Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Obama, Gay Marriage, Original Sin, Founding Fathers, Catholics, and Pearls

Obama, Gay Marriage, Original Sin, Founding Fathers, Catholics, and Pearls (Page 5)
Thread Tools
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 23, 2012, 08:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Are the homosexuals who oppose same sex unions self loathing homophobes?
Maybe they just hate marriage
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 23, 2012, 08:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Are the homosexuals who oppose same sex unions self loathing homophobes?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Valley of the Sun
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 23, 2012, 08:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by gradient View Post
Oxymoron?
¡Viva Cristo Rey!
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 24, 2012, 07:23 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
I'm trying to figure out the whole point of this Will Smith conversation. How does it relate to the conversation about Obama's position on gay marriage? Is it because Chongo has found 1 black guy who reacted strongly to a reporter's forceful kiss on each cheek and that somehow means that the *entire* black community is going to react similarly to Obama's position on gay marriage?
Every now and then, in the PWL, a conversation will twist and turn without 100% adherence to the thread topic. What's bizarre is that several people can react to what is being deemed a diversion attempt, but I can't? I was just noting that the person attempting to kiss Will from what I saw, was not trying to kiss Will on the lips and Will overreacted.

There seemed to be two points of contention here. Can someone claiming "tolerance" be a homophobe? I think so. There seemed to be a question of whether or not this individual in Russia was attempting to sexually assault Will Smith with a kiss on the lips. I didn't see a move for the lips and I think Will overreacted. That's all. Why is Will Smith's skin color important?

The twists and turns generally happen when the most opinionated on a matter have already opined on the matter... a long time ago.
ebuddy
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 24, 2012, 09:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Are the homosexuals who oppose same sex unions self loathing homophobes?
Possibly.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 24, 2012, 09:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Every now and then, in the PWL, a conversation will twist and turn without 100% adherence to the thread topic. What's bizarre is that several people can react to what is being deemed a diversion attempt, but I can't?
My apologies. I didn't intend to direct that at you specifically.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 24, 2012, 09:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Are the homosexuals who oppose same sex unions self loathing homophobes?
Considering how often those strongly opposed to same sex marriage end up being ultra-conservative politicians who are later revealed to be homosexual? Yes.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
May 24, 2012, 11:37 AM
 
Public opinion continues to shift in favor of same-sex marriage, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, which also finds initial signs that President Obama’s support for the idea may have changed a few minds.

Overall, 53 percent of Americans say gay marriage should be legal, hitting a high mark in support while showing a dramatic turnaround from just six years ago, when just 36 percent thought it should be legal. Thirty-nine percent, a new low, say gay marriage should be illegal.

The poll also finds that 59 percent of African Americans say they support same-sex marriage, up from an average of 41 percent in polls leading up to Obama’s announcement of his new position on the matter. Though statistically significant, it is a tentative result because of the relatively small sample of black voters in the poll.
After President Obama's announcement, opposition to gay marriage hits record low - The Washington Post

OAW
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 24, 2012, 11:55 AM
 
I really don't think we even need polls to see that support of gay marriage is on the rise and lack of tolerance for homosexuality on the decline, there is evidence all around us.

Where we are now is not as important as where we'll eventually be. It's just a matter of time.

The question is, who will then become the new gays/blacks/women?
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 25, 2012, 07:09 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I really don't think we even need polls to see that support of gay marriage is on the rise and lack of tolerance for homosexuality on the decline, there is evidence all around us.

Where we are now is not as important as where we'll eventually be. It's just a matter of time.

The question is, who will then become the new gays/blacks/women?
Well... first cousins still won't be able to marry, polygamists still won't be able to marry, Mother won't be able to marry son, Father won't be able to marry daughter and/or son, brother and sister can't marry, and you still won't be able to legally marry an animal. Of course, that's if you accept that gays were the new blacks/women.
ebuddy
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 25, 2012, 08:32 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Well... first cousins still won't be able to marry, polygamists still won't be able to marry, Mother won't be able to marry son, Father won't be able to marry daughter and/or son, brother and sister can't marry, and you still won't be able to legally marry an animal. Of course, that's if you accept that gays were the new blacks/women.
Ah, the slippery-slope argument. I love how in the Global Warming thread you're arguing *against* sky-is-falling/fear-mongering positions, yet here you're more that willing to use them yourself.

