iNow

And I'm wondering why you're mixing reference frames like this. How is "an innate attraction toward a specific sex" supposed to be in your words "the very same thing" as disliking others for who they happen to feel attracted to? That doesn't follow... If my preference and general like of a specific ice cream flavor like vanilla is innate, that is in no way related to other feelings of dislike I may have for other humans due merely to them preferring chocolate. In fairness, it was Charon not MigL who introduced this in context of which sexes we happen to feel more attracted to along the purely heterosexual/purely homosexual spectrum... MigL was just taking that as given, but asking why the dislike of others for their sexuality should be any different.

Wait, I thought the thread was about evolving a hatred of people who love or desire differently than we do. When did the goalposts move to homosexuality itself being nature vs nurture?

What got selected was ability to be a member of a cohesive social group and tribally identify us versus them. What did not get selected was a phobia of people who love or feel attraction differently than we do. The core issue is many cultures decided (often for religious reasons) that LGBTQ etc. aren’t welcome as part of their ingroup. They’ve been shunned and classified as an outgroup. And evolution selected for humans who in groups experienced higher cohesion and communal shared burdens by exhibiting ingroup/outgroup behaviors, including those which have nothing whatsoever to do with reproduction, desire, or self-identity.

I suspect the answer here aligns quite well with the idea of Maslows hierarchy of needs. If me and my kids are starving, the only future we care about or have the mental capacity to consider is our next meal, as well as where and how we will find it. If we’re dying of thirst, then the entirety of our future thoughts become contained within a glass of water. Thinking beyond today is, put simply, a luxury. Thinking beyond the winter about the pure potential of and plans for a coming spring is a luxury. Thinking beyond the current year or about the possibilities life might introduce to us a decade from now is a luxury. Thinking beyond my current life is an escape, a distraction that takes conscious effort and transports us into a fictional land safe from the very nonfiction problems of today. Thinking beyond my great grandkids and their lives? That’s also an escape, and it‘s the type of escape which requires a manner of forecasting that itself requires practice and training and reflection. Generally, we think about the things which will bring us calm and comfort. We chew on cognitive puzzles in our minds and sort their pieces into stable buckets and compartments. Put simply, we think the themes which squeeze our dopamine machines. If you find yourself having the time and energy to think about a future world left to your great great grandkids, though? Well, then I hope you’re also finding time to feel grateful for experiencing such a convenient life of luxury without scarcity in the today. With all that said, IMO the very best of people are those that plant trees whose shade they’ll never sit in, so let’s do more of that.

Globalization isn’t the root cause of collapsing ecosystems. Hydrocarbons as a power source lobbied for by the mega wealthy and well connected are. Doing business with each other in other countries and looking for lower supply costs is also not the root cause of rapidly accelerating global drought, growing loss of arable lands for farming, and the involuntary migration in search of survival which inevitably follows. Arguments like these only make sense IMO when one looks passed the myriad nonsequiturs and logical leaps of faith. It’s like believing in the tooth fairy, and some people have thankfully matured beyond that.

And yet despite you now here again putting your fingers in your ears and saying “la-la-la-la-la-la I can’t hear you,”it almost certainly was.

Yes. You already said the same thing a week ago and it's already been addressed: Thanks btw for all the neg reps.

Like earth itself used to be. Well done. +1

It’s the name of the dance we do when my favorite band, The Quantum Mechanics, are playing down at the Fizzy Physics entertainment hall. The place is so disordered, though, it really saps our energy as we heat over time.

I’m not impressed by the self-evidently false subtly camouflaged racism on display here

Boredom?

I don’t care what you believe Neither does nature

Thrusters place it there. It was a target specifically shot at by engineers. "At Lagrange points, the gravitational pull of two large masses precisely equals the centripetal force required for a small object to move with them. These points in space can be used by spacecraft to reduce fuel consumption needed to remain in position." https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/resources/754/what-is-a-lagrange-point/

Better than even you did, of course. 🙄

“My point was brilliant but my readers the opposite.” Lol

Derp. My bad. Yeah, I knew that. Kindly please disregard. Darned near forgot we even have a folder for Sculptures Made of Almonds: https://www.scienceforums.net/forum/110-sculptures-made-of-almonds/

Exploring what even is “the media” in todays tiktok twitter-fi instameta world could be a fun topic to explore (not this thread) if the right people came to it with the right emotional energy. /OTObservation

Wait, what? This place has folders?!? Since when? They’re the same thing. Are you familiar with Dissociative Identity Disorder, formerly known as multiple personalities? He will move closer to those abilities through practice and time. And more practice. Over more time. It sort of is just called life.

When I doo doo, think I made it number 2 /rimshot I’m in town all week, folks. Next show’s at 10. Be sure to tip your servers. False. Every. Single. Word that you EVER read is being interpreted by YOUR mind in an attempt to “divine” what the authors mean or may have meant to say. Given how needlessly hard the above exchanges with you here have been, however, I’m beginning to accept that maybe you “cannot” in fact do that, at least not terribly well sometimes. Not even when defining what it even means to “reproduce” a result, or follow the same methods, or decide upon a threshold for acceptable equivalence in starting conditions or operations?

No, because it’s a false premise. We DO understand a LOT about the “thinking of our brain.” Perhaps you meant YOU don’t or can’t understand? Which thoughts? There are many, generally with different causes. Lol. We’ve been able to do exactly that for decades. One can only hope.

Wait, what exactly do you need me to explain for you? I’m picking up on your anger, just not why it’s aimed at me.

Sure did, but that doesn’t negate the fact that you clearly have taken a slanted view of the positions of other posters here and felt justified in analogizing those with such an exaggerated and hyperbolic comparison. Getting back to my question which you evaded by asking a new question if your own: Do you believe that stance applies to or represents anyone posting here in this thread, and if so, who? If not, then why post it at all?

Affirmative Do you believe that’s a good faith summary of any single posters position here in this thread? Thanks for adding this. Searching for a path forward toward progress with you here: Is it possible you’re conflating the concept of a value judgment with the output of an arithmetical or algebraic equation?

In calling that practice objective, that’s where. The value judgment that it’s “good,” for starters.