In your mind what would you say as to why people find incest disgusting as opposed to homosexuality?
The disgust of this and that sexuality
Posts
Total:
29
I dont know.
People have opinions?
-->
@Mall
In your mind what would you say as to why people find incest disgusting as opposed to homosexuality?
They would (and did) find homosexuality just as disgusting without cultural training.
There appears to be an automatic (instinctual) disgust of any sexual practice not in the cultural lexicon. For instance on-the-mouth kissing predictably disgusted people who were not raised in a culture where that was practiced.
It is interesting to see how the human mind tries to rationalize the irrational to make itself feel better. They'll always come up with an excuse when the true cause is just that it turns their stomach and they don't know why it should.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
it looks like u r simply saying that society's views on sexuality depends on the culture. if that's the case, a bigger question is... what should be our sexual standards, if any?
-->
@n8nrgim
it looks like u r simply saying that society's views on sexuality depends on the culture.
Eh, more like society's views = culture in this context.
I'm saying culture is generally a self-reinforcing vortex. In other words, the reason most people believe most things is because they perceive most other people as believing those things already.
Very few people have principles, even fewer have rational principles (principles they can explain and justify logically).
In this context that instinct causes serious drag to any kind of pull on the equilibrium because outliers are shamed and ostracized even more than normal.
I'm also saying that if by some unpredictable series of events a previously unusual (but objectively victimless) sexual practice became normalized that disgust would die in the crib as it currently does for kissing and homosexuality.
if that's the case, a bigger question is... what should be our sexual standards, if any?
Wrong question IMO.
Society needs to agree on laws. The rest can sort itself out by free association.
The question is what should our laws about sexual behavior be? My answer is the same answer I give for everything: People have a right to liberty. If the behavior does not impede the liberty of others threatening force to stop it cannot be justified.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
They would (and did) find homosexuality just as disgusting without cultural training.
I was raised in a very homophobic society.
Sadly for the homophobic society which teaches children to hate gays,
The cultural indoctrination is not something which can control those of high intellect.
In fact, those of high intellect quickly learn that people around them are idiots and you are supposed to use your own thinking as opposed to repeating what you were taught.
Thats why those of high intellect are usually the ones who approve of homosexuality.
In fact, those of high intellect are able to use reason to conclude that even if they find homosexuality disgusting, that is no reason to attack homosexuals, because reasonable people dont act on small feelings like animals do.
-->
@Mall
In your mind what would you say as to why people find incest disgusting as opposed to homosexuality?
Evolution’s basic mechanism is “survival of the fittest”, and because incest is more likely to produce defective offspring with lower degrees of fitness, you would expect natural mechanisms for incest avoidance to develop.
-->
@Mall
In your mind what would you say as to why people find incest disgusting as opposed to homosexuality?
Evolution’s basic mechanism is “survival of the fittest”, and because incest is more likely to produce defective offspring with lower degrees of fitness, you would expect natural mechanisms for incest avoidance to develop.
-->
@Sidewalker
In your mind what would you say as to why people find incest disgusting as opposed to homosexuality?Evolution’s basic mechanism is “survival of the fittest”, and because incest is more likely to produce defective offspring with lower degrees of fitness
And yet speciation and breakthrough adaptation is often accomplished during population bottlenecks.
Small gene pools quickly purge damaging recessive traits. Large gene pools do not. A small gene pool (above a certain size) will only have a problem with recessive traits for a very short amount of time.
It's very rare for any species to fail to reproduce if incest is an option reflecting this fact.
Now contrast that to homosexuality if you want to actually answer the question. If incest produces defective offspring (again not really true in the grand scheme of evolution), then homosexuality produces no offspring and should be reviled as well.
Oh wait... it was; in many independent cultures.
So what was your theory again?
-->
@Mall
In short.
Responses are conditioned.
So if one is conditioned to think that A is worse than B, then one will generally default to that position.
Legal and consensual constraints accepted, I personally do not consider any act of sexual congress disgusting.
Rather, just a choice made by consenting individuals.
Even in cases of illegal and non-consensual acts I would not default to a position of "disgust"...Such is my conditioning.
Where does "disgust" comes on a general scale of reference?
Sort of, just before repulsive and quite a way after nice.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Needy much?
-->
@n8nrgim
The sexual standards are apparently governed by the human body with all its sexual functionality.
-->
@zedvictor4
Are we conditioned, those that are to think that homosexuality is just as functionally fruitful as heterosexuality?
If no sexuality is disgusting, this would include pedophilia, necrophilia, scatophilia, etc.
-->
@Sidewalker
"Evolution’s basic mechanism"
There's serious conflict with this explanation.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
So you're all about liberty, freedom to do just whatever, is that right?
-->
@Mall
"Evolution’s basic mechanism"There's serious conflict with this explanation.
