I do not make the claim that your self-reported identity nd it's premises do not influence the choices you make. I do not make the claim that having a preference, or making a decision based on that preference is necessarily shallow or self-indulgent. Nor do I make the claim that maintaining an identity that is in part based on one's preferences is shallow or self-indulging. I make the claim that any identity derived in large part or solely through the expression of sexual attraction or preference is shallow and self-indulging, as well as limiting and short-sighted. If you only make decisions based on the view that you are a **** and balls that needs *****, that's shallow and self-indulgent. Doesn't matter if it's straight or gay, or something else entirely. If it's absurd to hold anyone to the standard of societal contribution, why hold it at all? Spoiler: I'm not supposed to give my opinion, but... How could holding such an admittedly absurd standard possibly benefit anyone? Wouldn't it just be infinitely frustrating and self-destructive to do so? Is that going to be good for society, to have a base of individuals who are constantly self-destroying in their quest to provide something to other people, not out of love for them, or for the things they do, but merely because their existence morally compels them to do so? Is not some understanding of their existence necessary to then explain why that's the case? Is it possible to completely explain the entirety of existence and one's purpose by leaning on the word society, when that society is ever-changing based on the choices made daily by those that comprise it? How is anyone supposed to have a solid frame of reference for their life purpose if the justification for it is an amorphous historical construct that changes itself? Can you answer these questions in a logically consistent manner and provide an integrated system of thought for those who ask them? If not, what gives you the right to say anything at all on the subject? It's clear from your treatment of 'ought to create' and 'just change a variable and move on' that you don't care at all what is actually created, just as long as it contributes in some kind of spreadsheet to the checkbook of society'. I took a **** this morning, I created something, does that contribute to society? How does the sterile man example defeat my statement that human heterosexual relations is a key part of reproduction, which is at base the most productive thing any animal can possibly do? Why are you getting stuck in the weeds of naturalistic biological essentialism, when I neither stated nor intended any such perspective? My whole point is that mankind has harnessed that basic fact of reality and channeled it into far greater wonders than the birth of a new human, through his unique capacity to think and act conceptually. A sterile man can't fulfil the normal biological function of a sexually reproducing creature, that's no fault of his own, nor is it necessarily part of his identity. However, who people chose to have sex with is entirely within their control, assuming they are conscious and aware of the world around them. That has much more to do with the reason for pursuing the act. If the sterile man, who knows that he is sterile, decides to pursue meaningless sex with a woman who he knows wants to settle down with him and have children, it would be absolutely unreasonable, and arguably evil, since he is aware of all the conditions involved. If he doesn't know he's sterile, then there's nothing anyone could do - tragedies occur, and that one is mere happenstance in the roulette wheel of biological chance. Is this case any different, in principle, from the situation where a man intent on starting a family pursues a relationship with a woman who only views sexuality as transactional, and children as a burden? Who said anything about kindness? Is it truly kindness if you don't care at all about the outcome? If I go out and buy some kid a toy and give it to him because I'm supposed to contribute to society, is that kind, or am I only fulfilling some loosely defined categorical virtue that can be changed by the whims and winds of people's personal decisions? Is kindness therefore supposed to be considered some kind of axiomatic principle? What if someone doesn't hold that same principle, and perceives what I do as hateful, which then horrifically alters the way that they think about me, and others who are trying so hard to be kind to them? Do you realize that this is cold, calculating, and antithetical to the concept of kindness as it is understood and defined by a reasonable human being who is able to value people and feel emotions? And to that point: mental illness is not something that can be fixed by promoting LGBTQ+ identities, and other identities derived through sexual activity, especially out of "kindness". It is arguable, and even demonstrable that promoting and normalizing these preferences and identities as primaries of one's existence only contributes to further cases of unaddressed mental illness, and/or short-term pleasure-seeking, and further reinforcement that there is nothing to question, that the 'science is settled'. I already stated that "of course some aspect of sexual attraction may be pre-natal". How much, I don't know. In what direction, for a male or female fetus, I don't know. But the fact still stands that the way these identities are to be 'accepted' without question and only on the grounds that they are stated, is completely antithetical to all of the principles that uphold the society that has allowed the question of gender/sexual identity to become a relevant social question. True kindness in this regard would be to actually try and understand where this desire to self-differentiate based on preference really comes from, and to then begin the work of principled analysis as to whether it's good for the people that engage in it. But I think that the time for that has already passed, as it has become a political and aesthetic question, and not a philosophical, moral, or scientific question. And, as I've said, that goes for heterosexual identity and relations as well. Society would not exist without the individuals that comprise it. Case closed. It's entirely up to those individuals what the society looks like. As far as the one point you picked to explicitly disagree with, every society in existence that puts the 'needs of that society' over the education and development of self-esteem through achievement is doomed to collapse. It doesn't allow growth, it doesn't allow flexibility, it doesn't allow protection of any founding principle other than the cold kindness I've already explained. Let's look at a replay: "Ultimately an egalitarian/utilitarian approach like this on any front - be it spiritual, monetary, or alimentary - fails, because it requires those who build their identity with productive activity and the careful tending of their own self esteem to sacrifice it to those who do not, and who are not expected to." "This is where I disagree. I think society, in some aspects, is more important than the individual; but I think preserving individual rights is integral to society. Sacrifice is mandatory for any civilized societies advancement. Besides, charitable acts themselves could be argued as an act that grants self-growth. I don't think it's realistic to dismiss our ability to make rational decisions on complex topics." On what grounds is it more important? Why are individual rights important, but individual sacrifice also necessary? If sacrifice is the standard of self-growth, then how do you expect to stand against my point that self-destruction through mandatory charity is what you're arguing for, whether you're aware of that or not? Do the grounds that sacrifice is necessary for society (which one, what kind?) to exist reach back into the nature of metaphysical reality, or are they skin-deep and only political? Who dismissed mankind's ability to make rational decisions on complex topics? Was it me, when you detected that I hold that rational decisions don't require society-imposed self-destruction and can exist in a cohesive worldview without forced redistribution of effort, 'care', products, and nourishment? Looks like my premise that Man is capable of being rational totally undermines my claim that Man can rationally care about himself and recognize others' right to that very same luxury of conceptual evolution! Oopsie doopsie!!! Unfortunately, your claim of enlightened centrism is a personal philosophy, written in clear black and white - it only masquerades as gray. 'How can I possibly know? I don't want to actually pick a position, especially if I find myself alone - so I'll pick the non-position, that'll show anyone with a fixed position that I'm a real thinker.' That perspective is what gives you the right to make a statement on the questions I presented in the Spoilers section of this post, right? Or is it something else, something unknowably magnificent that someone like me who thinks in terms of truth or falsehood couldn't possibly understand? Frankly, I'm only posting this response to practice my writing. Also because I care enough about the rest of the people who still visit this site to provide a principled take on the issues being discussed, since no one else will. Not a religious one, not a 'secular' one, not a political one, or a merely anecdotal one, it's just a reasonable approach. It's black and white. Yes or No. 1 or 0.
Rathole Infection will be ready for testing in about 2-3 weeks. Also working on a map called Apprehension but it still has a long way to go