pogi Posted July 11, 2018 Posted July 11, 2018 49 minutes ago, Ahab said: Another attempt to try to clarity what I am saying: 1. Sexual attraction defined - I understand sexual attraction to be all about being attracted to a person because of their sex and particular things associated with their particular sex. Like when some particular man says "I love women !!!" while he thinks of things that he associates with women that he is attracted to. Also like when some particular woman says "I love men !!!" while she thinks of things that she associates with men that she is attracted to. And when I say sex I mean sex as in male or female. That is our sex. 2,. Objective view of sexual attraction - First an example: Suppose someone said to you about a particular women something like: "Wow, what a woman! I think she (she referring to her sex which is female) is very attractive!" Now imagine that you say in your mind something like: "Well, I don't think so, but I suppose the fact that she thinks she's attractive means that she is at least attractive to somebody, and maybe some other people, too. She's just not my particular type - not the kind of woman that I am attracted to." Now based on that example you should see both an objective view of sexual attraction as well as 2 subjective views. , with her sex being female, and 2) she is attractive to somebody. And the fact that people may agree or disagree subjectively doesn't change the objective view because all the objective view is about is what everybody thinks, collectively. In this case the Yes to sexual attraction is not cancelled out by No of the subjective view of the person who doesn't think so. 3. Why I think everyone should see all men and women as sexually attractive - because of the objective fact that all are to at least one person who thinks so. And if you don't agree on the subjective level I think you should agree on at least the objective fact. Ya, I don't think that helped! You really need to quit with the objectively sexually attractive for everyone routine. It doesn't make any sense. That is like saying that because one person thinks that sushi is delicious, that sushi is therefor objectively delicious for everyone. Nonsense. The only objective thing that can be said about sushi is that some people find sushi delicious, but that sushi is not delicious for everyone. It is the same with sexual attraction. Quote In the objective view that particular woman is sexually attractive because of the fact that 1) she is a sexual object What? Perhaps you didn't mean it that way, but you really need to rethink that. "She is a sexual object"...really? People are subjects of sexuality not objects. If you view people as sexual objects, then you have a serious problem that you need to address. And no, because someone has a gender and sexual parts does not make them objectively sexually attractive to everyone because someone is attracted to them. That makes no sense. This is what you said previously: Quote And I wasn't just talking about someone else, although I'm sure there is always at least one other person who considers that person sexually attractive. I was talking about a whole sex of people, whether men or women. Again, gender is not sexually attractive...individuals are. 1
Ahab Posted July 11, 2018 Posted July 11, 2018 3 minutes ago, pogi said: Ya, I don't think that helped![/quote] What I said didn't help you to understand and agree with me, apparently, but if it maybe helps somebody else then I will say it was helpful. 3 minutes ago, pogi said: You really need to quit with the objectively sexually attractive for everyone routine. It doesn't make any sense. That is like saying that because one person thinks that sushi is delicious, that sushi is therefor objectively delicious for everyone. Nonsense. The only objective thing that can be said about sushi is that some people find sushi delicious, but that sushi is not delicious for everyone. It is the same with sexual attraction. You remind me of my 34 year old son. When he doesn't like something, particularly in regard to food, he will say it is yucky. Regardless of the fact that other people like it. Like mustard on hamburgers. He says it is yucky. Period. As if his subjective opinion is objective reality. I keep trying to straighten him out but so far it hasn't helped him to understand, or at least it doesn't seem to have helped him to understand. 3 minutes ago, pogi said: What? Perhaps you didn't mean it that way, but you really need to rethink that. "She is a sexual object"...really? People are subjects of sexuality not objects. If you view people as sexual objects, then you have a serious problem that you need to address. The word "object" when used as a noun doesn't necessarily have any negative connotations. Even when referring to people as sexual objects. Consult a dictionary and seek professional help as needed. 3 minutes ago, pogi said: And no, because someone has a gender and sexual parts does not make them objectively sexually attractive to everyone because someone is attracted to them. That makes no sense. I agree that what you said doesn't make any sense, but what you said is not what I said. Try to read it again. Maybe what I said will be more helpful to you the more you read what I wrote. Read it 3 times a time for 3 days and then get back to me for your report. 3 minutes ago, pogi said: This is what you said previously: Again, gender is not sexually attractive...individuals are. Individuals are of one sex or another. Male or female. Therefore, if a person is attractive, the are thus sexually attractive because of the fact that they are either male or female.
