You wont find a manhole in Berkeley anymore

VG

In what way is it ‘reasonable’ can you explain your thinking?

Sorry again you really need to read what is said – I’m pointing out he is using a similar argument to ones that were used by homophobes.

Why do you think it laughable –

6 said - Because you forgot that all animals (including humans) have primal needs that won't change due to some societal, cultural, and technological changes.

I was just pointing out that humans are NOT like other animals we have written laws, constitutions, music, theatre, television and phones, factories, shops, the internet etc

That while humans might have ‘primal’ desires we also often have ‘human made’ laws in place to discourage such things.

And I give lions as an example that if a lion kills another lion there are no lion police to come along and make an arrest, no lion courts or lion prisons.

Do you not understand that?

 

Well this is what he said:

So him saying homosexuality is a naturally occuring phenomenon is "a similar argument to ones that were used by homophobes"

Or do I need to read it again?

Do these lion police wear pants? Or is it like a warner bros cartoon and they just have jackets, maybe a truncheon, and their legs spin around in circles really fast when they chase bad guys

You are basically saying humans dont commit crimes, at least crimes that involve them giving in to their animal instincts......because we have police

????

And no, I dont need to read it again, its just a really dumb thing to say

 

Sigh... here we go again

 

hehe

 

Hey all my stuff is back up by theory.

 

I'd probably listen to a lion cop. He'd look pretty cool in his uniform.

Lion cop is still a pig though.

 

I agree with 6 that human behavior incorporates "primal needs" developed for evolutionary survival purposes. The field of evolutionary psychology (aka sociobiology) elaborates these at some length.

I think Balbus' point was that 6 is using a natural law argument, similar to that used by the Catholic Church and various other conservative Christians against homosexual behavior, to condemn departure from traditional gender roles. Natural law (lex naturalis) is moral law established outside the framework of positive or scriptural law by reasoned inference from observed facts of life. The natural purpose of human sexuality is procreation. Homosexual behavior can't lead to procreation. Therefore, it is wrong, say the natural lawyers. As Saint Augustine of Hippo explained, having sex with a prostitute would be immoral, but at least not "unnatural", since it could lead to children. Of course it's true that if all the world were LGBTQ, humanity would pass out of existence, which may be why most of us aren't naturally inclined that way--even without the need for moral preaching

Six seems to be arguing something similar with traditional gender roles: "The cultures like the ancient Greeks, the Incas, the eskimos, the early Chinese civilizations all had a system where the men were the leaders of the family and the women raised the children. None of these cultures ever met for thousands of years. If gender is a social construct, non-binary people exist, and male and female brains are the same, then why is it no coincidence that all these societies had the same gender roles?" Similar arguments were once also used to justify human slavery. See Aristotle, Politics.

At the heart of this line of thinking is what moral philosophers call the "naturalistic fallacy": the notion that obligations can be derived from natural facts, that "ought" can be derived from "is". Naturalistic Fallacy In order for natural law to be valid, it must be premised on purpose, Divine or human. Saint Paul, Saint Augustine, and Saint Thomas Aquinas saw the facts of nature as indicators of God's plan. But 6 is an atheist, so that won't work. Lon Fuller argued that natural rules of conduct could be derived from shared human purpose or the logical requirements of human institutions. Ronald Dworkin grounds them in accepted moral principles of justice and fairness. Six hasn't yet presented such arguments to us. At best, he suggests an argument based on evolution, but evolution doesn't necessarily have our best interests at heart. Neither our genes nor our memes care about us beyond seeing that we perpetuate their own existence, which is unconcerned with our ultimate satisfaction. (Dawkins, The Selfish Gene). It isn't a biological imperative that men cheat on their wives in order to spred our genes more widely, as some socio-biologists tell us. We can just say no to such inclinations.

 

Bit of a jump to take what 6 said in this thread and try to equate it with the Catholic Church throughout the ages and the meaning in the same way

Evil Knievel over the Grand Canyon kind of jump

 

Not really. Although 6 is not religious the Catholic Church is just as concerned as he is with tradition. It just depends on how you see that tradition. Each thinks without this tradition humanity is lost. He suggested the other day that children saying they don't feel they are their birth gender means an economy will crash using California as an example. That's the same sort of madness the church would say regarding a changing society.

