What's new

Looks like there are pig cops all over the country (no shocker)

Is it as disrespectful or anti-social as murdering unarmed civilians? Or as disrespectful or anti-social as spitting on the graves of the deceased saying they deserved it or they were thugs as many on here and around the world have?

My disrespect only came when I saw other posters try to spit on Brown's grave, or if they regarded Wilson a hero. Same wit Zimmerman/Martin case...

for the sake of intellectual honesty, please provide examples where posters' comments made you think they were trying to "spit on Brown's grave" or that they regarded Darren Wilson as a hero?



As I read your comments like the one above, it seems to me that you're making accusations - so what evidence do you have to back up these accusations?
 
for the sake of intellectual honesty, please provide examples where posters' comments made you think they were trying to "spit on Brown's grave" or that they regarded Darren Wilson as a hero?



As I read your comments like the one above, it seems to me that you're making accusations - so what evidence do you have to back up these accusations?

This will be interesting. Especially for Siro, Gameface, Lograd and I.
 
I know I'm not very well-liked on the forum, particularly in the discussion of these issues, but I think I have also seen movement over time which may (or may not) be in part due to my argumentation. That HighlandHomie receives little direct approval is not the same as saying he is ineffectual.

I can only speak for myself but I like you. You can be irritating and persistent but some of us need to be irritated now and again. You often challenge me to more deeply question my positions, I appreciate that.

I doubt anyone would say the same for HH on this subject. It is a shame because he posts well in the JAZZ forum. He is capable of raising the level of his discourse here.
 
While I disagree with the degree to which you take many of your opinions One Brow I have no problem with you. This forum needs some differing views and you present one that is valuable.
 
And you have done nothing to prove that name callinging and demonizing is effective. It is an assertion that you have done nothing to support.

I don't know that it is effective, in particular, I don't know that it is more or less effective generally.

I have read testimonies from people who say that they didn't really understand the concept of privilege until someone got really angry/insulting in the discussion, because the anger got them to take a second look. So, I'm pretty sure that using anger and insults is occasionally effective where reason is not.
 
The link you gave talks about the immediate reaction of people.

Not just the immediate reaction. Further on down, it talks about how even when people do extensive research, confirmation bias can feed the backfire effect.

The opposition to homosexuality eroded because people have been exposed to the rational appeals of gay activists for a long time. People aren't flocking to Westboro Baptist Church on the other hand, even though they are very visible. Same applies to decline of racism, gender equality, etc. The examples are too numerous to count.

I disagree. The rational argument for open homosexuality and/or homosexual marriage has not changed in thousands of years. What has changed are people's emotional reactions to being homosexual. Once you have homosexuals in your life that you are attached to, it becomes more difficult to openly discriminate against them.

And then you confirm this common sense observation by stating that it conforms to your own experience! And yet, you defend HH's approach using the "you never know" argument?

Actually, it's more the "if all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail" argument.
 
I can only speak for myself but I like you. You can be irritating and persistent but some of us need to be irritated now and again. You often challenge me to more deeply question my positions, I appreciate that.

I doubt anyone would say the same for HH on this subject. It is a shame because he posts well in the JAZZ forum. He is capable of raising the level of his discourse here.

While I disagree with the degree to which you take many of your opinions One Brow I have no problem with you. This forum needs some differing views and you present one that is valuable.

I thank you both.
 
Not just the immediate reaction. Further on down, it talks about how even when people do extensive research, confirmation bias can feed the backfire effect.



I disagree. The rational argument for open homosexuality and/or homosexual marriage has not changed in thousands of years. What has changed are people's emotional reactions to being homosexual. Once you have homosexuals in your life that you are attached to, it becomes more difficult to openly discriminate against them.



Actually, it's more the "if all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail" argument.

As opposed to the thousands of years where homosexuals didn't exist? Or they existed but didn't have any social connections? Or they remained closeted until suddenly, and explicable, they all decided to come out? I cannot see any way your argument makes sense. Homosexuality and other issues progressed because the rational arguments for them (they're harmless, gays are just people, you don't choose your sexuality, and so on) found a wider audience as technology progressed and people got more exposed to those ideas. And your arbitrary argument for why homosexuality became accepted doesn't work on anything else, like women's right, while the argument of information exposure has tremendous explanatory power.
 