pogi Posted July 11, 2018 Posted July 11, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Ahab said: You remind me of my 34 year old son. When he doesn't like something, particularly in regard to food, he will say it is yucky. Regardless of the fact that other people like it. Like mustard on hamburgers. He says it is yucky. Period. As if his subjective opinion is objective reality. I keep trying to straighten him out but so far it hasn't helped him to understand, or at least it doesn't seem to have helped him to understand. You are trying to "straighten out" your 34 year old son who thinks mustard on hamburgers is "yucky"? This is so weird on so many levels. I don't know what to say to that. He obviously means for him. That is HIS reality, and you really should respect HIS reality and not try to set him straight with some mythical objective reality that mustard is delicious! This is so absurd to me that you continue on with this train of thought. You are trying to say that it is objectively true that mustard is delicious because some people like it? Well, there are some people who don't like it...so why isn't it objectively true that it is "yucky"? Why are you picking sides? Why is only one preference objectively true, and what does that even mean? You see, by making subjective experience objectively true or false, you automatically invalidate the real experiences of others, and that is not fair. 1 hour ago, Ahab said: Individuals are of one sex or another. Male or female. Therefore, if a person is attractive, the are thus sexually attractive because of the fact that they are either male or female. Well, there are more than just male and female, both chromosomally speaking (there are more than just XY and XX) and phenotypically speaking (some people have more than just one or the other), but that is another thread. That last sentence is total nonsense! Gender is only a part of what leads to sexual attraction and does not objectively make someone sexually attractive. Sexual attraction is much more fluid then you make it out to be. I am not attracted to an entire gender. I am attracted to individuals, and even individually speaking it is very fluid. Most of the time I am sexually attracted to my wife, but some times I am not at all sexually attracted to her. It really depends on the dynamics of our relationship at the time. You see, there is so much more in play than just gender. It is subjective and fluid, and not objective and static. Edited July 11, 2018 by pogi 2
cinepro Posted July 11, 2018 Posted July 11, 2018 On 7/10/2018 at 10:24 AM, Ahab said: And I also think you are underestimating how sinful the majority of the world's population considers sexual relations between people of the same sex to be. Despite what you see on TV shows and some movies, the majority of the world's population considers sexual relations to be something they should do only with people of the opposite sex. Only a very small minority of the world's population consider sexual relations between people of the same sex to be a good thing to do. Your information on what the trends are for worldwide acceptance of homosexuality might be a little out of date: http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/06/04/the-global-divide-on-homosexuality/ Quote The survey of publics in 39 countries finds broad acceptance of homosexuality in North America, the European Union, and much of Latin America, but equally widespread rejection in predominantly Muslim nations and in Africa, as well as in parts of Asia and in Russia. Opinion about the acceptability of homosexuality is divided in Israel, Poland and Bolivia. If this survey data is correct, then it does raise interesting questions about the future of the Church. While growth in Africa appears to be good, I'm not sure I would pin the future of the Church on success in "predominantly Muslim nations" or Asia and Russia.
Ahab Posted July 11, 2018 Posted July 11, 2018 1 hour ago, pogi said: You really need to quit with the objectively sexually attractive for everyone routine. It doesn't make any sense. That is like saying that because one person thinks that sushi is delicious, that sushi is therefor objectively delicious for everyone. Nonsense. The only objective thing that can be said about sushi is that some people find sushi delicious, but that sushi is not delicious for everyone. It is the same with sexual attraction. Attempt # 137: What I am saying is not what you are saying, and I will illustrate with your sushi example. What I am saying is like saying that because one person thinks that sushi is delicious that sushi is therefore delicious, Not delicious to everyone on the subjective level, but delicious on the objective level based on the fact that it is considered to be delicious by at least one person. That is what that means in objective reality. And the same is true with sexual attraction as well. If a person is considered to be sexually attractive by anyone, then that person is considered sexually attractive in objective reality, regardless of the fact that not everybody thinks so on a subjective level. And I think everyone should be able to acknowledge that on an objective level. If someone is sexually attractive, according to the spiritual awareness of at least one person, then than person is sexually attractive even though not everybody can see that.
cinepro Posted July 11, 2018 Posted July 11, 2018 On 7/10/2018 at 9:59 AM, smac97 said: Right. And the Church didn't die on either. That's my point. The Church found a solution to the polygamy problem and the Priesthood ban. It ended them. It seems to me that in the coming years and decades, the Church's policies about homosexual behavior and families will become a bigger problem, especially when it comes to retaining younger members and attracting new ones. But I don't see a similar "out." It seems the current strategy is to try have it both ways and stick to the traditional prohibitions while pretending everything is fine (see: this thread). But I don't think that's going to hold up indefinitely.
pogi Posted July 11, 2018 Posted July 11, 2018 2 minutes ago, Ahab said: Attempt # 137: What I am saying is not what you are saying, and I will illustrate with your sushi example. What I am saying is like saying that because one person thinks that sushi is delicious that sushi is therefore delicious, Not delicious to everyone on the subjective level, but delicious on the objective level based on the fact that it is considered to be delicious by at least one person. That is what that means in objective reality. And the same is true with sexual attraction as well. If a person is considered to be sexually attractive by anyone, then that person is considered sexually attractive in objective reality, regardless of the fact that not everybody thinks so on a subjective level. And I think everyone should be able to acknowledge that on an objective level. If someone is sexually attractive, according to the spiritual awareness of at least one person, then than person is sexually attractive even though not everybody can see that. I will simply repeat what I have already said: Quote This is so absurd to me that you continue on with this train of thought. You are trying to say that it is objectively true that mustard is delicious because some people like it? Well, there are some people who don't like it...so why isn't it objectively true that it is "yucky"? Why are you picking sides? Why is only one preference objectively true and not the other, and what does that even mean? You see, by making subjective experience objectively true or false, you automatically invalidate the real experiences of others, and that is not fair. Quote And the same is true with sexual attraction as well. If a person is considered to be sexually attractive by anyone, then that person is considered sexually attractive in objective reality ...to that person, but not to the whole. You cannot generalize individual and subjective experience to a common objective reality. Your reality is not mine. 1
Ahab Posted July 11, 2018 Posted July 11, 2018 4 minutes ago, pogi said: You are trying to "straighten out" your 34 year old son who thinks mustard on hamburgers is "yucky"? This is so weird on so many levels. I don't know what to say to that. He obviously means for him. That is HIS reality, and you really should respect HIS reality and not try to set him straight with some mythical objective reality that mustard is delicious! I am trying to teach him that he doesn't speak for everybody when he asserts his subjective opinion. And it bothers me a bit because he will say it while knowing that I like mustard on my hamburger. And yet his only comment is that it is yucky. He won't acknowledge that I don't think it is yucky. 4 minutes ago, pogi said: This is so absurd to me that you continue on with this train of thought. You are trying to say that it is objectively true that mustard is delicious because some people like it. Well, there are some people who don't like it...so why isn't it objectively true that it is "yucky"? Why is only one preference objectively true, and what does that even mean? You see, by making subjective experience objectively true or false, you automatically invalidate the experiences of others. Okay, finally, now we seem to begetting somewhere. I hope you are ready for this. As I've been saying or at least hinting at already, objective reality is all about how something is from every perspective, not limited by particular subjective perspective. So while it is true that everybody is sexually attractive if at least one person thinks so, so too is everybody not sexually attractive if at least one person doesn't think so. But the agreements and dissents do not cancel each other out. One can say someone is sexually attractive with that being true on the objective level, and one can also say someone is not sexually attractive with that also being true on the objective level. So I am not invalidating anyone's experiences or observations, unlike you are when you suggest someone is not sexually attractive just because everybody doesn't think so. 4 minutes ago, pogi said: Well, there are more than just male and female, both chromosomally speaking (there are more than just XY and XX) and phenotypically speaking (some people have more than just one or the other), but that is another thread. That last sentence is total nonsense! Gender is only a part of what leads to sexual attraction and does not objectively make someone sexually attractive. Sexual attraction is much more fluid then you make it out to be. I am not attracted to an entire gender. I am attracted to individuals, and even individually speaking it is very fluid. Most of the time I am sexually attracted to my wife, but some times I am not at all sexually attracted to her. It really depends on the dynamics of our relationship at the time. You see, there is so much more in play than just gender. It is subjective and fluid, and not objective and static. I'll give you some time to rethink and retract your nonsensical comments. You may now see that you agree with me more than you thought you did before now.
