That is an interesting philosophical discussion (they always happen, on slashdot, don't they?), and I would contest many of your points.
Is there any part of civilian infrastructure that is not target-able by current moral standards of warfare? Before you answer that, your statement:
Minimize civilian casualties, but try to make them as miserable as possible is pretty controversial. What do you mean miserable? Is a hospital being deprived access to the systems that facilitate saving peoples lives (directly or otherwise) being made "miserable"? Or is it a crime? And why is it allowed to make civilians "miserable"? What does "miserable" mean? You seem to draw the line at death, hence the word "casualties", but what about starvation, sickness and other nasty things? Do they qualify for your rather goofy impression of misery?
Hurting civilian life in any way is not acceptable. Communications disruption in your enemy's military is obviously a goal, but I do not understand why criminal activity against a civilian population is to be allowed or encouraged. I don't care what the barbaric traditions of war in the past have instantiated. In fact, some of these wars were fought successfully without this type of activity, except the absolute necessary destruction (such as destroying parts of infrastructure the enemy uses to advance..etc).
Back to the question: the reason I find it interesting because of how technology has coupled the military and civilian side of things. It is "communication" tech by nature, but that is only a description of the underlying tech. In the near future, software infrastructures may evolve to a level where they become heavily integrated into life-critical situations in all walks off life. So by taking out military comm via internet cables, you also effect extremely adverse things in innocent people. Just like "taking out water treatment centers", which happens to be a disgusting evil act.
PS: the first person to say "war is ugly" as a response will be shot and their family raped... because war is ugly.
and now they've made some shitty "sim city societies" game that's not about building up and cities any more, and EA's to blame. Fucking assholes. That was quite the laugh, thank you:D
There is no engineering task in the world that is impossible given time and resources, and very few that are "hard", although some people tend to design things faster than others. Science on the other hand, is very hard. The more imagination is required, the more the real difficulty shines through. You have to have some degree of imagination to come up with a filesystem that works well, but like you said it is not rocket surgery.
I've tried that and it didn't work. They are hell-bent on making my life miserable by talking on the phone, mostly about things like sports shoes and late baby deliveries and vegetarian pizza. Box cutters don't work. You cut off a finger and what happens is something along the lines of:
"OWWWWWWWWW! 'nyways yeah I know exactly what you mean cuz that's what she told him about *his* shoes too and he like, didn't care so i dunno like, but you know what he's totally dependent on coffee too, like really totally".
That would be a point of argument then, since unfortunately much of the research is focused on the human intellingence part, mostly because that's how the intelligence is defined to begin with. And like I said above, your scientific method will be pretty useless without the creative and abstractive elements provided by the very interesting phenomenon of sentience in the human brain. It is not the grey matter that is inherent to science, it is the constructs provided by the interactions in that grey matter. Stupid humans and smart ones (which have almost identical DNA) are again perfect examples of why this intelligence issue is so damn complicated.
But I agree with you - I am part of the "screw the humans" camp which attempts to guide AI by virtue of the capabilities of formal logic alone.
I'm sorry but you're not getting the point - you want human intelligence, not just "intelligence". By definition, you require knowledge of what exactly human intelligence is and how it works. There is no argument. You need to understand how the brain functions, whether you approximate it or attempt to replicate the biology or whatever you do next. It doesn't matter if an algorithm can fly a plane or play chess or do any other well defined task.. heck, there are LISP programs that actually draw (we're talking creativ art here) incredible images all on their own. Of course, the feature space of available output is limited because the actual representation of human creative activity is limited. This is why AI has been pretty much stuck since the 80's: we are waiting for the neuro science not the computer science.
And it is not the simple (or complex)problem solving or the traversal of search trees that is desirable in the human brain - computers can better that even today. What matters is the human sentience, the characteristic of our grey matter that enabled us to abstract knowledge, document it, reflect upon it and reason from it. That is what gives us Science, advanced control of our actions, civilization...etc. And that is what is currently not well understood. Once we understand it (20 years is not unreasonable) it should take about a week to write the program, and there will be much rejoicing and ordering of pizza in geek dens worldwide;)
Most of us know jack about the algorithms that allow us to catch a baseball in flight, yet we can still do it. I don't think that is a relevant analogy. If you don't know how the biological counterpart works then there is little hope for you to replicate it in logical abstractions/hardware. To sum up your statement: our brain still works even though we don't know how it works... now how does that help us in any way? Unless you can copy the functionality (i.e reproduce sentient matter) without knowing what you're doing, then you are stuck with the traditional approach of actually knowing what the hell is being modeled. Everything in AI today - all the neural and bayesian/statistical stuff, is strongly modeled down to the mathematical level. Not only do we we know what we can do but we can *prove* it mathematically (e.g you can prove what set of functions a perceptron can learn).
Which (I believe) introduces problems from Godel..etc in the brain's case (which is sufficiently complex and self-referential). Even if we do copy the brain's functionality, we may never be able to prove it. So we may in fact have to go with your we-did-it-but-darn-if-i-know-how methodology.
Gmail for one. Probably the best use of Ajax I have seen. Also head on to google labs and check out some of the stuff they are working on with search/information retrieval.
Ask the Cubans, North Koreans, Chinese, Soviets (shall I go on..?) and all other totalitarian oppressors who idolized him and his writings and are far more familiar with communist literature than myself. I'm sure they'll do a better job.
by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 16, @12:27PM (#22444256) Just out of interest, do you actually give a shit what happens to the average Chinese person, or are you just happy to have cause to spout your smug, holier than though bullshit? I do give a shit. You're just too close minded to read without defensive bias. The whole point was to say that although this is bad for them up-front, it is better for the long term struggle that this kind of shit happens at a quick rate (as opposed to the slow, masked, controlled violations in countries such as ours). I'm not being smug at all, just putting up an idea for debate, comrade. I have no idea why you're all worked up.
Every step a totalitarian government takes against the freedoms of its people is a step toward the annihilation of that regime. The more unbearable the violations of basic rights (like the right to watch a horror movie, you commie bastards) the more blatant the violations of those rules will be by the populace, and the closer that will bring the populace to an inevitable clash with its sadistic oppressors. So I am sorry to say: I am actually happy if this goes into effect.
And I for one, love it when Anonymous Cowards fight/call each other annoying little twats. I dunno, it just has this special feel to it. Like 2 invisible dudes throwing stuff at each other. Highly entertaining.
And plus they're all old people. I mean, if the geek community got in a fight with these guys (and you rule out the security services presence) it would look like pedophilia the other way round. It wouldn't even be fair. We would thoroughly, thoroughly kick their butt. Stallman could pretty much stay on the sideline with his katana, maybe jump in to cleave off Bush's testicles at some point.
These idiots have screwed up my valentines day-after. When you have 100 mil to squander, you clueless senile assholes, try to spend it on something other than a company that has been a mockery of the technical world for the last few years of it's pathetic existence. Having the world's politicians on your board already sets you up at the top of the Evil Corporations league, no need to shoot for bonus points.
I'd call them the Illuminati, but they're too darn stupid.
Mail is much more fun in poetic-justice terms. You can reply to the credit card offers by putting the pizza ads in their envelope, and vice versa, then send them back. It's all prepaid! I love America.
I never thought I'd write so much either, but we're having a wonderfully civil discussion on slashdot.. Are you kidding me? I think we're gonna be banned. Maybe even hunted down and shot. My only gripe is that you keep underestimating the thought I give to some statements, so I am forced to ignore the overly simple responses.
But you summarize the arguments well. To answer the main question:
Neither is myopia, or blue eyes, or blond hair. Neither is a natural immunity to AIDS, or unusually large lung capacity, or a height above or below average. What's the point of all this? All of our variation is due to mutations -- the existence of our species is due to mutations. These are more or less common in the population. What's the line you're drawing that makes homosexuality unnatural and abnormal, but these other variations just fine? The other mutations you talk about did not involve reproduction or sociology in such a manner that would induce any serious emotions in people that did or did not have them, whether the feelings were "learnt" or instinctive. That makes them normal. If the person who had blue eyes also had an extra leg, things would be different. He may be the smartest person in the world, he may have Gates' fortune, he may be the most able to support offspring out of all the males in the universe - but a female would likely cringe at first sight. You see, he is not "normal"... and yet his mutation is no different in principle from the one that started blue eyes. Why? You can blame mother nature, but really, evolution has done a great job. Somewhere along the line, that reaction must've helped.
