…because Pinker's further musings in the "essay" part of the linked article reminded me that as the author of The Blank Slate, Pinker does NOT believe parents have any significant effect on the character or intelligence of their children.

So instead of my Idea parsing as: Parents have effects on the character and intelligence of their children, replace "have" with "do not have." That changes the answer from "Yes" to "No" (I do not agree with this idea), putting the final score at 4 yes and 16 no. With two laughable throw-aways, some multiple choice, and lots of argumentative wiggle room.

BTW, your alternate hypothesis that the causes are more likely to be environmental chemicals is just as plausible as the pathogen theory (as far as I know), and it raises roughly the same set of moral issues. If that theory is true, does it mean we should try to eliminate those environmental chemicals? If so, doesn't that imply we are treating homosexuality as a bad thing?

I've often mentioned that human fecundity could be managed easily via genetic engineering of staple crops. And I have mentioned that 6.5 billion people is enough to cause serious overcrowding problems on the physical presence as well as consumption end. There may be a reason the poor outproduce the rich. And for why the rich are prone to conditions that affect their reproductive success. And for why the rich tend to blame that on the poor.

I don't think any of it has much to do with religion. But I do think religion is often a self-justification of choice. Abraham wanted to father two great nations. He and his timely kin had more wives than they cared about, and more daughters than anybody thought it relevant to count. The perennial animalist game of "Who's Your Daddy" was a regular big deal to them.

So it was all about who's got access to the women. Why is anyone suprised? It's not like things have changed much…

But either way you slice it, there's nothing inherently wrong with being gay.

Who said there was?

Being a Dwarf is no more a "disease" than being pregnant. Or being gay, IMO. It's a "condition" of being, and not all conditions of being are (or should be) considered diseased.

Pinker probably shouldn't have used the term "disease". The interesting scientific question is whether homosexuality can be caused or influenced by infectious agents. That is a more-or-less objective matter. Whether that gets labelled as a disease or not is a separate issue. There are many beneficial organisms that infect us.

Now, from a strict evolutionary standpoint homosexuality does appear to be like a disease, since it lowers reproductive fitness. That's what leads people to the pathogen theory. But it's a disease that many of the sufferers have no interest in being cured of.

I hope you can see that the very fact that it's hard to separate out the science from the values is what makes this a "dangerous question". Many people have strong feelings about homosexuality, pro or con, and will seize on the science to make their political points, or attack the science if it doesn't seem to be going in the right direction.

BTW, your alternate hypothesis that the causes are more likely to be environmental chemicals is just as plausible as the pathogen theory (as far as I know), and it raises roughly the same set of moral issues. If that theory is true, does it mean we should try to eliminate those environmental chemicals? If so, doesn't that imply we are treating homosexuality as a bad thing?

But you are immediately interpreting it in moral terms, as an effort to brand homosexuality as a disease. And you aren't the only one who reacts that way. That's what makes these "dangerous questions" "” they combine matters of fact with potentially explosive matters of morality or personal interest. Scientists who take up the investigation of these ideas have to have tough hides and a secure position.

I am interpreting it in moral terms because in my experience of the world (and I have some), people's sexual preferences are a goodly portion of who they are. I don't make a regular habit of hating or fearing people for who they are. I am perfectly willing to consider genetic and/or developmental factors, as well as sociological factors - including that an increase in number generationally is related to gross species overcrowding. We're all just Lemmings at heart…

But either way you slice it, there's nothing inherently wrong with being gay. Even the Church recognized that, as previous societies did. They restricted practice. That's never been very successful either, as nothing to do with declared sins is ever very successful. We (societies, civilizations) do what we can. What we can do is have laws. If laws turn out to be impractical as well as immoral in execution, we can adjust accordingly.

But a disease agent in this day and age requires an identified disease agent. Being a Dwarf is no more a "disease" than being pregnant. Or being gay, IMO. It's a "condition" of being, and not all conditions of being are (or should be) considered diseased. Questions about what would happen to access rights if doctors routinely advised abortion for offspring who might be dwarfed or homosexual (or female and likely to get pregnant someday) are tied to entirely different questions Pinker did not include in his so-dangerous 22. Those are entirely sociological/political.

You yourself said that one of them is the sort of thing that led to the Holocaust. Sounds pretty dangerous to me. Make up your mind.

It's not so dangerous anymore, because you know what "The Holocaust" means. That's a good thing - in the free marketplace of ideas where the right to speak, publish, assemble and petition reigns - this one has found its basement. That's how it works. To pretend that bringing it up like it's something new and different now is just plain dumb. What does that say about Pinker?

I am not afraid of things we know. Thus I'm not afraid of people who pretend they don't know. I realize that makes me a lot different from your contingent in these debates, because they (and you) *are* afraid. We hear about it endlessly. It's become quite boring.

…yet here you still are, along with all your friends, posting posts about being afraid. I am just not all that impressed. I don't think any of you mean it. Just polemical rhetoric. There's at least a dozen sites on these here inter-tubes that offer 'em up for brunch.

The problem, as stunney mentioned (and was right), is that I'm a "free spirit." I think there is something significant in the idea of intelligent design. I'm not stupid (sometimes), and I'm not a foot-washing worshipper in immediate danger of becoming a Rushdooney-style theocrat. I don't really care one bit whose metaphysical views might be supported by such ideas. Any political shennanigans that might come of such sideways, always-provisional 'scientific' support are best countered in the political arena. The place where bad ideas go to die.

So. Here I say I'm not afraid of ideas, and I don't think Pinker's are dangerous. Is there a response to that which is not fallacious by definition?

"Nobody has bothered to engage with any of Pinker's ideas, dangerous or otherwise."

Which you interpreted as:

.. you have insisted [that] someone here answer all Pinker's offered "dangerous ideas"

"

You've packed at least three separate distortions into that tiny transformation, that's pretty remarkable!

I said the questions aren't "dangerous," because IMO they're not. You insist they are, so it's up to you to demonstrate that.

You yourself said that one of them is the sort of thing that led to the Holocaust. Sounds pretty dangerous to me. Make up your mind.

The homosexuality question is interesting and illustrative. Presumably whether there is really an infectious agent responsible for (some) homosexuality is a matter of fact that will eventually be shown by science, or not. But you are immediately interpreting it in moral terms, as an effort to brand homosexuality as a disease. And you aren't the only one who reacts that way. That's what makes these "dangerous questions" — they combine matters of fact with potentially explosive matters of morality or personal interest. Scientists who take up the investigation of these ideas have to have tough hides and a secure position. And scientists, being human, are not above having their own morals and values invade their supposedly objective investigations.

He was given detention and made to re-do his homework properly. Now if only somebody could do the same to Denyse Oleary!

If you'll insist that Pinker go back and do the same thing, I'm quite sure there would be a lot less than 20 questions in his parlor game. Most of these have ready answers.

Or maybe he's time-jumping. Could be a hundred years ahead of himself, thus merely seriously confused.

like her defense of homosexuality as something not to be treated as a disease?

Ssshhhh! They're not supposed to notice that, bipod! I've just been accused of conservatism and being a D.O. puppet apologist! §;o)

Um, where did I do that? As is so often the case with people on this site, you seem to be having conversations with imaginary beings in your own head and projecting them outwards.

Ad hom is beneath you, mtraven. Your words were:
"Nobody has bothered to engage with any of Pinker's ideas, dangerous or otherwise."

I though if I treated them as "yes or no" with qualifications indicating where there are areas of argument, that would be an adequate response to your complaint. I see now that I was wrong.

I mentioned 4 but I never said I was particularly interested in debating them, in fact, for most of them I explicitly said I didn't have a definite position. And neither does Pinker, he's raising questions.

Raising questions is cheap. Anybody can do that, and they don't have to have Pinker's hair or wind-blown scarf. No big deal. I said the questions aren't "dangerous," because IMO they're not. You insist they are, so it's up to you to demonstrate that.

I think it's rather odd that you view my answers to Pinker's linked 22 questions are somehow an apologetic for D.O. Since I haven't read her response and am not interested in her answers enough to go look.

Joy, they were uncannily similar in both style and content, only you used even fewer words than Denyse.

It reminds me of an incident in English lessons at school. Our class had been reading "A Man For All Seasons", a play about the Catholic martyr Thomas Moore. We were set an essay title "It is better to be a dead lion than a living rat", clearly our teacher was expecting some kind of ethical treatment of the issue. One student simply replied with a single word: "Perhaps".

I'm sure it seemed clever to him at the time. He was given detention and made to re-do his homework properly. Now if only somebody could do the same to Denyse Oleary!