Thank you for proving my point on the uselessness of comparisons.
Yes, only if you do the really stupid thing that I always do and take it to the reductionist extreme. I do it to be an ass and prove a point - it's useless as the foundation of an argument.
Life is life, morality doesn't exist, nothing is right or wrong, etc. This is not groundbreaking.
But to call comparisons "useless" is amazingly shortsighted and - frankly - intellectual cowardice. If comparisons were actually useless in conveying ideas, we'd have no science. Nothing would get done in any meaningful way because we'd be acting - essentially - randomly.
Pragmatically, we can make comparisons provided we define things sufficiently. Pragmatically, if your society says "X is OK," that means that it's effectively the same as if it were truly objectively "OK." That's how laws and such work - we collectively agree on what is "OK" and abide by those rules. And when enough people think something is no longer "OK," things shift. By comparing related concepts, we learn more about the things we're comparing. We reveal truths by engaging in these comparisons, and then we compare truths to reveal more truths. This is how we learn and grow.
So when I say, "Why is it OK to kill animals," I know full well that you might not think it's OK to kill animals. But you consume the products of such things, so you condone it by action, and by engaging in a society that accepts such a practice without actively fighting it, you are saying - effectively - "I think this thing is OK." We can split hairs about what we mean by "OK," but unless you actually change your behavior based on your notions of what is "OK" or not, it's meaningless.
by your own logic what's the difference between eating a fruit vs. an animal
Technically? Well, there's the conformational differences and cooking temperatures. Ethically/morally/whateverly? None.
Well said. I mispoke when I said comparisons are useless. Direct comparisons are generally too simplistic. It's more correct to say A is similar to B. And yeah, the argument becomes very contentious and shaky to hold . While it seems universal, many exceptions can be found for any rule.
Somebody send me a message on Steam when this thread reaches the part of the philosophical death-spiral where someone godwins the thread. I'll be keeping score.
The A could be asexual. I was making a joke because the acronym gets progressively longer...
The A is Asexual. To be honest there are those that suggest even more letters be added to the acronym but it's already bordering on ludicrous size as it is.
Somebody send me a message on Steam when this thread reaches the part of the philosophical death-spiral where someone godwins the thread. I'll be keeping score.
Well, if we're talking about downloading our consciousness into machines, then we could totally have Hitler sex.
So I guess it's been Godwinned due to limitless possibilities.
The A could be asexual. I was making a joke because the acronym gets progressively longer...
The A is Asexual. To be honest there are those that suggest even more letters be added to the acronym but it's already bordering on ludicrous size as it is.
Um, no. The A really is for Allies. There is an Asexual movement (one of its founders was on the Savage Love podcast sometime this summer), but to the best of my knowledge they're not really all that linked with the LGBTQQA movement.
(And for the record: Yes, two Qs. Queer and Questioning, two different distinctions. Can you see why I wish we'd just gone with queer for the whole kit-and-caboodle when that word first started gaining popularity in the early 90s?)
This thread is a trainwreck. There is absolutely no reason for me to read it, and yet I can't look away.
Queer? I thought that word was offensive... And wouldn't queer be covered in LG?
Eh, it's another of those reclaimed words. If my drag queen buddy calls me queer, that's different than if some dude shouts it menacingly out of a car.
But I think one reason it didn't catch on is because it's still too raw and offensive to most. There's actually a whole academic circle called queer theorists, so it gained traction in some places better than others.
And actually, there are plenty of people who identify as queer who are neither lesbian or gay. Many (most?) are bisexual or transgendered. So yeah there's some redundancy in the acronym.
Comments
Well said. I mispoke when I said comparisons are useless. Direct comparisons are generally too simplistic. It's more correct to say A is similar to B. And yeah, the argument becomes very contentious and shaky to hold . While it seems universal, many exceptions can be found for any rule.
So I guess it's been Godwinned due to limitless possibilities.
If female Hitler has sex with a clone of herself is she a lesbian? Or is it just incest?
(And for the record: Yes, two Qs. Queer and Questioning, two different distinctions. Can you see why I wish we'd just gone with queer for the whole kit-and-caboodle when that word first started gaining popularity in the early 90s?)
This thread is a trainwreck. There is absolutely no reason for me to read it, and yet I can't look away.
But I think one reason it didn't catch on is because it's still too raw and offensive to most. There's actually a whole academic circle called queer theorists, so it gained traction in some places better than others.
And actually, there are plenty of people who identify as queer who are neither lesbian or gay. Many (most?) are bisexual or transgendered. So yeah there's some redundancy in the acronym.
Amen. Women are beautiful, men are ugly. Who DOESN'T appreciate the beauty of the female form?
I think that sums up everything in the thread thusfar.
(She has baggage, but whatever. I seem to recall that getting resolved.)