Logically, given that restriction, there can be no species that has 100% homosexual relations, Exactly. If something cannot be imposed on the whole without drastic (and by drastic I meant end-of-the-world) consequences, it probably doesn't fit the definition of normality. Do I have a problem with males who EXCLUSIVELY want to be in bed with other males? Absolutely not. In fact I don't have a problem with *anybody*, nor does "normality" itself constitute any basis for judging people. But I, and billions of others, have strong feelings toward sexual relations that are no less important/sound then the feelings of gay people themselves.
4) If your repulsion were instinctive, then we'd likely all have it. Since we can point to cultures where homosexual pairings are common and accepted, that seems very unlikely. And we likely all do, to various degrees. Indoctrination does wonders, but culture is itself founded on a bizarre cocktail of instinct, crazy imaginations, and wisdon. It is good to keep that in mind.
Hello again! I vowed not to continue in a discussion where I am presumed to be taking a moral stance against something that, in fact, I see as completely exclusive to "morality" from my POV at least. But your well written response deserves clarification on my side:
See other response for good examples of how disgust for gay sex is not at all universal (and what about its commonplace nature in ancient Greek culture? That's pretty generally known, I thought).
You (and the other guy) should delve further into the matter. Romans and Greeks had an interesting sexual culture indeed, but if you read up you will find that the case was generally of men using younger boys for pleasure, with the added benefit of not risking pregnancy. Naturally lots of mythology developed from this, but in the end the boys were not allowed to assume positions of power when they grew up. I have not read about acts of homosexuality being encouraged or even condoned between 2 adult males with both retaining societal respect. Same for Japan and the Samurai mentors..etc. Please correct me if I am wrong.
As for me wanting to throw up when I see two men kissing even though I respect their right to do so, I doubt that is a Freudian thing. It makes sense from an evolutionary point of view that I despise feminine behaviour in another male (to see him being dominated sexually) because of my empathic instincts and egoist ones. Also, it makes sense that society despises the behavior IF that behavior leads to less/no reproduction. Survival is ultimately dependent on intercourse between man and woman. Reproduction is the key to (or at least the basis for)everything. Which brings us to your point:
Second, I think you have some basic misunderstandings about how evolution works. We have evolved into social and intensely "teaching" creatures -- humanity's real strength is our power to pass on huge amounts of information to our offspring *not* via genes, but through direct teaching and conveying complex information through language and communication on many, many levels.
That is indeed the most valuable thing we as humans are able to do (because of our sentient nature), and it is the reason I chose research and academia over industry when I had a good sit-down and thought about this in college. But I am afraid this is not evolution - this is human advancement. We evolved like everything else, through genetics.
You're imputing purpose on evolution.
I would never do that, because I'm pretty much the nihilist. I'm saying that the features of the male and female have randomly adapted to suit each other ONLY because this lead to better survival traits in the specimens that had them. The terminology I've used is slightly misleading yes, but it's easier to write, hence it's common usage in biology texts. Everything in the male and female bodies - her tender skin..his muscular figure..her soft voice..his deep growl - have developed as stereotype fits for each other. Even though the physical characteristics serve other purposes, the human psychology evolved (again randomly) to take good form in these features as signs that arouse sexual needs (because the individual is probably going to have better offspring). Homosexuality does not fit in the picture at all. I'm not saying that makes it wrong, or immoral, I am saying it makes it insensible from a biological point of view. That's the point behind my whole series of rants here.
Er.. data?
