Re: New Arvorec words

En réponse à jesse stephen bangs <jaspax@...>:

>
> There is nothing inherently wrong with such explanations, especially
> if
> they're true.
Very true, but they much too easily lead to wrong interpretations, and that's
enough to have to take them precautionously.

  It may very well be that all people are naturally
> right-handed or heterosexual, and that minor external disturbances
> cause
> them to be the opposite.  The fact that there are far more righties
> and
> straights than lefties and gays gives at least a little credence to
> this
> idea.  But the fact that one state is "natural" and the other is not
> doesn't really say anything about morality, and it seems to me that
> you're
> objecting to a possible moral argument based on this.
Indeed, because I know too well that those kinds of moral arguments appear very
soon.

  All fetuses
> (feti,
> fetora?) are inherently female and must be forcefully turned into
> males,
> yet this doesn't say anything about the merits of femininity versus
> masculinity.  So I think your objection to this reasoning is poorly
> thought out and based on a fear that isn't (in this context)
> justified.
>
Unfortunately, my experience says that it is justified. A majority of people
would be more than happy to be able to back up their wrong moral arguments by
scientific arguments, and those kinds of reasonings (however innocent they may
be) allow this too easily. Now, as I said privately to Andreas, this wouldn't be
a problem to me, if we lived in a different society than this one. But as long
as some problems are not solved, I think it's quite unwelcome to add oil on the
fire by reasonings that can lead too easily to misinterpretations. Sorry if I'm
a bit touchy on this, but I've seen this much too often, and I know what bad it
can produce.

>
> Here you go.  Saying that one orientation precedes another or is the
> "default" doesn't necessarily imply anything about merits, and
> rejecting
> that possibility because it might be abused is foolish.
>
Is it? The problem is not that it might be abused. The problem is that it will
be abused, for sure. There is no way to prevent it. We've seen this much too
often in the past, and seeing what's happening in the present proves that too
few people have learned their lesson from it. Is it then foolish to warn people
about the disagreeable consequences of their statements? I don't think so. There
are things that society is not ready to accept without making a bad use of it.
Although I'm a scientist, I think that this reason is enough to explain my
opinion. Advances in science, in knowledge, don't always lead to advances in
society. More knowledge is not synonym with progress.

Christophe.

http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr