Are gay rights, including gay marriage, evolving?

Pentax D-FA* 70-200mm f/2.8 ED DC AW

01/21/2010 06:40:23 PM · #4176

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
... and that evolution works though a process which is suffering.

I never said that.

"We're biological animals with nervous systems sensitised to pain and social behaviour that helps us survive but that, together with other evolutionary factors, paves the way for ingroup/outgroup behaviour that causes suffering."

Did I misinterpret?

K3Master

Pentax K-3

01/21/2010 06:42:08 PM · #4177

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
... and that evolution works though a process which is suffering.

I never said that.

"We're biological animals with nervous systems sensitised to pain and social behaviour that helps us survive but that, together with other evolutionary factors, paves the way for ingroup/outgroup behaviour that causes suffering."

Did I misinterpret?

The way I see the statement is that suffering is merely a part of the process, not THE process.

01/21/2010 06:42:36 PM · #4178

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

But you are, without apparently even realizing it, because you're ascribing YOUR inherent belief of what 'morality' is to what Louis is saying, automatically, and thence the confusion. You haven't been able to truly understand Louis, because your definitions of 'immoral' are so fabulously far apart.

If that's the case, I cannot be held responsible when people start making up their own definitions.

1. violating moral principles; not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics.
2. licentious or lascivious.

01/21/2010 06:43:34 PM · #4179

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
... and that evolution works though a process which is suffering.

I never said that.

"We're biological animals with nervous systems sensitised to pain and social behaviour that helps us survive but that, together with other evolutionary factors, paves the way for ingroup/outgroup behaviour that causes suffering."

Did I misinterpret?

The way I see the statement is that suffering is merely a part of the process, not THE process.

Well, close enough. It is part and parcel. Can you imagine the process WITHOUT suffering?

01/21/2010 06:59:13 PM · #4180

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Well, close enough. It is part and parcel. Can you imagine the process WITHOUT suffering?

Living things try to avoid suffering: pain, disability and death (Louis' position). Evolution favors those with survival traits that reduce suffering (the ability to migrate to new food sources or nesting grounds, thicker skulls or skin to handle mating competition, enduring environments that preclude predators, etc.). The idea that a species would ever succeed in avoiding all suffering is an impossible fantasy that you're making up. It's also irrelevant to the above concept.

Message edited by author 2010-01-21 18:59:56.

01/21/2010 06:59:32 PM · #4181

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

How can I be afraid of death, but resent life at the same time?

I said: The fear of death coupled with wishful thinking results in religion. Whether you personally fear death or not is unknown to me and irrelevant. I never said you feared death. Don't make the mistake of reading sentences not written.

Religionists who foreswear this life for the "next" resent it. It's a resounding "no" to life. I find it unpalatable and undignified. But you needn't worry, this is only a talking point, not part of a debate. I never proposed this as the basis of some argument. But I will say that I can easily give you ten examples of the faithful declaring how worthless and unsanctified this life is compared to the "next". Such disdain for humanity is ugly and dangerous.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

I hope in God because I know that tomorrow he will be there, and when I die he will be there.

You know no such thing.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

If you hope in something material (like your wife), or in something abstract or subjective (like beauty and love), can you prove that those exist, or that they will exist tomorrow?

Yes, I can prove my spouse exists, and I can prove love and beauty exist, and, with a statistical probability that would satisfy even the densest person, I can prove they'll be there tomorrow. Let us not put everyone through the torture of actually conducting such a ridiculous and pointless exercise. Let us just agree that whereas such things are self-evident, God is nowhere evident except through the lens of your faith.

But I never said any of these things were "hopeful", or that "hope" was somehow important to me, or that we even agree on what "hope" is. I would caution you not to read what isn't written. You will make mistakes with your presumptions.

01/21/2010 07:00:58 PM · #4182

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
... and that evolution works though a process which is suffering.

I never said that.

"We're biological animals with nervous systems sensitised to pain and social behaviour that helps us survive but that, together with other evolutionary factors, paves the way for ingroup/outgroup behaviour that causes suffering."

Did I misinterpret?

Yeah. I wasn't talking about suffering, I was thinking more about the evolution and size of the brain as an example. (I've been reading a lot about this lately.)

01/21/2010 07:16:22 PM · #4183

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Well, close enough. It is part and parcel. Can you imagine the process WITHOUT suffering?

Living things try to avoid suffering: pain, disability and death (Louis' position). Evolution favors those with survival traits that reduce suffering (the ability to migrate to new food sources or nesting grounds, thicker skulls or skin to handle mating competition, enduring environments that preclude predators, etc.). The idea that a species would ever succeed in avoiding all suffering is an impossible fantasy that you're making up. It's also irrelevant to the above concept.

I'm not trying to say that at all. I'm saying that without suffering evolution has nothing to do. No genes to weed out. We're all happy. Suffering is there as a genetic hazing to allow only the strongest to survive. How could it be otherwise? And why would we evolve to both participate in the process, but mentally not want to? The two ideas conflict. Finally, why would we consider such a process to be "immoral"? Isn't it more just "it is as it is"? The weak suffer more the strong suffer less. So let it be written. So let it be done.

