Dissily Mordentroge

From one perspective we might be able to say homosexuality exists in nature, however we need to be certain of our definitions. Our species for instance often suffers the delusion of homosexuality/ heterosexuality being mutually exclusive states. Lock enough males of our species away on a sailing ship or in goal and you'll soon find how these rigid definitions start to blur at the edges. Certainly many males who indulge in such opportunistic adventures would often prefer to be with women but knowing that doesn't explain how these 'hard up' (excuse the pun) blokes somehow manage to find it in themselves to be turned on by another male. Or as Feud I think it was claimed, we are all potential deviants.

Fair enough. It's just my dim level of comprehension. I find it difficult to know if what I read in publications such as New Scientist concerns theoretical postulates or actual observations. The addiction physicists have for 'elegant' maths also puzzles me but then again that's more a problem of my perspective than theirs. I appreciate your patience in explaining these questions.

When you say space is quantifiable as a field does 'quantifiable' imply measurements taken or only a theoretical postulate?

Yes, 'universal expansion' is a confusing phrase. Here I reveal my almost total ignorance of field theory and the fact I probably shouldn't be wasting anyone's time on a forum such as this. I find myself wondering about the space within atoms themselves and if this is, or is not, part of the universal expansion. Is it the case the space between a nucleus and it's electrons is a 'space' of a particular kind not subject to this 'universal expansion' and if not why do we not observe each atom expanding or more peculiarly, space within that field 'leaking out' .

Yes but the old question isn't answered. If all your standard measuring devices and all the entities (on every scale) you are attempting to measure are expanding at an equal rate, how would you ever know?

Why is it an underlying presumption that aliens, presuming them to be a plural group, must necessarily arrive by travelling through space as we know it? Why can't we consider a large range of other possibilities such as intelligent 'life' unlike anything we can imagine could have been with us all along standing back and watching the show? Maybe they/he/she/it set this show up? Maybe they'd simply find us too boring to be bothered with? Maybe they'll soon decide to harvest us as food? The list could go on and on but from my perspective it's pointless as any notion we can 'prepare for them' constitutes extaordinary vanity of an unscientific kind.

But what precisely does 'time' mean in this context? All fascinating questions but I doubt I'll live long enough to see the answers, if any. If the answer to your last question is the case we're going to have some really big problems with basics such as measurement.

Far more important life No, you have intended to make a political point while misusing science. Not enough information exists in your "reductum ad absurdum" argument. No, I understood you quite well. The problem was you stated your position poorly. You have now changed your initial statement and inserted a brand new "not natural" argument. All you have adequately defended is the "not natural" argument, but you have failed to argue away the "abomination" argument. Nature is full of actions that would be abominations if practiced by mankind.... and actually ARE abominations when practiced by mankind. Can we accept for now psychology is as yet an immature science? Intance, what understanding do we have of our species almost universal joy at being 'naughty'? Given such naughtiness is more often than not a culturally induced attitude we still don't fully understand why 'being bad in the bedroom' is so much of a turn on for so many. Interestingly the data suggests ( no I can't put my finger on peer reviewed studies just now) behaviours such as sadomasochism/ masochism are more often than not the province of the religious. Reminds me of a recent trip to a middle eastern country where homosexuality is punishable by stoning to death. I have never encountered a more thriving gay bath house scene than there, not even San Francisco in the 1960's before the AIDS epidemic. Fear as an aphrodisiac? As to the validity of discussing these issues on a forum where scientific evidence is meant to back assertions I suggest at this point in time we are unable to explain many of our species behaviours fully. But hey, many of our specie's behaviours, not just in the bedroom, defy any logical analysis. Nowadays that is no guarantee of respectability.

Not to worry, our species will soon enough self - destruct.

By claiming our species deserves to survive we could be indulging in the ultimate self delusion. Imagine our kind surviving to colonise other galaxies then recall our behavior in colonial times. Should other species out there welcome our survival and spread?

Morals are a mental artefact, therefore subjective? An extraordinary assertion. Take per example your ability to read, extract meaning and respond to a post on this thread. Apart from the physical act of typing ( and neurologists will question even that) any such process/processes can be described as a mental artefact/s. If therefore we take your assertion as given, your response is subjective and therefore may be dismissed. Whilst realising this is a discussion forum, which has rules, and one of the rules is to stay on topic, it's possible posters hold differing notions of what that topic actually is. For instance, the central term 'morality' can be defined in many different ways. For instance, many streams of Christianity regard particular practices we indulge in our bedrooms as subject to strict moral rules whilst others claim such behaviours are outside the province of moral consideration. Or to put it as Ronald E Merril does in describing Ayn Rand's theory of concepts in his 'The Ideas of Ayn Rand' (pub'l Open Court1991 Page 94) "Is there such as thing as a correct definition of a concept? The most commonly held modern view is that there is not; a definition is an arbitrary convenience. This ' nominals/conceptualist' or Humpty-Dumpty school of thought holds that definitions need only be consistently maintained during a particular discussion. Just as Americans drive on the right side of the road, the British on the left, a concept such as 'bird' may be defined as a feathered animal, or as an egg laying animal. As long as everyone who is using the definition ( or the road0 agrees to accept a particular procedure, the exact procedure chosen is of no importance. Opposed to this is the 'realist' school of thought, in it's pure Platonic or diluted Aristotelian variants, which hold that there is only one correct definition of a given concept. What though, could give this 'essence' of the concept it's special validity? The 'essence' is real in this view - it actually exists, as a Platonic form or some such entity. Rand rejects both these approaches. As she describes it, the nominalist regards definitions as arbitrary; there is no 'essence' of a concept. The realist postulates the actual existence of the essence; essence is metaphysical. For Rand, definitions are not arbitrary - there is and essence -but the essence is not metaphysical but epistemological. Though concepts are in the mind, they are not arbitrary because they reflect reality, which is objective. Now, why should anyone bother with all this? Rand's answer would be that philosophy is practical. The nominalist view assumes the thinking is a matter of detached, abstract debate. It is a game, and the only requirement of the rules is that they be self consistent and agreed by all players. But for Rand, thinking is man's means of survival, and it's rules are absolutely critical. If you pick the wrong way to define a concept, it may not just be 'Well, that's an interesting way to look at the subject'; it could kill you. "