Bernard Gui Posted February 29, 2020 Posted February 29, 2020 6 hours ago, Calm said: Or they may not see it as destroyed, but adapting. Explain, please?
Anijen Posted February 29, 2020 Posted February 29, 2020 12 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said: Holy crap! Now, you've got me curious! Any chance you could find the citation? P.S.: Is the chimpanzee going to sue me for using his likeness without his permission? [Added:] Is the macaque going to sue me for calling him a chimpanzee? Just check out Calm's post right before my previous post. She has posted a link with all the citations and commentary and that wiki link also has citations in its footnotes.
Bernard Gui Posted February 29, 2020 Posted February 29, 2020 6 hours ago, Meadowchik said: I would say that the taboo against incest is itself an adaptation. Not only does it favor healthier gene pools, but also the value of human beings having individual rights and identities. It's very basic, and it is imo why it is so important that incest is prohibited. Even when the participants are adult and capable of consent? These seem to be some of the rejected arguments that were used to oppose same-sex marriages. 1
Calm Posted February 29, 2020 Posted February 29, 2020 (edited) 40 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: Explain, please? I was thinking in terms of all divorces, what amounts to legal destruction of a family, as well as the situations that are obviously emotional destructions even if legally the family is intact (such as abuse resulting in very damaged children). I think some do not accept their actions as destroying a family if they believe family members are happier and/or the relationships are still there in some form (though they may be fooling themselves about happiness). They may see the 'nuclear family' unit as no longer the focus, but a new extended family serving the same purpose. While I see it as a family being destroyed, new families may be formed that are beneficial (in the case of incest, I have strong doubts this is possible unless those involved are not aware of the relationship). Edited February 29, 2020 by Calm
Meadowchik Posted February 29, 2020 Posted February 29, 2020 32 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: Even when the participants are adult and capable of consent? These seem to be some of the rejected arguments that were used to oppose same-sex marriages. I'm saying that consent is compromised.
Bernard Gui Posted February 29, 2020 Posted February 29, 2020 51 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: I'm saying that consent is compromised. Do you get to make that decision for them?
Meadowchik Posted February 29, 2020 Posted February 29, 2020 (edited) 24 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: Do you get to make that decision for them? I would hope courts and legislative bodies make that decision if necessary. Edited February 29, 2020 by Meadowchik
Bernard Gui Posted February 29, 2020 Posted February 29, 2020 (edited) 39 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: I would hope courts and legislative bodies make that decision if necessary. Love is love, no? Time will tell. It’s already being tested. Edited February 29, 2020 by Bernard Gui 1
Meadowchik Posted February 29, 2020 Posted February 29, 2020 (edited) 38 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: Love is love, no? Time will tell. It’s already being tested. Let the world burn now that you don't like gay marriage, eh? I hope that more rational minds prevail, at least those who will plant trees that will never bear them fruit or give them shade, but will for future people. Let those people and hopes prevail. Edited February 29, 2020 by Meadowchik
mfbukowski Posted February 29, 2020 Posted February 29, 2020 On 2/26/2020 at 9:42 AM, smac97 said: This is correct. I am not saying incest "is a part of same sex dating, etc." AFAICS, nobody is saying that. Thanks, -Smac All Faceless Animals I Consider Stupid? How many more can I dream up........? Anti-Factual Analysis of In-Coherent Stuff? Hmmm, let's see....
mfbukowski Posted February 29, 2020 Posted February 29, 2020 2 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: Let the world burn now that you don't like gay marriage, eh? I think, however, rational minds prevail, at least those who will plant trees that will never bear them fruit or give them shade, but will for future people. Let those people and hopes prevail. I am not understanding where that phrase "but will for future people" applies. I am even having trouble with how the "people who plant trees" fits as well. In your analogy, who would be the people who plant trees for future people? Sorry for being so dense.
mfbukowski Posted February 29, 2020 Posted February 29, 2020 42 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: Love is love, no? Time will tell. It’s already being tested. The course of evolution awaits.....
Meadowchik Posted February 29, 2020 Posted February 29, 2020 2 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: I am not understanding where that phrase "but will for future people" applies. I am even having trouble with how the "people who plant trees" fits as well. In your analogy, who would be the people who plant trees for future people? Sorry for being so dense.
Calm Posted February 29, 2020 Posted February 29, 2020 6 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: All Faceless Animals I Consider Stupid? How many more can I dream up........? Anti-Factual Analysis of In-Coherent Stuff? Hmmm, let's see.... As far as I can say?
mfbukowski Posted February 29, 2020 Posted February 29, 2020 9 hours ago, Meadowchik said: I would say that the taboo against incest is itself an adaptation. What behavior is not? How does that enlighten the discussion? I suppose I should just crawl back under the bridge at this point.....
mfbukowski Posted February 29, 2020 Posted February 29, 2020 1 minute ago, Calm said: As far as I can say? Dang you are smart!
