h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I'd argue that an animal is essentially physical object.

I dont think there are many who'd argue with you

Apart from to say that an animal is *entirely* a physical object.


Chemical reactions are an ongoing consequence of its existence at the previous instant, and in that sense are a property of the animal, but I'd argue that they are a property secondary to that of the physical presence of the animal, since they are determined by the interaction of that physical presence with the wider world over time. If time stopped, or the animal was instantly cryo-cooled, it would still be an animal.

Well yes it would still be the same physical object and easily identifiable as such. Its an easy and useful name to call something. Even when its not ANIMAte we still call it an ANIMAl.

Yet if we pulverise it feed it to plants through their roots the same elements still exist in those plants. So you are wrong when you try to seperate the animal from the chemial processes that go on within and around it. Animals dont interactwiht the universe they are another facet of it.

Likewise chutney ferrets, scisor sisters, breeders and saloon doors are not different but behaving simply behaving differently at certain times. When I say Im a rugby player no one thinks it means i go round with a ball under my arm all day, drinking beer from a wellington and singing rude songs non stop, but there is still a notion at large that sexuality is who you are.

If you drink in the afternoon and in the evening do you fret about whether you are a teatotaller or an alcoholic. no because there isnt anyone stupid enough to feel the need to brand you as one or the other. That would be stupid, but is the way we use labelling generally a lot smarter?

Humans have for a long time lost a sense of proportion over compartmentalizing things for reasons too long a dull to go into here but the best thing we can do is just forget about some of the old and pointless labels that really are holding back our attempts to be civillised.

one love

And I also have noticed that is far more socially acceptable for women to be gay than for men. If two men even hug in public, people look at the all askance...

One of my favourite party tricks is to snog my best mate Simon and as we watch people genuinely run to the toilet to be sick. We normally do this after men we are with have been talking about girl on girl action or women we know have been acting flirty with pretend lesbianism.

Its not that funny even if you're a viewer and you're in on the joke and I cant say I like snogging someone with stubble but its worth it for the reactions.

*feels like a dolt*

Define "snog," please.

~pitiful American~

Slang term for a kiss.

Oh! Why don't we Americans have any cool words like that?

But its a horrible word, to quote a discussion I once caught the aftermath of:

"it rhymes with hog and, if you did it badly, could be sort of onomatopoeic". 'Nuff said.

There is variation in every aspect of human life and physiology. Some people aren't exclusively heterosexual. So f*****g what?

Well, Pedro (hi!), the discussion here is, originally, stemming from the idea if a woman takes diet pills during pregnancy, she will have homosexual offspring.

Which of course led to many different conversations about what really causes homosexuality.

And our conclusion thus far has been... exactly what you've said.

That's our pedro!

He has a knack of summing things up rather succinctly.


az

for Pedro!!

<>

Totally agree with you Pedro.

The question is why does anyone care, what sexuality another person is?

I guess some people, just need someone else to put down, so that they can feel 'superior'.

It depends what you mean by 'care'.
Since humans seem to be programmed to try and get inside each other's heads, it's natural to want to try and understand the way other people might see the world, and sexuality can be a significant part of that.

On the level of close acquaintances, it is possible to care in the sense of being *interested* without caring in the sense of being *judgemental*.

What does using labels have to do with acheivingg understanding?

Surely if they are to be used at all they should be reserved for *after* you know all there is you can know about a person. Not to say you *are* this or that which depending on the predispositioon of the person being labelled can be a very limiting thing and often with the world and people changing the way they do cal leave the labeller looking more than a little bit silly.

one love

I mentioned something about this earlier, but just came across a reference to attitudes to homosexuality in Greece: "Though homosexuality was practiced, ancient Greeks and Romans didn't think of it as either innate or exclusive of relationships with people of the opposite gender. Thus, exclusive same-sex relationships — in which men would not marry, produce offspring and perpetuate the family line — were probably unacceptable, said Bliquez." http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=marriagehistory29m&date=20040329

>>"What does using labels have to do with acheivingg understanding?"

Well, understanding in human terms seems pretty intimately involved with categorising the world as a first approximation (think about how children learn to name things), and then maybe exploring the finer distanctions once the mind has a handhold on reality.
Within the category 'people', there are subcategoristaions (labels?) available to describe age, sex, occupation, accent, intelligence, height, width, nationality/region/town, religion, class, fashion, political beliefs, and countless other things.
For pretty much all positions in most of those categories, there are words that are more or less descriptive, and words that are more or less offensive, and the potential for discrimination for those people so inclined.
What's so *special* about sexuality?

If it turns out that sexuality is *in general* rather more vague than most people think, then I'd have thought that that was a subject of general interest. If people are thinking using categories that are incorrect, it would seem good to correct them.

Just reading this article (blame az, she keeps posting grauniad articles and I started reading...)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/features/story/0,11710,1369643,00.html

basically about withholding state funds in Alabama from anything that might promote homosexuality or show it in a positive light.
Love the bit where the interviewer asks if this means that the Alabama State Theatre company will not be doing Shakespeare then

My favourite Jack Nicholson quote for your delectation:

'Show me a politician who mentions family values and I'll show you a politician who likes two prostitutes p***ing on his face.'

I'd put money on this guy either being extremely repressed, an utter pervert, or putting it about like a dog with two d**ks.

A pervert.

I can only assume (not having read the entire BL) that someone somewhere did actually question the statistical significance of the findings/theory.

i.e what size is the total population compared with the sample? If the sample is a statistically insignificant number in comparison with say the proportion of overweight mums, absent fathers, divorced parents, etc. then the research is just plain b*ll*cks.

The article did say
"The researchers emphasise that the numbers taking the drugs were small and that a larger study should be undertaken."
but the results seemed to indicate that something was likely to have been happening.