As opposed to the thousands of years where homosexuals didn't exist? Or they existed but didn't have any social connections? Or they remained closeted until suddenly, and explicable, they all decided to come out? I cannot see any way your argument makes sense. Homosexuality and other issues progressed because the rational arguments for them (they're harmless, gays are just people, you don't choose your sexuality, and so on) found a wider audience as technology progressed and people got more exposed to those ideas. And your arbitrary argument for why homosexuality became accepted doesn't work on anything else, like women's right, while the argument of information exposure has tremendous explanatory power.

I don't really know that much that I can cite sources for, but anecdotally, it seems to me that there was a time hundreds and thousands of years ago when homosexual behavior was much more accepted than it has been in the recent past. Just my own theory here, but I would say it was the spread of Christianity and the Bible that made homosexuality such a major taboo.

You actually have it rather backwards.

ok, here are some links:
https://www.livius.org/ho-hz/homosexuality/homosexuality.html

It's a long article, here's a snippet:
It should be added that for Plato, the only type of real love is the love between two men, and he has dedicated two of his dialogues to that subject: the Symposium and the Phaedrus. After all, homo-erotic love is related to education and gaining knowledge, and this makes it superior to other types of love.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Greece
In classical antiquity, writers such as Herodotus, Plato, Xenophon, Athenaeus and many others explored aspects of same-sex love in ancient Greece. The most widespread and socially significant form of same-sex sexual relations in ancient Greece was between adult men and pubescent or adolescent boys, known as pederasty (marriages in Ancient Greece between men and women were also age structured, with men in their thirties commonly taking wives in their early teens)[citation needed]...

The ancient Greeks did not conceive of sexual orientation as a social identifier as modern Western societies have done. Greek society did not distinguish sexual desire or behavior by the gender of the participants, but rather by the role that each participant played in the sex act, that of active penetrator or passive penetrated.


https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674022331
Ancient Greek culture celebrated same-sex love in history, literature, and art, making high claims for its moral influence. By contrast, Jewish religious leaders in the sixth century B.C.E. branded male homosexuality as a capital offense and, later, blamed it for the destruction of the biblical city of Sodom. When these two traditions collided in Christian Rome during the late empire, the tragic repercussions were felt throughout Europe and the New World.

Louis Crompton traces Church-inspired mutilation, torture, and burning of “sodomites” in sixth-century Byzantium, medieval France, Renaissance Italy, and in Spain under the Inquisition. But Protestant authorities were equally committed to the execution of homosexuals in the Netherlands, Calvin’s Geneva, and Georgian England. The root cause was religious superstition, abetted by political ambition and sheer greed. Yet from this cauldron of fears and desires, homoerotic themes surfaced in the art of the Renaissance masters—Donatello, Leonardo, Michelangelo, Sodoma, Cellini, and Caravaggio—often intertwined with Christian motifs. Homosexuality also flourished in the court intrigues of Henry III of France, Queen Christina of Sweden, James I and William III of England, Queen Anne, and Frederick the Great.

Anti-homosexual atrocities committed in the West contrast starkly with the more tolerant traditions of pre-modern China and Japan, as revealed in poetry, fiction, and art and in the lives of emperors, shoguns, Buddhist priests, scholars, and actors. In the samurai tradition of Japan, Crompton makes clear, the celebration of same-sex love rivaled that of ancient Greece.

(geez, I forgot what thread this was... oh well... another topic for some heated discussion)
 
Last edited:
I don't really know that much that I can cite sources for, but anecdotally, it seems to me that there was a time hundreds and thousands of years ago when homosexual behavior was much more accepted than it has been in the recent past. Just my own theory here, but I would say it was the spread of Christianity and the Bible that made homosexuality such a major taboo.

You actually have it rather backwards.

ok, here are some links:
https://www.livius.org/ho-hz/homosexuality/homosexuality.html

It's a long article, here's a snippet:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Greece



https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674022331


(geez, I forgot what thread this was... oh well... another topic for some heated discussion)

Like most anti-Christian narratives that make the rounds in liberal circles, this is an uncritical perspective with little basis in reality (much like the myth of the 'Dark Ages'). Let's make two points clear first:

1- The concept of sexual orientation is very recent, and is of Western origin.
2- Given the diversity of human cultures through out history, you'll find some that accept and others that condemn homosexuality.