Message edited by author 2010-01-21 19:38:08.

01/21/2010 07:39:38 PM · #4184

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I'm saying that without suffering evolution has nothing to do.

Evolution wouldn't work without the urge to avoid suffering, either.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

why would we consider such a process to be "immoral"?

We don't:

Originally posted by scalvert:

When Louis et al refers to suffering in terms of morality, he's talking about the actions of people. There will still be suffering in the world in the form of accidents, natural disasters, disease and other tragedy, but those are inherently amoral events unless you assume some magical deity caused them to occur.

01/21/2010 08:03:40 PM · #4185

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

And why would we evolve to both participate in the process, but mentally not want to?

Natural selection is an unavoidable part of life (we don't have a choice), but just because natural stress factors ultimately confer some group benefit doesn't mean we can't wish to avoid or reduce them (like taxes). Suffering induced by people, however, is both avoidable and generally destructive to the group.

01/21/2010 08:08:19 PM · #4186

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm saying that without suffering evolution has nothing to do.

Evolution wouldn't work without the urge to avoid suffering, either.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
why would we consider such a process to be "immoral"?

We don't:
Originally posted by scalvert:
When Louis et al refers to suffering in terms of morality, he's talking about the actions of people. There will still be suffering in the world in the form of accidents, natural disasters, disease and other tragedy, but those are inherently amoral events unless you assume some magical deity caused them to occur.

What? I'm not talking about earthquakes and hurricanes. Aren't our social interactions ultimately a product of our genes? Isn't all our activity merely a giant melee where the fittest survive? When one group of people does something to another group, isn't that evolution at work? The sparring of bears over a mate? The struggle of the penguin to endure the cold? How can you separate any behavior from this process? So if you are calling some of our actions "immoral" (those which cause suffering), you are calling the process of evolution "immoral" which certainly doesn't make sense to me when I try to see it through the non-religious perspective.

Again, I'm not claiming these things. Louis is. And he is currently trying to say, no no no, that's not what I'm saying at all (although his statements are pretty clearly written).

01/21/2010 08:10:59 PM · #4187

Originally posted by scalvert:

Suffering induced by people, however, is both avoidable and generally destructive to the group.

BS. Suffering is generally destructive to those who suffer, but often it makes the group stronger. We see it in animals all the time. Are you saying we are somehow different? Wolves ostracizing the weak? Male lions killing the cubs when they take over the pride? Evolution would see human behavior as exactly the same.

"There is only one moral absolute: suffering is abhorrent. Every nuance of morality proceeds from this. To put it very simply, that which causes suffering is immoral, that which abates suffering is moral."

This is pretty straightforward in what he is saying. It seems like we're now trying to put some shine on a big old turd burger.

Message edited by author 2010-01-21 20:14:17.

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

01/21/2010 08:11:41 PM · #4188

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

So if you are calling some of our actions "immoral" (those which cause suffering), you are calling the process of evolution "immoral" which certainly doesn't make sense to me when I try to see it through the non-religious perspective.

Nobody said anything of the kind.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Again, I'm not claiming these things. Louis is.

No, I'm not.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

And he is currently trying to say, no no no, that's not what I'm saying at all (although his statements are pretty clearly written).

Yes, they are. So go read them.

Matthew

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

01/21/2010 08:14:05 PM · #4189

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

I hope in God because I know that tomorrow he will be there, and when I die he will be there. If you hope in something material (like your wife), or in something abstract or subjective (like beauty and love), can you prove that those exist, or that they will exist tomorrow?

Do you really believe that your God is corporeal in the same way as Louis' wife? This is an astonishing statement to make that really undermines the credibility of your argument.

01/21/2010 08:15:21 PM · #4190

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So if you are calling some of our actions "immoral" (those which cause suffering), you are calling the process of evolution "immoral" which certainly doesn't make sense to me when I try to see it through the non-religious perspective.

Nobody said anything of the kind.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Again, I'm not claiming these things. Louis is.

No, I'm not.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
And he is currently trying to say, no no no, that's not what I'm saying at all (although his statements are pretty clearly written).

Yes, they are. So go read them.

"There is only one moral absolute: suffering is ahorrent. Every nuance of morality proceeds from this. To put it very simply, that which causes suffering is immoral, that which abates suffering is moral."

This is pretty straightforward in what you are saying. I understand you mean human action and not tornados. It seems like we're now trying to put some shine on a big old turd burger.

Message edited by author 2010-01-21 20:17:06.

01/21/2010 08:17:46 PM · #4191

it's so much easier to play offense than defense.

01/21/2010 08:17:48 PM · #4192

Nice. I guess that can end any kind of civil discourse.

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

01/21/2010 08:23:29 PM · #4193

No we can stay civil Louis. I'm just making reference to my post way above from yesterday saying it's much easier to rip down than to defend. I'm finding it much easier today while I'm attacking. That's no black mark on you. It's just the way debate goes.

