site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   4614 thread views

Quality Contributions Report for July 2023

This is the Quality Contributions Roundup. It showcases interesting and well-written comments and posts from the period covered. If you want to get an idea of what this community is about or how we want you to participate, look no further (except the rules maybe--those might be important too).

As a reminder, you can nominate Quality Contributions by hitting the report button and selecting the "Actually A Quality Contribution!" option. Additionally, links to all of the roundups can be found in the wiki of /r/theThread which can be found here. For a list of other great community content, see here.

These are mostly chronologically ordered, but I have in some cases tried to cluster comments by topic so if there is something you are looking for (or trying to avoid), this might be helpful. Also, @Soriek's "Transnational Thursdays" have continued to garner AAQC reports:

Here are the rest:

Quality Contributions in the Main Motte

@FarNearEverywhere:

@George_E_Hale:

@RandomRanger:

Contributions for the week of July 3, 2023

@DoktorGlas:

@Primaprimaprima:

@self_made_human:

Contributions for the week of July 10, 2023

@huadpe:

@screye:

Race and Ethnicity

@TracingWoodgrains:

@Soriek:

@naraburns:

@DaseindustriesLtd:

@Lewyn:

@solowingpixy:

Sex and Gender

@Folamh3:

@RenOS:

@raggedy_anthem:

@MaiqTheTrue:

Religion and Irreligion

@To_Mandalay:

Contributions for the week of July 17, 2023

@FCfromSSC:

@IGI-111:

@naraburns:

@fauji:

Contributions for the week of July 24, 2023

@gattsuru:

@raggedy_anthem:

@Soriek:

@InfoTeddy:

@TheDag:

@coffee_enjoyer:

@problem_redditor:

Contributions for the week of July 31, 2023

@ZorbaTHut:

14
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I read your post. You clearly say.

but the fact remains that practicing homosexuality is a lifestyle with health consequences similar to those we associate with smoking, sedentary lifestyles, bad foods, etc. Which we typically do not ban, but do often seek to regulate, or at least socially disapprove.

Without presenting evidence that the association is any more than correlative.

Later you say

But you said you "don't see anything unhealthy about homosexuality," which statement would seem to me to require a very constrained definition of "unhealthy," much more constrained than we apply in basically any other context.

I disagree. I think way we use "unhealthy" in normal contexts is far more often causative "smoking is unhealthy" rather than correlative "driving a pickup is unhealthy".

Obviously I can't speak for @Doubletree1, but the answers to your questions seem fairly obvious. The correlative cause, when it comes to spreading disease, is (a) having a lot of sex with a lot of different people and/or (b) having sex with people who are part of a community that has a lot of sex with a lot of different people (even if your own behaviour doesn't fall within that category).

The former is a "pickup truck" level of causality: homosexuality is correlated with promiscuity which is correlated with disease transmission. The latter may not be, in that men who have sex with men form a somewhat more dangerous community to have sex with even if you are, yourself, quite careful.

Since I would not have had reason to think this distinction through without @Doubletree1's comment, I think it's fair to say that they have made a useful contribution to the discussion and should not be getting downvoted. Perhaps you were already thinking in terms of (b)? If so, I guess I can understand why you wouldn't see the point of their analogy. Still, I appreciated it.

Thank you-- but with one further clarification/nitpick. My "pickup truck" analogy was intended to describe a situation that is closer to the (b) kind of association. The (a) kind of association seems to me to be causative since there is a clear mechanistic cause and effect relationship.

Interesting! I was reasoning by analogy with "driving a pickup truck is correlated with being male and rural which is correlated with worse life expectancy." In that situation, all else being equal, the pickup truck itself is not a concern. Similarly, if it were just a matter of personal promiscuity and the community effects weren't salient, then homosexuality itself would not be a concern.

But the promiscuity is a direct result of the homosexuality no?Heterosexual sex is less promiscuous solely because it involves women. And then the community effects are a direct result of that promiscuity.

In a hypothetical world where homosexuality is just "heterosexual relationship and sexual norms, but with 2 men" then sure, it would be not unhealthy, but that world fundamentally cannot exist as long as men have a higher sex drive than women and are willing to take greater risks in sex, which I can think of no way of changing.

In this sense, the pickup truck analogy doesn't work, because pickup trucks don't make people rural, or male. Homosexuality does make people more promiscuous, because it increases access to high-sex-drive partners.

Mm, fair enough. There’s still a part of me that balks at phrasing like “practising homosexuality is a lifestyle with health consequences,” in that it seems to consider “practising homosexuality” as a single thing that can be considered risky in itself instead of looking into the underlying causative relationships. But this may be influenced by the disgust with which the word “lifestyle” is sometimes deployed in this specific context, rather than any analogy with other contexts. “Having a full time job that requires you to sit down all day is a lifestyle with health consequences” would probably not stand out to me in the same way, even though this, too, is a causative chain that can be somewhat interrupted by, for example, taking breaks in which you are mobile.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats