Re: Re: POLITICS RELIGION Can we stick to native nutrition?

[Guest guest]

Jent-

> It comes down to what's really the topic here, though -- and I think

> that's

> what's really on many minds: " If I wanted to listen to a bunch of

> blowhards

> playing 'my experiment is bigger than yours', then I would have

> signed up for

> a poliical/religious debate list, not a nutrition list. "

Anyone is of course completely free to leave this list at any time.

There is no obligation to participate and no requirement to read any

posts on the list.

Calling list members names, however, is against the rules, and I must

ask that you refrain from it in the future.

> The idea that it should be " normal " and " expected " that people's

> feelings can

> get hurt on a NUTRITION list is ridiculous, self-serving, and

> self-aggrandizing.

I didn't say any such thing. (Nor do I see how it would be self-

serving and especially self-aggrandizing if I did, for that matter.)

What I actually said is this: " censorship based on the anticipation

that some people's feelings might be hurt is essentially arbitrary and

thus winds up being a slippery slope, " and I stand by every word. I

have always maintained a policy of free speech on this list, with the

sole speech-related rules being a ban on personal attacks and the

requirement that political and religious messages be tagged as such so

that people strictly interested in nutritional discussions can filter

them into the trash or otherwise avoid them. It's an unavoidable

consequence of protecting free speech that some people will use their

freedom to say unpleasant things, but the cost must be born in the

interest of the greater good.

> How does what we eat affect our sexual or emotional bonding nature,

> for better

> or worse (whether we're straight or gay)? How does nutrition affect

> the

> physical stamina required of all minorities (sexual orientation or

> otherwise)

> to live in a larger world that hates and demeans them (stress, lower

> earnings=lower nutrition, programmed self-hate=less attention to

> self-care,

> etc)? And so on.

These are all interesting and valid questions, though I find the

formulation of your latter question biased. (Does the whole " larger

world " really hate and demean all minorities? And what exactly is

" the larger world " anyway? Am I part of it because I'm a straight

white male? What does it mean for your hypothesis that I neither hate

nor demean minorities? And what about minorities who hate and demean

white people? Do any white people suffer as a result? Etc. etc.

etc.) Personally I think it would be more meaningful to consider the

question of how all the stresses of modern life (including but not

limited to bigotry) affect people, and what nutritional and fitness

strategies might be useful for coping with them and compensating for

their ill effects. But that certainly doesn't mean I would in any way

seek to censor your views.

> THESE are the kinds of debate questions I would look for on a well-

> versed

> nutrition list. Not " Do homosexuals choose to be homosexual, or are

> they

> created by their environment/morals/character, or are they genetically

> programmed? "

As I said before, you're welcome to look for whatever you'd like

wherever you like it. My policy on this list, however, has always

been to allow the free and unfettered exchange of ideas provided

civility is maintained between list members.

> No one can answer that question anyway, in real truth -- no

> matter what genes are revealed, or chemical interactions are

> discovered, and

> so on. The brain and computational power to answer it doesn't exist

> -- but the

> arrogance to impose an theoretical answer on living, breathing,

> feeling human

> beings is certainly in great abundance!

It strikes me as being highly unlikely that the determining factors

behind homosexuality are so subtle and complex that they exceed our

ability to discern them; we already know a great deal about the broad

structures and functions of the brain, and the science of mind and

brain is still in its infancy. Decoding thought, by contrast, is a

much more imposing problem -- and even that, I believe, will

eventually be possible provided that civilization and scientific

progress aren't interrupted.

Nor do I think your description of " imposing an answer " on people is

really meaningful. When we determined that sickle-cell anemia is a

genetic disease, did we heartlessly impose the idea on hapless

victims? Or are we just stating what appears to be a fact? (And what

does " imposing an answer " even mean?) Similarly, homosexuality

obviously is caused by something, even though the cause is at present

a lot less clear than the cause of heterosexuality. Scientific

inquiry into this question is not in and of itself biased or evil.

It's simply part of the general goal of science -- to understand the

self and the world we live in.

> Then why is there no " debate " about what causes us to be

> heterosexual? This

> " debate " takes place because homosexuality is still seen as " out of

> the norm " .

