Ken Maginnis

[peadar1987]

I'm sorry Danny but the purpose of a banana is to be eaten. Nature didn't introduce the banana for comedic value. Humans may come to use it for a secondary or tertiary purpose but a banana is fuel for the body.

In fact, bananas exist to make more bananas. They are a product of natural selection. It just so happens that the most effective way for old-timey bananas to make more bananas was to be eaten by animals and have their seeds spread, so evolution dragged them in that direction.

Subjectivity can change the "purpose" of a lot of things but that is human influence not natural purpose. Heterosexual sex and gay sex are two different acts presumably each with their own separate natural purposes. Procreation is the natural purpose of hetero sex, but it has evolved through our own subjectivity to be used for a number of reasons and it's natural purpose probably comes somewhere towards the end of all the humanity based purposes but it doesn't negate the fact that its ultimate purpose is to keep the human race in existence. Everything cannot just exist because it exists.

Procreation is one of the core purposes of human sex, in the sense that anything has a purpose. However, "purpose" and "nature" don't reveal anything about morality. Humans have moved beyond just being creatures of instinct and self-preservation.

Incidentally, there are a lot of theories about how homosexuality has been beneficial in an evolutionary sense. They range from maintaining a critical mass of productive adults in a family unit without overloading things with kids, to research that suggests that the sisters of homosexuals are more fertile than women in the general population, hinting at some sort of genetic predisposition that is carried through the female lineage. It's interesting stuff.

Also, imo you can't argue for randomness and for the laws of nature in the same post. It's kind of talking out of both sides of your mouth...well actually you can do what you like but I'm not buying it!!!

Evolution is driven by random mutations, but it is itself not a random process. Lots of things are like this. Take the atmosphere as a (poor) example. Each individual atom or molecule in the air is moving at random, however, the fact that the atmosphere as a whole sticks there on the earth's surface is far from random.

[DannyInvincible]

I'm sorry Danny but the purpose of a banana is to be eaten.

Says who? Isn't that a very human-centric perspective by which to view the objective existence of a banana? As if it exists primarily to feed us? Bananas and humans don't necessarily even have to co-exist. I'm not entirely sure of the evolution of the banana, but there may well have been a time in the distant past when bananas existed before humans had ever come into existence, and there may well be a time in the future when humanity goes extinct but the banana remains. Theoretically-speaking, of course, would the banana lose all purpose you've imagined it to have in such a circumstance? As Peadar outlined, the banana simply exists as a product of evolution; there has been no absolute purpose dictated by this unconscious process because it wasn't manufactured with a purpose in mind.

Besides, I don't eat bananas. Is that "unnatural" of me?

Subjectivity can change the "purpose" of a lot of things but that is human influence not natural purpose. Heterosexual sex and gay sex are two different acts presumably each with their own separate natural purposes. Procreation is the natural purpose of hetero sex, but it has evolved through our own subjectivity to be used for a number of reasons and it's natural purpose probably comes somewhere towards the end of all the humanity based purposes but it doesn't negate the fact that its ultimate purpose is to keep the human race in existence.

You're confusing effect with purpose. There is no objective or essential purpose to sexual intercourse.

Also, imo you can't argue for randomness and for the laws of nature in the same post. It's kind of talking out of both sides of your mouth...well actually you can do what you like but I'm not buying it!!!

The randomness I was referring to was random mutation, which, combined with the process of natural selection, is the mechanism behind evolution.

[DannyInvincible]

Procreation is one of the core purposes of human sex, in the sense that anything has a purpose.

In the sense of humans assigning it a purpose, you mean?

Incidentally, there are a lot of theories about how homosexuality has been beneficial in an evolutionary sense.

Indeed, it can offer something as simple as relieving social tension within a civilisation - tension that may otherwise threaten the maintenance of the structures of social order that aid survival - as has been observed in bonobo society.

Evolution is driven by random mutations, but it is itself not a random process. Lots of things are like this. Take the atmosphere as a (poor) example. Each individual atom or molecule in the air is moving at random, however, the fact that the atmosphere as a whole sticks there on the earth's surface is far from random.

Do they truly move at random though? Aren't the collisions of atoms and whatnot still governed by the laws of physics that govern everything else in the universe? In essence, their course is predetermined by nature? I know I referred to the process of gene mutation as random, but I suppose "random" is fundamentally an incorrect word to use in this context as, ultimately, everything will have a cause, right down to an atomic/molecular/chemical level. That's getting very pedantic and largely irrelevant to the main discussion, mind. I suppose when I use the word "random", I mean the process of mutation is "random" in the sense that there is no indication that it is guided by a designer's hand with some pre-set function or purpose in mind.

[osarusan]

Says who? Isn't that a very human-centric perspective by which to view the objective existence of a banana? As if it exists primarily to feed us? Bananas and humans don't necessarily even have to co-exist. I'm not entirely sure of the evolution of the banana, but there may well have been a time in the distant past when bananas existed before humans had ever come into existence, and there may well be a time in the future when humanity goes extinct but the banana remains. Theoretically-speaking, of course, would the banana lose all purpose you've imagined it to have in such a circumstance?

In his defence, he didn't say its purpose was to be eaten by humans, just to be eaten.

So, in a way, maybe, you interpreting his comments in the way you did is an example of what you term human-centrism......just sayin'.

[DannyInvincible]

In his defence, he didn't say its purpose was to be eaten by humans, just to be eaten.

I did actually take stock of that but didn't really think a distinction necessary for the purpose of the debate. Swap "humans" with "organisms from the kingdom Animalia" then. The banana's purpose still isn't to be eaten.

So, in a way, maybe, you interpreting his comments in the way you did is an example of what you term human-centrism......just sayin'.

Touché.

[osarusan]

The banana's purpose still isn't to be eaten.

From the perspective of the organism from the kingdom animalia (with the exception of humans, who, for the most part, understand the evolution behind the banana), its purpose is to provide energy by being eaten.

Is this perspective less valid than that of the banana tree?

[DannyInvincible]

I'm referring to the concept of an objective purpose. You are referring to a subjective purpose assigned to it and, as it happens, are actually re-affirming the point I was making against SkStu.

[peadar1987]

In the sense of humans assigning it a purpose, you mean?

In the sense of it has a biological function. "Purpose" generally implies some sort of intent and mightn't be the most appropriate word for the situation.

Sex could be assigned any number of purposes depending on the situation, reproduction, bonding, currying favour, earning money, even intimidation or expressing dominance.

Indeed, it can offer something as simple as relieving social tension within a civilisation - tension that may otherwise threaten the maintenance of the structures of social order that aid survival - as has been observed in bonobo society.

Indeed.

Do they truly move at random though? Aren't the collisions of atoms and whatnot still governed by the laws of physics that govern everything else in the universe? In essence, their course is predetermined by nature? I know I referred to the process of gene mutation as random, but I suppose "random" is fundamentally an incorrect word to use in this context as, ultimately, everything will have a cause, right down to an atomic/molecular/chemical level. That's getting very pedantic and largely irrelevant to the main discussion, mind. I suppose when I use the word "random", I mean the process of mutation is "random" in the sense that there is no indication that it is guided by a designer's hand with some pre-set function or purpose in mind.

Damn you, you sent me deep into wiki with that one, I could have wasted an entire afternoon!

On a quantum level, our best guess is that events are truly random, or contain a strong element of chance, at the very least. This would presumably extend to chemical reactions and the like, which rely on interactions between electrons. I think pretty much everything you can infer about the properties of an individual electron can only be expressed stochastically, (because electrons are weird!). Radioactive decay of individual atoms seems to be a particularly pure example as well.

You've raised an interesting point though, how much of what we consider to be random is truly random? There seems to be a split in the scientific community about that, some believe there is only one possible outcome for everything in the universe, which was set by the initial conditions, others that there is a degree of inherent randomness, making the future impossible to predict even if you know all of the conditions at a given instant.

[osarusan]

You are referring to a subjective purpose assigned to it and, as it happens, are actually re-affirming the point I was making against SkStu.

You said that 'the bananas purpose still isn't to be eaten.' That is subjective, by your own argument of any assigned purpose whatsoever being subjective by definition, and as we were dealing in subjective purposes, I pointed out that the animal eating the banana would disagree.


