This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Homosexuality General Discussion
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Skreeran
Taking a piglet's life doesn't count as 'harm'?Of course it's harm, but I can't hold a pig morally accountable for her actions, because her actions are driven by instinct, rather than conscious morality.
I know you're playing the devil's advocate, but I don't understand which point you're trying to make. That morality is inherently subjective because different species--even intelligent species--are often driven in different directions by evolution? I know that.
But I try to base my morality on logic and empathy, rather than blindly base it on evolutionary instinct. I use my large human brain to think about a situation or feeling rationally, rather than making a snap judgment.
The argument from evolution method of attacking homosexuality is not a real argument at all, but an excuse. Homophobia may be instinctual, and even evolutionarily based, but they are not using evolution to explain their natural homophobia, they're using evolution to make a farcical argument against another human's behavior. In other words, they're trying to us logic to justify their instinct, rather than using instinct as a starting ground and then using logic to come to a better conclusion.
TL;DR Animals are driven by instinct, programmed by evolution, a blind and harsh mistress. Thanks to our advanced intelligence, we are capable of transcending the blind instinct we're programmed with, and seeing the universe through clearer eyes. Using the discovery of evolution to attack homosexuality shows a lack of understanding about evolution, and is only used to justify one's innate homophobia; it's not a logical argument.
I could argue that using condoms is wrong because then you don't make babies, and clearly evolutionary instinct says to make babies. But evolution is blind and can't plan for the future, and the principles of evolution are a bad foundation on which to base your morality.
Post by
Orranis
heterosexuality is more in line with what evolution designed us to be,
Evolution is not a progression into a predetermined 'perfect' state. We, through evolution, grew the capacity for homosexuality. There is no 'evolutionary design.' It does not have 'intent.' Even if homosexuality dies out in humans through natural selection, that does not mean evolution 'intended' it to happen either.
Post by
Atik
heterosexuality is more in line with what evolution designed us to be,
Evolution is not a progression into a predetermined 'perfect' state. We, through evolution, grew the capacity for homosexuality. There is no 'evolutionary design.' It does not have 'intent.' Even if homosexuality dies out in humans through natural selection, that does not mean evolution 'intended' it to happen either.
The problem is; evolution in its true state of natural selection flew out the window when we became sapient.
Certain mutations that would have never survived in wild animals are more then capable of flourishing within humans.
So homosexuality didn't come directly from true evolution.
Post by
Jubilee
The problem is; evolution in its true state of natural selection flew out the window when we became sapient.
Certain mutations that would have never survived in wild animals are more then capable of flourishing within humans.
So homosexuality didn't come directly from true evolution.
Our sapience itself is a product of evolution too, no? So anything that arises as a result of it would also be directly linked to an evolutionary trend.
Post by
Atik
The problem is; evolution in its true state of natural selection flew out the window when we became sapient.
Certain mutations that would have never survived in wild animals are more then capable of flourishing within humans.
So homosexuality didn't come directly from true evolution.
Our sapience itself is a product of evolution too, no? So anything that arises as a result of it would also be directly linked to an evolutionary trend.
No, because the evolutionary trend ended with our sapience. Natural selection became meaningless to us not long afterwards, and so proper evolution ceased.
Anything as a result is mutation.
Post by
Orranis
heterosexuality is more in line with what evolution designed us to be,
Evolution is not a progression into a predetermined 'perfect' state. We, through evolution, grew the capacity for homosexuality. There is no 'evolutionary design.' It does not have 'intent.' Even if homosexuality dies out in humans through natural selection, that does not mean evolution 'intended' it to happen either.
The problem is; evolution in its true state of natural selection flew out the window when we became sapient.
Certain mutations that would have never survived in wild animals are more then capable of flourishing within humans.
So homosexuality didn't come directly from true evolution.
What?
Homosexuality exists in wild animals, for the first thing.
Second thing, everything is affected by Natural Selection. If it were an evolutionary flaw in its current environment, it would have or will die out. By the very definition of Natural Selection, if it can flourish, than it is not an evolutionary flaw.
Post by
Skreeran
No, because the evolutionary trend ended with our sapience. Natural selection became meaningless to us not long afterwards, and so proper evolution ceased.
Anything as a result is mutation.I was following you, and then you said the bottom sentence, and now I'm lost.
Isn't evolution fundamentally built on of mutation?
I understand the concept that natural selection isn't operating on us normally (people with genetic diseases get to live thanks to modern medicine, reproduction no longer depends on fitness, etc.) but what do you mean by "Anything as a result is mutation."
And I think Jubilee is just saying that since our own sapience came about from evolution, our progress as a species still owes itself in part to evolution. I.e., without evolution, you don't have humans, so anything we do can be attributes to evolution eventually.
Post by
Atik
Homosexuality exists in wild animals, for the first thing.
Never heard that one before.
Second thing, everything is affected by Natural Selection. If it were an evolutionary flaw in its current environment, it would have or will die out. By the very definition of Natural Selection, if it can flourish, than it is not an evolutionary flaw.
Not true.
Natural selection is cancelled out in situations with no present dangers. That is why evolutionary flaws have flourished on certain islands lacking in predators, such as bright and colorful birds that would normally be free meals.
Our sapience has led to the same enviorment. Flaws can flourish due to a lack of dangers.
And yeah Skree, that last sentance was my bad. Mutation wasn't the best word.
Post by
Jubilee
They aren't flaws if they can flourish! You're calling the wrong thing if you call it a flaw. Sapience is the trait of all traits, it allows us to adapt so well that what used to be necessary traits are no longer necessary.
Post by
Atik
They aren't flaws if they can flourish! You're calling the wrong thing if you call it a flaw.
Flaws can flourish in enviorments with a lack of dangers.
Post by
Jubilee
Then they aren't flaws. Are we flawed because we aren't covered in fur? Not at all, because it isn't needed. In a million years when we hit an ice age or whenever, then not having fur becomes a flaw.
Evolution doesn't predict. It only deals with the here and now. Here and now we are intelligent, so a lot of mutations that used to be flaws are not neutral.
Post by
Atik
Then they aren't flaws. Are we flawed because we aren't covered in fur? Not at all, because it isn't needed. In a million years when we hit an ice age or whenever, then not having fur becomes a flaw.
Evolution doesn't predict.
No, it is a flaw.
It is an mutation that shouldn't flourish but does due to a flawed enviorment.
Post by
Adamsm
Homosexuality exists in wild animals, for the first thing.
Never heard that one before.It's been said in this thread heh.
Post by
Jubilee
Then they aren't flaws. Are we flawed because we aren't covered in fur? Not at all, because it isn't needed. In a million years when we hit an ice age or whenever, then not having fur becomes a flaw.
Evolution doesn't predict.
No, it is a flaw.
It is an mutation that shouldn't flourish but does due to a flawed enviorment.
Flawed environment? I'm not following any of your trains of thought at this point. Environment is whatever it decides to be. Evolution is what allows life to persist through the whims of the environment.
Post by
Squishalot
Skreeran - if a person consciously killed a little piglet to provide more food for the rest of the pen, is that more or less moral than if a person consciously killed a little person? The question is whether the act is right/wrong, not whether the pig can be held morally responsible.
The question about whether morality should be based on logic and empathy vs evolutionary instinct isn't really so relevant, because I'm not trying to argue that. Your comment was that the evolutionary argument is self-defeating. I'm saying that it's not (and it isn't, for the same reason as why you can use it to 'justify' the death of a little piglet).
That same evolution though gave us the very intelligence that allows us to make the decision. Isn't it blind to only focus on one aspect of a species evolution?