As has been frequently noted, the ancient Greeks did not have terms or concepts that correspond to the contemporary dichotomy of ‘heterosexual’ and ‘homosexual’. There is a wealth of material from ancient Greece pertinent to issues of sexuality, ranging from dialogues of Plato, such as the Symposium, to plays by Aristophanes, and Greek artwork and vases. What follows is a brief description of ancient Greek attitudes, but it is important to recognize that there was regional variation. For example, in parts of Ionia there were general strictures against same-sex eros, while in Elis and Boiotia (e.g., Thebes), it was approved of and even celebrated (cf. Dover, 1989; Halperin, 1990).

So the Greeks' attitude toward homosexuality differed between different times and region. Some thinkers celebrated it, while others condemned it. Here is a quote for Plato's Laws:

Ah, my friends, how difficult it seems to ensure that the working of an institution shall be as unquestionable as its theory! Presumably it is with states as it is with human bodies – one cannot prescribe one definite treatment for one subject which involves no physically injurious consequences along with its beneficial effects. For example, these physical exercises and common meals you speak of, though in many ways beneficial to a city, provide dangerous openings for faction, as is shown by the cases of the Milesians, Boeotians, and Thurians. And, in particular, this practice is generally held to have corrupted the ancient and natural rule in the matter of sexual indulgence common to mankind with animals at large, and the blame for these corruptions may be charged, in the first instance, on your two cities and such others as are most devoted to physical exercises. Whether these matters are to be regarded as sport, or as earnest, we must not forget that this pleasure is held to have been granted by nature to male and female when conjoined for the work of procreation; the crime of male with male, or female with female, is an outrage on nature and a capital surrender to lust of pleasure. And you know it is our universal accusation against the Cretans that they were the inventors of the tale of Ganymede; they were convinced, we say, that their legislation came from Zeus, so they went on to tell this story against him that they might, if you please, plead his example for their indulgence in this pleasure too. With the tale we have no further concern, but the pleasures and pains of communities and of private lives are as good as the whole subject of a study of jurisprudence. (Laws I 636a-d)

The Romans were weird about it, with random laws for which homosexual acts are acceptable and with who. So it was okay for a master to sodomize his slave, but oral sex was completely scandalous. And while many did practice what we would consider homosexual love, it was mainly seen as an act of dominance. European Christians however, were utterly indifferent to the act until the late Middle Ages. This is partly due to exposure to Muslim hostility to homosexuals when it was at its very peak.

“European secular law contained few measures against homosexuality until the middle of the thirteenth century.” (Greenberg, 1988, 260)

Even while some Christian theologians continued to denounce nonprocreative sexuality, including same-sex acts, a genre of homophilic literature, especially among the clergy, developed in the eleventh and twelfth centuries (Boswell, 1980, chapters 8 and 9).

Resistance to homosexual behavior enjoyed acceptance and rejection through out history, but homosexual lifestyle (being exclusively a homosexual) was almost universally condemned. This has been the case since at least the advent of agriculture, and it evolved for the same reason as polygamy; it became advantageous to create as many male offspring as possible.

But that's neither here nor there. Ancient cultural norms are irrelevant because they mostly don't come from rational analysis. Sure the Greeks were tolerant of homosexuality, but they were just as tolerant of pedophilia (it's not even clear they saw the difference). Similarly, sure homosexual acts were expected among Aztec warriors, but so was human sacrifice. The norms of ancient cultures do not logically apply to the state of the world today.

Since the emergence of mass media and communication technologies starting in the Middle Ages, much of the world has been on a trajectory of progress based on the idea of maximizing human well-being through the application of reason. So while women did enjoy equal rights in some ancient societies, the inclusion or exclusion of such trends is irrelevant because it was not based on the same foundation as the current trends. The same applies to things like the decline of the death penalty, war, violence, etc. The reason these things began to happen when they did is the existence of enabling communication technologies. The logic was there all along, but there was no way for it to propagate. This is obviously an over-simplification as it doesn't take into account the priorities of people in pre-modern societies and the different trajectories of certain under-developed regions, but my point is that the mainstream view is incorrect and non-instructive.
 
some good points there, Siro...

to "steer" this thread back towards the topic, I was looking for some research into homosexuality among pigs, but most everything I could find had to do with guinea pigs...