Matthew

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

01/21/2010 08:29:55 PM · #4194

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

why would we consider [evolution] to be "immoral"?

As a scientist trained in biological matters, surely you understand how evolution works (on text book grounds even if you prefer holy book stories)? I don't understand your insistence on word play on subjects like this - I can only conclude that you are deliberately obfuscating the argument.

It is absurdly clear that evolution is not itself moral - it just *is*. Ultimately, that process has resulted in creatures that intellectualise and commit concepts to imprecise language.

01/21/2010 09:12:04 PM · #4195

Originally posted by Matthew:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
why would we consider [evolution] to be "immoral"?

As a scientist trained in biological matters, surely you understand how evolution works (on text book grounds even if you prefer holy book stories)? I don't understand your insistence on word play on subjects like this - I can only conclude that you are deliberately obfuscating the argument.

It is absurdly clear that evolution is not itself moral - it just *is*. Ultimately, that process has resulted in creatures that intellectualise and commit concepts to imprecise language.

I agree with you Matthew. I think what I am trying to do is say, here are a bunch of statements from Louis. I don't think they jibe because the end result is declaring evolution to be immoral which makes no sense. I'm pointing out the fallacy of a conclusion of an argument. I guess I could give Louis a chance to just start over and reiterate what he thinks. But if it seems to contradict what he has previously said, then either he is shifting his position, or he's not being intellectually honest to the outcomes of his positions.

1) Suffering is abhorrent. (11/18/08..."Suffering is abhorrent.")
2) Actions that lead to suffering are immoral. (11/18/08.." that which causes suffering is immoral")
3) Evolution, among other things, lead to suffering. (1/20/09 "We're biological animals with nervous systems sensitised to pain and social behaviour that helps us survive but that, together with other evolutionary factors, paves the way for ingroup/outgroup behaviour that causes suffering.")

I'm not twisting words. Those are direct quotes. I can let you answer. Given those statments, what are the logical conclusions that can be made and do you agree with them?

Message edited by author 2010-01-21 21:12:40.

01/21/2010 09:12:46 PM · #4196

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

What? I'm not talking about earthquakes and hurricanes.

You effectively were when you launched into this sidetrack to compare a question asking how God can allow suffering in the world.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

How can you separate any behavior from this process? So if you are calling some of our actions "immoral" (those which cause suffering), you are calling the process of evolution "immoral"...

No, he's not. Suffering is abhorrent (living things avoid pain and death as much as possible). That which causes suffering is immoral (people inflicting pain, laws that result in hardship, Gods wreaking disaster), and that which abates suffering is moral. This premise clearly does not extend to amoral pain like exertion or a headache (what you're attempting to do) because morality is not applicable. Evolution itself does not cause sufferingâ�� it allows those that suffer the least to flourish.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Again, I'm not claiming these things. Louis is. And he is currently trying to say, no no no, that's not what I'm saying at all (although his statements are pretty clearly written).

You're missing his point by a cubit.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Suffering is generally destructive to those who suffer, but often it makes the group stronger.

Oppression and discrimination lead to hatred and war. Famine and poverty destabilize governments. Disease lowers productivity and happiness. The group becomes stronger by taking steps to reduce suffering. Similarly, evolution is NOT a cause of suffering, but a direct response to reduce it. The suffering (stressor) must occur first, and then the afflicted species adapts through the survival of individuals best equipped to avoid or cope with it.

Message edited by author 2010-01-21 21:22:41.

01/21/2010 09:19:38 PM · #4197

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I don't think they jibe because the end result is declaring evolution to be immoral which makes no sense.

I never said that. I never implied it. You're hanging your hat on this idea, but it's a non-starter, because nobody suggested it, and nothing said could possibly lead anyone to such a conclusion.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

3) Evolution, among other things, lead to suffering. (1/20/09 "We're biological animals with nervous systems sensitised to pain and social behaviour that helps us survive but that, together with other evolutionary factors, paves the way for ingroup/outgroup behaviour that causes suffering.")

Your interpretation of the quote you provide is wrong, as I've said on several occasions already. Why you keep using it as a way to discredit (poorly) what I've said so far is unknown.

Message edited by author 2010-01-21 21:21:13.

01/21/2010 09:40:24 PM · #4198

Originally posted by Louis:

...nothing said could possibly lead anyone to such a conclusion.

Aren't you responding to someone who reached such a conclusion?

01/21/2010 09:45:48 PM · #4199

I'll let Matthew show me the error of my ways. I have anticipated a possible response so I'll add something (but I would like Matthew to respond to my post above).

It seems like we have this:

evolutionary process -------> human behavior -------> human suffering

Evolution leads to human behavior which leads to human suffering. My question is this: Where exactly is the line on the continuum that we can say "to the right is "immoral" and to the left is "natural process""? and why?

Message edited by author 2010-01-21 21:47:04.