The Bible says women are to have children, never refuse their husbands sexually, and never assume authority over a man. He thinks the same thing. Feminism is bad and women are to submit to men. He feels this is the "right" way for people to live.

 

And he seems to be arguing from the facts of nature to conclusions about what should be--the naturalistic fallacy.

 

The catholic church is just as concerned with tradition as 6 eyed is?

Man, this thread is just a fountain of dumb stuff to make fun of

 

If I'm not mistaken, Six was trying to argue on the basis of evolution that traditional gender roles are natural, biologically determined and should be preserved. That's a natural law argument, isn't it? Have you considered that your inability to follow the argument might be a reflection of your own limitations instead of those you're trying to make fun of? Your fixation on the reference to the Catholic Church, which was mentioned in passing because of its attachment to natural law, suggests that you may have problems focusing on the issue.

 

You said "similar to that used by the Catholic Church"

Unforeskinnedanakin said "the CatholicChurch is just as concerned as he is with tradition."

Either its about my inability to follow the argument supposedly

....or.....

And Im just throwing it out there, its just a dumbass point from both of you. Im focusing on this point because its nonsensical, drawing parrellels between this one atheist on hip forums and an organization that large.

Would have been far better, both of you sound less ridiculous if you actual try to answer his question as to why their werent any matriarchal societes before the industrial revolution

 

Damn dudes, y'all like smoke detectors or something cause y'all annoying as hell and won't shut up.

 

How are we defining this? As I stated before you are 6's perception of women in past societies is not accurate. Plenty of cultures put an importance on women and in general the role of motherhood had more importance then what 6 wants with his incel views. Women give us life. Without them there is no man. It's a concept of respect and love he is unwilling to accpet since I guess some living women don't date him?

Viking culture which I know at least one poster here who agrees with you likes put a HUGE importance on women. They were in battle, they owned property etc. I suppose men and women were equal so not women lead but not the point. Since men and women are equal it's the best leader regardless. Both men and women lead a tribe at that time. This is feminism, an equal place for a women who can handle the job.

 

VG

LOL yes you need to read it again – he is making a similar argument NOT the same argument

I’m not saying he is a homophobe I’m saying he using a type of argument that has been used by homophobes.

Why are you having a difficulty grasping that?

So you thought the image funny it amused you like it was a cartoon BUT you didn’t understand the concept, maybe you need to not just read but think about what’s been explained in the subtext?

Well laws are in place to discourage people from just acting on their baser instincts but I’m saying also that humans are self-aware, to think things through about the actions they can take their behaviour to others.

Actually I say you do need to read things through but this time think about what been said.

 

Okie

Interesting subject and please indulge me this aside.

Well what I do say is that while humans might have ‘primal’ desires we also often have ‘human made’ laws in place to discourage such things. Meaning that humans have the ability to see and try and understand such traits and find ways to understand and control them (internally or externally).

Just because we think one way doesn’t mean we have to act that way – I’ve talked to neoliberals that have argued to me that selfishness and competition are genetically natural traits in humans to support their ideology (and that it is ‘good’ and ‘natural’ to fuck others over) and I’ve met socialist that have told me humans are genetically altruistic to back up their own ideas.

So is someone been selfish because they are genetically predisposed to be so or because they are selfish and is someone been altruistic because of evolution or because they have thought about it and weighted up the arguments and have come to the conclusion that social justice is better for society. I’ve even heard someone argue that people are genetically altruistic but that has to be curtailed because it leads to a ‘dependency culture’.

Sorry I always get nervous when supposed genetic traits start been used to back up purely ‘human’ political stances, my own view is that i think people are able to think beyond their ‘primal needs’

 

LOL, how do you expect me not to make fun of that? I am starting to think you do it on purpose


Fountain of dumb stuff

 

Ok, show me in this thread where he has expressed "incel views"

Cant really respond if you are just going to make stuff up

 

VG

What are you on about now? Come on man could you please stop pissing around and start debating honestly?