(I also like that you position granting rights to blacks and women as the beginning of the slippery slope)
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 25, 2012, 09:37 AM
 
Regarding the incest thing.

Other than potential genetic problems, if a mother and son (or any family relation you choose) didn't know each other until they were adults, why exactly should I object to them being married?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 28, 2012, 03:34 PM
 
Does anyone have an answer here?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 28, 2012, 04:33 PM
 
Basically it's because of the genetic problems. Isn't that sufficient reason?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 28, 2012, 04:45 PM
 
The only way I could ever agree with a incest relationship, that is one with brothers, sisters is if they under go surgery to remove the ability to reproduce. The harm in such a relationship is to any children born from it. I don't agree with any form of incest relationship between parents and children due to the power of influence. First cousins I don't care about. As for bestiality its animal abuse and the risk and harms of introducing new illnesses and viruses into the human population makes it to grave a risk to consider. This is on the sexual relationship side of things.

Now as for civil union side of things, any couple that is dependent upon each other regardless of sexual relationship should benefit from co-habitation laws. If 2 roommates have been living with each other for a long period of time and depend upon each other and one has a benefit package from work for extended medical and the other does not, there is no reason why the one roommate can not add his roommate to that benefit package. He is just as dependent on that roommate as if they are married especially when it comes to income. If the one roommate is sick or is killed, the other roommate still suffers from loss, emotional and financial. A roommate should have as much legal access in a hospital as a family member due to the sharing and dependence relationship they share. Not all will excessive it of course. Some people are roommates and have little or nothing to do with the roommate. Others form close bonds.

This is why when it comes to legal status of property, dependency, rights it should NOT be under marriage but under a civil union. Leave marriage as a symbolic symbol of love between 2 people in the eyes of god or what ever the church or faith the people belong to. Should not have any contractual obligations with it beyond what the church has power over. All partnerships of a domestic nature is regardless regardless of sexual aspects of the relationship is where the legal contracts belong. A unmarried couple that have a kid are automatically bound by parenting obligations and contracts. If a gay couple adopts a kid, the partners together are automatically bound by parenting obligations. Property contracts, assets contracts should all be automatic under a domestic partnership contract after 12 or 24 months of co-habitation. Would be in the benefit of the parties to of that long of co-habitation to formally register a agreement with the details such as what belongs to what, what common and shared items belong to who at the end of co-habitation. In situations of loss employment the responsibilities of care and so forth.

If I died tomorrow my roommate would be absolutely screwed. I made him a benefit of 25% of my life insurance through work for that reason. We have shared pets like the dog. If we went our own ways even though we are roommates that could lead to a conflict of where the dog goes.

In Canada if we where having sex we would be automatically considered domestic partners and could benefit from my extended benefits from work, would legally be required to file taxes jointly as a couple even though we are not married or had any civil unions. This should apply to all long term cohabitants, brothers, sisters, friends...
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 28, 2012, 05:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Basically it's because of the genetic problems. Isn't that sufficient reason?
No. Not really. Not for me at least. I don't see it as any different than someone who has a severe genetic defect in their family history getting married.

Just like in that situation, you have to put serious consideration into whether you should have children, but that's (essentially) a separate consideration from whether you get married or not.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 28, 2012, 05:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
The only way I could ever agree with a incest relationship, that is one with brothers, sisters is if they under go surgery to remove the ability to reproduce.
All it takes for me to "agree" WRT genetics is if they not have children. This is the 21st century, you don't need to be sterilized to accomplish that.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 28, 2012, 06:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
All it takes for me to "agree" WRT genetics is if they not have children. This is the 21st century, you don't need to be sterilized to accomplish that.
But what if they don't cooperate? Talk is cheap, and it's obvious that if there were some requirement to promise to use birth control (which btw is not 100% effective, and god forbid we get into a situation where someone is forced to have an abortion whether they like it or not) in order to marry, people who wanted to marry would say what they had to say in order to get what they want.

