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

[Guest guest]

--- Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> I understand your feeling on this matter, and of course I'd prefer it

> if everyone maintained a scrupulously kind and polite manner on the

> list, but censorship based on the anticipation that some people's

> feelings might be hurt is essentially arbitrary and thus winds up

> being a slippery slope.

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. "

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.

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 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? " 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!

> Similarly, I think the question of what factors might cause or

> contribute to homosexuality is a legitimate one, and by itself implies

> no moral attitude one way or another towards homosexuality. I think

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 " .

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.

> 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?).

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? 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.

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.

And that's why it doesn't belong in a nutrition-based public forum, where who

knows who is trying to learn *about nutrition* here, only to be bombarded with

the same ridiculous and patronizing " debate " about gay existence that they are

inundated with everywhere these days. And this isn't just an issue for gay

people, of course, but for all of us who have gay family, or friends, or

coworkers or neighbors who are also sick of this " scientific pseudo-debate

being thrown around as if the people being talked about didn't get to decide

all that for themselves, on their own terms, for their own benefit.

> 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. 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. 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.

> 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.

Jent

" The greater part of what my neighbors call good, I believe in my soul to be

bad, and if I repent of anything, it is very likely to be my good behavior. What

demon possessed me that I behaved so well? " -Henry Thoreau

________________________________________________________________________________\

____

Looking for last minute shopping deals?

Find them fast with Search.

http://tools.search./newsearch/category.php?category=shopping

[Guest guest]

--- Jent Lynne <jentlynne@...> wrote:

> It comes down to what's really the topic here, though

Jent,

I like the wide open discussions on NN. I've been on this list for

almost two years now and I find that the discussions here can be quite

entertaining at times

If I lose interest, I just quit reading the uninteresting messages and

move on. There's usually plenty of other topics to read/discuss.

I applaud list owner and moderator for allowing wide

ranging discussions, as long as those involved don't resort to

character assassination of list members. I'm quite happy to ignore

topics that are not interesting and I would never expect all topics to

be interesting to all people on the list.

My advice is that if you don't like a topic, don't read the message

Instead, start a topic that you like.