You are right, I have none other than bits and pieces. Still, there is not one member of the species you mentioned that does not engage in normal, heterosexual activity leading to reproduction. This is why they are here in the first place. Maybe technology will allow gay people to bear children, and I will be quite happy for them (though I'm sure it will be a bit weird even for the people involved), but until then, the human phenomenon of sticking exclusively to partners of the same sex due to hormonal imbalance/unknown physiolo
Cayley sedenions are a 16 dimensional field. But zero has divisors in sedenion algebra. Octonion multiplication isn't associative, though. Nor is quaterionion multiplication commutative. It just depends on what characteristics you require for the purpose at hand, really. Froebenius' theorem tells us that only real, complex and quaternionic algebrae are associative division rings over real scalars. But if you only need finite fields (as is often the case in practical applications), an Artinian ring is often iteratively solvable for any given application, of arbitrary dimension. I think it is quite unsurprising that you like your women green:)
That was quite insightful and I hope you get modded up. Few points though:
First off, gay sex isn't *disgusting* to all straight people -- unless you're conditioned that way, it's just "meh... no thanks, I'd rather go with her instead." I'd say it was you, rather, who got habituated to the phenomenon and have therefore a far more placid response than many. It's not like picking cookies, this is a very strong instinct we are talking about. Remember that most of the people surveyed for watching brokeback mountain said they did it for the "shock value", and that the universal disgust for gay sex among men in particular is not backed by any single cultural or religious force, but seemingly by all of them. Universality of impulse means this is an instinctive response, not a nurtured one. Thankfully civilized people can control it and we can behave with decency toward one another.
Here's an important point -- if we develop reliable test-tube methods of reproduction that don't require opposite sex parents, and eventually men dropped out of the species but women went on to colonize other planets, that's still evolutionary success for humans. True, but like one female poster said on this thread, it would never happen because they generally need us. The currently evolved emotional need for men means that the offspring would themselves generally not want to resolve to this method(since you cannot inherit gay genes), and may in fact lead to the species becoming extinct due to unwillingness to participate in this bizarre ritual without male partners. This is one of the things I tried to tell the GP.. we have evolved far enough to make changes very difficult because of the myriad physical and psychological structures that control our lives. Any little change causes a bunch of little impulses screaming bloody murder. It's not a good thing... or maybe it is?
Well, define "normal". We aren't the only species that has gay sex (or non-reproductive sex)... Exactly why I made the distinction between "natural" and "normal" in my first post. Normal is actually very easy to define, statistically, and it's pretty obvious that since genital organs in most sexually reproducing animals evolved for sexual reproduction between hetero couples, then individuals who do not have the will to engage in this activity are outside the bounds of the general population. It is normal for us to have the urge to participate in this act, and not normal for us not to. That is not an evil thing, as religious people will have you think. It's just common sense, and I don't know why it's such a crime to point it out. And yes condoms are not normal from a biological POV either, nor is strong sexual drive in 70 year olds. And in animals, the behavior is seldom for social reasons (nor is it statistically any more normal) but rather in very dark, violent situations, like an expression of sexual dominance by the victor on the field, or a sexual favor given by the weaker male to the alpha male for protection. It is always the stronger, more "masculine" male that penetrates, not the other way round.
Great discussion though, and some interesting things to think about. But since a lady came on SLASHDOT, of all places, to tell us we are still in the game, then I will have no trouble sleeping tonight. Also, I didn't read any non-technical books at all last year, so I'm happily within the norm;)
You don't get it: if you are gay and you have no interest in sexual intercourse with members of the opposite sex, then you have to engage in activity that is as disgusting to you as gay sex is to us "straight" people in order to have kids of your own. I know gay people with kids, in fact I know an ex-priest who had a family, but that was before he "realized" he was gay. I am simply making the statement that you cannot pass on your genes if you truly stick to being homosexual, and that is why it is evolutionary suicide, a dead end.
Since you know the world could never be entirely gay(to the extent that it becomes a straw man argument to you), then you also understand that this phenomenon is not "normal" sexual behavior in any way. I was just clarifying that point, and I take no joy in doing so..if I had an extra finger on my left hand I would not like to have people point it out to me all the time.
But I would also not stick it in people's faces. I don't know where you got in my post that I support the repression of gays, transexuals, animal lovers or anyone else. I simply don't give a crap. I evaluate people based on completely different criteria, trust me. I am however sick of having to justify why we "normal" folks are disgusted by gay sex, for e.g, and having people blame things like religion(which I don't have) and society (which is a product of human nature). You can blame religion for your repression yes, but not for feelings produced by our highly evolved and most ancient instinct of all, and you need to start accepting that, not me. That said, I believe we are going off at a slight tangent from the article, and it is my fault.
