by stephiebaby » November 30th, 2009, 10:00 pm
"My personal inclination is to draw a tighter distinction. A draftee is required to serve in the military: his service isn't voluntary, but he isn't considered a slave."
Required to serve, depending on many conditions. Also the draftees are voters, as are their families, which means they are not comparable to slaves in any way.
"And contemporary societies in which married women don't have freedom -- Saudi Arabia, for example, in which a woman can't even leave the house without written permission from a male relative -- make a not-very-subtle distinction between marriage and slavery. "
As I said before, this is only not slavery if you are not the wife.
"At the risk of repeating myself, I'd argue that society's decision that slavery was wrong was a consequence of technical and economic factors, not the other other way around."
Repetition does not improve an idea or change history. The fact is slavery was outlawed, it did not die out due to technical or economic factors. People were forced to abandon it, they did not switch to another system based on economic factors or efficency.
"A contemporary example: arguably, from a golden rule perspective, socialism is more moral than capitalism"
I would argue that morality requires knowledge and wisdom, and that a doomed system which ignores the reality of human nature cannot be more moral. The golden rule is a nice ideal, but it does not match reality either and is enforced with antidiscrimination laws.
"" 'Conversely, Thomas Jefferson didn't free his slaves because he couldn't afford to, and Washington freed his only upon his death. Most people react first to practical considerations.'
"So it was not more efficient for them to free their slaves?"
It was very much more efficient from the perspective of society as a whole"
The examples are of individuals, not societies. From both examples it would appear it was not more efficient for these people to free their slaves.
"And slavery and specialization just don't coexist very well. In the modern world, they exist mostly because less efficient slave-holding societies like India haven't yet complete the transformation to more modern capitalist ones."
Capitalist America has slavery. Sex slaves, cheap "slave" labour and of course the slaves in the illegal drug industry.
"Everyone has a long history of slavery."
That was my point, since you tried to argue that America was not built on slavery.
"Anyway, I'd argue that neither the Civil War nor the civil rights movement ended slavery. Adam Smith ended slavery "
Adam Smith is a quite common name, which Adam Smith are you referring to? Obviously not the one that died in 1790.
""Per Adam Smith, people are most productive in highly specialized occupations and when they're free to choose the endeavor that best suits their skills. This is why capitalism has gradually supplanted slavery, serfdom, caste and class systems"
You first need a critical mass of population for this specialization to occur. You also need a society which allows it to occur, in other words you need to abolish slavery, caste systems, gender inequality etc. before this can occur."
But it occurred at a time when all of those things were present."
Your assertion is impossible. While caste systems, slavery, gender inequality etc. are present, then by definition people are not free to choose. It is impossible to have freedom of choice under a system which does not allow freedom of choice.
"Hitler's use of Jews as slave laborers was anything but efficient. Then as now, Jews were disproportionately educated professionals and had an economically important role in trade, engineering, medicine, and so forth. The use of an aeronautical engineer to dig ditches is nothing if not stupid from an economic perspective. Furthermore, Hitler slaughtered or worked to death at great expense millions of economically productive citizens at a time when Germany faced labor shortages and lacked soldiers."
You are missing the point, and treating a madman like a modern business. You're not doing an economics degree are you? For Hitler it was much more efficient to have Jews digging ditches while starving. They could not fight back from that position and they used less resources while starving. Remember, we are talking about HITLER, not you or me, and not some modern business.
"The use of an aeronautical engineer to dig ditches is nothing if not stupid from an economic perspective."
Unless part of ones economic plan includes genocide.
"The societies you are referring to did not get rich after they got rid of slavery, they got rid of slavery while in a position of power. This and other social changes led to increased population *critical mass), choice of education and occupation, and the modern societies which are blinding you."
That isn't really true. The US, for example, was anything but an economic power at the time slavery was abolished in the North"
The U.S. become a power when they threw the English out. If they were not a power, they would have lost. England was not looking for an excuse to leave a worthless country, or one they had picked clean. The U.S.'s power grew from there, until they became a superpower through WWII. After WWII the civil rights movement and feminist movement provided the freedom of choice you have referred to. While slavery ended earlier, the true freedom of choice did not occur until after WWII.
"And arguably even the societies that were already powerful, e.g., the British Empire, already had a dual system -- little slavery at home, but slavery in the culturally more primitive imperial possessions that supplied raw materials under the mercantile system."
I have no idea what you are arguing here, as slavery is slavery, and the whole point of slavery is to get others to do the dirty work. This "dual system" you refer to, is slavery plain and simple.
"The bourgeoisie acquires economic power, and uses it to take power from the aristocracy and create institutions that serve the middle class, e.g., liberal democracy. "
"OK, in American history you just won the War of Independence. You have the Civil War and Civil Rights Movement to go."
Begin with the Reformation, and the rise of puritanism and the puritan revolution in England."
When talking about the American perspective, as we predominately are, taking power from the aristocracy and giving it to the middle class was the war of independence. The British were the aristocracy, and the colonists were the lower class.
" It's a single process with I believe one unconscious goal: the efficient use of labor in a specialized market economy."
That kind of goal would require conscious effort, no human has that as an unconscious goal. You are confusing cause and effect, and not for the first time. You see modern society, and you assume it was planned to end up as it is. Are you a supporter of "intelligent design"? You seem to using the same kind of thinking? You will find that social reforms were made for conscious social and humanitarian reasons, not unconscious economic ones.