I did find this article about rams and boars though, and felt that was closer to what Highland Homie has in mind
https://www.theriojournal.com/article/0093-691X(81)90098-4/abstract?cc=y

Libido and mating behavior in bulls, boars and rams. A review☆
P.J. Chenoweth
Department of Animal Production University of Queesland

In this restricted review of the literature on libido and mating behavior in bulls, boars and rams it is assumed that libido and mating ability are important traits which can affect production significantly in food and fibre producing animals. These traits are strongly influenced by genetic factors, they vary widely in their expression among individuals and they can be reliably assessed or measured. Rearing young post-puberal males in all-bachelor groups can delay or inhibit the subsequent expression of heterosexual mating behavior. In the species reviewed, females adopt the major role in seeking sexual partners. Visual cues are of greater importance than olfactory cues in eliciting male sexual response. Bulls and rams rend to distribute their services among receptive females within their genetic limitations with females newly in estrus being most attractive to the males. Social interactions among males in multi-sire groups can markedly influence the reproductive performance of both individual males and the female herd or flock. Single sire breeding, while potentially more efficient than multi-sire breeding, is dependent upon the reproductive capabilities of the sire. Proper assessment of factors such as libido and mating ability before breeding can greatly reduce the possibility of poor reproductive performance from single sires.

ya'll can thank me later!
 
Not to mention he is simply incapabale or unwilling to make any distinctions on differing opinions and stances. It is either you agree with him 100% on every case or you are a racist, murderous pig supporter.

As Heyhey pointed out, if HH really cared he would be worried about causeing his cause damage. But he isn't because I do not think he really cares. Screams Alt but I can't prove it.

HH is being an intentional tool. No better than Carolina...

yeah +abajllion bro.
this HH character is one of the biggest trolls here.
at least the rest of us can be thankful we're not HH. cuz we're not. no sir.
 
As opposed to the thousands of years where homosexuals didn't exist? Or they existed but didn't have any social connections? Or they remained closeted until suddenly, and explicable, they all decided to come out? I cannot see any way your argument makes sense. Homosexuality and other issues progressed because the rational arguments for them (they're harmless, gays are just people, you don't choose your sexuality, and so on) found a wider audience as technology progressed and people got more exposed to those ideas. And your arbitrary argument for why homosexuality became accepted doesn't work on anything else, like women's right, while the argument of information exposure has tremendous explanatory power.

The "argument for information exposure" is, if I understand you correctly, the argument that familiarity breeds acceptance. That was my point. Perhaps I misunderstood yours.

Let's try this another way. Is there a rational argument favoring the recognition of homosexual marriages that is fundamentally different today than the rational arguments available 1000 years ago? If yes, what is it? If no, why would you credit the rational argument per se as being effective today, when it was ineffective 1000 years ago?

By the way, my argument does work for things like women's rights, as well. As labor became less purely physical and more oriented toward dexterity and/or knowledge, women were better able to compete with men, and men began to see them as being more equal generally.
 
Since the emergence of mass media and communication technologies starting in the Middle Ages, much of the world has been on a trajectory of progress based on the idea of maximizing human well-being through the application of reason. So while women did enjoy equal rights in some ancient societies, the inclusion or exclusion of such trends is irrelevant because it was not based on the same foundation as the current trends. The same applies to things like the decline of the death penalty, war, violence, etc. The reason these things began to happen when they did is the existence of enabling communication technologies. The logic was there all along, but there was no way for it to propagate. This is obviously an over-simplification as it doesn't take into account the priorities of people in pre-modern societies and the different trajectories of certain under-developed regions, but my point is that the mainstream view is incorrect and non-instructive.

You can create logic that justifies the death penalty, war, violence, and the suppression of civil rights. You can use reason to support all of these things. Logic is a GIGO system, the quality of its results will match the quality of the starting assumptions, and the choice of starting assumptions for reason can not be chosen by reason (or they would not be starting assumptions).

Which is fine, because humans are not fundamentally rational, anyhow. They choose positions more on emotion, and then rationalize them; it takes years of practice to be able to go in the opposite direction.
 
You can create logic that justifies the death penalty, war, violence, and the suppression of civil rights. You can use reason to support all of these things. Logic is a GIGO system, the quality of its results will match the quality of the starting assumptions, and the choice of starting assumptions for reason can not be chosen by reason (or they would not be starting assumptions).

Which is fine, because humans are not fundamentally rational, anyhow. They choose positions more on emotion, and then rationalize them; it takes years of practice to be able to go in the opposite direction.

One could simply flip this and say people have to create logic to oppose those items.
 
Back
Top