Spinster Tax

[johnklepac]

Again: nature.

OKAY, I already heard you for the eighty-seventh time.

That doesn't make it wrong. In this case, I think Aenye is demonstrably and demonstratedly wrong, but not because he happens to repeat himself a bit.

Except that people are allegedly renowned for not being animals.

Wait, so you use the animal kingdom as your moral North Pole and then try to justify homophobia by raising us above it - but you're too half-assed about that conclusion not to throw an "allegedly" in there?

[linguoboy]

Again: nature.

OKAY, I already heard you for the eighty-seventh time.

That doesn't make it wrong. In this case, I think Aenye is demonstrably and demonstratedly wrong, but not because he happens to repeat himself a bit.

The point--as modge amply demonstrated--is that the appeal to nature isn't a real argument, only a substitute for one. It's the equivalent of saying, "Because reasons."

[JackFrost]

johnklepac: as much as I relish the implication that my organic existence simply spites the inviolable laws of nature, it doesn't matter to me if it doesn't make it wrong.

[johnklepac]

The point--as modge amply demonstrated--is that the appeal to nature isn't a real argument, only a substitute for one. It's the equivalent of saying, "Because reasons."

Not quite - the idea that nature is good is a reason Aenye is using; if you're making any kind of statement about what's moral, you've got to have some baseline, and nature is Aenye's. Nevertheless, it's a shoddy baseline that often fails to support his conclusions.

That's how I understand modge's point - he acknowledges that it's an argument but emphasizes how crappy and inconsistent of one it is.

[IpseDixit]

Am I the only one who still doesn't get what nature is?

Isn't it pretty simplistic to believe that nature is trees, forests, animals etc etc as opposed to men, cities, factories and so on and so forth?

If something actually exists, isn't it nature?

And even though we actually manipulate nature, nature itself let us do that, hence isn't it natural?

[mōdgethanc]

Am I the only one who still doesn't get what nature is?

Isn't it pretty simplistic to believe that nature is trees, forests, animals etc etc as opposed to men, cities, factories and so on and so forth?

If something actually exists, isn't it nature?

And even though we actually manipulate nature, nature itself let us do that, hence isn't it natural?

And this is why the "nature" argument falls on its face.

[linguoboy]

The point--as modge amply demonstrated--is that the appeal to nature isn't a real argument, only a substitute for one. It's the equivalent of saying, "Because reasons."

Not quite - the idea that nature is good is a reason Aenye is using; if you're making any kind of statement about what's moral, you've got to have some baseline, and nature is Aenye's.

But "nature" is such an impossibly ill-defined term that all you end up with is circular reasoning. That's why I say it isn't a reason but a substitute for one--a non-theistic version of "Because God said so".

[johnklepac]

But "nature" is such an impossibly ill-defined term that all you end up with is circular reasoning. That's why I say it isn't a reason but a substitute for one--a non-theistic version of "Because God said so".

I'd agree with you if Aenye seemed to be playing on the ambiguity of the term. But he defines it variously as the workings of the reproductive system*, sociology**, trends in the animal kingdom***, and, as far as I can tell, just his own morals**** and then defends his homophobia with appeals to each one. Out of those, only the last is necessarily circular, as it boils down to "I think it's wrong because I think it's wrong."

*e.g. "the fact of nature that it takes male and female to make a child"
**e.g. "and I haven't yet met (or heard of) an adopted child that did not want to know its biological parents [and brothers/sisters]. Again: nature."
***e.g. "A parent of opposite sex is closer to nature as he steps in the role of the previous father (never the same, but closer to nature)."
****e.g. "I think that an irresponsible man should not be allowed to reproduce in the first place (who would abandon or harm their partner or progeny). Closer to nature, than having a violent scum ruin their lives."

[linguoboy]

But "nature" is such an impossibly ill-defined term that all you end up with is circular reasoning. That's why I say it isn't a reason but a substitute for one--a non-theistic version of "Because God said so".

I'd agree with you if Aenye seemed to be playing on the ambiguity of the term. But he defines it variously as the workings of the reproductive system*, sociology**, trends in the animal kingdom***, and, as far as I can tell, just his own morals**** and then defends his homophobia with appeals to each one. Out of those, only the last is necessarily circular, as it boils down to "I think it's wrong because I think it's wrong."