Meadowchik Posted February 29, 2020 Posted February 29, 2020 1 minute ago, mfbukowski said: What behavior is not? How does that enlighten the discussion? I suppose I should just crawl back under the bridge at this point..... Probably a good idea! I elaborated, in the same post and many different times in the thread. (Did read what you erased?) K, guys, with this inanity, I'm outta this one. Thanks.
mfbukowski Posted February 29, 2020 Posted February 29, 2020 2 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: But how does that apply to SSM and reproduction? Or did I totally blow it? I can see how people could be planting the idea of SSM for the future, but then ..... It is already legal, and those who planted the seeds can already see the results. Yet again did I arrogantly think I could come into the middle of a discussion, analyze it in 30 seconds and replying without even thinking about it?
mfbukowski Posted February 29, 2020 Posted February 29, 2020 2 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: Probably a good idea! I elaborated, in the same post and many different times in the thread. (Did read what you erased?) K, guys, with this inanity, I'm outta this one. Thanks. Sorry I edited my post while you were posting this. Yes I admit I came in the middle and simply reacted. Sorry. I have a bit of an omniscience delusion, if it is one.
mfbukowski Posted February 29, 2020 Posted February 29, 2020 9 minutes ago, Calm said: As far as I can say? TALTWAGA Thanks a lot that was a great answer. I kind of like this abbreviation stuff, The only problem is that it makes communication hard. (crawling back under the bridge)
Bernard Gui Posted February 29, 2020 Posted February 29, 2020 37 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: The course of evolution awaits..... If we are talking about survival of the species, there may have to be some evolving about the way children are conceived.
Bernard Gui Posted February 29, 2020 Posted February 29, 2020 (edited) 52 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: Let the world burn now that you don't like gay marriage, eh? I hope that more rational minds prevail, at least those who will plant trees that will never bear them fruit or give them shade, but will for future people. Let those people and hopes prevail. Let the world burn? Right. Liking gay marriage has nothing to do with it. Burn, baby, burn. Shaking the bushes here, boss. Planting the trees here, boss. Edited February 29, 2020 by Bernard Gui
mfbukowski Posted February 29, 2020 Posted February 29, 2020 (edited) 46 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: If we are talking about survival of the species, there may have to be some evolving about the way children are conceived. A central point John Dewey implies in all his work is that the environment changed us in pre-history but now the environment is so much influenced by humanity, that we have created our own environment now, and essentially interact as organisms with an environment we have constructed ourselves. We live in houses with HVAC, shop at supermarkets, drive cars etc. So there is now pretty much only this continuing interplay between humans and human creation. Knowingly or unknowingly, we are the captains of our own evolution. Occasionally we might get hit with a plague or some other catastrophe, but our first reaction to such events is "How are we going to fix this?" Where's that vaccine we need? Where's the earthquake warning system? Do we worry about carbon emissions or not? We take it for granted that WE are in charge on this planet, and there is a fix for everything. Earth falls apart? Where is the nearest earth-like planet? Sun explodes? Well it better wait until we have warp drive. And so even there we send out Voyager with a record of who we are to testify of our existence. Now THAT is a missionary effort! But this is one of the reasons I converted- I already believed that mankind has actually created itself in this way. Others wonder if we created God or God created us- in a way the same idea I think. We bridge the gap with our Human God organizing - not creating out of nothing, but ORGANIZING existent matter the way we humans are wont to do, to create our worlds without end. Every world is a context- the world of science, the world of religion, and on it goes. We create language and language creates us in return. I hope my avatar symbolizes that- I see it, yes, as a self-portrait of Picasso, but it is abstract and clearly not a picture of "nature" but Picasso himself is making the same conclusion I am making here- that he created even the style within which he represents himself! He becomes Everyman with that statement, the universal human organizer. That same interplay we have with the environment exists within our notions of God. Raising that notion to the level of religion became quite easy for me. It gives my life meaning and an understanding of my place in the universe. So now here we are evolving ourselves, but we still don't know what we want to be. One would think that would be something we all want to think about. But of course we are all thinking about getting our house and a car and a belly full of beans instead, and what the next Marvel movie will bring us about their imaginary world. Edit: One source other than moi: https://www.iep.utm.edu/dewey/ Quote John Dewey was a leading proponent of the American school of thought known as pragmatism, a view that rejected the dualistic epistemology and metaphysics of modern philosophy in favor of a naturalistic approach that viewed knowledge as arising from an active adaptation of the human organism to its environment. On this view, inquiry should not be understood as consisting of a mind passively observing the world and drawing from this ideas that if true correspond to reality, but rather as a process which initiates with a check or obstacle to successful human action, proceeds to active manipulation of the environment to test hypotheses, and issues in a re-adaptation of organism to environment that allows once again for human action to proceed. With this view as his starting point, Dewey developed a broad body of work encompassing virtually all of the main areas of philosophical concern in his day. He also wrote extensively on social issues in such popular publications as the New Republic, thereby gaining a reputation as a leading social commentator of his time. Edited February 29, 2020 by mfbukowski 2
mfbukowski Posted March 1, 2020 Posted March 1, 2020 On 2/27/2020 at 4:42 PM, ttribe said: That being said, I am an advocate for the general banning of the use of latin terms on this board, henceforth and forever. You mean of course, "per omnia saecula saeculorum". Look it up- it's a very LDS concept that can't easily be translated. 1
The Nehor Posted March 1, 2020 Posted March 1, 2020 On 2/28/2020 at 10:38 PM, Kenngo1969 said: Holy crap! Now, you've got me curious! Any chance you could find the citation? P.S.: Is the chimpanzee going to sue me for using his likeness without his permission? [Added:] Is the macaque going to sue me for calling him a chimpanzee? Yeah, I know the story. I assumed you knew that photo from hearing about the case.
Recommended Posts