rebuttal to biological defenses of heteronormativity

[Dre89]

Can you link me to that study or the data that was used to make such a conclusion?

The suicide rates can be found in the Cambridge Companion to Athiesm. The happiness statistic is mentioned by William Lane Craig in his debate with Theodore Drange, which can be found on Youtube.

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

I'm curious how he linked happiness directly to religiousness in developing countries, where a myriad of other circumstances could have impacted the happiness rate.

 

[rvkevin]

The suicide rates can be found in the Cambridge Companion to Athiesm. The happiness statistic is mentioned by William Lane Craig in his debate with Theodore Drange, which can be found on Youtube.

I guess the answer would be no. I don't have access to the book, and I don't trust Craig to accurately represent the data.

 

[Dre89]

Of course, but if it was a statistic showing that religious people were less intelligent I bet no one would be asking about that.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

That's not only completely beside the point, it's also wrong.

 

[rvkevin]

Of course, but if it was a statistic showing that religious people were less intelligent I bet no one would be asking about that.

The problem is that when comparing developed irreligious countries vs. developed religious countries, its hard to compare the two because the number of developed religious countries is so low. This is why I wanted to know what was being considered a religious country vs. non-religious country, what is considered a developed country, etc. Considering a brief search for developed countries gives 34 countries, based on that alone, it is safe to say that there will be a lot of variability, which will necessarily diminish what we can with confidence about whatever conclusion is drawn. If you want to continue further with this line of reasoning, I suggest you build on something that is more solid, rather than data that is mostly the product of noise. When considering religion and intelligence, the above is not a factor, so you are comparing apples and oranges here. So, BPC is correct, its besides the point and doesn't address a potential problem about the conclusion.

 

[El Nino]

Ok but does can one statistic invalidate two separate statistics?

It doesn't invalidate the statistics. It casts doubt on the conclusion made based on those statistics.

Ok guys suicide rates do not matter, because there are a million things that could be a factor in suicide rates.

That's part of the point I was trying to make. Denying individuality and liberation does not immediately cause "happiness" in a society. Russian society has a culture that favors other virtues over individuality, and it has a high poverty level, and yet even with those factors, it still has a high suicide level. This suggests that "happiness" is not necessarily directly correlated to less wealth and less individuality.

The suicide rates can be found in the Cambridge Companion to Athiesm. The happiness statistic is mentioned by William Lane Craig in his debate with Theodore Drange, which can be found on Youtube.

Is Craig the researcher who produced that data? Or, does the Cambridge Companion name the researcher and the paper where those statistics are published?

Of course, but if it was a statistic showing that religious people were less intelligent I bet no one would be asking about that.

I would guess that you would be asking about it, if that were the case. And if you did, the other party wouldn't come off looking good if he didn't supply a reputable source.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Might as well talk about this for a second (first page = in bump territory)



While the original evolutionary purpose for sex is certainly reproduction, that does not mean that it cannot serve other functions for individuals that it does not serve that function. Vestigial organs are repurposed evolutionary constantly, so what makes sex any different?

 

[Dre89]

I'd be open to the idea that sex has alternate ends, but the biology of it has not altered in a way to suggest it does.

You need to show me how the biology of the act accommodates alternate ends.

 

[ballin4life]

The biological purpose of the act doesn't matter.

Humans have hearing so that they can hear enemies or predators approaching, but that doesn't mean that we can't also use hearing to listen to music.

 

[Dre89]

But it is natural for humans to listen to music.

Humans are structured to create and appreciate music, we are structured to be artistic. Not only is hearing the only way to access music, but nothing about the heraing function is corrupted/altered to listen to music.

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

But it is natural for humans to listen to music.

Humans are structured to create and appreciate music, we are structured to be artistic. Not only is hearing the only way to access music, but nothing about the heraing function is corrupted/altered to listen to music.

Are we not also structured to enjoy and appreciate sex and sexual things?

 

[Dre89]

I just realised I hadn't posted my answer to that in this thread, and the other threads where I have posted it are gone. This is going to be a pain to type out.

The sexual act is not designed for casual sex. There are a number of biological factors that indicate this.
-The fact you need artificial agents to prevent procreation (although it doesn't always work, 65% of all abortions come from contraception sex, which is like over 30 million).
-The male cannot choose to ejaculate or not. Once he reaches a specific point of sexual pleasure, he automatically ejaculates.
-He cannot choose to fire blanks.
-Once he has ejaculated, he is rid of his sexual desire.
-The most intense pleasure is the ejaculation, suggesting this is the end goal.
-Prolonged sexual stimulation without ejaculation in the male causes pain in the genitals and increases the chance of prostate cancer.
-A female is most "keen" during her most fertile stage of the cycle.

Nothing about these factors suggests that pleasure is an alternate end of the act. If it was, we wouldn't need an artificial agent to prevent procreation, we would be able to choose when to ejaculate, and to fire blanks. Pleasure would continue post-ejaculation, the ejaculation would not equate to the most intense pleasure, and there would be no penalty for prolonged stimulation without ejaculation.

I want an explanation for these factors. Everyone I debate on this issue seems to avoid providing an explanation for these factors.

 

[ballin4life]

I just realised I hadn't posted my answer to that in this thread, and the other threads where I have posted it are gone. This is going to be a pain to type out.

The sexual act is not designed for casual sex. There are a number of biological factors that indicate this.

I'll preface my point by point comments by saying that pretty much none of the following are true, but regardless it doesn't matter. Biological design has no impact on what humans ought to do.

Even so, it is clear evolutionarily that humans, particularly males, are designed for "casual sex". Optimal male reproductive strategy is to impregnate as many females as possible.

Regardless, sexual acts are certainly designed to be pleasurable to humans.

-The fact you need artificial agents to prevent procreation (although it doesn't always work, 65% of all abortions come from contraception sex, which is like over 30 million).

For one this is incorrect. Ever heard of coitus interruptus (aka "pulling out")? Studies have it as like 96% effective.

Anyway, it doesn't matter whether things are "artificial" or not ... and even if it did, humans are part of nature anyway, so the things they invent can be considered natural.

-The male cannot choose to ejaculate or not. Once he reaches a specific point of sexual pleasure, he automatically ejaculates.

This simply isn't the case ... there clearly is some ability to control this, as evidenced by 50 minute porn videos.

-He cannot choose to fire blanks.

Why would this matter?

-Once he has ejaculated, he is rid of his sexual desire.

WTF? I mean, surely it is lessened, but "rid of" is a very strong wording. Sometimes people will have sex 3+ times consecutively.

-The most intense pleasure is the ejaculation, suggesting this is the end goal.

Debatable.

-Prolonged sexual stimulation without ejaculation in the male causes pain in the genitals and increases the chance of prostate cancer.

Ok.

-A female is most "keen" during her most fertile stage of the cycle.

Sure.

Nothing about these factors suggests that pleasure is an alternate end of the act. If it was, we wouldn't need an artificial agent to prevent procreation, we would be able to choose when to ejaculate, and to fire blanks. Pleasure would continue post-ejaculation, the ejaculation would not equate to the most intense pleasure, and there would be no penalty for prolonged stimulation without ejaculation.

It's pretty clear that "pleasure" is at least one of the results...

I want an explanation for these factors. Everyone I debate on this issue seems to avoid providing an explanation for these factors.

It doesn't matter anyway. As I said before, appealing to some notion of design is pointless. My fingers weren't designed to type on this keyboard, but that doesn't mean that it is somehow WRONG to do so.

 

[Dre89]

Pleasure is not one of the "results". Procreation is the result, because that is what results from the act. That is what comes prior to the act, similar to how the results come prior to the scientific experiement. The pleasure is merely to entice you into the act, that's why it is ends after the ejaculation, and which is why the ejaculation is the most intense pleasure.

I've answered your keyboard argument multiple times before (maybe not in this trhead though). Humans are structured to develop technology, and nothing is being corrupted when you type, it is merely a more efficient way of achieving natural human goals (communciation, education, entertainment etc.).

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Even if there is a "purpose", why bother with it if there's no explicit reason to do so? This is where your argument has always failed, and always will fail. Purpose or not, you could apply any purpose to anything and still have this problem.

 

[El Nino]

The sexual act is not designed for casual sex.

As ballin said, males are evolutionarily adapted for frequent sex with multiple partners. Females are adapted to be more selective in choosing mates. A lot of human behavior can be explained as reconciling these two conflicting goals between the sexes. So, it isn't accurate to say that hetersexual intercourse is not meant for casual sex because for one of the sexes casual sex is a viable reproductive strategy.

-The fact you need artificial agents to prevent procreation

Homosexual sex prevents procreation and is not an "artificial agent."

-The male cannot choose to ejaculate or not. Once he reaches a specific point of sexual pleasure, he automatically ejaculates.
-He cannot choose to fire blanks.
-Once he has ejaculated, he is rid of his sexual desire.
-The most intense pleasure is the ejaculation, suggesting this is the end goal.
-Prolonged sexual stimulation without ejaculation in the male causes pain in the genitals and increases the chance of prostate cancer.

If ejaculation is the end goal, it still does not matter where he ejaculates.

Humans are structured to develop technology

Like condoms?

 

[ballin4life]

Pleasure is not one of the "results". Procreation is the result, because that is what results from the act.

Not when you use a contraceptive or good old coitus interruptus

That is what comes prior to the act, similar to how the results come prior to the scientific experiement. The pleasure is merely to entice you into the act, that's why it is ends after the ejaculation, and which is why the ejaculation is the most intense pleasure.