smac97 Posted July 11, 2018 Author Posted July 11, 2018 6 minutes ago, cinepro said: That's my point. The Church found a solution to the polygamy problem and the Priesthood ban. It ended them. By revelation, yes. And the Church's solution regarding same-sex marriage was likewise revelatory. And in a sense, it "ended" a problem that existed prior to 2015 by clarifying the status of same-sex marriage in the Church. 6 minutes ago, cinepro said: It seems to me that in the coming years and decades, the Church's policies about homosexual behavior and families will become a bigger problem, especially when it comes to retaining younger members and attracting new ones. Perhaps. But the Church has previously been encouraged to jettison the Book of Mormon, claims of prophets and continuing revelation, temples, and a host of other things that make us - in the eyes of some - look "weird" or otherwise unpalatable. And yet the Church has been chugging along with all of these things. We're a half-century into the Sexual Revolution. I imagine factions of our society thought that the Mormons "outdated" teachings about the Law of Chastity would not resonate with "younger members" and "new ones" who were otherwise likely to buy into generalized notions of "free love," promiscuity, unmarried sex, etc. And yet the Church has done fairly well during the Sexual Revolution. 6 minutes ago, cinepro said: But I don't see a similar "out." I'm not sure the Church needs an "out." Or wants one. The Church is teaching the Law of Chastity. The Church has taken the most compassionate and accommodating positions it can regarding sexual misconduct. It may well still cause offense and result in problems "retaining younger members and attracting new ones." We've seen that before (see John 6). But I think we'll get along just fine. 6 minutes ago, cinepro said: It seems the current strategy is to try have it both ways and stick to the traditional prohibitions while pretending everything is fine (see: this thread). But I don't think that's going to hold up indefinitely. Not sure what you're talking about here. This thread is discussing a donation by the Church to address gay suicides. That's hardly indicative of the Church "pretending [that] everything is fine." And the Church isn't "try[ing] [to] have it both ways," either. The 2015 policy changes are clear evidence of that. Thanks, -Smac
Ahab Posted July 11, 2018 Posted July 11, 2018 22 minutes ago, cinepro said: Your information on what the trends are for worldwide acceptance of homosexuality might be a little out of date: http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/06/04/the-global-divide-on-homosexuality/ Nope, what I said is still the current view now. People today are simply more tolerant of other people having sexual relations with people of the same sex. The majority still considers opposite sex relations to be the right way for them to do it. 22 minutes ago, cinepro said: If this survey data is correct, then it does raise interesting questions about the future of the Church. While growth in Africa appears to be good, I'm not sure I would pin the future of the Church on success in "predominantly Muslim nations" or Asia and Russia. I think the majority of Church members will always believe there is a right way to do things while being tolerant of people who don't know the difference. We try to teach others that we know the right way and that others can learn the right way through prayer and study, but pretty much the only right thing we can do until others learn the difference is tolerate it when others haven't figured out what is right yet. And even people in Asia and Russia have people who really want to learn the right way, even when people around them do the wrong things.
