Gay Players! :: EverQuest II

Quote Reply

#77 Sep 14 2006 at 12:05 PM Rating: Decent

__DEL__1604880975310

Scholar

699 posts

Quote:

Sometimes there are things are best left unknowned or undebated.

No

Quote:

Trying to debate if homosexuality is a choice or not does not neccessary leads to good consquences.

I'm not a consequentialist. Truth is inherently valuable.

Quote:

The truth hurts sometimes,

I don't know what this has to do with anything. I am not worried about people's feelings, just truth. Once that is discovered, then we can start worrying about peoples feelings.

Quote:

and sometimes the truth is also subjective.

Then it is not truth, thats called an opinion. Ref. Plato Theatetus

Quote:

So sometimes it is better for the truth to be left unknown.

No, again.

Socrates would rather have sought the truth than escaped his own death. I would never discount the inherent value of truth for anything. Especially in something where the truth has such expansive ramifications in a present-day social justice arena.

Edit: Not trying to be mean, but the truth in this issue (among many other difficult issues) should never be tossed aside for the sake of not offending someone.

Edited, Sep 14th 2006 at 1:23pm EDT by galapagosiananna

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#78 Sep 14 2006 at 12:37 PM Rating: Decent

scchan

Scholar

6,631 posts

The reason for truth sometimes is best left unknown is really for a pratical, political, and realistic reason instead of a philosophical/academic reason.

If knowing the truth may lead to abuse and strife, may be it is good not to know the truth. Say you DO know the truth of Allah or God -- say you are somehow can proof some of the words from Moses, Jesus and Mohammed to be wrong or there are some truth to the Da Vinci Code (I am not saying they are wrong -- it is a fictious scenario), it is going to cause a global uproar.

Obession of truth and justice does not neccessary solve existing conflicts either, in fact it may enlarge it. The capture/attempt trial and find the truth of Pinochet, former Khmner Rogue, and Charles Taylor had probably caused more people to die and fight. So is the attempt to capture Osama Bin Laden and bring him before the truth and justice -- a lot of people had died for that, and leads to a violation of personal freedom and safety to a lot of innocent people. So is the attempt to determine what is right or wrong of some crucial issues like Abortion and Apartheid leads to bombing of clinics and riots in South Africa. (don't get me wrong -- I am anti-apartheid too, and I used to live black graduate students too)

How much the truth and justice worth? It is really subjective, and sometimes it may not worth to find the truth or justice. How much knowing the truth and find justice worth is more than a philosphical reasons.

As a more personal case (being someone worked in that profession), there was a survey among German (or European, I forgot) scientists about is it reasonable to inflate and distort the truth of climate change to attain the political goal of regulation control (can't find the citation). Most people voted yes (to be reasonable to distort and infate the truth to attain political objectives of regulation), and I would have voted yes too if I was asked that question.

Edited, Sep 14th 2006 at 1:43pm EDT by scchan

Edited, Sep 14th 2006 at 1:51pm EDT by scchan

____________________________

Amanada (Cerberus-Retired) (aka MaiNoKen/Steven)
-- Thank you for the fun times in Vana'diel

Art for the sake of art itself is an idle sentence.
Art for the sake of truth, for the sake of what is
beautiful and good â€” that is the creed I seek.
- George Sand

A designer knows he has achieved perfection,
not when there is nothing left to add,
but when there is nothing left to take away.
- Antoine de Saint-ExupÃ©ry

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#79 Sep 14 2006 at 1:15 PM Rating: Decent

__DEL__1604880975310

Scholar

699 posts

First:

Your philosophy professors would be disappointed with you ; ;

Second: The truth which I discuss in this thread concerns the topic of human nature (i.e. the sexual oreientation of a person), not historical events, socio-political theories or theological tenets. These are all important issues, however they are not my concern when I speak here of truth.

The truth I attempted to discern was that it is illogical as well as disruptive to the fundamental concept of a "self/other" relationship to maintain that one's sexuality is determined by choice.

Again, the truth behind such a mystery might never be discovered. However, the truth in this situation holds a fundamental value to every human being not only as a way to understand others, but a way to understand themselves. Leaving sexual orientation to the guise of a "life-choice" unneccessarily compartmentalizes humanity.

I will grant that many people would rather not know the truth about certain things. (Plato would as well; see the link above...) However, as a philosopher, the pursuit of truth is the most fundamentally important endeavor for a human being; whether the results of this endeavor be practical or not.

Edited, Sep 14th 2006 at 2:19pm EDT by galapagosiananna

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#80 Sep 14 2006 at 1:17 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1591885598320

Scholar

1,003 posts

To Gala:

I was being sarcastic.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#81 Sep 14 2006 at 1:26 PM Rating: Decent

__DEL__1604880975310

Scholar

699 posts

Quote:

To Gala:

I was being sarcastic.

There were several others on this thread that made this assertion as well. I chose yours because it was the closest. I obviously missed the sarcasm.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#82 Sep 14 2006 at 2:02 PM Rating: Decent

scchan

Scholar

6,631 posts

Quote:

However, as a philosopher, the pursuit of truth is the most fundamentally important endeavor for a human being; whether the results of this endeavor be practical or not.

It is sometimes interesting to debate is it more important to serve the a philopshical or career duty or to compromise the duty for something practical. I fully understand what your standing is before I respond.

This reminds me I read this recently (since I am from Hong Kong, Hong Kong stuff interests me :3) :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Yee_On

Look at the quote what the prosecutor said. May be from the point of justice and law, justice and law are served as according to the duty of a judge, but in the potential compromise of social justice and safety (as the prosecutor implies, social justice and safety outweights the interest of the honor of the rule of law as the judge of the case supports). And again, rule of law is supposed to be the "truth", or is it really the "truth" in that scenario, and was justice and truth was really served?

As I am an Earth Scientist, it is my field's duty to say... the discover the truth of Climate Change. But as a common (and more educated) citizen of this planet, it serves my interest better to distort some truth of climate change or to accept potentially incorrect information of climate change. Strong indications that when we finally arrive at truth of climate change, it may be too late to take action.

In terms of science, the scientific method involves observation > hypothesis > proof and theory. The very fact observation is a preception means proof and theory to a certain degree is an approximation and is subjective. Science is mere knowledge to explain preception. Newton Law of Motion is regarded "truth" for very long time before before discover the atom. But the "truth" of atom (quantum mechanics) cannot explain things people commonly precieve. Is Newton's Law wrong? Or Quantum Mechanics are wrong? In fact, in a lot of ways, both are right. It depends how you precieve the world. If you examine the atomic world than Quantum Mechanics is correct. If you examine why birds fly and ball spins, than Newton is correct.

Edited, Sep 14th 2006 at 3:08pm EDT by scchan

____________________________

Amanada (Cerberus-Retired) (aka MaiNoKen/Steven)
-- Thank you for the fun times in Vana'diel

Art for the sake of art itself is an idle sentence.
Art for the sake of truth, for the sake of what is
beautiful and good â€” that is the creed I seek.
- George Sand

A designer knows he has achieved perfection,
not when there is nothing left to add,
but when there is nothing left to take away.
- Antoine de Saint-ExupÃ©ry

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#83 Sep 14 2006 at 3:29 PM Rating: Decent

__DEL__1604880975310

Scholar

699 posts

Quote:

t is sometimes interesting to debate is it more important to serve the a philopshical or career duty or to compromise the duty for something practical. I fully understand what your standing is before I respond.

Sadly, no one really says: "I wanna be a philosopher when I grow up." lol

Since you chose Newton, I will use his philosophical counterpart, Immanuel Kant: "Two things fill me with constantly increasing admiration and awe, the longer and more earnestly I reflect on them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me."

Even Immanuel Kant who is considered one of the more practical philosophers, was unable to dwell upon that which is practical to common human everday experience. The closest he could get to it, was a metaphysical dedication to the ever-cloudy world of human ethics. (And what is funny is that this quote is actually from his work: The Critique of Practical Reason lol)

It is difficult to have to choose day-in and day-out which world I wish to live in, or as Kant says, "Metaphysics is a dark ocean without shores or lighthouse, strewn with many a philosophic wreck."

As for the relationship between observation and science, Kants Critique of Pure Reason was greatly influenced by the work of Newton. It was an interesting era for one to be a philosopher. On the one side, you had the the British Empiricsts and on the other Newtonian scientists. Kant attempted to marry the two in his philosophy. He writes: "All our knowledge begins with the senses, proceeds then to the understanding, and ends with reason. There is nothing higher than reason."

Science, since it is the offspring of reason, enjoys invioable qualification of truth when it is unable to be logically disproven in any way. Observation is perpetually fallable, since it can only merely complement reason (or fail to in some cases). Kant used the example of the stick that appeared bent when it was place in the water.

Kant of course goes of the deep end in Critique of Pure Reason by denying the possibility of existential verification of any phenomenon beyond the human mind. But thats neither here nor there ...

Anyway, that was a fun day of work :-)

Nice chatting with you Ama

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#84 Sep 14 2006 at 11:21 PM Rating: Decent

scchan

Scholar

6,631 posts

One of key foundation of the Age of Reason and Scientific Method, and even Martin Luther himself supported this idea: It is to precieve yourself, critically think, and determine what is right or wrong to yourself. Martin Luther translated the bible to common language just to let the commoners and serfs to be able to read the bible themselves and let them think instead of making the bible a learned person only thing.

Sometimes it is good to talk about this kind of thing instead of FFXI. In fact, a lot of problems in FFXI and in common life can be resolved just if people observe, reason, and think for themselves.

May be just human are born to be unreasonable and irrational. Mao, Hitler, Mussolini, Hideki Tojo, Khmner Rouge's madness in Cultural Revolution, WWII, and genocide in Cambodia are supported by a lot of people who seemingly lost their sense and blindly follow their leaders. Heh, even I lost my sense just on my own when simply cut in front of me on the highway.

In a lot of ways, reason and scientific method are really an ideal for decision making and thinking. The true human mind is different.

Edited, Sep 15th 2006 at 12:24am EDT by scchan

____________________________

Amanada (Cerberus-Retired) (aka MaiNoKen/Steven)
-- Thank you for the fun times in Vana'diel

Art for the sake of art itself is an idle sentence.
Art for the sake of truth, for the sake of what is
beautiful and good â€” that is the creed I seek.
- George Sand

A designer knows he has achieved perfection,
not when there is nothing left to add,
but when there is nothing left to take away.
- Antoine de Saint-ExupÃ©ry

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#85 Sep 19 2006 at 9:14 AM Rating: Good

__DEL__1592344491735

Scholar

241 posts

Whoa Ama, you live in Maryland? Most of my family lives in Delaware ^^

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#86 Sep 19 2006 at 10:08 AM Rating: Decent

scchan

Scholar

6,631 posts

Off topic:

If you have chance or interested, I am interested in meeting players in RL too. Belldandy. Bah. I still don't get the chance to buy Requil, Marzpan, Esdim and Dahlgren yet for that.

I actually met a group of players that are based in SE Pennslyvania (the cecils and other buddies).

____________________________

Amanada (Cerberus-Retired) (aka MaiNoKen/Steven)
-- Thank you for the fun times in Vana'diel

Art for the sake of art itself is an idle sentence.
Art for the sake of truth, for the sake of what is
beautiful and good â€” that is the creed I seek.
- George Sand

A designer knows he has achieved perfection,
not when there is nothing left to add,
but when there is nothing left to take away.
- Antoine de Saint-ExupÃ©ry

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#87 Sep 19 2006 at 3:35 PM Rating: Decent

__DEL__1606090623836

Scholar

1,882 posts

HotaKairn wrote:

Quote:

I have a question, and this isn't meant to be sarcastic or smartass or whatever...I really want to know. People seem to fear/loathe the gay community because of AIDS. Isn't it just as easy for a straight person to get AIDS? I mean let's say there's a man with AIDS, and me and my friend Bob both sleep with him. We would both have the same chance of contracting the disease right? Or am I missing something?

Goddess, in your example, yes both people would have the same chance of catching AIDS. But your example is incorrect. The proper example should be...

Bob and Steve sleep with each other, and only with each other-

Richard and Jane sleep with each other and only each other-

Do these two couples have the same chance of contracting AIDS? Of course they don't. One couple's sexual lifestyle actually breaks the body's defenses down and weakens the immune system to the point where they contract HIV and eventually AIDS. The other couple has 0 risk of contracting AIDS. And this doesn't just go for AIDS, this goes for ALL STDs.

This is why we need sex education in schools, starting with first grade (with age appropriate material, obviously). Either Hota is lying or ignorant. Frankly, I would prefer lying.

The fact is, if both couples are HIV-, they have the same chance of getting AIDS: 0. This presumes that they don't get blood transfusions or share IV needles with other people (see Ryan White). Viruses don't come from nowhere; that would defy Newton's laws of thermodynamics.

Also, the example fails to take into consideration what the lifestyles are like when making conclusions based on them. Maybe Richard can't get an erection, so they rely on other means of satisfaction. Perhaps neither Bob nor Steve enjoy **** intercourse, so they only practice oral sex. There is more to sex than fuckng.

The more you know, the less chance you have of sounding like Hota or Javolin.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#88 Sep 19 2006 at 3:41 PM Rating: Decent

__DEL__1606090623836

Scholar

1,882 posts

HotaKairn wrote:

Wow,
I was busy for a few days and couldn't log in and just now noticed all the new responses...and questions.

First of all, for the doofus that said something about "Gays created this disease" please. That wasn't something I have heard since the mid 80's, I hope we all know better.

As for this statement:

Quote:

How does gay sexual relations break down someone immune system to the point that they almost any minor illness can kill them? If you mean that it helps them get aids, then fine. But it's AIDS, not the sex that causes that.

LOL, that's like saying that sex doesn't cause pregnancy, it's the sperm and egg that does that. Ok, if you have that convoluted of a thought pattern, more power to ya, but you're gonna be hit by a lot of things in life you will have no ability to solve, thinking that way.

No, that's where you are mostly wrong. Most people who contract HIV/AID don't really die from it right? They die from pneumonia or some other illness that could normally be fought off? The reason for this is because **** sex...and this might be kinda graphic...causes all kinds of trauma to your body...**** fissures, tears in the sphincter muscles, ruptures of different kinds. So the body expends most of its white blood cells constantly fighting off what it considers an infection/attack on the body.
So in a very real sense it is the sex that causes the body to become vulnerable to contracting AIDS. Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, remember?

As for the comments about it not being a choice, I do not intend to say that it's a choice like, "I'm gonna go get drunk tonight." But there is a time when each and every person knows inside that what they are doing isn't honoring to themselves and isn't healthy. From that point on it is up to each individual to make choices as to how to deal with it.

Anyways, like someone said, this isn't something that will ever be solved here online, in an Alla forum. Thanks for at least hearing me out. And before any of you think something you shouldn't about me or my comments, they come from having two friends die from AIDS, and my sister is gay and is having problems as well. I hate this disease, I just believe that this is entirely preventable in most cases, but people will always choose what they desire...

I still don't know if it was lying or ignorance. For your information, if you get a cut (anywhere, not just in your ******), your body only sends white blood cells if there are foreign bodies present. Otherwise, according to your logic, a professional boxer that bleeds often would be at risk for AIDS. Yes, **** intercourse does carry a much higher rate of transmission for HIV as well as Hepatitis and other diseases. However, if the disease is not present, it cannot be spread. This is why blood transfusions can exist in modern medicine; they are screened as carefully as they can be to ensure there are no diseases in the donation. I suppose you believe that if you wish hard enough that pony you want for Christmas will magically appear. There's no real leap in imagination required.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#89 Sep 30 2006 at 4:01 AM Rating: Default

__DEL__1592762605569

Scholar

1,877 posts

So gay people sleeping together causes AIDS...hmm...that's interesting.

Hey guys, have you heard that new Devo song, Whip it?

Sorry...was overcome with a rush of Early 80's mentality there for a minute. I had thought this kind of thought was finally ignored O.o

▲ Page top

Gay Players!Follow