But this is all (a) anecdotal and (b) cherrypicking. It's laughable to dignify a statement like "I haven't yet met (or heard of) an adopted child that did not want to know its biological parents" with the sobriquet "sociology". I haven't yet met (or heard of) a biological parent who hasn't made their children cry. Is that a "sociological" argument that biological parents are unfit caretakers?

Aenye begins with the conclusion (homosexuals shouldn't be parents) and then justifies it with appeals to a shadowy authority which just so happens to agree with him 100%. He is "playing on the ambiguity of the term" by defining it as whatever happens to suit his assertions. Its circularity is determined by its unfalsifiability.

[johnklepac]

But this is all (a) anecdotal and (b) cherrypicking. It's laughable to dignify a statement like "I haven't yet met (or heard of) an adopted child that did not want to know its biological parents" with the sobriquet "sociology".

I'm just listing it as one of the ways he defines "nature."

I haven't yet met (or heard of) a biological parent who hasn't made their children cry. Is that a "sociological" argument that biological parents are unfit caretakers?

Yeah, just a bad one since (1) you haven't necessarily heard of biological parents who have, (2) you haven't necessarily heard of non-biological parents who haven't, (3) making your children cry once in a while doesn't necessarily make you an unfit caretaker, and (4 - I know you were waiting for this) anecdotes ain't evidence (although I think in some circumstances they're acceptable for the purpose of making a logical point by getting the listener to imagine how a situation works).

Aenye begins with the conclusion (homosexuals shouldn't be parents) and then justifies it with appeals to a shadowy authority which just so happens to agree with him 100%. He is "playing on the ambiguity of the term" by defining it as whatever happens to suit his assertions. Its circularity is determined by its unfalsifiability.

In the long run, yes, it's inconsistent, and often he relies on circular reasoning. However, within each point he makes, he seems to only use one definition of nature, and his reasoning with it isn't always circular. For example, he reasons that, since you need a man and a woman to make a baby, only men and women should get married. The first clause is true and a valid and reliable interpretation of nature (in this case, the biological definition); his error comes when he assumes that you should only get married if you intend to create a child in that union. Now, maybe there's some circularity down that path, but by then he's not relying on "nature" anymore, just some kind of utilitarianism.

[Sol Invictus]

There was such tax in Latvia during Soviet era, I guess, as did the rest of the Soviet Union. It was called small family tax, so probably applied to married people who had no children too, not to the unmarried as such

[linguoboy]

For example, he reasons that, since you need a man and a woman to make a baby, only men and women should get married. The first clause is true and a valid and reliable interpretation of nature (in this case, the biological definition); his error comes when he assumes that you should only get married if you intend to create a child in that union.

As modge pointed out, all you really need are male and female gametes, which can be found in intersex individuals as well as males and females respectively. So not even the premise is entirely valid.

[johnklepac]

As modge pointed out, all you really need are male and female gametes, which can be found in intersex individuals as well as males and females respectively. So not even the premise is entirely valid.

It happens, but few people know about this and it's much easier to just use a male and a female. Besides, this doesn't show circularity.

[mōdgethanc]

As I've been pointing out, marriage and childrearing are not one and the same. Many people who get married don't have children, and many unmarried people do, and being married does not necessarily make for better parenting or a more stable home environment (shit, if you want to talk anecdotally, my own parents are proof of the latter). Humans were reproducing long before the insitution of marriage was created, and as linguoboy points out it was never about love or even childbearing but about controlling the right to inheritance. So it's a red herring to say "it takes two married people to reproduce" or at least to raise a child, and even more of a fallacy to say the biological parents must necessarily be better at it than two adoptive parents. Tons of people are unfit to be parents and have their natural children taken away from them by the unnatural arm of the state. Do children with abusive parents prefer them to loving foster parents? Where is his weak-ass evidence for that?