We in the West know very little about Islam, or how to influence it. I'm sorry to say this is quite true, even in your own post above. Religious figures do not have much influence over the "violence" in most parts of the muslim world. Osama bin Laden is not a religious figure, he has no formal religious training and does not have any association (nor do his lieutenants) with the major scholarly institutions of religion (which are the only authority in Muslim matters in places that do implement shariah). In fact, most religious figures have been declared by the extremists as infidels who themselves have to be eliminated and fought.
That doesn't mean religion isn't the source of the the problem - it still is - it's just that this "militancy" issue you seem to be talking about is actually very rare (Pakistan tribal areas for e.g)and constrained by the fact that the majority of muslim land is ruled by secular dictatorship. As for shariah implementation, this is again very rare except in places like Saudi where the historical circumstance lead to a religious revolution (ditto afghanistan). The nations that hate us the most are those that have the most active nationalist state propaganda, which inspires the evangelists as it does here in the US of A. It is literally a mirror image.
Religious "leaders" in the muslim world are largely non-threatening. They have little say over governance, though religious evangelism tends to be depressing in any case. It is the nationalist dictators that are the main culprit. They are the ones with everything to lose, so they try to rally the public against any external threat and behind any unifiying blanket - like you said, religion makes for a good blanket.
We should not try to influence Islam. Islam was handed down in a very definitive manner and its jurisprudence is based on a historiography relying on extreme methods of preservation. What we should do is try to get people to move on, to open their eyes, to show them that life is quite possible without the emphasis on religion, and that only happens through education and the normal advance of civilization.
Slashdot Mirror
This is the DoD, not the church. Please keep religious affiliation aside.
Dude, if you dont use sarcasm tags they WILL mod you down :)
Is there any part of civilian infrastructure that is not target-able by current moral standards of warfare? Before you answer that, your statement: Minimize civilian casualties, but try to make them as miserable as possible is pretty controversial. What do you mean miserable? Is a hospital being deprived access to the systems that facilitate saving peoples lives (directly or otherwise) being made "miserable"? Or is it a crime? And why is it allowed to make civilians "miserable"? What does "miserable" mean? You seem to draw the line at death, hence the word "casualties", but what about starvation, sickness and other nasty things? Do they qualify for your rather goofy impression of misery?
Hurting civilian life in any way is not acceptable. Communications disruption in your enemy's military is obviously a goal, but I do not understand why criminal activity against a civilian population is to be allowed or encouraged. I don't care what the barbaric traditions of war in the past have instantiated. In fact, some of these wars were fought successfully without this type of activity, except the absolute necessary destruction (such as destroying parts of infrastructure the enemy uses to advance..etc).
Back to the question: the reason I find it interesting because of how technology has coupled the military and civilian side of things. It is "communication" tech by nature, but that is only a description of the underlying tech. In the near future, software infrastructures may evolve to a level where they become heavily integrated into life-critical situations in all walks off life. So by taking out military comm via internet cables, you also effect extremely adverse things in innocent people. Just like "taking out water treatment centers", which happens to be a disgusting evil act.
PS: the first person to say "war is ugly" as a response will be shot and their family raped... because war is ugly.
From "rocket science" and "brain "surgery". Welcome to the new age of outspoken internet badassedness.
I hope you were joking with reference to "IQ" being in any way important. Please read on Richard Feymann and what he got for a score.
There is no engineering task in the world that is impossible given time and resources, and very few that are "hard", although some people tend to design things faster than others. Science on the other hand, is very hard. The more imagination is required, the more the real difficulty shines through. You have to have some degree of imagination to come up with a filesystem that works well, but like you said it is not rocket surgery.
I've tried that and it didn't work. They are hell-bent on making my life miserable by talking on the phone, mostly about things like sports shoes and late baby deliveries and vegetarian pizza. Box cutters don't work. You cut off a finger and what happens is something along the lines of:
"OWWWWWWWWW! 'nyways yeah I know exactly what you mean cuz that's what she told him about *his* shoes too and he like, didn't care so i dunno like, but you know what he's totally dependent on coffee too, like really totally".