If there were more people clamoring for legal incest, this might become a real issue. But I think the reason it's so uncommon is the same reason it would be so difficult to implement: it's innately aversive, and the reason for that is because... it would be so difficult to implement. It's more effective evolutionarily for it to simply be taboo.

The situation is the opposite for gay marriage, of course. There is no need for birth control at all, let alone to prevent the type of genetic disaster it would produce.


Originally Posted by subego View Post
...but that's (essentially) a separate consideration from whether you get married or not.
That's a better argument when the worst case is a healthy baby.
( Last edited by Uncle Skeleton; May 28, 2012 at 06:53 PM. )
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 28, 2012, 10:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
But what if they don't cooperate?
If they're not cooperating, then they are no longer fulfilling my requirements for agreement.

I think you may be conflating "agreement" with "practical law".

Likewise, when you describe incest as "innately aversive", this aversion has very little to do with genetics (unless your claim that an understanding of recessive genes is innate), and everything to social boundaries. These social boundaries are explicitly not being broken in my scenario.

To put this another way, no, the genetics aren't good enough objection on their own. You have to add to that the fact people act irresponsibly, or that 99% of people who commit incest don't fit into my outlier scenario and instead fit into the innately aversive upending of familial boundaries.

Or both.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2012, 05:47 AM
 
Didn't we have this discussion a little while back. I think the conclusion was that if two relatives really want to and neither is taking advantage of the other and they don't have children together then its no big deal, its just "icky".
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2012, 07:00 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
Ah, the slippery-slope argument. I love how in the Global Warming thread you're arguing *against* sky-is-falling/fear-mongering positions, yet here you're more that willing to use them yourself.

(I also like that you position granting rights to blacks and women as the beginning of the slippery slope)
I'm surprised at you. First, no. I was being decidedly opposed to the notion that gays are the new blacks/women and used the other examples to illustrate this absurdity. Secondly, the point was to illustrate that it's not near as much about "tolerance" as it is the cause du jour. Many of the people that champion the right to marry are only championing the rights of gays or straights to marry when there are a host of other disenfranchised, would-be couples that cannot enter the bonds of matrimony, but because they see them as "icky", no-go.
ebuddy
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2012, 07:17 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I'm surprised at you. First, no. I was being decidedly opposed to the notion that gays are the new blacks/women and used the other examples to illustrate this absurdity. Secondly, the point was to illustrate that it's not near as much about "tolerance" as it is the cause du jour. Many of the people that champion the right to marry are only championing the rights of gays or straights to marry when there are a host of other disenfranchised, would-be couples that cannot enter the bonds of matrimony, but because they see them as "icky", no-go.
It's nice of you to determine for others why they're championing gay rights. Was it the "cause du jour" when women's rights were an issue, or blacks? You also keep bringing up this "icky," which says more about you than you apparently realize.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2012, 07:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
It's nice of you to determine for others why they're championing gay rights. Was it the "cause du jour" when women's rights were an issue, or blacks? You also keep bringing up this "icky," which says more about you than you apparently realize.
No, I believe it's a mistake to equate the plights of gays with the plights of blacks who were sold on auction blocks, whipped, hung repeatedly, denied the right to vote, made to plow our fields, build our buildings, and fight our wars and/or women made to bear our children, no ownership, no representation or vote...

With regard to "icky", don't hate the messenger. It's not my fault.
ebuddy
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2012, 11:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Secondly, the point was to illustrate that it's not near as much about "tolerance" as it is the cause du jour.
Complete and utter horsesh!t. If you really believe this, you're a terrible person.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2012, 11:56 AM
 
Some people seem to confuse the severity or the duration of the oppression with the legitimacy or quality of the claim.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2012, 01:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Likewise, when you describe incest as "innately aversive", this aversion has very little to do with genetics (unless your claim that an understanding of recessive genes is innate)
I guess we disagree. I believe that incest aversion is innate, from genetics. An understanding of recessive genes isn't the mechanism, just like a fear of snakes isn't brought about through an understanding of how α-Bungarotoxin works. They are just innate psychological traits that coincide with our best interests and have therefore been selected for.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2012, 01:30 PM
 
I agree. At the end of the day all our behaviors come down to our genetics and chemical signalling. Most of us have a aversion to incest because we are wired that it is wrong. The few that practice incest are lacking this genetic feature that says its wrong. Sexuality is also genetics. Most of us are wired to be attracted to the opposite sex. Some choose to play for fun with both. Some are wired to have no preference either way and some are wired to be attracted to the same sex. Some people are genetically woman in a physical mans body and vice versa. The major difference is, homosexuality hurts no one while incest by its very nature if between the opposite sex leads to damaged babies thus hurting some one and society which has to take care of the baby. I would never expect a person wired only for the opposite sex to be able to put aside there natural genetic desires and do homosexual acts with out feeling some kind of disgust and aversion to it. Just like I could never have sex with a family member for the same disgust and aversion. It all comes down to genetic makeup. Faulty genes or environmental damage during gestation or infancy can play a part in this.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2012, 03:19 PM
 
Actually I think revulsion at incest is more about nurture than nature. Human beings are supposed to have intimate relationships with their siblings and parents but its a whole different kind of intimacy and I think people dislike violation of those 'normal' relationships and that is why most people find incest disgusting. Child abuse is a different matter of course.

Family who have been separated all their lives and then get together by chance will often freak out if they discover they are related but I think this is more societal conditioning than genetics. There may be some genetic predisposition to holding such views I suppose, if only because overly incestuous communities tend to eventually evolve themselves out of existence through too many detrimental mutations and increased sterility.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2012, 04:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
They are just innate psychological traits that coincide with our best interests and have therefore been selected for.
I'd be more inclined to buy this if other mammals had developed this trait somewhere along the way.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2012, 05:11 PM
 
How do you know they didn't? For all we know, they all avoid incest if given the choice, however we also know they often don't have a choice. What evidence do we have about that, that's not from a prisoner model?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2012, 05:30 PM
 
Let's just say it isn't exactly a super-prevalent trait the way fear of snakes is. Again, I'm not saying you are incorrect, just saying the claim would seem more plausible if this was a more common adaptation.

It should also be noted a preference for one is not equal to aversion to another.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2012, 06:22 PM
 
With the exception of some rodents most animals do not commit incest unless in a laboratory/zoo setting which means artificial containment. It does not happen in the wild. Even most rodents don't in the wild. Though its not like many animals have the chance to in the wild anyways because its rare for more then one sibling to survive to a age for breeding at the same time. Even in prides of lions it takes about 5 years for a female lion to come of age and most male lions don't survive long enough as the pride leader for it to happen. Its been observed in the wild only in places of reduced habitat. And even if it does occur when a new male lion takes over the pride it kills the off springs. Nature generally has a way of preventing incest, and when it happens the off spring don't make it. But the animal world does not have social services in place to care for the sick and defective. But it also depends on the life form as well. Because some produce asexually, some are incesteral by evolution so it does not affect them. Nature has some odd ways of breeding. Look at that one fish that the male fuses with the female and gets dissolved into the female to reproduce. For higher animals like Humans, Apes, Cats incest is a serious issue on genes.

If we terminated defective children at birth, even incest wouldn't be much of a problem, no burden on society.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2012, 06:32 PM
 
While things can get a little hairy on the weekend, it's not exactly like us humans live in the wild.

From an evolutionary perspective I'm not sure there's much difference between living in an urban center and living in a zoo.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2012, 06:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Again, I'm not saying you are incorrect, just saying the claim would seem more plausible if this was a more common adaptation.
You can't use rarity as a premise until you can demonstrate that rarity even exists.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2012, 06:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
From an evolutionary perspective I'm not sure there's much difference between living in an urban center and living in a zoo.
That's preposterous. Zoo animals get zero choice in who they mate with.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2012, 06:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
You can't use rarity as a premise until you can demonstrate that rarity even exists.
Okay, how's about this.

The strength (or lack thereof) of the aversion is demonstrated by the fact it's not prevalent in the prisoner model.