Could you define for me what you mean by an "objective purpose" and what it applies to?

[DannyInvincible]

By "objective purpose", I mean a pre-defined or essential purpose; a purpose existing independently from the subjective thoughts of conscious entities. I believe its existence precedes what you might call the functional essence we can attribute to it.

Thus, I don't see how the banana has any essential purpose (unless you wish to invoke a designer who had a purpose for it in mind), beyond whatever human-oriented purpose or other we, or an animal, may subjectively attribute to it after the fact of its existence.

The overall point is that we cannot say that there is one correct or natural way to utilise a banana to the exclusion of other ways. Objectively-speaking, all uses are as valid, correct or natural (or as invalid, incorrect or unnatural) as the next. The same principle applies to human sexual behaviour; there is no one right or natural way. There are just varying opinions, none objectively more or less valid than the other.

[SkStu]

In fact, bananas exist to make more bananas. They are a product of natural selection. It just so happens that the most effective way for old-timey bananas to make more bananas was to be eaten by animals and have their seeds spread, so evolution dragged them in that direction.


Procreation is one of the core purposes of human sex, in the sense that anything has a purpose. However, "purpose" and "nature" don't reveal anything about morality. Humans have moved beyond just being creatures of instinct and self-preservation.

Incidentally, there are a lot of theories about how homosexuality has been beneficial in an evolutionary sense. They range from maintaining a critical mass of productive adults in a family unit without overloading things with kids, to research that suggests that the sisters of homosexuals are more fertile than women in the general population, hinting at some sort of genetic predisposition that is carried through the female lineage. It's interesting stuff.



Evolution is driven by random mutations, but it is itself not a random process. Lots of things are like this. Take the atmosphere as a (poor) example. Each individual atom or molecule in the air is moving at random, however, the fact that the atmosphere as a whole sticks there on the earth's surface is far from random.

Great post thanks. The bit in bold is the essence of the point I was trying to make with Danny originally.

And thanks Osarusan for clarifying my intent about who is eating the feckin banana...

[osarusan]

Thread of the year.

Ken Maginnis, gay sex, bananas, and those fecking electrons.

[DannyInvincible]

Great post thanks. The bit in bold is the essence of the point I was trying to make with Danny originally.

But it's still a "purpose" assigned to it by certain conscious beings. The objective reality is that that isn't actually a purpose, but an effect. I think Peadar agreed with this, unless I misinterpreted post #28.

Thread of the year.

Ken Maginnis, gay sex, bananas, and those fecking electrons.

That conjures up quite an image!

[BonnieShels]

Ken Maginnis did what to a bonobo with a banana?

[Gather round]

Thread of the year.

Ken Maginnis, gay sex, bananas, and those fecking electrons

Agreed. Ken must think all you papish pooftahs are bananas.

[Macy]

Agreed. Ken must think all you papish pooftahs are bananas.

Surely papists would agree with him, given the RC position?

[DannyInvincible]

What is the official position of the Catholic Church on homosexual behaviour? I think they view it as defying some supposed natural law (whatever they imagine that might be...), but I'm not so sure they would use terminology such as "offensive" or "abominable" to describe such behaviour, at least officially anyway. In fact, my understanding is that homosexual desires are not construed as sinful, but rather it is the homosexual act that is viewed to be sinful.

[Macy]

What is the official position of the Catholic Church on homosexual behaviour? I think they view it as defying some supposed natural law (whatever they imagine that might be...), but I'm not so sure they would use terminology such as "offensive" or "abominable" to describe such behaviour, at least officially anyway. In fact, my understanding is that homosexual desires are not construed as sinful, but rather it is the homosexual act that is viewed to be sinful.

Dancing on the head of a pin stuff. They fought to get (and got) schools (of which they control 92%) exempt from equality legislation, so they can carry on discriminating. Who's first out of the traps when it comes to opposing gay marriage, gay couple adoptions etc? If not the Church, their fundamentalist supporters. Cut from the same cloth, just maybe a bit more PR savvy than other Christian churches on this island.