cinepro Posted July 11, 2018 Posted July 11, 2018 4 minutes ago, smac97 said: I'm not sure the Church needs an "out." Or wants one. The Church is teaching the Law of Chastity. The Church has taken the most compassionate and accommodating positions it can regarding sexual misconduct. It may well still cause offense and result in problems "retaining younger members and attracting new ones." We've seen that before (see John 6). But I think we'll get along just fine. -Smac This is definitely a situation where only time will tell. I'm guessing that as time goes on things will get a lot worse (i.e. declining active membership). But I could be wrong and the Church will get along just fine (i.e. continue to maintain the current levels of active membership, or even grow). Either way, it's an interesting situation. 1
kllindley Posted July 11, 2018 Posted July 11, 2018 3 hours ago, pogi said: And I would withdraw any disagreement if your interpretation of his comments is correct. Yeah, oh boy. I think my interpretation was not accurate. I still think that there are valid criticisms of the way we talk about attraction and attractiveness. But I'm not going to keep trying to explain the arguments Ahab is making, because I'm not sure that I understand, or that I care to. 2
Ahab Posted July 11, 2018 Posted July 11, 2018 22 minutes ago, kllindley said: Yeah, oh boy. I think my interpretation was not accurate. I still think that there are valid criticisms of the way we talk about attraction and attractiveness. But I'm not going to keep trying to explain the arguments Ahab is making, because I'm not sure that I understand, or that I care to. No interest at all in trying to understand my view that everybody is a person and that as a person either a male or a female and thus every person is a sexual person and also sexually attractive to at least somebody, huh. Well, okay. I think I can relate a little bit. I don't care to reduce everyone down to a P or a V with any sexual attraction meaning that I want to have sexual relations with everybody just because I consider everybody to be sexually attractive, either. And that's not something I have ever had a problem with, personally, either, unlike some people who seem to think that is what it means to be sexually attracted to someone. I usually don't even see a person's P or V when I look at them, and yet I consider everyone to be sexually attractive in some way despite that..
kllindley Posted July 11, 2018 Posted July 11, 2018 3 minutes ago, Ahab said: No interest at all in trying to understand my view that everybody is a person and that as a person either a male or a female and thus every person is a sexual person and also sexually attractive to at least somebody, huh. I think my comments have been quite clear that I agree that every person is worthy of love, including sexual and romantic interest. I have also agreed that whether or not I personally experience any physiological response or attraction to a particular person, I can apprectiate their beauty and value as a child of God who is worthy of love, including sexual and romantic interest. I can even sort of understand your "objective" point, by applying it to the reverse. I would disagree with anyone who tried to claim that a particular person is categorically unattractive. That would be a false generalization. The fact that some other person may find them attractive makes that statement untrue. But this is where I think you get off base. Claiming that someone is categorically attractive is also an erroneous generalization. I think it would be fair to say every person has the capacity to be attractive. Or as I have said is worthy of love, including sexual and romantic interest. 16 minutes ago, Ahab said: No interest at all in trying to understand my view that everybody is a person and that as a person either a male or a female and thus every person is a sexual person and also sexually attractive to at least somebody, huh. Well, okay. I think I can relate a little bit. I don't care to reduce everyone down to a P or a V with any sexual attraction meaning that I want to have sexual relations with everybody just because I consider everybody to be sexually attractive, either. And that's not something I have ever had a problem with, personally, either, unlike some people who seem to think that is what it means to be sexually attracted to someone. I usually don't even see a person's P or V when I look at them, and yet I consider everyone to be sexually attractive in some way despite that.. I'm not trying to argue with or minimize your experience. As an individual who experiences attraction to people or both sexes, I can somewhat relate. But I also am pretty selective in what I time attractive in either gender. Most often that is not what "society" says is attractive. But I'm not sexually attracted to the vast majority of the human population, even as I can recognize that every person is worthy of love, including sexual and romantic interest. Some people are homophobic, i.e very uncomfortable with the idea of acknowledging beauty and attractiveness in anyone of their own gender. BUT, I don't think that is what is happening with most people. Sexual attraction is highly conditioned by personal experience and societal narratives. Most people (80% generally, although recent studies indicate as few as 50% in younger generations) simply do not experience any sexual attraction to individuals of the same gender. 3