You want to be a little more specific?
-->
@Mall
So you're all about liberty, freedom to do just whatever, is that right?
You figured me out. Congratulations. Surprisingly few do despite the name I choose.
-->
@Sidewalker
No. What you said was total conflict. Survival of the fittest.
Homosexuality and surviving the race don't inherently belong in the same context. It's conflicting.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Ok so what is the point of just having the freedom to do whatever?
What good is it?
-->
@Mall
Ok so what is the point of just having the freedom to do whatever?What good is it?
What is good?
Let's assume X is your answer.
You just answered X. You choose X. Let's call X your values.
Everybody has values, everybody chooses their values. A mind without values is a vegetable or a computer terminal.
Individual values can (and probably are) complicated. There is one part of each that must be there in order for those values to be coherent (not contradict each other). That part is the valuing your own ability to choose values.
There is no such thing a consensual rape, there is no such thing as a voluntary slave, and there is no such thing as a mind which does not value it's own freedom.
The question that converts this ironclad conclusion to social morality is the choice to value the freedom of others as equivalent to your own.
It is the only concept that gives me a reason to let you pursue your own idea of the good. If you don't agree with me on freedom, you are nothing but a threat.
Threats are dealt with by war, war is violence and deception, but moreover war is the opposite of cooperation. Cooperation brings prosperity, which may not be something you care about; but I don't hope to share values with savages who love chaos, poverty, fear, and disunity.
So what good is it? It is the foundational good of society and civilization. No other social good or virtue is possible without it.
-->
@Mall
Certain sexual acts are collectively considered to be anti-social and are outlawed.
These sorts of acts will attract descriptive labels appropriate with their appointed status.
Just as homosexual acts once did.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
"The question that converts this ironclad conclusion to social morality is the choice to value the freedom of others as equivalent to your own.
It is the only concept that gives me a reason to let you pursue your own idea of the good. If you don't agree with me on freedom, you are nothing but a threat."
For what point, what does it matter?
"It is the foundational good of society and civilization. No other social good or virtue is possible without it."
It's like when Jesse Lee says I think "you're giving me non answers".
They're abstract or circular. What good is it?
You can explain what good is. But why is it good?
Why is it good for me, anybody?
For anybody to do what they want any ole way?
Now if you're going to put restraints on this, it is not really all about liberty. As all liberty is no good. If that is the aim to have some good in the world.
As Jesse would say " smoke on it".
-->
@zedvictor4
I do agree that certain sexualities will need the taboos ripped off, arguments made for , petitions made for just like homosexuality/same sex marriage.
-->
@Mall
You can explain what good is. But why is it good?
Because good requires it.
Now if you're going to put restraints on this, it is not really all about liberty
If the restraints are from the liberty of others it's still all about liberty.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Circular ok.
Re-evaluate your stance.
-->
@Mall
Circular ok.
It is not.
Re-evaluate your stance.
No one has ever been able to debunk this logic. If you want to be the first, you'll need to do better than "think again".
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
It's circular. You didn't explain anything. You couldn't explain why it's good for me , anybody to do anything any ole kind of way because the desire is there.
Then it appears that you're conveying restraints so it's a pseudo liberty. If it has some restraints and that's one part of it that makes it good then complete liberty is not good by your indirect omission.
That's why I say re-evaluate. See you can tell when a position has been well thought out because the answers to the questions aren't shallow.
Then it appears that you're conveying restraints so it's a pseudo liberty. If it has some restraints and that's one part of it that makes it good then complete liberty is not good by your indirect omission.
That's why I say re-evaluate. See you can tell when a position has been well thought out because the answers to the questions aren't shallow.
It's circular.
It is not.
You didn't explain anything.
I did.
You couldn't explain why it's good for me
I gave you the formulation. You're only failing to follow the logic because you haven't answered the question: What is good?
anybody to do anything any ole kind of way because the desire is there.
The good is liberty, not what other people do with it.
Then it appears that you're conveying restraints so it's a pseudo liberty.
Is gravity only gravity if there is one mass in the universe?
You're saying "Look there are points in space where gravitational pulls cancel each other out, it's pseudo-gravity"
You're denying a valid theory for invalid semantic reasons.
If it has some restraints and that's one part of it that makes it good then complete liberty is not good by your indirect omission.
Only if you choose to define "complete liberty" as liberty at the expense of the liberty of others. That's like defining "complete nutrition" as all the food in the world going to one organism and then declaring "So complete nutrition is not good"
That's why I say re-evaluate.
I always evaluate arguments. You have to make one, I've already evaluated every counter-argument I (or anyone I explained this to) could think of long ago.
See you can tell when a position has been well thought out because the answers to the questions aren't shallow.
Shallow questions get shallow answers.
Case closed.
Still responding in shallow circular statements.