Instead of which, you indulge in unscientific and snotty sneers about "fandom arguments", as if fandom were not a social group like any other, and as if the mechanics of argument, good faith, bad faith, social assertion and debate, were not the same. I didn't sneer, I smiled, because the argument reminded me of fandom arguments. I'm sorry if I was snotty, but I indeed have a bad cold (an example of the kind of jokes that, after more than 8 months of correspondance, you frankly could start to expect from me. I don't say my sense of humour is hilarious, but if you can't smile at it, then please ignore it). That you are no sociologist, and that you have only the crudest understanding of the mechanics of social change, was all too clear at the time of the debate about Hollywood and Kate Moss, when you not only failed to understand my argument, but failed to understand that there was an argument at all. I never pretended to be a sociologist, even if I find the science interesting. And no, I still can't understand what the fuss was about with Kate Moss, and I don't see what the fuss is about with gay marriage. It's only about the angst of a minority of the population, and quite frankly I think mankind has more pressing problems to solve. I have no doubt that you have never, before this, had to consider any serious argument against the majority view of sexuality and sex. You're quite correct in this. Keep your nose out of my bedroom, and I'll keep mine out of yours, I've never gone beyond that. By the same token, a biologist publishing about biology ought to be evaluated on his/her secret political motives and not on whether his/her argument makes sense as an argument? If we considered the political motives of biologists and other scientists more often, then science would only be the better for it. You have no idea how often scientists are thinking about their careers when they assert things. And you bet that when a scientist publishes anything, his experimental data is important. How about McNeill's experimental data? This article's equivalent in science would be if someone followed blindly a professor's theory, and years later discovers that the professor's data goes completely against it. I don't think you would find one scientist who wouldn't make fun of that person. If as a scientist you're not suspicious of everything other people say and if you can't stand criticism, you're dead. Again, I was not sneering, just agreeing with the author that, yes, he used to be a naive young man (but to be honest, I can be a naive young woman too). I've never understood, and will probably never understand the importance of sexual morality, outside the fact that both parties have to be consenting adults. You do, and that's fine with me (I'm not asking you to be excited about the kinetic energy of my ions). I warned you when we friended each other that we would probably disagree about everything, and there you are. Maybe I shouldn't have commented on your post, but I like speaking my mind and seeing what happens (and, besides, the argument with the orthodox church was too funny not to comment on).
No, sorry
I didn't sneer, I smiled, because the argument reminded me of fandom arguments. I'm sorry if I was snotty, but I indeed have a bad cold (an example of the kind of jokes that, after more than 8 months of correspondance, you frankly could start to expect from me. I don't say my sense of humour is hilarious, but if you can't smile at it, then please ignore it).
That you are no sociologist, and that you have only the crudest understanding of the mechanics of social change, was all too clear at the time of the debate about Hollywood and Kate Moss, when you not only failed to understand my argument, but failed to understand that there was an argument at all.
I never pretended to be a sociologist, even if I find the science interesting. And no, I still can't understand what the fuss was about with Kate Moss, and I don't see what the fuss is about with gay marriage. It's only about the angst of a minority of the population, and quite frankly I think mankind has more pressing problems to solve.
I have no doubt that you have never, before this, had to consider any serious argument against the majority view of sexuality and sex.
You're quite correct in this. Keep your nose out of my bedroom, and I'll keep mine out of yours, I've never gone beyond that.
By the same token, a biologist publishing about biology ought to be evaluated on his/her secret political motives and not on whether his/her argument makes sense as an argument?
If we considered the political motives of biologists and other scientists more often, then science would only be the better for it. You have no idea how often scientists are thinking about their careers when they assert things. And you bet that when a scientist publishes anything, his experimental data is important. How about McNeill's experimental data? This article's equivalent in science would be if someone followed blindly a professor's theory, and years later discovers that the professor's data goes completely against it. I don't think you would find one scientist who wouldn't make fun of that person. If as a scientist you're not suspicious of everything other people say and if you can't stand criticism, you're dead.
Again, I was not sneering, just agreeing with the author that, yes, he used to be a naive young man (but to be honest, I can be a naive young woman too). I've never understood, and will probably never understand the importance of sexual morality, outside the fact that both parties have to be consenting adults. You do, and that's fine with me (I'm not asking you to be excited about the kinetic energy of my ions). I warned you when we friended each other that we would probably disagree about everything, and there you are. Maybe I shouldn't have commented on your post, but I like speaking my mind and seeing what happens (and, besides, the argument with the orthodox church was too funny not to comment on).