Uh, no, actually there is some debate, and you're also

misunderstanding something fundamental about the issue. First, I

think an unavoidable consequence of the position that homosexuality is

a choice is that heterosexuality is also a choice, so the debate

between people who believe it's a choice and people who believe it's

not naturally extends to heterosexuality even though it may not always

(or even often) be described as such. Second, there's an obvious

evolutionary pressure behind heterosexuality -- sexual attraction to

the opposite sex promotes sexual reproduction -- so the reason that

heterosexuality exists (as opposed to the functional mechanisms by

which it exists) is more intuitively obvious than the reason that

homosexuality exists. And third, there's actually a great deal of

research being done into heterosexuality; scientists are studying what

traits and characteristics people find attractive, what mechanisms are

involved in the sex drive, and so on and so forth. Some of this

research also covers homosexuality, some doesn't.

> When there are dozens of emails here raging and debating about what

> creates

> well-educated straight white guys who behave like self-serving and

> destructive

> idiots, then perhaps it won't seem so out of place.

Once again, I have to warn you not to engage in personal attacks. The

fact that you're not naming names is beside the point; it's largely

clear whom you're referring to.

> > all questions should be open to scientific inquiry and debate, and

> > personally, my hope is that if the silly idea that homosexuality is

> > merely a " choice " is definitively put to rest, some of the edge

> might

> > be taken off anti-gay bigotry and it might even recede somewhat over

>

> I can understand what you're hoping to accomplish, and I applaud your

> intentions. But science is no more likely to " prove " or " protect "

> anyone than

> religion has (let's see -- hundreds of thousands dead from religious

> ideas, or

> hundreds of thousands dead from scientific ideas..? Hhmmm?).

Science can't protect anyone; only people can protect themselves and

other people. Science, however, offers tools and knowledge which not

only can make it easier to protect people but can make it more clear

WHY we should protect people. I'm not sure what you mean by science

" proving " people, though, so I can't address that statement.

> Currently, for example, there is a scientist at work in my city that

> experiments on gay rams (sheep). He says he's just doing experiments

> on what

> causes homosexuality, but if that's true, then why is all of his

> work aimed at

> how to make gay rams straight?

Without knowing more about this particular researcher, I can't really

comment, but generally speaking, it seems to me that besides

epidemiological types of research, there are probably two main

productive approaches to trying to figure out what makes rams gay:

trying to experimentally cause gayness in rams that otherwise were or

would have been straight, and trying to experimentally cause

straightness in rams that otherwise were or would have been gay.

Perhaps this researcher is biased, perhaps not; you haven't provided

enough information to draw a conclusion. But I don't think there's

anything wrong with the root scientific inquiry that may -- or may not

-- be inspiring his research.

> People who hate people who are different than

> they are will use whatever means necessary to justify it within

> their own

> minds -- so whether gay people (or Jewish people, or..) are bad

> because

> they're " ungodly " , or because they are " diseased " , or because they are

> " genetically defective " is all the same. It certainly has always had

> the same

> result: find a way to get categorize and then get rid of the

> " problem " /difference.

Tribalism and the dichotomy between in-group and out-group morality

have always been with us and are probably an unavoidable part of our

genetic heritage, but scientific investigation into human nature can

nonetheless be helpful in ameliorating their effects by demonstrating,

for example, that gay people don't " choose " to be gay, and that the

differences between ethnic groups are actually much smaller than most

people tend to believe.

And even if gay people DID " choose " to be gay (whatever the hell that

would mean) it still wouldn't be grounds for discrimination against

them, and a scientific determination of this fact still wouldn't cause

anyone who wasn't already bigoted to become bigoted. Moreover, any

kind of policy or philosophy (including protection of gay rights) that

is founded either on a lie or on ignorance, willful or otherwise, is

inherently vulnerable to the truth. Even worse, by opposing the truth

or investigation into the truth, proponents of such policies and

philosophies actually create a harmful polarization of philosophy

versus truth and science, forcibly driving people who would otherwise

just be interested in science and the truth into the opposition camp!

That is one of the prime reasons I'm so passionately committed to

supporting free and unfettered scientific inquiry and the free and

unfettered exchange of ideas; without them, we're placing progressive

morality into opposition against science and freedom and reality and

thus setting it up to fail.

(And really, I think this is the single most important point on the

subject that I could possibly make.)

> And that's why gay people and other minorities are quite likely to

> be offended

> or hurt by the discussion about what " causes " them: it's demonizing,

> it's

> patronizing, and it's presumptuous in the extreme.