Trust me, we need to try snakes.
That would be a point of argument then, since unfortunately much of the research is focused on the human intellingence part, mostly because that's how the intelligence is defined to begin with. And like I said above, your scientific method will be pretty useless without the creative and abstractive elements provided by the very interesting phenomenon of sentience in the human brain. It is not the grey matter that is inherent to science, it is the constructs provided by the interactions in that grey matter. Stupid humans and smart ones (which have almost identical DNA) are again perfect examples of why this intelligence issue is so damn complicated.
But I agree with you - I am part of the "screw the humans" camp which attempts to guide AI by virtue of the capabilities of formal logic alone.
You are presuming the said artists know how to pronounce anything in the first place.
I'm sorry but you're not getting the point - you want human intelligence, not just "intelligence". By definition, you require knowledge of what exactly human intelligence is and how it works. There is no argument. You need to understand how the brain functions, whether you approximate it or attempt to replicate the biology or whatever you do next. It doesn't matter if an algorithm can fly a plane or play chess or do any other well defined task.. heck, there are LISP programs that actually draw (we're talking creativ art here) incredible images all on their own. Of course, the feature space of available output is limited because the actual representation of human creative activity is limited. This is why AI has been pretty much stuck since the 80's: we are waiting for the neuro science not the computer science.
;)
And it is not the simple (or complex)problem solving or the traversal of search trees that is desirable in the human brain - computers can better that even today. What matters is the human sentience, the characteristic of our grey matter that enabled us to abstract knowledge, document it, reflect upon it and reason from it. That is what gives us Science, advanced control of our actions, civilization...etc. And that is what is currently not well understood. Once we understand it (20 years is not unreasonable) it should take about a week to write the program, and there will be much rejoicing and ordering of pizza in geek dens worldwide
Which (I believe) introduces problems from Godel..etc in the brain's case (which is sufficiently complex and self-referential). Even if we do copy the brain's functionality, we may never be able to prove it. So we may in fact have to go with your we-did-it-but-darn-if-i-know-how methodology.
Gmail for one. Probably the best use of Ajax I have seen. Also head on to google labs and check out some of the stuff they are working on with search/information retrieval.
Ask the Cubans, North Koreans, Chinese, Soviets (shall I go on..?) and all other totalitarian oppressors who idolized him and his writings and are far more familiar with communist literature than myself. I'm sure they'll do a better job.
Just out of interest, do you actually give a shit what happens to the average Chinese person, or are you just happy to have cause to spout your smug, holier than though bullshit? I do give a shit. You're just too close minded to read without defensive bias. The whole point was to say that although this is bad for them up-front, it is better for the long term struggle that this kind of shit happens at a quick rate (as opposed to the slow, masked, controlled violations in countries such as ours). I'm not being smug at all, just putting up an idea for debate, comrade. I have no idea why you're all worked up.
Every step a totalitarian government takes against the freedoms of its people is a step toward the annihilation of that regime. The more unbearable the violations of basic rights (like the right to watch a horror movie, you commie bastards) the more blatant the violations of those rules will be by the populace, and the closer that will bring the populace to an inevitable clash with its sadistic oppressors. So I am sorry to say: I am actually happy if this goes into effect.
Karl Marx was a gullible fool.
And I for one, love it when Anonymous Cowards fight/call each other annoying little twats. I dunno, it just has this special feel to it. Like 2 invisible dudes throwing stuff at each other. Highly entertaining.
And plus they're all old people. I mean, if the geek community got in a fight with these guys (and you rule out the security services presence) it would look like pedophilia the other way round. It wouldn't even be fair. We would thoroughly, thoroughly kick their butt. Stallman could pretty much stay on the sideline with his katana, maybe jump in to cleave off Bush's testicles at some point.
These idiots have screwed up my valentines day-after. When you have 100 mil to squander, you clueless senile assholes, try to spend it on something other than a company that has been a mockery of the technical world for the last few years of it's pathetic existence. Having the world's politicians on your board already sets you up at the top of the Evil Corporations league, no need to shoot for bonus points.
