or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by auxio

 Agreed.  But coming back to my original point, they don't all fit under the survival umbrella. I think the fundamental problem I have with the notion that all actions are done in the name of self-interest is that it's a completely superfluous statement if the definition of self-interest is simply things one is interested in.  What you're essentially saying is that all actions are done in the name of being interested in them.  Well of course they are. But if the definition...
 Once you change to use the categorization of "needs" instead of "necessities for survival", you've broken the logical connection that makes one group the same as the other. If we're going to discuss it in terms of the "pyramid of needs" (which is again a social theory and not a scientifically provable fact), the needs which fit into a higher level of the pyramid are not the same as the needs which fit into a lower level.  This is what forms the distinction between...
 So if Tim Cook's public coming out is driven by self-interest, and self-interest is the same as survival instinct, then explain to me how Cook's survival depends on this action? One could actually make a good case for the reverse: his survival could potentially be threatened by this action if he travelled to certain areas of the world.
 Survival instinct is biological.  Self-interest is a social theory which has no biological scientific evidence.
 I've repeated it many times throughout this thread, but I'll try this time very plainly and directly in bold and see if it sinks in for those who can't comprehend things outside of their own experience: The reason Tim Cook's openly stating that he's gay is important is because there are many other gay men who are currently experiencing discrimination in the world because of their sexual orientation.  By having someone of his stature openly state this, it could have many...
 Ah yes, naturally someone who blindly follows the faith of Capitalist philosophy would argue the world is innately that way.  I've studied Adam Smith, Thomas Hobbes, and the other social and economic philosophers who helped form the foundations of modern Capitalism too.  People who subscribe to that that faith without question no different from those on the other side of the fence who take Marx and Engels as the gospel truth on how the world works.  They just continue to...
 I guess it was the way it was phrased by the original poster: Perhaps I misread, but what I took from that statement was that a very successful gay man coming out and speaking openly is no more deserving of praise than a straight woman stating her sexual orientation.  So my issues with that were: Last I checked, straight women are in the majority.  Which doesn't mean they aren't discriminated against for being a woman, but a woman proclaiming that she's a lesbian would...
 Oh yeah, I was just talking about gamergate.  I certainly don't believe that discrimination against women is any less important (or violent) than discrimination against gays and lesbians. My problem is that I see so many people on the internet these days trying to diminish actions made to advance other causes in support of their own.  Each individual act done in support of eliminating discrimination of any kind needs to be recognized and supported in it's own right.  But...
 ok, now you're just being a contrarian.  If/when all those things are possible, I'd hope that people are doing them because they want to and not to avoid discrimination.  But I fear that wouldn't be the case.
 And here we get the heart of the matter: believe that sexuality is personal preference/desire and not something one is born with.  If you believe that in spite of all the scientific evidence to the contrary, then I'm afraid there's no point in continuing our debate.
New Posts  All Forums: