Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (71589)	8/5/2003 8:58:44 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

there may be overriding considerations that dignify it as a choice, such as religious vocation. A perfect example of what I mentioned earlier, this insistence on seeing everything in terms of right, wrong, and wrong with mitigating circumstances rather than merely different. What is the point of freedom, and the point of the marketplace, if the relative quality of the menu items is ordained?

To: Neocon who wrote (71589)	8/5/2003 9:01:31 AM
From: Bill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Be careful about falling into the trap of judgmentalism. Your biological arguments were strong and could only be refuted with a flawed analogy.

To: Neocon who wrote (71589)	8/5/2003 9:04:59 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Let's leave religious vocation out Neo. Are straight people maladaptive and afflicted if they choose not to have children? It was easy enough to answer when they were homosexual. And what if a homosexual breeds a LOT before becoming actively homosexual. Is that adaptive and non-afflicted? Is that, in fact, the best of both worlds?

To: Neocon who wrote (71589)	8/5/2003 11:40:23 AM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Voluntary childlessness is both deviant (that is, by definition it is outside the norm) and maladaptive (the biological imperative of all species is to reproduce, and making that choice is destructive of the race). You know, thinking about it, the Greeks pretty much had it right. They accepted homosexuality as recreational sex, but protected the marital relationship as necessary to the biological imperative and the right raising of children. They allowed homosexuals to practice their practices without, as far as I am aware, limit, but they protected the needs of society and the survival and advancement of the race. Seems very wise.