pogi Posted July 11, 2018 Posted July 11, 2018 1 hour ago, Ahab said: Okay, finally, now we seem to begetting somewhere. I hope you are ready for this. As I've been saying or at least hinting at already, objective reality is all about how something is from every perspective, not limited by particular subjective perspective. So while it is true that everybody is sexually attractive if at least one person thinks so, so too is everybody not sexually attractive if at least one person doesn't think so. But the agreements and dissents do not cancel each other out. One can say someone is sexually attractive with that being true on the objective level, and one can also say someone is not sexually attractive with that also being true on the objective level. 1 hour ago, Ahab said: So I am not invalidating anyone's experiences or observations, unlike you are when you suggest someone is not sexually attractive just because everybody doesn't think so. If you think I am invalidating someone else's personal experience by saying that sexual attraction is subjective, then you have no clue... By calling it subjective, I am validating their experience! Maybe you have forgotten, but you already have invalidated my personal experience. Let me re-jog your memory. I said: Quote Attraction seems rather subjective to me, we probably shouldn't make it an objective thing where there is a "problem" if someone does or does not find someone else attractive. Quote It sounded to me like you were saying that is a problem that I only see females as sexually attractive, knowing that you find both men and women sexually attractive. I am simply saying, I personally don't, and that is not a problem. Attraction is subjective. Quote If your only point is that each sex is attractive to someone...well, that goes without saying You said: Quote I was saying it is a problem not only for you to see ONLY women as sexually attractive, but also for anyone else to see ONLY one sex as sexually attractive. So yes it is a problem that you see only one sex as sexually attractive, since as a matter of fact, both sexes are. And my point is not only that each sex is attractive to someone, but that each sex is actually sexually attractive. You see! I clearly stated that I "personally" do not find men sexually attractive, and you said, "that is a problem". You said it is a problem that I don't see them as sexually attractive...that is invalidating of my experience. 1
Ahab Posted July 11, 2018 Posted July 11, 2018 (edited) 33 minutes ago, kllindley said: I think my comments have been quite clear that I agree that every person is worthy of love, including sexual and romantic interest. I have also agreed that whether or not I personally experience any physiological response or attraction to a particular person, I can apprectiate their beauty and value as a child of God who is worthy of love, including sexual and romantic interest. I can even sort of understand your "objective" point, by applying it to the reverse. I would disagree with anyone who tried to claim that a particular person is categorically unattractive. That would be a false generalization. The fact that some other person may find them attractive makes that statement untrue. But this is where I think you get off base. Claiming that someone is categorically attractive is also an erroneous generalization. I think it would be fair to say every person has the capacity to be attractive. Or as I have said is worthy of love, including sexual and romantic interest. I think if you clearly understood what I refer to as the objective viewpoint then you probably would agree with me. It's simple for me to understand but perhaps I'm not explaining it well when I say it is the collective perspective without limits from particular subjective perspectives. The overall view. I am saying someone can and should be considered categorically attractive only when there is at least one person who sees that person as being attractive. That is what makes that person someone who is considered to be attractive. The fact that someone sees them as an attractive person. Even if other people do not see that person that way, the fact that one person does clinches it. One subjective viewpoint added to the collective viewpoint with the subjective viewpoint not being tossed out or rejected or cancelled out by any dissent. Quote I'm not trying to argue with or minimize your experience. As an individual who experiences attraction to people or both sexes, I can somewhat relate. But I also am pretty selective in what I time attractive in either gender. Most often that is not what "society" says is attractive. But I'm not sexually attracted to the vast majority of the human population, even as I can recognize that every person is worthy of love, including sexual and romantic interest. Some people are homophobic, i.e very uncomfortable with the idea of acknowledging beauty and attractiveness in anyone of their own gender. BUT, I don't think that is what is happening with most people. Sexual attraction is highly conditioned by personal experience and societal narratives. Most people (80% generally, although recent studies indicate as few as 50% in younger generations) simply do not experience any sexual attraction to individuals of the same gender. Yeah, I know, some people do not see what some other people can see, but nevertheless, whatever can be seen should not be rejected or tossed out just because some other people can't see it. Maybe it would help if you made it more personal, or less personal, maybe. Suppose you consider your spouse to be an attractive person, and you do regardless of whether or not anyone else does. I am right here with you saying she must be attractive, even if only because you (and I) think so, because your subjective opinion is then included in the collective assessment and objective viewpoint about whether or not she is attractive. And those who don't agree with us do not alter that objective reality. She is, even if other people don't think so. Edited July 11, 2018 by Ahab
