--- Dwayne Monroe <idoru345 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hey, did anyone ever define dixor? I'm still
> unclear
> on where this thread's title comes from.
>
Some time ago we had another discussiona bout sexuality that kells, I think, headed chixor dixor, chixor referring to female types, as in chicks, and dixor referring to male types, as in, penises or dicks, a sorta kellyesque inversion on the male habit of identifying chicks, I mean babes, er I mean broads, sheesh, can't a guy say anything right around here? girls, I mean -- with their body parts, like, did you spec out the headlights on that cunt? Oops, there I go again.
>
>
> Although discussions flowering from ideas of
> 'nature
> or nurture or choice or something else' in the
> matter
> of sexual orientation are inevitable and necessary,
> they are also unlikely to ever be resolved to
> everyone's statisfaction.
>
> Indeed, if a day arrives when such questions can be
> definitively answered, the biped providing the
> answer
> will be, essentially, inhuman or transhuman.
Well, depends on what you mean "satisfactorily." If you mean, can we explain the fallacies in traditional ways of talking and show that they are nonsense? We can do that now. Do you mean, do we understanding the science of sexuality and sexual behavior, the answe is no, but so dar as I know we are making pretty good headway, as it were. Do you mean, help people get past the ideological blindrs that make them think that talking about nature vs. nuture makes any sense, you are probably right, it will be a while.
>
> By which I mean to say that we are ultimately
> trapped
> within our heads when it comes to such matters and I
> cannot imagine any change in our cognitive equipment
> which would enable us to solve riddles of this sort.
>
> At least, no change that would leave us, on the
> other
> end, still human in the present sense.
That is really bizarre. Do you think it is an essentially part of being human taht we caight in a set ideological traps that rely on a language and a set of distinctions that didn't even exist 300 years ago? Does that mean that Shakespeare and Dante and Homer and Lady Murasaki and Sappho weren't human? Whata bout me, I don't think that way, does that mean I am not human?
> We are a mystery to ourselves. I say this as a
> person
> who firmly believes in the scientific method and the
> human need for problem solving. Still, it may be
> that
> some areas of inquiry will prove forever resistant
> to
> our intellects.
No doubt, but here we are just ralking about something that requires a little clear thinking and straightforward application of elementary biology, I don't even mean college biology, Ia mean upper level high school biology,
>
>
> Here's an example of this mystery.
>
> Awkardness at first and then I just get to it:
> "everyone's confused, so am I. Why'd you run off
> with
> a guy?"
>
>
> "I just fell in love. That's all."
>
>
>
> She really couldn't have said anything more profound
> I
> think.
OK, but what does thsi show? Love is a genuine mystery. Nature vs. nuture is just a confusion.
jks
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com