[johnklepac]

As I've been pointing out, marriage and childrearing are not one and the same. Many people who get married don't have children, and many unmarried people do, and being married does not necessarily make for better parenting or a more stable home environment (shit, if you want to talk anecdotally, my own parents are proof of the latter). Humans were reproducing long before the insitution of marriage was created, and as linguoboy points out it was never about love or even childbearing but about controlling the right to inheritance. So it's a red herring to say "it takes two married people to reproduce" or at least to raise a child, and even more of a fallacy to say the biological parents must necessarily be better at it than two adoptive parents. Tons of people are unfit to be parents and have their natural children taken away from them by the unnatural arm of the state.

That's why I said it was straying into some kind of utilitarianism. I'm agreeing with you.

Do children with abusive parents prefer them to loving foster parents? Where is his weak-ass evidence for that?

Probably just an assumption. Seems like it'd be nearly impossible to prove either way.

[mōdgethanc]

That's why I said it was straying into some kind of utilitarianism. I'm agreeing with you.

Utilitarianism is at least a framework for making moral decisions. Nature isn't (see is-ought problem for reasons why).

I'm not a strict utilitarian, but I am a big fan of the harm principle. If gay couples with kids aren't harming anyone, what is the problem? It's "unnatural", sure, but so is brushing your teeth. If I had a tumor, I'd get it removed - nature might have intended for me to have it (insofar as nature can be said to intend anything) but I'll be damned if I'm going to let it harm me.

[IpseDixit]

I'm not a strict utilitarian, but I am a big fan of the harm principle. If gay couples with kids aren't harming anyone, what is the problem? It's "unnatural", sure, but so is brushing your teeth.

Personally I'm not even sure about this one.

Homosexuality is natural (and I mean it as it would be understood by common sense bar some religious fanatics)

Furthermore I think that gay people's desire for parenthood is natural too. Nobody artificially injected this desire in their brain as far as I know.

Adoption, too, doesn't look so unnatural to me. I'm no ethologist but it seems a rather logical thing to do when an offspring is left without parents that can protect them or when parents are not apt for that. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that animals do that too (I'm actually quite convinced about that).

The only "unnatural" thing is artificial insemination, but it is just a tool to make things easier, the same result could be accomplished in other more "natural" ways too.

[mōdgethanc]

I'm not a strict utilitarian, but I am a big fan of the harm principle. If gay couples with kids aren't harming anyone, what is the problem? It's "unnatural", sure, but so is brushing your teeth.

Personally I'm not even sure about this one.

Homosexuality is natural (and I mean it as it would be understood by common sense bar some religious fanatics)

Furthermore I think that gay people's desire for parenthood is natural too. Nobody artificially injected this desire in their brain as far as I know.

Adoption, too, doesn't look so unnatural to me. I'm no ethologist but it seems a rather logical thing to do when an offspring is left without parents that can protect them or when parents are not apt for that. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that animals do that too (I'm actually quite convinced about that).

The only "unnatural" thing is artificial insemination, but it is just a tool to make things easier, the same result could be accomplished in other more "natural" ways too.

All good points. What I meant was that artificial insemination is unnatural, but parenting isn't, and it's just a means to an end. Ethically, I don't see a difference between a gay or lesbian couple wanting to have children by way of a sperm donor or surrogate mother, and an infertile straight couple doing the same thing. It hasn't been shown that homosexuals are worse parents than straight people, and in fact I think it's been shown that in some ways they're actually better parents (they're less likely to be violent, I believe). So I don't see the problem with it, and I think it's more unethical to deny children a good home and loving parents simply because those parents aren't the biological ones (I'm talking about gay adoption here, which is the same as straight adoption to me).

[johnklepac]

That's why I said it was straying into some kind of utilitarianism. I'm agreeing with you.

Utilitarianism is at least a framework for making moral decisions. Nature isn't (see is-ought problem for reasons why).

Again, all moral judgments use some baseline, whether it be the "golden rule," some other formal set of ethical rules, gut feelings, or something else entirely - whenever you decide whether something is moral or immoral and you're repeatedly asked why, your train of reasoning eventually reaches "...because it is." I don't fault Aenye for nature being his way to that end; I'm just skeptical like you and linguoboy because of the inconsistency of the definition of nature and of its agreement with his conclusions. I fault him because he takes a flawed standard and foists it on the rest of the world with frequent ad-hominems added. The is-ought problem states that one does not have to equate nature and right, not that one can't; there is no objective "ought."