Morality or biology?

[durangodawood]

It has nothing to do with state of mind. It isn't about how it seems to a subject or the definition would have stated that. The "seems" is only there to account for what information is available. There is no mention of a subject, or "seems to". You added all that "what 'seems' right, and relative to each individual". That is not in the definition.

It's about probability and reasonableness. Yes, many people believe implausible and unreasonable things. That does not make terms like "plausible" subjective. Probability and reason are not subjective.

A statement is plausible or it is not plausible.

Wrong. Plausibility is about probability and reasonableness. There are countless implausible and unreasonable things that people believe. Probability and reason are not subjective.

To both of you. We are discussing the phrase "plausible deniability" which was coined to describe officials who were made intentionally ignorant of certain facts. Their denial is plausible because there is a reason that they do not know those facts. Their denial isn't made plausible if they are a good liar and successfully convince folk that they don't know certain facts. Plausible is not a subjective term.

Plausible: "Seeming reasonable or probable."

seem
/sēm/
verb
give the impression or sensation of being something or having a particular quality.
"Dawn seemed annoyed"

Thats entirely about subjective experience.
If youre looking for an objective qualifier, "plausible" is not your word. Expanded, "plausible" is the impression that something is reasonable. Re young earth, some people have the impression its reasonable - or that evolution is not reasonable.

I could get on board with a campaign to give "plausible" more of an objective flavor, except we already have words for that, such as "probable" or "correct", so what would be the point?

 

[Moral Orel]

Thats entirely about subjective experience.

Ignore my whole post to declare victory without reasoning... lol, seeya.

 

[durangodawood]

Ignore my whole post to declare victory without reasoning... lol, seeya.

I provided the necessary understandings.

If you think "impression and sensation", the basis for "plausibility", is somehow objective, then our lexicons have departed.

Catch ya on the next one if we can agree on a common language.

 

[Moral Orel]

I provided the necessary understandings.

You just cited another definition. You spotted a word that can be related to subjectivity, and declared it "entirely subjective" without argumentation. All the while ignoring the usage of the actual term, "plausible deniability", and my explanation of it that we're discussing.

If you think "impression and sensation", the basis for "plausibility"...

That isn't the basis for plausibility. Probability and reason are the basis for plausibility. Probability and reason are not subjective.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

How many of today's social problems can be tied to environmental issues? Are things like obesity, diabetes, social dysphoria, LGBTQ, OCD and other psychological problems actually caused by our polluting of the environment? For generations now we've polluted the air, the water, and the food, is what we're experiencing now just a consequence of that neglect?

If so, then aren't conservatives actually contributing to the problem through the lack of environmental regulation, while at the same time condemning the consequences as just a lack of morality? Are they actually blaming the victim when it's really themselves who are the problem?

Maybe a small amount but I think this push for green energy crap is doing much more harm. I don't think the push for green energy is about the environment at all but about controlling people's lives and freedoms. I think that tomorrow's technologies will solve most of the environmental problems if they are allowed to be developed. I think we won't be using carbon energy for much longer. Nuclear is something like two million times more efficient. A small amount of uranium or thorium, enough to fill your palm is equivalent to 14,000 tons of coal. There are newer designs that are much safer and we even have reactor designs that can use the waste from older reactors. There are even designs for smaller and modular reactors that can power a single building on site. I read about a start up company that is planning to use powerful lasers powered by fusion reactors to drill holes down into the upper mantle for limitless geothermal power.

Moving to solar and wind is a step backwards barring any new, more efficient developments. I think they definitely have a place but not as the main source. They are just so inefficient. Fussion power is getting closer to being a reality and between that and safer Fission reactors, I think that is where we should be concentrating dollars. We'll still need oil but not so much as fuel.

It takes capital investment and if we kill our economies with green energy boondoggles then it will take much longer to develop these newer, cleaner sources. If we could ever get Helium three fusion reactors there's a virtually inexhaustible supply of fuel on the moon and they don't produce much in the way of radiation.

But that's just my opinion and I'm no expert. I try to keep up with the news on Fusion.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

How many of today's social problems can be tied to environmental issues? Are things like obesity, diabetes, social dysphoria, LGBTQ, OCD and other psychological problems actually caused by our polluting of the environment? For generations now we've polluted the air, the water, and the food, is what we're experiencing now just a consequence of that neglect?

If so, then aren't conservatives actually contributing to the problem through the lack of environmental regulation, while at the same time condemning the consequences as just a lack of morality? Are they actually blaming the victim when it's really themselves who are the problem?

I also think that the way we live contributes a lot to these problems, crammed into cities, cut off from nature and of all the causes I think the dominant moral ideas are the biggest problem.