I'd call them the Illuminati, but they're too darn stupid.
Mail is much more fun in poetic-justice terms. You can reply to the credit card offers by putting the pizza ads in their envelope, and vice versa, then send them back. It's all prepaid! I love America.
But you summarize the arguments well. To answer the main question: Neither is myopia, or blue eyes, or blond hair. Neither is a natural immunity to AIDS, or unusually large lung capacity, or a height above or below average. What's the point of all this? All of our variation is due to mutations -- the existence of our species is due to mutations. These are more or less common in the population. What's the line you're drawing that makes homosexuality unnatural and abnormal, but these other variations just fine? The other mutations you talk about did not involve reproduction or sociology in such a manner that would induce any serious emotions in people that did or did not have them, whether the feelings were "learnt" or instinctive. That makes them normal. If the person who had blue eyes also had an extra leg, things would be different. He may be the smartest person in the world, he may have Gates' fortune, he may be the most able to support offspring out of all the males in the universe - but a female would likely cringe at first sight. You see, he is not "normal"... and yet his mutation is no different in principle from the one that started blue eyes. Why? You can blame mother nature, but really, evolution has done a great job. Somewhere along the line, that reaction must've helped. Logically, given that restriction, there can be no species that has 100% homosexual relations, Exactly. If something cannot be imposed on the whole without drastic (and by drastic I meant end-of-the-world) consequences, it probably doesn't fit the definition of normality. Do I have a problem with males who EXCLUSIVELY want to be in bed with other males? Absolutely not. In fact I don't have a problem with *anybody*, nor does "normality" itself constitute any basis for judging people. But I, and billions of others, have strong feelings toward sexual relations that are no less important/sound then the feelings of gay people themselves. 4) If your repulsion were instinctive, then we'd likely all have it. Since we can point to cultures where homosexual pairings are common and accepted, that seems very unlikely. And we likely all do, to various degrees. Indoctrination does wonders, but culture is itself founded on a bizarre cocktail of instinct, crazy imaginations, and wisdon. It is good to keep that in mind.
See other response for good examples of how disgust for gay sex is not at all universal (and what about its commonplace nature in ancient Greek culture? That's pretty generally known, I thought).
You (and the other guy) should delve further into the matter. Romans and Greeks had an interesting sexual culture indeed, but if you read up you will find that the case was generally of men using younger boys for pleasure, with the added benefit of not risking pregnancy. Naturally lots of mythology developed from this, but in the end the boys were not allowed to assume positions of power when they grew up. I have not read about acts of homosexuality being encouraged or even condoned between 2 adult males with both retaining societal respect. Same for Japan and the Samurai mentors..etc. Please correct me if I am wrong.
As for me wanting to throw up when I see two men kissing even though I respect their right to do so, I doubt that is a Freudian thing. It makes sense from an evolutionary point of view that I despise feminine behaviour in another male (to see him being dominated sexually) because of my empathic instincts and egoist ones. Also, it makes sense that society despises the behavior IF that behavior leads to less/no reproduction. Survival is ultimately dependent on intercourse between man and woman. Reproduction is the key to (or at least the basis for)everything. Which brings us to your point:
Second, I think you have some basic misunderstandings about how evolution works. We have evolved into social and intensely "teaching" creatures -- humanity's real strength is our power to pass on huge amounts of information to our offspring *not* via genes, but through direct teaching and conveying complex information through language and communication on many, many levels.
That is indeed the most valuable thing we as humans are able to do (because of our sentient nature), and it is the reason I chose research and academia over industry when I had a good sit-down and thought about this in college. But I am afraid this is not evolution - this is human advancement. We evolved like everything else, through genetics.
You're imputing purpose on evolution.
