about the genetic consequences of homosexuality shows this. We do not have to argue likewise about handedness and hair colour.
We don't have to argue at length about the consequences of any of them. None of them are a direct threat to the survival of the individual who has them (well, being left-handed does tend to shorten one's lifespan in a right-handed world), and none of them are a threat to the survival of a species except in your bizarre artificial spaceship hypothesis.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
And cooking meat may well be a reason we have the brain power to be having this discussion. Homosexuality is a recurrent trait, so there is a reason it exists.
You know, I can't help but laugh at the genetic discussion we are having.
Why the hell does it matter? Homosexuals existing for whatever reason has no substantive effect on straight people. So just bugger off.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Homosexuals existing for whatever reason has no substantive effect on straight people.
Not so. A straight guy at work fully embraces the existence of male homosexuality because it reduces his competition.
We didn't really get into the question of whether female homosexuality was a problem because it reduces his opportunity...
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
Teleology is a form of consequentialism. If you hitch morality to what you think is evolutionary fitness (tricky to judge), you may be able to label homosexuality as defective.
Adultery, on the other hand, starts to look rather good. Getting your genes cared for by another couple if you are a male, or getting a bit of enrichment in the genes of your offspring if you are female, makes excellent evolutionary sense.
But does morality have much to do with falling into line with our understanding of evolution? Don't the most striking examples of moral actions often involve people overriding biological drives? Self sacrifice is not good for your genes, but you can't go far in ethics without it coming up. What's the evolutionary justification for not being a selfish bastard? Why on earth would anyone ever let reason or compassion direct them?
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
I was considering the issue of the value to the community with reference to data from Neolithic tombs in Orkney. Apparently, in a society with no archaeological evidence of warfare, the peak mortality - as great as for infants - for both men and women was between 18 and 25 ish, but both men and women could survive to be older.
Women's deaths at those ages are from obvious causes, men's, in the absence of fighting, not so much. (And since the data comes from actual bones, it's not from egg hunters falling off cliffs, or fishermen getting drowned.)
Women surviving childbirth, it seems obvious to me, are repositories of essential knowledge, especially to do with plant resources. Someone needs to know about things which are useful to eat, useful for medication, useful to supply materials such as string, and, absolutely vital, things which are dangerous to eat or apply to the skin. Not only that, but also where and when they are available.
Traditionally, it has been women living alone who had, and used, that sort of knowledge (and later got punished for it), which might suggest a connection with not being interested in heterosexual relationships. Those women were probably more necessary to their society than men not involved in fathering children.
And Orfeo, I'm not convinced about left-handers being likely to predecease right-handers. I know someone did some research on cohorts of different ages in, I think, Canada, but I didn't see any evidence that they had corrected for whether the people they studied had been forced to switch in childhood. My father would have been assessed as right-handed, but he was born left-handed.
[ 19. August 2015, 11:19: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Homosexuals existing for whatever reason has no substantive effect on straight people.
Not so. A straight guy at work fully embraces the existence of male homosexuality because it reduces his competition.
Damn it! I originally wrote 'no substantive negative effect' but it felt unwieldy so I shortened it.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
We didn't really get into the question of whether female homosexuality was a problem because it reduces his opportunity...
Ah, this is trickier. Straight men tend to fantasize about lesbians. They think, I think, that they might have a chance.
[ 19. August 2015, 11:18: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
Drat, I stuck an unconnected comment on the end of my post and didn't allow time to explain that not correcting for switched handedness would naturally result in there being fewer left-handers in the older cohorts because the older the people were, the more likely they were to have been switched, this making it look as though the left-handers had died younger.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