 

[gaara4158]

How many of today's social problems can be tied to environmental issues? Are things like obesity, diabetes, social dysphoria, LGBTQ, OCD and other psychological problems actually caused by our polluting of the environment? For generations now we've polluted the air, the water, and the food, is what we're experiencing now just a consequence of that neglect?

If so, then aren't conservatives actually contributing to the problem through the lack of environmental regulation, while at the same time condemning the consequences as just a lack of morality? Are they actually blaming the victim when it's really themselves who are the problem?

I wouldn’t lump in LGBTQ as a social problem, but in principle it’s generally true that the same structures of social and economic power that conservatives staunchly aim to preserve or regress are the ones responsible for causing or exacerbating the social ills they complain about.

 

[stevevw]

How many of today's social problems can be tied to environmental issues? Are things like obesity, diabetes, social dysphoria, LGBTQ, OCD and other psychological problems actually caused by our polluting of the environment? For generations now we've polluted the air, the water, and the food, is what we're experiencing now just a consequence of that neglect?

If so, then aren't conservatives actually contributing to the problem through the lack of environmental regulation, while at the same time condemning the consequences as just a lack of morality? Are they actually blaming the victim when it's really themselves who are the problem?

If this was the case then we cannot really be held accountable for our actions because environmental effects cause us to do what we do and we have no free will in the matter.This is what many materialist think today that there is no such thing as free will.

I agree that environmental factors do have an influence but that hasn't stopped people from choosing to change their life for the better. It may be a barrier but its not an impossible one to get around. We all can probably find environmental factors that have caused problems in our life.

But unless our minds are not working properly and we are incapable to being honest with ourselves we can recognize this and seek help to overcome these issues. Sometimes admitting the problem and seeking help is the first step to liberation because we recognize the human weakness in all of us and we need help to overcome what holds us back.

So there's a paradoxical life principle in admitting we are not gods and that we need something greater than ourselves to truly be free.

 

[Ken-1122]

I wouldn’t lump in LGBTQ as a social problem, but in principle it’s generally true that the same structures of social and economic power that conservatives staunchly aim to preserve or regress are the ones responsible for causing or exacerbating the social ills they complain about.

Any examples?

 

[BNR32FAN]

How many of today's social problems can be tied to environmental issues? Are things like obesity, diabetes, social dysphoria, LGBTQ, OCD and other psychological problems actually caused by our polluting of the environment? For generations now we've polluted the air, the water, and the food, is what we're experiencing now just a consequence of that neglect?

If so, then aren't conservatives actually contributing to the problem through the lack of environmental regulation, while at the same time condemning the consequences as just a lack of morality? Are they actually blaming the victim when it's really themselves who are the problem?

No because all of these problems have existed for thousands of years.

 

[partinobodycular]

No because all of these problems have existed for thousands of years.

It's not about the existence of these things, it's about the prevalence of them. For example the number of people with diabetes increased from 108 million in 1980 to 422 million in 2014. The same goes for cancer, obesity, and psychological disorders like OCD.

Now if we were talking about obvious physical abnormalities like birth defects then the first place that we'd look to explain this increase would be the environment. We'd look for what's changed. So it's not unreasonable to think that if we look at the environment in the hopes of explaining increasing physical abnormalities, then we should look to the environment to explain increasing psychological abnormalities as well. After all, the neurological systems of the brain should be far more susceptible to environmental influences than most, if not all less complex physical systems. So if the environment can cause an increase in cancer for example, it's only reasonable to assume that it can cause an increase in psychological abnormalities as well.

Unfortunately, as I pointed out in post #6, with psychological disorders there's always plausible deniability. You can always blame increased diagnosis, or changing cultural influences to explain the increases in things like social dysphoria and LGBTQ. You simply hand wave the problem away instead of looking to the environment for an actual physical cause.

It seems to be part of the human condition that we can hand wave away some things, like the human influence on global warming, while exaggerating the impact of other things, like the adverse effects of vaccines. Instead of maintaining a consistent mechanism for analyzing observed phenomena we simply allow our own personal biases to decide what we're going to find a physical explanation for, and what we're going to dismiss as simply a social/cultural/liberal side effect.

I.E, if you're trying to explain an increase in cancer, look at the environment, but if you're trying to explain an increase in LGBTQ, blame the victim, or liberals, or anything except the environment.

Which means that I'm not really taking anyone's side in this discussion. It may be just as wrong for liberals to accept LGBTQ as a normal part of the human condition as it is for conservatives to dismiss it as nothing more than part of a liberal agenda. It may be that neither position adequately addresses the problem. Things such as LGBTQ may not be a normal part of the human condition, but neither are they simply the byproduct of a liberal agenda. Rather they may actually be the byproduct of a more pervasive problem, our impact on our environment.