Ahab Posted July 11, 2018 Posted July 11, 2018 (edited) 27 minutes ago, pogi said: If you think I am invalidating someone else's personal experience by saying that sexual attraction is subjective, then you have no clue... By calling it subjective, I am validating their experience! I am also validating their experience by saying it is part of objective reality. That their subjective experience matters and is included in the overall objective perspective. You don't seem to be doing that, invalidating that part of reality. Quote Maybe you have forgotten, but you already have invalidated my personal experience. Let me re-jog your memory. I said: You said: You see! I clearly stated that I "personally" do not find men sexually attractive, and you said, "that is a problem". You said it is a problem that I don't see them as sexually attractive...that is invalidating of my experience. No, I get what you're saying. You're just not considering that subjective reality to be a part of objective reality. You agree in part, but you do not agree on the whole. Edited July 11, 2018 by Ahab
kllindley Posted July 11, 2018 Posted July 11, 2018 17 minutes ago, Ahab said: I think if you clearly understood what I refer to as the objective viewpoint then you probably would agree with me. It's simple for me to understand but perhaps I'm not explaining it well when I say it is the collective perspective without limits from particular subjective perspectives. The overall view. I am saying someone can and should be considered categorically attractive only when there is at least one person who sees that person as being attractive. That is what makes that person someone who is considered to be attractive. The fact that someone sees them as an attractive person. Even if other people do not see that person that way, the fact that one person does clinches it. One subjective viewpoint added to the collective viewpoint with the subjective viewpoint not being tossed out or rejected or cancelled out by any dissent. But again, you only accept that logic one way. Only in the positive of the attraction. That is like saying that if one person finds mustard on hamburgers disgusting, then it objectively is. Your subjective viewpoint that it is delicious does not change that objective viewpoint. I guess the logically consistent position would be to accept that mustard on a hamburger is objectively both disgusting and delicious, but the contradiction renders that observation functionally meaningless. 2
kllindley Posted July 11, 2018 Posted July 11, 2018 21 minutes ago, Ahab said: Maybe it would help if you made it more personal, or less personal, maybe. Suppose you consider your spouse to be an attractive person, and you do regardless of whether or not anyone else does. I am right here with you saying she must be attractive, even if only because you (and I) think so, because your subjective opinion is then included in the collective assessment and objective viewpoint about whether or not she is attractive. And those who don't agree with us do not alter that objective reality. She is, even if other people don't think so. Again I can sort of agree, but not fully. I don't think it is useful to talk of her "attractiveness" as though it were an actual quality that is up for any sort of objective debate. The attractiveness is not something that my spouse "possesses" or "is." It is something that I (and other people) may perceive. The lenses through which we see the world will greatly impact whether we are capable of accurately perceiving her. But neither of our perceptions define or determine her qualities. I think the issue is more related to worthy of love, including sexual and romantic interest. 2
Ahab Posted July 11, 2018 Posted July 11, 2018 8 minutes ago, kllindley said: But again, you only accept that logic one way. Only in the positive of the attraction. No, I accept both positions, although I usually only mention the issue from my subjective perspective. I'm usually aware that not everybody shares my subjective perspective.. 8 minutes ago, kllindley said: That is like saying that if one person finds mustard on hamburgers disgusting, then it objectively is. Your subjective viewpoint that it is delicious does not change that objective viewpoint. I guess the logically consistent position would be to accept that mustard on a hamburger is objectively both disgusting and delicious, but the contradiction renders that observation functionally meaningless. Articulating ideas should be a consideration. Sometimes we don't use enough words. For example, someone who says mustard on hamburgers is yucky should realize that other people think it is good. And after receiving a reminder from someone who likes mustard on hamburgers he could articulate objective truth more completely by saying something like, "Okay, I think mustard on hamburgers is yucky, although I realize you think it is good". And then we could both appreciate the objective perspective. I can like mustard on hamburgers while he thinks it is yucky , knowing it is both good and yucky depending on the subjective perspectives. There would be no need to argue that it is only one way or the other. It is both, objectively, and subjectively it is a matter of preference.