Potentially, if you can justify how contraception is going to help provide for the survival of the human race. As useful a tool it has been to promote female sexual independence, it's also contributed to the rise in casual sexual relations which has also increased the incidence of sexually transmitted diseases.
Evolution is what allows life to persist through the whims of the environment.
Yes, but the evolution of thought is different from the evolution of our species. Our ability to withstand an ice age today is greater than humans' ability 2000 years ago, despite little change biologically.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
Jubilee
Potentially, if you can justify how contraception is going to help provide for the survival of the human race. As useful a tool it has been to promote female sexual independence, it's also contributed to the rise in casual sexual relations which has also increased the incidence of sexually transmitted diseases.
Why does it need to? As long as our sapience as a whole is helping us survive the individual decisions are much more arbitrary.
Yes, but the evolution of thought is different from the evolution of our species. Our ability to withstand an ice age today is greater than humans' ability 2000 years ago, despite little change biologically.
I'm not 100% sure how that is relevant to my reply to Atik.
Post by
Atik
Then they aren't flaws. Are we flawed because we aren't covered in fur? Not at all, because it isn't needed. In a million years when we hit an ice age or whenever, then not having fur becomes a flaw.
Evolution doesn't predict.
No, it is a flaw.
It is an mutation that shouldn't flourish but does due to a flawed enviorment.
Flawed environment? I'm not following any of your trains of thought at this point. Environment is whatever it decides to be. Evolution is what allows life to persist through the whims of the environment.
An enviorment is flawed if it lacks the basics of a balanced ecosystem.
If an enviorment has more predators than prey, it is flawed.
If an enviorment has no predators, it is flawed.
If a mutation can only flourish in a flawed enviorment, it is flawed.
Post by
Squishalot
Potentially, if you can justify how contraception is going to help provide for the survival of the human race. As useful a tool it has been to promote female sexual independence, it's also contributed to the rise in casual sexual relations which has also increased the incidence of sexually transmitted diseases.
Why does it need to? As long as our sapience as a whole is helping us survive the individual decisions are much more arbitrary.
Because otherwise we have to look at
this
and try to convince ourselves that this is somehow the crowning glory of our evolution.
Post by
Jubilee
I don't think there's such a thing as glory in evolution.
An enviorment is flawed if it lacks the basics of a balanced ecosystem.
If an enviorment has more predators than prey, it is flawed.
If an enviorment has no predators, it is flawed.
If a mutation can only flourish in a flawed enviorment, it is flawed.
That's a pretty arbitrary list of conditions. You can't just expect me to accept that now, can you?
Post by
Orranis
Homosexuality exists in wild animals, for the first thing.
Never heard that one before.
Second thing, everything is affected by Natural Selection. If it were an evolutionary flaw in its current environment, it would have or will die out. By the very definition of Natural Selection, if it can flourish, than it is not an evolutionary flaw.
Not true.
Natural selection is cancelled out in situations with no present dangers. That is why evolutionary flaws have flourished on certain islands lacking in predators, such as bright and colorful birds that would normally be free meals.
Our sapience has led to the same enviorment. Flaws can flourish due to a lack of dangers.
And yeah Skree, that last sentance was my bad. Mutation wasn't the best word.
We only have "no present dangers" (and that itself is untrue, we face many dangers, predators are not the only thing the wild has to offer) because we have, through natural selection, developed a life-form that can use its extreme intelligence and ability to build to eradicate almost all possible threats to extinction. Flaws cannot flourish due to lack of danger, because if it is not in danger, it is not a flaw.
Even so, we have many present dangers. In the event of a nuclear holocaust, the attributes of a cockroach might be far less likely to go extinct than our lovely large brains. We're using resources at an astounding rate, and destroying ecosystems in the process. If things continue as are, it's very possible that soon food will be much more difficult to produce or encounter, never mind things like gasoline. Our ability to have so many children and allow so many people to live, through having no predators and even disease becoming something curable might be our ultimate downfall.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.