The correct way to address the problem is by trying to deal with the effects, while also trying to find and ameliorate the cause.

 

[Moral Orel]

The correct way to address the problem is by trying to deal with the effects, while also trying to find and ameliorate the cause.

Who ever disagreed with this? Find the cause, and then we can talk about ways to ameliorate it. Of course, we'd have to agree that the effect is a problem. Why are gays a problem? It's weird to see an "agnostic" make that claim.

 

[Ken-1122]

Unfortunately, as I pointed out in post #6, with psychological disorders there's always plausible deniability. You can always blame increased diagnosis, or changing cultural influences to explain the increases in things like social dysphoria and LGBTQ. You simply hand wave the problem away instead of looking to the environment for an actual physical cause.

If you find evidence of the environment having such an affect, then I will agree we should be looking at the environment; otherwise I'm waving my hand and looking at something else.

 

[partinobodycular]

Why are gays a problem?

Who said gays are a problem? I merely pointed out that LGBTQ may not be the genetic norm. An argument could just as easily be made that heterosexuality is the problem. Normative is based upon genetic and historic precedence. Problematic on the other hand is more subjective. In fact, from my perspective it's humanity itself that's the problem, and the world would be much better off without them, but then again, evolution doesn't care about my opinion.

 

[jayem]

I.E, if you're trying to explain an increase in cancer, look at the environment, but if you're trying to explain an increase in LGBTQ, blame the victim, or liberals, or anything except the environment.

What evidence is there that LGBTQ persons are increasing in number? I'm no expert, but I've never seen a study in the legitimate, peer-reviewed psychological literature suggesting that such persons comprise a growing percentage of the population. What has changed is a greater acceptance of same-sex attraction. The taboo status is declining, and these people are coming out of the closet. I suppose you could say that the cultural environment is different than in the past. But that's a sociological phenomenon. It's not a biological, physiological, ecological, or genetic issue.

Things such as LGBTQ may not be a normal part of the human condition

I disagree. I think same-sex attraction is a variant of human sexual behavior that's existed as long as has our species. It's "normal" in the same sense that baldness, eidetic memory, musical talent, athletic ability, mathematical and language skills, and countless other traits are natural variants. They're not deleterious aberrations, and they have no moral attributes,

 

[Moral Orel]

Who said gays are a problem?

You did:

How many of today's social problems can be tied to environmental issues? Are things like obesity, diabetes, social dysphoria, LGBTQ, OCD and other psychological problems actually caused by our polluting of the environment?

Unfortunately, as I pointed out in post #6, with psychological disorders there's always plausible deniability. You can always blame increased diagnosis, or changing cultural influences to explain the increases in things like social dysphoria and LGBTQ. You simply hand wave the problem away instead of looking to the environment for an actual physical cause.

Why are gay folk on your lists of examples of problems? Why are gay folk in your list of examples of psychological disorders?

In fact, from my perspective it's humanity itself that's the problem, and the world would be much better off without them, but then again, evolution doesn't care about my opinion.

Who is "them"?

 

[Tuur]

It's not about the existence of these things, it's about the prevalence of them. For example the number of people with diabetes increased from 108 million in 1980 to 422 million in 2014. The same goes for cancer, obesity, and psychological disorders like OCD.

Now if we were talking about obvious physical abnormalities like birth defects then the first place that we'd look to explain this increase would be the environment. We'd look for what's changed. So it's not unreasonable to think that if we look at the environment in the hopes of explaining increasing physical abnormalities, then we should look to the environment to explain increasing psychological abnormalities as well. After all, the neurological systems of the brain should be far more susceptible to environmental influences than most, if not all less complex physical systems. So if the environment can cause an increase in cancer for example, it's only reasonable to assume that it can cause an increase in psychological abnormalities as well.

Unfortunately, as I pointed out in post #6, with psychological disorders there's always plausible deniability. You can always blame increased diagnosis, or changing cultural influences to explain the increases in things like social dysphoria and LGBTQ. You simply hand wave the problem away instead of looking to the environment for an actual physical cause.

It seems to be part of the human condition that we can hand wave away some things, like the human influence on global warming, while exaggerating the impact of other things, like the adverse effects of vaccines. Instead of maintaining a consistent mechanism for analyzing observed phenomena we simply allow our own personal biases to decide what we're going to find a physical explanation for, and what we're going to dismiss as simply a social/cultural/liberal side effect.

I.E, if you're trying to explain an increase in cancer, look at the environment, but if you're trying to explain an increase in LGBTQ, blame the victim, or liberals, or anything except the environment.