pogi Posted July 11, 2018 Posted July 11, 2018 19 minutes ago, kllindley said: But again, you only accept that logic one way. Only in the positive of the attraction. That is like saying that if one person finds mustard on hamburgers disgusting, then it objectively is. Your subjective viewpoint that it is delicious does not change that objective viewpoint. I guess the logically consistent position would be to accept that mustard on a hamburger is objectively both disgusting and delicious, but the contradiction renders that observation functionally meaningless. Indeed! To his defense, Ahab is consistent on both sides. He responded to this after pressing him on the issue: Quote As I've been saying or at least hinting at already, objective reality is all about how something is from every perspective, not limited by particular subjective perspective. So while it is true that everybody is sexually attractive if at least one person thinks so, so too is everybody not sexually attractive if at least one person doesn't think so. But the agreements and dissents do not cancel each other out. One can say someone is sexually attractive with that being true on the objective level, and one can also say someone is not sexually attractive with that also being true on the objective level. To which I responded: Quote Not only does it render objective truth functionally meaningless, but it makes it a total contradiction in itself. According to Ahab's logic, it is both objectively true and false that women/men are sexually attractive. So if a person is not attracted to men, they are both right and wrong in saying that men are not attractive - yet he seems to insist that I am only wrong, but not also objectively right. Terribly convoluted logic! And he still seems to be stuck on this idea that gender itself is sexually attractive. 1
Ahab Posted July 11, 2018 Posted July 11, 2018 4 minutes ago, pogi said: According to Ahab's logic, it is both objectively true and false that women/men are sexually attractive. Isn't that the result of your logic too, though. Someone thinks someone is attractive while someone else doesn't think so. It can't be both true and false, according to you, can it? Or can it? 4 minutes ago, pogi said: So if a person is not attracted to men, they are both right and wrong in saying that men are not attractive - yet he seems to insist that I am only wrong, but not also objectively right. Terribly convoluted logic! And he still seems to be stuck on this idea that gender itself is sexually attractive. pogi, my friend, you need to become a better student and articulator of language. You do realize there must needs be opposition in all things, don't you? It is common and routine for people to not agree with each other, depending on their own subjective perspectives. And on issues which are largely a result of subjective perspectives, like whether or not someone is considered to be sexually attractive, you should expect to hear both Yes and No answers instead of everyone agreeing with each other, with the objective perspective in those situations indicating that not everyone is in agreement. Thus, you should expect both Yes and No answers, rather than only one or the other.
pogi Posted July 11, 2018 Posted July 11, 2018 (edited) 27 minutes ago, Ahab said: Isn't that the result of your logic too, though. Someone thinks someone is attractive while someone else doesn't think so. It can't be both true and false, according to you, can it? Or can it? No, my logic states that there is nothing objective about sexual attraction. Period. It could be said that it is objectively true that Sam so and so does not find men attractive, but that is NOT to say that it is objectively true that men are not attractive. And it can be said that it is objectively true that Suzy so and so does find men attractive, but that is NOT to say that it is objectively true that men ARE attractive. Men are not objectively attractive to me because Suzy thinks they are subjectively attractive to her. That is madness! 27 minutes ago, Ahab said: You do realize there must needs be opposition in all things, don't you? It is common and routine for people to not agree with each other, depending on their own subjective perspectives. And on issues which are largely a result of subjective perspectives, like whether or not someone is considered to be sexually attractive, you should expect to hear both Yes and No answers instead of everyone agreeing with each other, with the objective perspective in those situations indicating that not everyone is in agreement. Thus, you should expect both Yes and No answers, rather than only one or the other. Of course there is opposition!!! That is the nature of subjective experience, which cannot be extrapolated into some holistic objective truth that is both true and false for everyone. It is "yes" for some, and "no" for others - that is what is meant by opposition in all things, not that it is both objectively yes and no for everyone. Edited July 11, 2018 by pogi 1
smac97 Posted July 11, 2018 Author Posted July 11, 2018 Dear Ahab and Pogi, Could you take your discussion about sexual attraction elsewhere (as in outside of this thread)? Thanks, -Smac 1
pogi Posted July 11, 2018 Posted July 11, 2018 (edited) 17 minutes ago, smac97 said: Dear Ahab and Pogi, Could you take your discussion about sexual attraction elsewhere (as in outside of this thread)? Thanks, -Smac You don't find the discussion stimulating? Well, others do, so you must extrapolate their subjective opinion into the collective objective whole and accept the truth that this subject is actually objectively stimulating to you too Just kidding. I am happy to be done with it actually. Sorry for the derail, sometimes I can't resist but to scratch an itch. Edited July 11, 2018 by pogi 2
Recommended Posts