I would never do that, because I'm pretty much the nihilist. I'm saying that the features of the male and female have randomly adapted to suit each other ONLY because this lead to better survival traits in the specimens that had them. The terminology I've used is slightly misleading yes, but it's easier to write, hence it's common usage in biology texts. Everything in the male and female bodies - her tender skin..his muscular figure..her soft voice..his deep growl - have developed as stereotype fits for each other. Even though the physical characteristics serve other purposes, the human psychology evolved (again randomly) to take good form in these features as signs that arouse sexual needs (because the individual is probably going to have better offspring). Homosexuality does not fit in the picture at all. I'm not saying that makes it wrong, or immoral, I am saying it makes it insensible from a biological point of view. That's the point behind my whole series of rants here.
Er.. data?
You are right, I have none other than bits and pieces. Still, there is not one member of the species you mentioned that does not engage in normal, heterosexual activity leading to reproduction. This is why they are here in the first place. Maybe technology will allow gay people to bear children, and I will be quite happy for them (though I'm sure it will be a bit weird even for the people involved), but until then, the human phenomenon of sticking exclusively to partners of the same sex due to hormonal imbalance/unknown physiolo
PS: abstract algebra kicks butt!
who do not have the will to engage in this activity are outside the bounds of the general population. It is normal for us to have the urge to participate in this act, and not normal for us not to. That is not an evil thing, as religious people will have you think. It's just common sense, and I don't know why it's such a crime to point it out. And yes condoms are not normal from a biological POV either, nor is strong sexual drive in 70 year olds. And in animals, the behavior is seldom for social reasons (nor is it statistically any more normal) but rather in very dark, violent situations, like an expression of sexual dominance by the victor on the field, or a sexual favor given by the weaker male to the alpha male for protection. It is always the stronger, more "masculine" male that penetrates, not the other way round.
Great discussion though, and some interesting things to think about. But since a lady came on SLASHDOT, of all places, to tell us we are still in the game, then I will have no trouble sleeping tonight. Also, I didn't read any non-technical books at all last year, so I'm happily within the norm
You don't get it: if you are gay and you have no interest in sexual intercourse with members of the opposite sex, then you have to engage in activity that is as disgusting to you as gay sex is to us "straight" people in order to have kids of your own. I know gay people with kids, in fact I know an ex-priest who had a family, but that was before he "realized" he was gay. I am simply making the statement that you cannot pass on your genes if you truly stick to being homosexual, and that is why it is evolutionary suicide, a dead end.
Since you know the world could never be entirely gay(to the extent that it becomes a straw man argument to you), then you also understand that this phenomenon is not "normal" sexual behavior in any way. I was just clarifying that point, and I take no joy in doing so..if I had an extra finger on my left hand I would not like to have people point it out to me all the time.
But I would also not stick it in people's faces. I don't know where you got in my post that I support the repression of gays, transexuals, animal lovers or anyone else. I simply don't give a crap. I evaluate people based on completely different criteria, trust me. I am however sick of having to justify why we "normal" folks are disgusted by gay sex, for e.g, and having people blame things like religion(which I don't have) and society (which is a product of human nature). You can blame religion for your repression yes, but not for feelings produced by our highly evolved and most ancient instinct of all, and you need to start accepting that, not me. That said, I believe we are going off at a slight tangent from the article, and it is my fault.
That doesn't mean religion isn't the source of the the problem - it still is - it's just that this "militancy" issue you seem to be talking about is actually very rare (Pakistan tribal areas for e.g)and constrained by the fact that the majority of muslim land is ruled by secular dictatorship. As for shariah implementation, this is again very rare except in places like Saudi where the historical circumstance lead to a religious revolution (ditto afghanistan). The nations that hate us the most are those that have the most active nationalist state propaganda, which inspires the evangelists as it does here in the US of A. It is literally a mirror image.
Religious "leaders" in the muslim world are largely non-threatening. They have little say over governance, though religious evangelism tends to be depressing in any case. It is the nationalist dictators that are the main culprit. They are the ones with everything to lose, so they try to rally the public against any external threat and behind any unifiying blanket - like you said, religion makes for a good blanket.
We should not try to influence Islam. Islam was handed down in a very definitive manner and its jurisprudence is based on a historiography relying on extreme methods of preservation. What we should do is try to get people to move on, to open their eyes, to show them that life is quite possible without the emphasis on religion, and that only happens through education and the normal advance of civilization.