|
|
Post by captainconfident on Jul 30, 2024 18:55:00 GMT
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Say No To T.D.S.
Posts: 5,715 
Likes: 2,986
|
Post by michaelc on Jul 30, 2024 21:25:22 GMT
Can I suggest that behaving like animals is not the bar we ought to aim for ?
|
|
|
|
Post by captainconfident on Jul 30, 2024 21:42:18 GMT
But we are animals. Unless you think we were specially created by god and are different?
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,624
Likes: 6,437
|
Post by registerme on Jul 30, 2024 21:42:48 GMT
Can I suggest that behaving like animals is not the bar we ought to aim for ? Michael, you are an animal. As am I. As is everybody reading this forum. For better or worse we are very, very biological.
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Say No To T.D.S.
Posts: 5,715
Likes: 2,986
|
Post by michaelc on Jul 30, 2024 22:41:30 GMT
Can I suggest that behaving like animals is not the bar we ought to aim for ? Michael, you are an animal. As am I. As is everybody reading this forum. For better or worse we are very, very biological. We are going to get very philosophical very quickly and I'd rather not.
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Say No To T.D.S.
Posts: 5,715
Likes: 2,986
|
Post by michaelc on Jul 30, 2024 22:45:35 GMT
But we are animals. Unless you think we were specially created by god and are different? That isn't the only exception but as above such a profound discussion warrants its own thread. Suffice to say I think you would both be wrong not to draw a distinction between human and the remaining animal kingdom.
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,624
Likes: 6,437
|
Post by registerme on Jul 30, 2024 22:50:47 GMT
animal - a living organism that feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli.
|
|
|
|
Post by captainconfident on Jul 30, 2024 22:58:09 GMT
But we are animals. Unless you think we were specially created by god and are different? That isn't the only exception but as above such a profound discussion warrants its own thread. Suffice to say I think you would both be wrong not to draw a distinction between human and the remaining animal kingdom. Wow michaelc , you surprise me sometimes. I thought it was outstandingly obvious. If you crouch down on all fours and compare yourself to your dog, are not your eyes in the same place above your nose, then your mouth, neck, ears on the sides, And internally, do you not know that your organs and those of fido are all layed out the same right back to your anus? You eat in one end, the same processes occur and poo comes out the back while you breathe in and out with the same lungs?. And when I look in the eyes of my dog I find a being looking back at me with more understanding, more upright nobility than I would find if I looked in the eyes of Donald Trump. Are you not proud to be family with such excellent beings as the other animals? The cat, I could see, was embarrassed by the similarity especially when I got down on all fours, what with it being much better at catching mice.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,037
Likes: 5,155
|
Post by adrianc on Jul 31, 2024 6:53:19 GMT
But we are animals. Unless you think we were specially created by god and are different? That isn't the only exception but as above such a profound discussion warrants its own thread. Suffice to say I think you would both be wrong not to draw a distinction between human and the remaining animal kingdom. Seriously? You don't believe that homo sapiens is extremely closely linked on the evolutionary ladder to pan troglodytes or to pan paniscus? Only a tad over 1% difference in DNA? 
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Jul 31, 2024 8:02:21 GMT
Michael, you are an animal. As am I. As is everybody reading this forum. For better or worse we are very, very biological. We are going to get very philosophical very quickly and I'd rather not. it is hardly a philosophical question. Its a matter of biological classification as defined by ummmm humans. Living organisms are divided into five kingdoms: o animals (all multicellular animals) o plants (all green plants) o fungi (moulds, mushrooms, yeast) o protists (Amoeba, Chlorella and Plasmodium) o prokaryotes (bacteria, blue-green algae) Of course with the advent of social media, it has become more evident that some of us who identify as humans often exhibit behaviours and views more akin to a protist, but that is bye the bye. And even though I might like to think that occasionally I'm a Fun Guy, I'd be upset if you labelled me as a slime mould. You are an animal. Get over it. Better still, perhaps if more us could come to not just understand but feel how close we are to our closest relations in the animal kingdom, and realised what that means at a deeper level, perhaps we'd show a bit more empathy towards them and others.
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Jul 31, 2024 8:07:11 GMT
Can I suggest that behaving like animals is not the bar we ought to aim for ? Is that a bit of an unintended insight into your real views. That those people who are LGB are "behaving like animals" ? And not meant in a +ve way?
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Jul 31, 2024 8:19:36 GMT
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,037
Likes: 5,155
|
Post by adrianc on Jul 31, 2024 8:27:17 GMT
Its a matter of biological classification as defined by ummmm humans. As defined by nature. As described and taxonomised by humans. Linneaus didn't change the way living organisms related to each other, merely provided a framework to describe that relationship.
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Jul 31, 2024 8:50:21 GMT
Its a matter of biological classification as defined by ummmm humans. As defined by nature. As described and taxonomised by humans. Linneaus didn't change the way living organisms related to each other, merely provided a framework to describe that relationship. I disagree. That assumes human infallibility. Humans have created a framework to describe and classify the world around them, based on what they believe they see. That framework is not the only one that could (or I think has) been devised. The Linnean classification system itself has evolved from having 3 to 4 to 5 kingdoms. yes that is based on further subdivision as our knowledge and understanding has "increased", but it is not god given (in the normal usage of that phrase) and inviolate. Nor are the divisions below kingdoms.
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,388
Likes: 2,787
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Jul 31, 2024 9:07:09 GMT
Show me the Normal distribution of people's sexuality and you will find gay and trans people way off to the sides along with other sexual deviations. Whilst I understand what you mean and what you're suggesting here, strictly speaking a person's sexuality is a fixed discrete variable, not a continuous random variable, so it cannot be modelled by the Normal distribution, like say a person's height or weight, which are continuous variables. A person's height or weight can take any finite value anywhere along the real continuous line. A person's sexuality cannot, it's discrete data, it's categorical and cannot be broken into smaller parts. The Normal distribution is an excellent model for height or weight, but pretty useless and inappropriate for discrete data. You could present a bar chart/histogram (for example) of the numbers of people who fit into each discrete category (straight, gay, bi, etc, etc) and there are various non-parametric stats tests you can apply to such data, but the Normal distribution (and the stats that flow from it) is not one. So there's no concept of whether a person falls within 2 or 3 standard deviations of the distribution's mean value, for example, as has been suggested elsewhere. Heights yes, a random person will fall with x standard deviations of the population's mean height, but (in general) we can't apply that logic to categorised data. (There are a few exceptions like exam marks, with a discrete distribution which closely mimics a normal distribution, but that isn't the case here). In a mathematical sense, I would argue, like you and keitha , that being gay or trans (with a prevalence far below <10% of the population) is certainly not normal. In a philosophical/ethical sense, the question is far more nuanced and I'm not qualified to comment further! I would say there is some sort of normal distribution of extremely masculine males to quite feminine males and from extremely feminine females to quite masculine females, both in terms of looks and attitudes, whether that translates into potential sexual preferences I wouldn't know. Homosexual relationships were common in both Greek and Roman society so it's definitely not a new thing. I suspect there is some sort of distribution of sexual preferences with strongly heterosexuals in the centre, sexually curious/uncertain males and females to each side, then bi, then gay, then maybe trans. Whatever, it is good that people don't need to be afraid of being arrested for not being heterosexual and can live with whoever they like.
|
|