It's certainly not demonizing, it's no more patronizing than any other

discussion of human nature (including, for example, the possible

causes of atheism -- which I feel are perfectly open to discussion

even though I'm an atheist myself) and I don't see how it's

presumptuous, either. That is to say, mere discussion by itself is

not necessarily any of these things. I can certainly see the argument

that some of the things which have actually been said are demonizing,

patronizing and presumptuous (though there's no guarantee that you and

I would necessarily agree on which things could be described thus) but

in response, I can only refer you to my defense of free speech.

OK, and I can also quote Salman Rushdie, who wrote an excellent

defense of free speech.

<http://www.opendemocracy.net/faith-europe_islam/article_2331.jsp

> Even though he was addressing a particular proposal in England,

his general argument is universal. Two bits in particular stand out

as being central to my argument.

>> “The moment you declare a set of ideas to be immune from criticism,

>> satire, derision, or contempt, freedom of thought becomes

>> impossible.”

>> The defence of free speech begins at the point when people say

>> something you can’t stand. If you can’t defend their right to say

>> it, then you don’t believe in free speech. You only believe in free

>> speech as long as it doesn’t get up your nose.

I personally find some of the ideas espoused on this list to be

loathsome, but I am a true defender of freedom of speech.

> > pretty unpleasant nonsense, but pretending the nonsense doesn't

> exist

> > and that people don't believe it is probably the surest way of

> keeping

> > it around. On the flip side, I also think the question of what

> > factors incline people to religiosity is equally legitimate, even

> > though the discomfort in that case is likely concentrated on the

> other

> > side of the aisle.

>

> There are no gay people (or their families/etc) who do not know

> about this

> nonsense.

This is completely beside the point. Choking off debate and refusing

to address the beliefs of people who disagree in an open fashion is

what will perpetuate this sort of nonsense.

In fact, I think it's quite ironic that in one moment you accuse those

who debate the issue of being patronizing and presumptuous and

whatnot, and then in the next you suggest that it's enough that gay

people (and their families/etc.) know that this nonsense exists, thus

implying that the people who actually believe the nonsense (or in fact

anyone at all who disagrees with you in any way) simply don't matter.

Surely that's the true presumption.

> Again, though, to debate what " causes " them is to fall into the same

> rut as those who hate them: it's to presume the debate itself is

> useful or

> even valid.

First, it doesn't really matter whether the debate is useful or

valid. The question is whether it should be protected, and just as

I'd defend to the death the right of a racist to speak his racism even

though I find racism anything BUT useful or valid, so too will I

defend the existence of any debate, whether or not I personally find

it useful or valid. And second, banning disagreement is a very good

way to prevent progress; sometimes sacred beliefs are in fact mistaken

(e.g. the lipid hypothesis, which is certainly sacred in many circles

even today) and even if they're not, their support is weakened by

" protecting " them from dissent.

Again, I refer you to Salman Rushdie's excellent article and to the

two statements I excerpted from it, as well as to my earlier argument

against polarizing morality against science.

> We are like euro-americans who debated whether native-americans or

> africans were really animals or not -- and are then surprised that

> native-americans and africans find our " discussion " offensive,

> destructive,

> and pathetically un-useful.

First, that's simply ridiculous. Nobody is debating whether

homosexuals are human or whether they should be deprived on their

property, put on reservations, killed en masse, or anything else even

remotely like that. And second, see above.

> > IOW, I'm not a big fan of taboos, and I think preserving them

> opposes

> > the critical thinking required for progress, so while I truly regret

> > any pain some of the freewheeling discussions on this list might

> cause

> > anyone, and while I really do empathize with anyone who finds such

> > discussion injurious, I think that pain is by far the lesser of two

> > evils.

>

> Then, like all good scientists -- and good religionists -- you are

> willing to

> kill the subject to save it, and willing to use only one small part

> of your

> brain while pretending to yourself and the world that you're smarter

> because

> of it.

Don't you find it a bit contradictory to object to anti-gay bigotry in

one breath and then to promulgate anti-science bigotry of your own in

the next?

Furthermore, while I cut people a lot more slack on the " no personal

attacks " rule when those attacks are directed solely at me, you've

just attacked all scientists and " religionists " (whatever the heck

they might be) in one fell swoop, and though again you haven't named

any names, the implications are reasonably clear and I must ask you to

desist immediately. Debate is welcome. Disagreement is welcome.

Competing philosophies are welcome. Difficult or even objectionable

ideas are welcome, though of course they will find plenty of

objection. Personal attacks are not.

-