"And -- I find this most interesting -- you mentioned slavery. We claim to abhor it and it is practiced in our country only illegally. And yet we're more than willing to buy products that are made in other countries, sometimes even in our own by slaves."
Yes, I mentioned this earlier as an example of slavery being more efficient, and ending slavery is a social choice, not an economic one. Thank you for finally catching on. While companies make economic decisions to use cheap (or slave) labour, individuals choose which products they buy, and the media makes money exposing sweatshops to the public so they can change their buying preferences. This has happened to several large companies over recent years.
""So you have interviewed guys from a wide variety of cultures and every single one has sex with other men in an all male environment? Even if they find the other males repulsive?"
That isn't what I said."
I know this isn't what you said, this is what is required for your beliefs to have any value. You are making broad generalizations based on anecdotal evidence of small portions of the population. You are picking individual behaviour and applying it to the species.
"Merely that it's a commonplace behavior."
Yes, bisexuality is commonplace, but it is not universal.
"My example is vague because it's based on an anecdotal account "
Yes, that is the most obvious reason for your vagueness, and the biggest flaw in the erroneous conclusions you are drawing. However it would appear that you are being intentionally vague, purposefully picking and choosing just to keep your beliefs intact?
"I've read too that in Mexico, homosexual penetration isn't considered gay "
People all around the world make excuses for behaviours they wish to participate in. A bi guy needing to justify his actions, is still a bi guy. China is the only country where your idea would make sense, as their one child policy has given them a predominately male population. Even now there are not enough wives to go around. Everywhere else in the world women are not hard to come by. Also in places where men dominate, you will find men want their women to themselves, they want virgin brides. History is full of examples where brides must be virgins, where women who have had sex are worthless (the bible instructs to kill these women along with the men, and only take the virgins as slave wives when conquering), and where women who are raped are punished for not protecting their virginity. With this kind of thinking, who cares if men are virgins or have sex with other men? Saudi would certainly have this kind of culture, I'm not sure about Mexico but the stereotype of "latina" men does fit this mentality.
"That distinction between penetrative and receptive sex, the second considered gay and the former not, seems to be fairly common"
Yes, but only among gay or bi men who are in denial. Among straight men and gay or bi men who are comfortable with who they are, this kind of thinking is a joke.
"It's also the rule in prison here."
Prison is not a good example. It concentrates violence and restricts victims. It also has specific power dynamics, which have a lot to do with who is penetrated. The idea of what is gay and what is not is determined by rape/power, by image/power, and by the same social values governing the wider society.
"No, many bi men will choose that. Most, if not all, straight men will choose to masturbate with a pic of a woman or their imagination."
That isn't what happens in prison, etc."
Really? So you think every guy will have sex with other guys in any all male environment, regardless of sexuality or attraction (revulsion)? You have a very low opinion of men, and unfortunately, a very common one. You have the "honour" of sharing thoughts with those people who claim women must be covered at all times because men can't control themselves and will rape any uncovered woman. Your belief is based on stereotypes at best.
A significant portion of the population is bisexual, though due to a variety of factors many are not comfortable with this. Some will make excuses to allow certain types of sex, and those who don't need the excuses will be happy to accomodate them. Some who make excuses will also force the issue if they can't find a willing partner. There are also people who wish to exert their power and their actions have nothing to do with sex or pleasure. And there are also people who have no attraction to other men and the only way they would ever participate, giving or receiving, is by force. Straight guys do exist, but they are an uninteresting story. Rape in prison is a horror story. A straight guy not having sex for a few years is abstinence or chastity, a boring story.
"I don't believe there is such a thing as a truly straight guy in that sense."
That is your belief and you are free to have it. Perhaps all the straight guys are bi or gay and just can't allow themselves to be themselves. While this is possible, it does not seem likely. It seems much more likely that some people are completely gay, some are completely straight, and some (perhaps most) are bi.
Just out of curiousity, do you also believe there is no such thing as a gay guy? (never mind, you answer this later)
"If you close your eyes, you can have sex with anything that doesn't bite."
Really? Perhaps you should have used the word "I" instead of "you"? I do understand the concept you are describing, but I would say you need to go one step further. Closing the eyes is not enough. Being blindfolded thinking one person is with you, would allow another person to switch places without you knowing. In this way many people could have sex with anyone, but without their consent this would be rape.
" And guys in prison do that, or, as I said, try to make the punk as female as possible -- choose a young, long-haired, slim person with feminine features, shave his body hair, make him cross dress,"
The young are selected for the same reason they are selected in all predatory situations, they are easy targets. Also CD's and TG's do exist, so there is no reason to think they would be absent from the prison population. The people you think are being forced to dress or act feminine for their partners benefit may just be naturally CD's or TG's and have a boyfriend in prison as they would outside prison. Prison may even give them an excuse to explore their fem side?
And because of the nature of prison (limits on supplies) and the nature of rapists (opportunity and power don't require window dressing) and the facts of bisexuality (whether excuses are needed or not) you will find that most male/male sex in prisons is between men who dress and act like men.
As for those who just close their eyes and think of something they like, it's called disassociation and quite common for rape victims.
"Interestingly enough, women in prison form families, with a father, mother, and children. Instinct runs deep. "
They form "families", not families. They basically form gangs and used family labels to denote rank. And they use violence and rape as tools of power, just like the men.
""That makes no sense. People would rather undego the stigma of homosexuality than masturbate?"
Dude, you aren't doing 20 years to life. That's a long time to content yourself with centerfolds. Also, keep in mind that in prison (or in boy's boarding school, etc.), there's no stigma attached to penetrative homosexuality."
20 to life covers one group of prisoners, not all of them. It also does not cover the military or boarding schools. You need to be specific, you said all male environments, not permanently all male environments. And I did say that the nature of prison made it the most likely place for a straight guy to seek male companionship, I just wasn't ignoring all the other prisoners to make a point. You are good at digging out something to support you, but you inevitably ignore large portions of the population while you do it.
As for the stigma attached to homosexuality, it does occur in both prison and boys schools. That is one reason why rape is used for dominance, and why the rapes are not reported. Also unless one is serving life, prison and boys schools do not exist in a vacuum. The people in those situations come from the wider society, and have to return there. They carry all the baggage in, and out.
"The attitude in prison is "You do what you have to do": "
Yes, you submit to rape rather than being beaten or stabbed.
In terms of sexual relief, doing what one has to can mean masturbating instead of having sex, as one has to masturbate because there are no women around. It's funny that you can accept straight guys doing what they have to if it means going against who they are and having sex with other men, but you can't accept straight guys doing what they have to if it means continuing their normal non prison behaviour of masturbating? Why is this?
"the stigma is accorded purely to the receptive partner, the punk or the fag."
LOL, only to the person telling themselves this. Everyone else would see both people as bi or gay.
"This is apparently true in many street gangs as well, in which a gay member offers himself to the other boys for anal intercourse, though in that case there's another adaptation, which is that the boy isn't considered gay, but rather someone who is just making himself available to be a good guy. "
This sounds like fantasy, or a gay gang. I could see it as an initiation, or domination, but not as sexual relief.
"As I have never read anything written by the homophobic religious nuts, I can't be accused of parroting them."
If you have never read anything written by homophobic religious nuts then you must be living under a rock, on the dark side of the moon. Even with antidiscrimination laws and freely available knowledge they are quite vocal, especially in the U.S. You may not purposefully seek them out, but it would be impossible for you to have avoided exposure, and quite naive to claim such a thing.
As for parroting, think about the concept being conveyed instead of getting caught up on one word. Even if you had never been exposed to views of homophobic religious nuts, you are using similar concepts and phrases. The term "parroting" was meant to indicate the similarity, not to describe being taught to repeat a phrase on command through conditioning. Sorry for overestimating your ability to understand.
" But, in general, ideology holds little interest for me. Ideologues often try to shape reality to fit their desired goals and belief system. I prefer to base my conclusions on observation,"
Then you might want to closely observe this discussion, and the society you live in. Your input in this conversation has had little to do with observable reality on several occassions, and some of the concepts and phrases you use do show a remarkable similarity to religious nuts.
"I'd say that my current understanding of homosexuality would please neither side: the religious nuts want to believe that it's just a matter of choice, and gay activists want to believe that everyone is born that way and can't be changed. Neither position agrees very well with reality. "
Actually the religious view matches several comments made by you. And when you refer to reality, you mean your beliefs, not observable reality. Your beliefs are made of very selected views of populations, and ignoring most of the population. Stereotypes and anecdotes seem to have much more value for you than observable reality.
"So while I agree with the overall social goals of the gay liberation movement rather than the goals of the religious nut movement"
I'm not sure this is true. You belief that sexuality is a choice and can be changed with something as simple as the files on this site is completely in line with the religious nuts.
" 'Not all, many.'
"So your whole arguement just fell apart. Your shining example was an example of ommission."
If everyone had to engage in a behavior for it to exist,"
LOL, you have things backwards here. You made the claim that men would have sex with other men in an all male environment, regardless of sexuality or even basic attraction/revulsion. For your belief to be fact it must include all men. Otherwise you should have just said some guys are bi, some are straight and some are gay.
"". . . it does not support your idea that men will seek out this violation when there are no women around."
That's hardly my idea -- it's a commonplace observation."
Your beliefs are not commonplace observations just because they are your beliefs. And you've used vague, selective anecdotes to support your beliefs, which has only succeeded in your mind.
"Not at all true. Bonobos use penetrative sex to establish dominance and cement relationships not just with females, but with other males and juveniles. And rape fantasies are apparently commonplace. "
So much for sticking with observable reality. Bonobos are not people, even you should be able to observe this. You should (unless I am overestimating your abilities again) also be able to observe that bonobos use sex very differently to people. You can even observe where I have taken the time to explain these differences for you.
As for rape fantasies, you do understand there is a massive difference between fantasies and reality don't you? And that many "rape" fantasies do not actually include rape at all, but instead revolve around consentually giving up control, usually to someone who is trusted to only do what the "victim" desires.
"However, you seem to be missing the fact that when we desire to have intercourse with a woman (or man), and do not because that person isn't willing, we are exercising the restraint to which I referred."
No, you seem to missing the point, no restraint is required. I have to restrain myself from lighting a cigarette in a non smoking area. I do not have to restrain myself from raping everyone I see.
"Which I believe means that just about any man with a sex drive is restraining himself from rape, just as, when he walks through a store without buying something, he is restraining himself from theft. "
I really do pity you, I cannot imagine this kind of existence. I do not restrain myself from stealing when I walk into a shop, there is simply no desire to steal. And I certainly have no desire to rape. You are now "parroting" Islamic extremists/fundamentalists who claim women must be covered at all times because otherwise men will have no choice but to rape them.
""As I said earlier, captured enemies are a very common source of slavery. And this kind of wartime behaviour does provide a power exchange through degredation. But this is about power, degredation and death, not a social hierarchy."
I'm not sure I see the distinction. Power and the offering of favors to the powerful are at the root of social hierarchies, in animals and people both."
Take more time to think about it, even look to other sources. If you really can't see the distinction then it is a waste of time for you to have this discussion. Also it is funny, in a disturbing kind of way, that you use the phrase "offering of favours" when talking about rape? Where is the offer? Also you fail to recognise that in war there are opposing sides, not one society. Crimes one group commits against it's enemies has nothing to do with the social hierarchy within the group, except perhaps to bond the group together against their enemy, but the enemy is a sacrifice to group bonding, it is not part of the group.
"We are more closely related to bonobos than chimps. Like bonobos, we use sex as social glue"
Completely ignoring me and repeating yourself is not productive. I have addressed this erroneous claim previously. We do not use sex as social glue, and you've shown nothing to suggest we do. In fact most human socities have taboos on incest and promiscuity.
"So our behavior is mid-way between the two;"
No, it's not. Our behaviour is beyond both of them, not comparable to either because despite our relative genetic closeness, we are distinctly different species. Though if we had to choose one to compare ourselves to, it would be the violent, "ganglike" chimps, not the bonobos. The bonobos appeal to our desires, but the chimps reflect (in a very limited capacity) our behaviour and some of our worst behaviour at that. That is why people like yourself are desperate to compare us to the bonobos instead of chimps.
""Humans do not use sex as social glue, we use it for reproduction and pleasure. Orgies are not common in human societies, espeically not christian ones. Sex outside marriage is frowned upon. Sex is most certainly not the social glue. Sex is also not used to establish hierarchies among humans. Strength, intellect, ancestory are all used, not sex. Superficially we might resemble bonobos because we do have sex for other reasons than reproduction, but our reasons are not the same as the bonobos."
It's long been known that humans use sex for social glue. That is why our females are always receptive."
Bonobo style orgies are extremely rare among humans. If your belief was true we would be having ories in the streets on a regular basis. Incest is more common than we would like, but most human societies have taboos against it. If your beliefs were true incest would be the norm and encouraged across cultures. Our reproductive cycle does not have anything to do with our behaviour, and it certainly doesn't change reality to suit your belief. The day we actually start exhibiting sexual behaviour like bonobos you have a chance of convincing me, but until then I'll stick with observable reality, not your superficial documentary/porn inspired view of the world.
"They become receptive only as necessary for procreation, when they ovulate, and the males engage in sex only at that time. "
If you are going to keep ignoring me and repeating yourself there is no point to this activity. Your belief that humans and bonobos are the only species which engage in sexual activity outside of reproduction is incorrect. Either update, or expand your field of reference.
"Sex binds human males to human females and, arguably, in our prehistory and sometimes today, to one another. "
Sex binds human males to human females, it does not bind the society together. In fact social sex is a hinderence to the male female bonding, the exception being modern societies where women have rights and the rare odd example from history. Throughout most of human existence males want untounched females only, and they want to keep those females to themselves. This is a direct contradiction to your belief that sex is a bonoboesque social glue.
"" 'No, they just scream "fuck you, you asshole!'
"Verbal sparring as a prelude to physical action, no penetrative sex anywhere. They could just say "You're an arsehole" or any number of phrases. You are placing far to much emphasis on two words, and completing ignoring the actual actions which take place."
You aren't asking where the choice of words comes from."
Actually I am not limiting myself to two words which make or break the arguement. I am including the entire language, and all the options people have for verbal sparring as a prelude to physical action.
"The words are an expression of instinct. After all, what is intrinsically wrong with fucking, or being fucked? "
Actually the words are often an expression of frustration and lack of education. As for what is wrong with fucking, the word fuck is usually considered a vulgar, expletive. It is also used in phrases such as the oxymoron "fucking ugly". Unfuckably ugly makes more sense, as does fucking beautiful. So your word play arguement falls apart as, if not more, easily than your other belief based arguements.
"But, you say, the stigma of homsexuality has something to do with this. -- OK, but then, why doesn't a guy who's angry at another guy scream "Kiss you"?"
Because kiss is not a "swear word", it has no impact.
"instincts which are also readily apparent in the interesting and commonplace phenomenon of sadomasochism"
S&M is not exactly commonplace. Light (to medium) B&D is fairly commonplace, S&M is not.
"our procreative instincts are linked with instincts of dominance and submission."
Our early ancestors would have used rape as sex, in that they would have been the dominant male and had reproductive "rights" with the females, who would have accepted the dominant male, so it would only be rape from our perspective. Perhaps some leftover of this behaviour is why people such as yourself feel they are restraining themselves from commiting rape? (though you really should get a psychological assessment done, you may just be a closet rapist?). But they would not have used sex to get to that position of dominance, they would have used violence against their rivals. And this is where we are quite different from bonobos, and much more like other chimps.
"So -- we have social taboos against rape and against saying "fuck you," but the social taboos against rape are significantly stronger, as are the punishments, so it occurs less often and we're more likely to hear the verbal threat."
The verbal sparring is a prelude to physical violence, it is a threat of fighting, not a threat of rape or sex. For some inexplicable reason you seem to think if someone angrily says "Fuck You!", they are actually warning you that they are planning to hold you down and rape you? How you ever came up with that idea only you can explain, but it does not come from observing people, especially while arguing and fighting.
"In our ancestors up to and including the chimp-bonobo-human precursor. After the chimp lineage split off from the human-bonobo lineage"
You are making up history, biology and observable reality, all to suit your beliefs. Chimps and bonobos are much more closely related to each other than we are to either of them. In terms of comparing us to them, our behaviour more closely resembles that of chimps, not bonobos. Like chimps our males fight for dominance, both within the group, and between groups.
"I should add that the observation of the role of sex as social glue in human society isn't mine, it was proposed and earned general acceptance maybe 40 years ago."
That actually explains alot, especially why so many of your ideas seem so out of date. Time to upgrade and get with the times. Start with sexual behaviour among animals. Then the bonobos won't seem so unusual for you. Then you really need to catch up on the other chimps, as they are used as a model for tribal gang behaviour among humans in urban environments.
"Understanding of bonobos is more recent, and, again, conclusions about the role of sex in bonobo society aren't mine, but that of the scientists who have studied them."
Your beliefs may match some scientists beliefs, but they certainly don't match all. And I think I previously mentioned how many people get overexcited and focused on the one animal they are studying.
" I've drawn the link between human and bonobos, and added some interpretation re behavior in prison, our use of language, sadomasochism, etc., "
You've invented a link which doesn't exist between humans and bonobos based on a superficitial comparrison of one tiny aspect of both species behaviours, an aspect which has completely different reasons in each species. You've added your personal interpretations to try and support your beliefs, but since you are doing things backwards, it doesn't work.
"but I'm sure my observations there aren't unique, they follow on naturally from the observations above. "
A lot of points you've made are not unique, but nothing I have said is unique either. The question is are you similar to ignorant people, like the religious nuts who share some of your beliefs, or are you simialr to observable reality, something which is noticably absent from many of your points?
"Two very closely related species: one might as well be discussing the behavior of tigers and lions. "
While these two are both big cats, they are entirely different species with no real comparison besides being cats. First lions are pack animals like dogs, tigers are traditional cats, solitary. Lions share feeding young, tigers do not. Lions hunt cooperatively, tigers do not. Lions generally do not like water, tigers embrace it. A tiger is more comparable to a domestic cat than to a lion, and a lion is more comparable to a dog than to a tiger. Superficially that seem like big cats, but when we observe them they are very different species.
"Our instinctive behaviors are closer to the bonobos. Society constrains those behaviors. "
Yes, you've stated this belief many times, but besides the superficial sexual comparison there is nothing to support this position. However other chimps use violence within and between groups, much the same way people do, with or without the contraints of society.
"We have repressed many elements of our sexuality in order to create our modern behavior, indeed, arguably, we go out of our way to repress it by hiding the genitals and breasts, removing facial hair, washing off our pheromones."
You need to look at more societies. You'll find less of the repression you are referring to, but no increase in similarity to bonobos. In fact you cannot find a single human society which does resemble bonobo behaviour. You can pick and choose bits and pieces and try to make them fit, but that is trying to sqeeze reality into your beliefs, it is not observing reality and then forming an opinion based on those observations.
"If you don't see the relationship between paying for protection and social hierarchy I'm not the one who needs to do some reading. "
LOL, I see that comparison you are trying to make, and it is very superficial and intentionally so, to support your position. Social hierarchy is a lot deeper than mere protection, especially once you move away from other animals and onto people.
"Sorry if this interferes with your apparently strong desire to maintain a strong separation between human and animal"
Nothing you have stated interfers with my knowledge or observable reality. And knowledge and observable reality have nothing to do with my desires. There is a massive seperation between humans and every other species on the planet, that is observable. However throughout human history we have struggled with this isolation and as a species we have desperately tried to find something close to us. This desire has led to gods, it has led to people treating pets like children, and it has led to people trying to make animals like us based on superficial comparisons. You have not proven any close connection, and people a lot smarter have wasted lifetimes achieving the same result.
"but, really, we're a branch on the tree, an ape that specializes in a big brain and speech just as your crows specialize in toolmaking, bees in social behavior and communication, parrots in speech (their auditory centers are apparently as capable as ours), etc."
Crows are comparible to our early ancestors, protohumans, not us. The tree analogy is just another superficial example designed to make us feel connected. But since a tree is the same species and organism throughout, the comparrison doesn't really work.
We do share common ancestors with chimps, bonobos and every other species on the planet, but that just means we come from the same planet, it does not rob each species of it's uniqueness, and it does not reduce us to just another animal.
"That is not the behaviour you described. You described knowledge of wanted and wanted behaviour and the reward/punishment which goes with it. Dinnertime is habitual."
It's precisely the behavior I described. We were talking about hope and hopefulness, and depression, were we not? Depression may be observed in laboratory animals"
Who knows what we are talking about, you chop and change each time you encounter a wall. Here you've gone from habitual conditioning in pets and dinnertime, to lab animals. Right now you are like the guy describing a dragon in his garage, you change your dragon depending on how you get caught out (Carl Sagan A Demon Haunted World).
"" 'The fight or flight response is connected with powerful emotions in us'
"It's a threat response for biological survival, nothing more."
Of course it is. But what do you think emotions are?"
For starters, much deeper and broader than mere fight or flight. But since we are talking about survival, consider the wide range of lifestyles and environments. How likely is it that this variation would lead to a similar emotional depth and range across all species? From the moment we had weapons and fire our emotional state would have to change, or to be more accurate, our emotional state would have the opportunity to develop. Too wide an emotional range would be counterproductive to survival.
""Different species, different lifestyles, different situations, different brain structures, different emotion requirements and abilities. What's the likelihood of all this evolutionary diversity developing a very limited and similar emotional range?"
Much higher than the probability of it's being different. That's because evolution occurs without the guiding hand of intelligence, it's a painstaking process of random mutation, of trial and error. "
LOL, you really think all that diversity, through random mutations, trial and error, and fitting ecological niches would develop sameness? You do realise this is the opposite of evolution don't you? The whole basis of evolution is that random mutations, environmental influences and trial and error lead to diversity, not sameness.
"So evolution is extremely conservative"
You really need to learn about the variety of life in the present, and the past. Conservative is not a term you will find many evolutionary biologists using. Outrageous or expansive would be much more common. Also your conservative idea contradicts the idea of random mutations, and even the idea of trial and error. Conservative is the status quo, not trial and error or random change.
"e.g., the bones of our inner ear can be traced to bones in the jaws of ancient reptiles. Evolution modifies what's present, and often modifies by adding on to existing structures because of the way in which the embryo develops, with specialization occurring progressively. "
As I said, evolution produces diversity, not sameness.
"our emotions are very basic and serve the same needs in animals. The fight or flight response, forex, can be found in fish."
Fight or flight is found in all animals. Human emotional range is not. Different modifications and add ons for different species, determined by both random mutations and environmental influences. Diversity is inevitable, no matter how much we desire a deeper connection.
"So why invent a new mechanism when one already exists? Instead, the mechanism gets modified to fit a new niche"
Well there is no intelligence behind it all, so there need not be a reason for a random mutation. But no one mentioned inventing anything, until you just now. My point has always been on evolutionary processes and the inevitable differences that produces.
"I meant complete lack of sexual interest in men."
I thought so. But regardless, without knowing you a lot better there is no way I could put any value on your anecdote. And if I'm right, then you wouldn't be the first, or last, gay man who diverts his sexuality towards women and needs something to give himself permission to be himself. If this was the case, then you would be lucky as many others need to use drugs or alcohol to achieve the same result.
Just like discussions on religion or super powers, personal examples are worthless and only cause more problems. From an intellectual point of view I hope you understand why your story is worthless to this discussion? Non personal examples where we can check and analyse are more helpful.
"I have no idea what you mean by the revulsion being internal and not social. How can revulsion not be internal?"
Are you serious? Have you never heard of gay men who suppress their feeling and live their lives as married straight men, only to break down in one form or another, or to live a gay double life? Have you not heard of the gay men so screwed up by religion and society that the only way they can be themselves is through self medication of various drugs? Those are just two examples of people lving with a revulsion imposed upon them by society. Society, and religions, make them hate themselves and everything they are. Quite a few of those who attack homosexuals fit into this group, they attack anything that reminds them of what they hate about themselves.
"I have seen evidence of only one failure on forced gay"
Well first of all I would say the only people who will listen to the file are those who want to try homosexual activities, either because they are bi/gay or because they want to show their submission to someone else. Either way it limits the ability to test the files effectiveness. On top of that, everyone who listened to the files has not left information, and people who are most likely to leave comments are those who had a positive experience. That seems to be the case with most files on this site. So there is very little evidence for you to see, either for success or failure of the file. If we take a much bigger, and much more dedicated group than just the people on this site, we see the massive failure rate of christian groups with willing subjects. We also have every professional hypnotist in the world stating that hypnosis cannot make you do anything you don't want to do. You may not have seen much evidence of the failure rate of this one file on this one website, but it's a much bigger world than that.
"If failure were common, I'd expect to see some mentions in the threads and reviews."
Really? I'd expect most people to be aware of the restrictions of hypnosis and to mainly comment on files which were effective, or ones which were difficult to listen to for technical/production reasons, and to simply leave the ones which weren't effective for them, knowing they may work for others?
"I'm not familiar with the methodology of the religious groups. But I wouldn't count on those kooks to get things right, they aren't bright enough."
I'm not sure of all their methods either, though I have no doubt hypnosis has been used. As for their intelligence, they would need to be brain dead to have not heard of hypnosis and wondered if it might work where everything else had failed. Hypnosis is also not very complicated, it doesn't take a genius. And you might not want to underestimate the enemy so much, as a group they are morons, but some are smart just half blind by their childhood indoctrination, and some don't believe the religion at all, they just use it for power.
"If one looks at the responsible psychological literature, however, one finds plenty of examples of changes in orientation, beginning with Sigmund Freud, who "stated that homosexuality could sometimes be removed through hypnotic suggestion." Anna Freud later said, “...nowadays we can cure many more homosexuals than was thought possible in the beginning." "
Responsibility goes both ways, the reader needs it too. You will find this belief comes from societal values, that homosexuality was either a curse, disease or choice, and from lack of follow up research to see if the change was temporary or not.
"The gist of it seems to be that in the case of homosexuality, orientation can sometimes be changed, and that this has been known for 100 years now."
No, the gist of it is that people got all excited at acheiving the results they set out to acheive, and limited further investigation (since they knew they were successful there is no need to check results) and that over the last hundred years this belief has been proven to be false repeatedly.
You could always put your money where your mouth is. Offer double money back guarantees for a cure to homosexuality. You'll be so far in debt within a month you'll envy third world countries.
"but I suspect that the situation may not be symmetrical, in that it may be easier to make a straight man gay than a gay man straight. This is based on my belief that homosexuality can be at least in part biologically determined. "
Do you see the flaw in your theory? Homosexuality can be at least in part biologically determined, but heterosexuality can't? If there is a biological effect on one, then the lack of that biological effect will influence the occurence of the other.
Do you have any reason for this impossible belief?
""What makes you think I have not listened to them, and many more? And since you are using peoples comments, be sure to stop ignoring the ones which say hypnosis cannot make you do anything you don't want to do."
That last is merely an opinion, one of those annoying oft-repeated beliefs that don't correspond very well to fact "
LOL, picking and choosing again. So we can trust people who looked for and listened to a forced gay file that they were completely straight and the file worked, but we can't trust hypnotists here or those who work professionally when they explain the limits of hypnosis? Interest system you have for applying value to information. But don't worry, I understand why you have no choice but to think this way. Talking with you really is like discussing religion with a believer.
""man is the only animal that laughs," "man uses only 10% of his brain," etc"
Your examples are flawed. These are "common knowledge" (information the common, average IQ, person believes but which may not have any basis in reality) not industry based assessments, or scientificaly gathered information.
"A person can and will reject a suggestion if he has a strong aversion to it. "
"A subject will accept a suggestion to do something one doesn't want to do if the aversion isn't that strong. Like a post-hypnotic suggestion to pour a jug of water over one's head, as opposed to killing one's grandfather. "
Which translates to; hypnosis can't make you do anything you don't want to do. And except for people with severe phobias, there really is no aversion whatsoever to pouring water over ones head. The need to dry onesself off is the only negative of that action, $5 bucks would get many people to do that. Here summertime is all it takes.
""The religious nuts are crazy, but they aren't stupid. Well not all of them anyway. They know many brainwashing techniques, and they do not work."
I can't really remark on that because I'm not familiar with them or what they do. But even if they aren't stupid, I suspect that circumstances aren't conducive to success. They're dealing with people who are and want to be gay but are pressured by society, and trying to bludgeon the gayness out of them with talk of Jesus and hellfire and damnation. Such people are I think going to be much more resistant than someone who merely wants to experiment with his sexuality, broaden his horizons, indulge in a hypnofetish, what have you. "
Circumstances aren't condusive to success because they are gay and bisexual people who are trying to make themsleves straight. As for being resistent, some of these people believe with every fibre of their being that homosexuality is a sin, and that God can cure them. They are the most willing subjects you could ever find, but it just doesn't work. It's no different than having an amputation and trying to use hypnosis to grow a new limb, willingness and belief just aren't going to have any impact on success.
"No, not true, the limited anecdote we have here suggests that it affects really gay guys."
The limited anecdotes we have here. Those 6 words sum it up. You are dealing with anecdotes from people who desire the change they claim the file forced, you have no way to check their claim of the file or their previous orientation, and it's just this website.
"But I disagree that we aren't like chimps in a practical way. We're mostly like chimps."
That is a big difference between the two of us. You are looking for something to compare us to, and for something to connect to. I am not, I am merely observing. We are not 99.5% like chimps in any practical way. Yes we are more like chimps than vultures, but that doesn't make us like chimps, just less like vultures. And while we looked at monkeys, apes and marine mammals to find "intelligent" animals, it is a bird, not a mammal, which is closest to us in term of intelligence. But even the crow is nothing like us, it is merely the second most advanced tool maker alive today.
""Yes, and intelligent humans training animals to behave a certain way is human intelligence, not animal intelligence."
To some extent. But we aren't talking about training, and it doesn't alter my assertion that intelligence is intelligence."
Not to some extent, that is the full extent. And we are talking about training, we are talking about the various species people have spent decades training to show their intelligence, the fact it is only the trained animals who are capable of exhibiting this "intelligence", and the fact that short term observation of wild crows outcompeted the decades dedicated to apes, dolphins, dogs, horses, pigs, parrots and other creatures we liked. The measured intelligence is of the people doing the training, not the animals.
"Actually we have very little idea what we could train a shark to do, as there has been so little research done in that area. Sharks aren't mammals, and people like you thought it was inevitable that research would show mammals were more intelligent."
Don't tell me what I do or don't consider inevitable."
I didn't, you told me throughout this discussion by making the same errors.
"Actually, studies have shown that dogs know hundreds of words, the dumber breeds something like 800, the smarter breeds something like 1200. As to tone of voice, try screaming "I love you!" at your wife and see how she responds. Or, conversely, coo "I want to rip your head off.""
Show me a dog that is meant to understand language, and I'll prove it does not. As for the comparison to a wife, I would expect the wife to ask why was I yelling, not to take flight. And for the other example I'd expect her to run in fear, or at least to look very worried that I may have lost my mind. She would understand the language and all the possibilities associated with it, the dog would react solely to the feel of the words, not the words themselves.
I've seen videos of apes and dolphins who were meant to understand language, and they appeared to understand body language much better than the words being used.
"In human culture this would happen, but there would also be experimentation with different materials, expanding and refining the idea."
Only in the modern era."
What do you count as the modern era? Several thousands of years? Centuries? Decades? I'm expecting a low number, but I wouldn't agree with it.
"The tools of our ancestors remained static for vast lengths of time, so much so that they characteristize eras. "
You might want to look into those eras, and see the variation. You are way to superficial, you see big broad obvious things, but the details are completely lost on you.
"In any case, no one is asserting that humans don't have some special gifts, merely that they aren't as unique as once believed -- back in the man is the only animal who makes tools, man is the only animal who has culture, man is the only animal who makes war, man is the only animal who murders days. Jane Goodall and the chimpanzee signing experiments did a lot to change our view of things. Other observations continue to narrow the claims of human uniqueness, as well as illustrating the ways in which we are unique"
Well we aren't as unique as once believed, we aren't special playthings of gods. But we are much more special than just another animal, or even just another ape. Other observations have shown that while we got all excited about apes and others, they aren't as close to us as we so desperately hoped they would be. We are seeing apes as less special, and ourselves as more special.
"Biologists consider it part of culture because it varies from region to region and is passed from parent to child. So that one group of chimpanzees will use one set of tools, while another will use another group of tools. And tool use is only part of culture."
Yes I've seen this arguement, but it doesn't impress me. If this is all that culture is, then we need a new term for human culture. While some groups use a rock, and some use a branch, they are all doing the exact same thing. Using a heavy object to get at food. And they only use the method they learnt from their parents, despite the availability of different materials. To me this is no more culture than any other form of mimicry. From our use of the term culture for people, this basic mimicry seems to fall short.
"It was once believed that birds and mammals placed in their natural environment would thrive owing to instinct, but in fact, in many species, if you just plop an animal down in an environment it won't survive. A snake or toad will, but for many higher animals, instinct isn't enough: it has to be trained by its parents to survive in the wild. These animals. when raised in captivity have to be trained by humans to survive in the wild, and even then it's a chancy process. These are the animals that have developed culture."
Is this evidence of culture, or the absence of mimicry?
"I think it would be most accurate to say that our ancestors already had culture, e.g., that the chimp-human progenitor had culture, and that the culture became more sophisticated over the next six million years"
Then clearly I, and most people I've encountered, have been misusing the word culture. What's the word for specifically human culture of which the animal "culture" is merely a distant, empty echo?
This has been interesting, but we are going to have to agree to disagree. I don't claim to know everything, but I do know there are several glaring gaps in your knowledge base which are dominating the discussion, and you are relying on dubious information, while ignoring information from the same source. I think we've taken this as far as it will productively (and I use the word loosely) go. Obviously feel free to respond to this post, I wouldn't try to hog the last word, but don't be surprised if this is the last post. Also don't be surprised if boredom gets the better of me at some point, lol.
"first, i think it is both hilarious/awesome that a site like this has a philosophy/religion/politics forum"
Are there sites where people discuss topics without such a section?
"but, if God gives us our morality, (10 commandents, blah, blah), does that truly make morality objective? What if God said, instead of thou shall not kill, he said thou shall kill? Would that make killing write?"
Yes, as a god whatever it decided was right would be right. And of course the christian god does say thou shall kill, and thou shall rape, and thou shall have slaves, and thou shall make war. It's a religion, which makes it inherently xenophobic, so the killing is fine as long as it is done to people not like the believers.
"However, when you look at how far religion has come at accepting different beliefs, values, cultures, and sexual orientations, you wonder if the word of God can be interpreted differently, or even pushed aside."
Religions die or adapt. Christianity is a recent religion, and a multi sourced contradictory conglomeration. This makes it ideally suited to interpretation and adaptation. Though it has met it's match in evolution. Despite the religious nuts desperation at trying to "prove" religion and evolution can coexist, they can't. Religions make people special, evolution shows people are just another species. The only religions that can survive evolution in the long term, and the ones which promote an unknowable, indifferent, non interferring god.
"So, in conclusion, if God said that killing was moral, would it be moral, or would we choose to push aside that commandment as bunk?"
People have already killed in the name of their god and felt morally justified. The bible has instructions on who can and can't be killed. Many cultures sacrificed people or animals to their gods. Wars have been fought over gods. Most of the bible is ignored by the majority of modern christians, and many modern christians would have been stoned to death by their counterparts of two thousand years ago. And the people doing the stoning would have felt completely morally justified.
If a new section of the bible was found which said "kill them all and let god sort them out", our modern morality would discount it. The faithful would claim Satan must have influenced that author, but there would still be extremists who already thought that was the message in the bible and would feel even more justified.