I'm not claiming it's a slam dunk or anything, but as I said, preference for one is not the same as aversion to the other. That the norm is merely preference for one strikes me as a simpler mechanism which matches the evidence than what you are proposing (though there might be much I'm missing).
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2012, 07:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
That's preposterous. Zoo animals get zero choice in who they mate with.
Some times they even have the help of a human hand being dug in there (yucky yucky yucky)
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2012, 07:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
That's preposterous. Zoo animals get zero choice in who they mate with.
What exactly is your point?

That's not trying to be snarky, I can see three or four different possibilities, and rather than have the combinatorial explosion of dealing with them all, I think it would be better to get clarification.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2012, 07:12 PM
 
You know, I bet if you locked a brother and sister into the same room for 20 years, I bet you at some point they will have sex.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2012, 07:28 PM
 
Or locked straight guys in a cell.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2012, 07:35 PM
 
we already know that happens
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Valley of the Sun
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2012, 07:40 PM
 
¡Viva Cristo Rey!
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2012, 07:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
we already know that happens
Well, with regards to brother and sister, I don't think you even need to lock people up, just put them consistently in the same bed past puberty. I remember multiple calls to Loveline where you had post-pubescent family members sleeping in the same bed, and this is what happened.

Self-selecting sample of course, and they could have been full of shit on top of it, but OTOH, it wouldn't really surprise me if that was relatively (heh) inevitable outcome.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2012, 07:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
There's a turkey sale at A&R!
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2012, 08:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
What exactly is your point?

That's not trying to be snarky, I can see three or four different possibilities, and rather than have the combinatorial explosion of dealing with them all, I think it would be better to get clarification.
When talking about mate choice, zoo/lab and urban center are polar opposites. One has the minimal exposure to potential mates, and the other is maximal.

Originally Posted by subego View Post
Okay, how's about this.

The strength (or lack thereof) of the aversion is demonstrated by the fact it's not prevalent in the prisoner model.
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
You know, I bet if you locked a brother and sister into the same room for 20 years, I bet you at some point they will have sex.
Bingo. The confounds of that scenario are overwhelming. And they fit with my evolutionary model too: doin' it wrong is better than not doin' it at all. The same way your drive to eat would eventually overcome your fear of snakes, if you were trapped in a cage with one and no other food for long enough.

Originally Posted by subego View Post
Well, with regards to brother and sister, I don't think you even need to lock people up, just put them consistently in the same bed past puberty. I remember multiple calls to Loveline where you had post-pubescent family members sleeping in the same bed, and this is what happened.

Self-selecting sample of course, and they could have been full of shit on top of it, but OTOH, it wouldn't really surprise me if that was relatively (heh) inevitable outcome.
So like, what exactly is your point?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2012, 08:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
When talking about mate choice, zoo/lab and urban center are polar opposites. One has the minimal exposure to potential mates, and the other is maximal.
True. However this wasn't really where I was going with the analogy. More the overcrowding and lack of environmental pressure.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Bingo. The confounds of that scenario are overwhelming. And they fit with my evolutionary model too: doin' it wrong is better than not doin' it at all. The same way your drive to eat would eventually overcome your fear of snakes, if you were trapped in a cage with one and no other food for long enough.
I didn't say the evidence was inconsistent with your model, I said my model produces the same result with less energy required.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
So like, what exactly is your point?
Honestly, nothing past relating an anecdote which seemed relevant to Athens' scenario.
( Last edited by subego; May 29, 2012 at 09:13 PM. )
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2012, 08:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I didn't say the evidence was inconsistent with your model, I said my model produces the same result with energy required.
I thought you were trying to come up with a scenario whose purpose was to distinguish the models.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2012, 09:13 PM
 
Whoops!

That's supposed to say "the same result with less energy required". I'm making an Occam's Razor argument.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2012, 10:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Whoops!

That's supposed to say "the same result with less energy required". I'm making an Occam's Razor argument.
I don't see how "every society chanced upon the same taboo randomly without just cause" is more parsimonious than that it's innate human (and animal) nature.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2012, 10:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Some people seem to confuse the severity or the duration of the oppression with the legitimacy or quality of the claim.
+100
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:26 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2014 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2