It doesn't END afterwords ... it lessens, sure, but whatever it's pretty clear that pleasure is involved.

I've answered your keyboard argument multiple times before (maybe not in this trhead though). Humans are structured to develop technology, and nothing is being corrupted when you type, it is merely a more efficient way of achieving natural human goals (communciation, education, entertainment etc.).

1) As El Nino said, contraceptives are technology

2) How in the **** are you going to say communication, education and entertainment are "natural" but not sexual entertainment?

It seems that I can just as well say "ban schools because humans were not designed to sit in a room for hours studying". Whether something is being "corrupted" appears to just come down to your opinion.

Just because some part of your body (fingers, genitals, whatever) has one purpose doesn't mean that you can't also use it for some other purpose as well.

 

[rvkevin]

What do you mean by purpose? Do you mean it on the level of biological evolution (If so, how does purpose make sense in an evolutionary paradigm)? Or do you mean it on the level of the individual? If other, what are you trying to demonstrate by pointing to biological features? Same goes for structure, what does it mean for something to be structured? Does it mean that it performs a particular function (does the function have to relate to some particular purpose?-i.e. does it make a difference between evolutionary and individual purposes?) well? Same goes for natural.

If you make it clear what the form of the argument you are making, I think less confusion would result, ultimately making your responses fewer and less redundant. Present an operating definition of your terms and you won't have these problems you often complain of. I think these questions will clarify what is trying to be portrayed.

 

[Dre89]

When I say purpose, I'm not invoking God, I'm speaking of things we move towards. For example, humans clearly move towards food and sex.

Education is something we clearly move towards, yet does not require technology to be practiced. Technology simply allows for the practice to be more efficient.

I always use footwear as a good example. Footwear enhances our ability to travel, it merely adds to the pre existing goal of feet.

Casual sex is in a different category because the biology suggests it's not meant to be practiced, and requires a manipulation of the biology to be practised. You are replacing the obvious end of the act, procreation, with what was initially the means, pleasure.

 

[ballin4life]

What does "meant to be" mean? Meant by whom? Again, were fingers "meant to be" used for typing? Was hair meant to be used for fashion? Were ears meant for listening to music?

I don't see how you can say that ears were "meant for" listening to music.

Why does it even matter? Just because something was "meant to be" one way doesn't mean that we can't also use it for other purposes.

 

[rvkevin]

When I say purpose, I'm not invoking God, I'm speaking of things we move towards.

Does "move towards" mean that those items fulfill specific goals/desires of an individual, that they are given a purpose by an individual? Or does it mean that the general population/thing/action performs a particular function well? For example, is it, we are generally good at learning, so we move towards education? Or is it, we generally desire to learn, so we move towards education? If so, how would you establish a rubric for generally good or generally desire? Or is it, learning is the mechanism of achieving our goals/desires, so we move towards education. Or other?

 

[KrazyGlue]

Casual sex is in a different category because the biology suggests it's not meant to be practiced, and requires a manipulation of the biology to be practised. You are replacing the obvious end of the act, procreation, with what was initially the means, pleasure.

There are a few problems I have with this, and I'm sorry to gang up on you, but I'm just going to post my thoughts.

1. You seem to believe that it's either one way or the other: only have sex to procreate, or always have casual sex. That's not true. What if a family recently had a child and decide that they cannot financially support another one? Should they have to turn away the pleasure of sex because of this constraint?

2. Yes, there is a "point of no return" after which a male cannot prevent having an orgasm. But what of females, who have the same predicament? The female orgasm has nothing to do with procreation. Similarly, pleasure can be derived from the nerve endings around the anus (for both males and females); what is your explanation for this?

 

[Sucumbio]

Not only is hearing the only way to access music, but nothing about the heraing function is corrupted/altered to listen to music.

Beethoven says hi.

I'm with adum on this. Well I think I already made my case and he further exemplified it. But to counter your rebuttal, I submit that the biology of human reproduction -has- in fact evolved to include performing for reasons other than procreation. You just don't see it in the physical body parts of the reproductive system. The evolution is mental.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

When I say purpose, I'm not invoking God, I'm speaking of things we move towards. For example, humans clearly move towards food and sex.

Education is something we clearly move towards, yet does not require technology to be practiced. Technology simply allows for the practice to be more efficient.

I always use footwear as a good example. Footwear enhances our ability to travel, it merely adds to the pre existing goal of feet.

Casual sex is in a different category because the biology suggests it's not meant to be practiced, and requires a manipulation of the biology to be practised. You are replacing the obvious end of the act, procreation, with what was initially the means, pleasure.

Okay, now one more time. Explain how this is not committing the natural fallacy. If you try to act on this, then you are seeing "okay, this is what the 'natural' cause of this is" and deciding "okay, this is all that this should be used for, morally". Correct?