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 (74824)	9/15/2003 12:59:20 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"It merely fixes the relation of two alternatives, if we were in a position to choose them. It does not even reflect reality, insofar as the numerical exception may be superior, and therefore more desirable as the rule" It is this idea which I am trying to keep from contaminating the discussion. There is no "rule" that numerical superiority translates into desirability. We both agree on this. So what relation between the two alternatives are we looking at to extablish it as the "rule" other than numerical prevalence? Do you see? I understand you wishing to call one the rule and one the exception, but insofar as we both agree that this does not translate into a basis for moral or social approval, to what purpose is it being employed other than as a simple reminder of statistical prevalence? We already know that everything in nature exists in unequal numbers, but so far as I am aware there is no theory of science which uses this as a marker for value. Indeed, we often find the rare to have the most value to the many. This is why I am puzzled by the repeated references to "rule/exception". I hear the "Heterosexuality is the numerical rule and homosexuality is the numerical exception", and therefore heterosexuality is the numerical rule and therefore homosexuality is the numerical exception. I keep waitng for another "therefore" which legitimately extracts or extrapolates a value judgment or conclusion from such a bare statement of neutral fact. Perhaps I missed it or perhaps there was none to be made, and there is no implication to consider. I know that rarity suggests a greater value to many of us for obvious reasons, but I don't know that it can be taken as categorical as to instance, and it is not an assertion I am making. I do not claim that the "exceptional" status of homosexual rarity translates into any moral or social value whatsoever other than neutral.