Which means that I'm not really taking anyone's side in this discussion. It may be just as wrong for liberals to accept LGBTQ as a normal part of the human condition as it is for conservatives to dismiss it as nothing more than part of a liberal agenda. It may be that neither position adequately addresses the problem. Things such as LGBTQ may not be a normal part of the human condition, but neither are they simply the byproduct of a liberal agenda. Rather they may actually be the byproduct of a more pervasive problem, our impact on our environment.

The correct way to address the problem is by trying to deal with the effects, while also trying to find and ameliorate the cause.

In the stating of the original premise, there seems to be the assumption that pollution is increasing. Yet strictly from personal observation, there seems to be less pollution now than it was sixty decades ago, and even then it was starting to improve. So, if pollution was worse two or so generations ago and if the rate of the occurrence of the things in the original premise is higher now, that seems to argue against pollution as a root cause.

 

[partinobodycular]

In the stating of the original premise, there seems to be the assumption that pollution is increasing.

Back in the 1960's we tended to focus on things such as air pollution from car exhaust, so in 1975 the government mandated catalytic converters, but we weren't concerned about things such as greenhouse gases until around 1980, and we didn't start worrying about microplastics until the 2000's. We tend to only notice things when they become glaringly obvious. Who knows what we're overlooking today, for example all the RF waves from cell phones. So to claim that pollution is better today than it was 60 years ago is to overlook and therefore underestimate the effects that we're having on future generations.

So, if pollution was worse two or so generations ago and if the rate of the occurrence of the things in the original premise is higher now, that seems to argue against pollution as a root cause.

That's what one would presume, but epigenetic studies consistently show that the effects of environmental changes don't show up until two or three generations later.

Here's just one quick example of many, many such studies.

So the ideas that pollution is getting better, and that we should've seen the effects earlier, may not be accurate. We may only now be experiencing the insidious nature of the impact that modern society is having on future generations.

As I've mentioned a couple of times now, people often look for plausible deniability. So they point out that pollution is better now, or that we should have seen the effects earlier, but they may simply be whistling past the graveyard, rather than looking at the changes that are staring them in the face.

 

[partinobodycular]

What evidence is there that LGBTQ persons are increasing in number? I'm no expert, but I've never seen a study in the legitimate, peer-reviewed psychological literature suggesting that such persons comprise a growing percentage of the population.

It's easy to find numbers that point to an increase in people who identify as LGBTQ, but obviously self-identification isn't an objective means of measuring the rate of occurrence of LGBTQ in society, only the propensity to identify as such. But once again you end up with plausible deniability. People don't look for an environmental cause because they can simply deny that there is one. Just as people can deny a connection between human activity and climate change. Indisputable evidence is pretty difficult to come by.

My goal in this thread is simply to get people to think outside the box. To recognize that human activity may be having more of an impact on society than merely changing the weather. Wouldn't that be odd, if after all the things that we did to the environment the only thing that we changed was the weather. It's not about me proving that I'm right. It's about getting people to think about the environmental impacts that they may not have previously considered.

I think same-sex attraction is a variant of human sexual behavior that's existed as long as has our species. It's "normal" in the same sense that baldness, eidetic memory, musical talent, athletic ability, mathematical and language skills, and countless other traits are natural variants.

As with many other responses in this thread, I totally agree. But I'm not talking about the existence of certain characteristics but rather the prevalence of them. For example, it's easy to see that there are more obese people today than there were fifty years ago, for whatever reasons. It's also easy just to put this down to the fact that people simply eat too much and exercise too little, but that overlooks the fact that there may be an environmental factor. To dismiss this possibility is to do a disservice to both this generation and future ones.

They're not deleterious aberrations, and they have no moral attributes,

Again I agree, but they may not be without deleterious effects, just as increased obesity may have deleterious effects. Neither of them are questions of morality, but that doesn't mean that neither of them are problematic. There are consequences for both of them, so we shouldn't just dismiss them as being normal when they may in fact be signs of a deeper issue and not just personal preference and lifestyle.

It would be wrong to simply accept such things as increased obesity and LGBTQ because we don't want to be seen as stigmatizing them, but that doesn't mean that they're normal, when they may in fact be indications of a deeper issue...the impact of modern society on the health of our future offspring.

 

[jayem]

It would be wrong to simply accept such things as increased obesity and LGBTQ because we don't want to be seen as stigmatizing them, but that doesn't mean that they're normal, when they may in fact be indications of a deeper issue...the impact of modern society on the health of our future offspring.

I can appreciate your point. I just don’t don’t see homosexuality as a significant problem. I can fully agree with you about others. Obesity, illicit drug use (especially fentanyl), increasing storm intensity, the rise of authoritarian political extremism—yes. These are all dangerous societal trends. And maybe worst of all—mass shooting events. We have our hands full dealing with these existential threats. Same-sex relationships are barely a blip on the radar.