Just Plain Ruff Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 You know Ruff.. you are really very sweet. don't tell the Mrs. But seriously, I know Santa aint real but my kids believe he's real. My daughter is terrified of those jolly ole fat guys dressed up in red suits but when she see's Santa on TV she's like "SANTA SANTA SANTA". My son is on the cusp of not believing but he still plays the part. I get a gift (given by me to me) from Santa every year. Last year it was a laptop, this year, it's something better, usually taken from my christmas bonus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DwayneEMTP Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 ...Homosexuality being aberrant: There is actually a large amount of homosexual behaviour in many different species, from "flings" to life-long pair bonding. So I can't really see how homosexuality can be considered to be against nature when it is so widespread in nature. It is certainly not a human only thing... Excellent post. I think you made great points without ever relying on political correctness to shore them up...not an easy thing to do in this day and age. Question though, on the above quote. As disease, starvation, and cruelty are also found throughout the human as well as the non human world, do we then allow them, or in fact embrace them because they are not aberrant? Each of those things might be said to be physically beneficial to human evolution, but how so with homosexuality if there is no procreation to be effected? Notice that I said physically, as it's certainly possible that there is a mental societal evolutionary element that isn't readily evident or quantifiable. And I do have a really, really weak personal theory, developed over the many, many....seconds of typing this post for the physical as well. Now, you nor anyone else should feel the need to be kind to me on this. This is a curiosity only, as I'm about as competent at discussing human evolution as a deflated soccer ball quoting Shakespeare, I'm just curious. And to those for which it may not be evident. In no way do I associate homosexuals with disease, nor believe that they should be eradicated or treated in any way other than I would treat any of my other human brothers and sisters. The point is for debate only, it's certainly not my intention to promote shallow and intolerant thinking, at least any more than my tiny intellect allows me to avoid purposely doing such things. Man, what a great thread! I know we've gone a bit off track, and I know many hate these threads, but I believe that the logic used to navigate these issues is not so different than we use to navigate medicine and it's physiological/legal/political ramifications. In that I find not only a ton of intellectual value...but man, it's also just fun to debate with folks that came to debate without wearing their hearts on their sleeves. Thanks all... Dwayne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vorenus Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 Question though, on the above quote. As disease, starvation, and cruelty are also found throughout the human as well as the non human world, do we then allow them, or in fact embrace them because they are not aberrant? Each of those things might be said to be physically beneficial to human evolution, but how so with homosexuality if there is no procreation to be effected? In which other species do you see cruelty? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Plain Ruff Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 Look at the hierarchy in chimpanzee populations, they go as far as to murder members of their group. I don't remmeber where I saw this but there was a nature documentary that showed just that, the group killing a member. It was particularly brutal. Even I went "WHOA" I think that there are others. I also don't think homosexuality is a disease, that designation is for those who do not understand the entire issue. Do I think they need to be eradicated, well thats just preposterous. but there is procreation involved in homosexuality. I have a lesbian couple who just had a baby. The "Mom" was impregnated with a friends sperm. She had a healthy boy. There was procreation but without the sex. Look at Melissa Etheridge as well, didn't she have David Crosby's baby via artificial insemination? Or was it the otehr partner of Melissa's who had the baby, can't remember. So should Lesbian and gay's not be allowed ot have kids, many people would say NO they should not but in an enlightened society with kids by the thousands who aren't wanted what's wrong with gays having kids? If the Octomom can have kids I see no issue with anyone else having them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DwayneEMTP Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 In which other species do you see cruelty? Man, great question. If cruelty requires that the giver and receiver understand the abstract thought, or have the feelings of being treated cruelly as opposed to simply being treated in accordance with a rule of nature, then I can't think of any. Intuitively I was thinking of a cat playing with a mouse before it eats it, or a pack of dogs ganging up and killing another dog with no intentions of eating it.... Point taken...I'm no longer sure... Dwayne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaisu Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 As you have already figured out.. the cat is not "playing". The cat will not get close enough for the prey to harm it until the prey is good and dead. Those bats are designed to elicit defensive behavior from the pray, causing it to expend energy and weaken. When its no longer "fun" - the prey is good and dead.. it is safe for the cat to eat. However, how "intentional" is cruelty in humans? We only call it cruelty because we believe that as sentient human beings, the cruel "should" be thinking about what they are doing and recognize it as "cruel" based on our and our society's general acceptance of what is cruel is. I have yet to meet a criminal (except for the psychotic) that didn't think that they were a good person. What is one man's cruel is another man's survival strategy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vorenus Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 Man, great question. If cruelty requires that the giver and receiver understand the abstract thought, or have the feelings of being treated cruelly as opposed to simply being treated in accordance with a rule of nature, then I can't think of any. Intuitively I was thinking of a cat playing with a mouse before it eats it, or a pack of dogs ganging up and killing another dog with no intentions of eating it.... Point taken...I'm no longer sure... Dwayne As stated already from CP, this kind of behaviour may seem cruel to us, but to the animal, it`s a survival strategy. May it be for nutirition purposes, the training of the hunt, or the hardening of a position in a social group. There`s a defined sense behind it. Whereas actions taken by humans that we define as cruel, don`t have such an intention behind it (as an act of survival). Hate crimes are propably the best example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaisu Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 Whereas actions taken by humans that we define as cruel, don`t have such an intention behind it (as an act of survival). Hate crimes are propably the best example. Not necessarily physical survival, but survival of the ego state... scratch hate - find fear loathing and despair.. usually of oneself.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vorenus Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 Yeah, but in the most cases when it comes to animals, a loss off their social position is also a possible threat to their lifes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Plain Ruff Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 Yeah, but in the most cases when it comes to animals, a loss off their social position is also a possible threat to their lifes. the more I think about it, the chimpanzee being killed was because he lost the top spot in the pack. So the others killed him because he was no longer top chimp. Maybe it was revenge for his cruelty to them or something like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts