jskains wrote:Higher/intelligent primates figured out how to enjoy a sideaffect of sexuality. Imagine that.
My point was not about sex, but about cooption of sex to survival purposes other than reproduction. Are you telling me I need to find a dumb animal that uses sex for something other than reproduction. How about certain whiptail lizards (of which I hear only females exist)?
We must be reading different books. The common "hunter/gatherer" model that has repeated over and over is fairly consistant with the males usually taking on the more dangerous tasks. While there are exceptions (Amazons), that isn't the rule.
Yes, that's the begining of humans, but not the beginning of civilizations which was agriculture. It is also speculated that agriculture was invented by women. Also, agriculture was found in both the old and new worlds. Are you telling me that agriculture is morally wrong because women work when they should be in the cave with the kids? If not, then my point about agriculture stands and it is a valid model whereby the man and women can both work and both help at home. Even in Joseph Smith's time things were such that women would work in the fields too. Why, then, is it wrong for women to work even if it's working from home? If it is not wrong for women to work from home, then we're at least getting somewhere.
But your throwing out exceptions to make your point. There is a reason men pass firefighter tests and women get overall better grades. There are also people born with one leg, but I am not sure I would suddenly think that a human anatomy book should say "humans have two, three, or sometimes one leg".
You think grades corresponds to intelligence? Oh brother. I have heard speculation that boys tend not to focus attention as well as girls do. You may be right about physical strength. I certainly acknowledge that differences exist between the average woman and the average man. My point was that these differences are not significant for most things and the differences are close enough that there is much overlap. There is more overlap here than there are with numver of appendages and the like. Furthermore the differences do no matter expect in very few specialized cases such as firefighting.
Sometimes, however, the new model is made of cheap plastic to convince you that it only lasts for so long and you keep needing to buy a new one evey few years.
Qute true. So let's not assume that it was tossed for one reason or the other without examining it further.
Our old model was based on one type of society. Things are a bit different now than they were a century ago. I don't think things are perfect yet, but I do not think that the old model was necessarily better.
Is that nessesarily good? Teenage pregnancy has skyrocketed. School shootings are on the rise. Are we saying these are just acceptable facts and we should make due?
Nope. But I don't think we can put the genie back in the bottle by going to the old model again. That is, I don't think the old model will address current problems. Furthermore, I'm not so sure I like the old problems (racism, sexism. etc.) any better.
Considering that I have been involved in special education and have a family all involved, I can tell you that in most cases, Asperger's really causes problems that ultimately fustrate the child. It would be a nice situation to fix or avoid. But you could do that with anything. Is it good that some scientist gets cancer so they can find a cure? Perhaps his cancer causes him to find a cure to a related disease. So we look at the guy and say "well, I am grateful you are dying of cancer.." Or "Oh, more people should get cancer so we can have more cures!"
I think your perception of Asperger's is colored by where you were involved such as mine is by who I know. If I have it, it would be a very mild case. I know others like me and I see it as adding spice to personality instad of being a problem. No, I'm not saying that it's good when people have cancer so that we can find a cure. Maybe Asperger's is the wrong example. Look at something else more benign. Look at baldness. Look at other personality quirks such as boys who prefer band over sports.
Furthermore, I think that if possible and reasonable, it should be left up to the person to decide whether or not to "cure" himself. While I don't wish Asperger's nor cancer on anyone, I don't wish to force a cure on either. Certainly it becomes more tricky with children, but then again, I would prefer having a child wait until adulthood to cure baldness. If homosexulaity is merely abnormal instead of inherently frustrating, perhaps the decision to cure it is best left to the person when he or she becomes and adult and can make an informed choice.
What's wrong with an alternative lifestyle? I'm against pedophiles and bestiality because it abuses sentient beings who cannot understand and hence consent. I think offering a cure is a great thing so long as the person can consent to the cure. I don't want to force those with the mutation to tolerate milk late in life to be "cured" so that they are lactate intolerant just like "normal" people. I don't want to force people who are short to become normal sized. I do not see why boys who prefer band practice over sports should be cured.
There is a book on Pedophilia that actually promotes it and demonstrates that the "children" are ready and we understimate their independence. It says that a child of 10 could easily learn sexuality from an adult and it should be ok...
You might be horrified on that idea, but at one time people were horrified about homosexuality. Is it just a matter of time?
If it were just me being horrified, it would not be a sufficient reason. I am disguisted by mayoinnaise. I am horrified by bees.
If we can really demonstrate that children are mature enough to understand and consent, then I see no reason to prevent it. However, I think that's about as likely to be demonstrated as it would be to demonstrate that the earth is flat and the roundness is merely space-time warpage or an illusion. To really demonstrate that children can truly understand to consent will take a lot of evidence because there is no way we can afford to do some sick experiment on kids on a trial basis to see.