Your kind of relativism is silly and I poke my nose at it and blow a raspberry like so :¬P
The universe does not care how you think it works. Physical, chemical and biological 'laws'* apply without regard to the ignorance of any observer. To a MUCH, much, much, much, much MUCH lesser extent, so too do anthropological and sociological 'laws'**, even if one is not inclined to accept what we have now as true sciences.
*Whatever they truly are; the absolute truth (which may forever elude human understanding), which is wise to assume exists.***
**As above, with the assumption that the absolute fullest understanding of the hard sciences would, by inference, reveal*** and, by scientific method, confirm the truest possible understanding of the soft sciences.
***Not in a fucking religious or spiritual way, obviously.
Oh and no, queer didn't mean that at the timeS I refer to. It meant, as I say, odd, strange, peculiar, abnormal. And you will accept that that is how I'm using the word, damn you.
:)
(
brb man-child cuck corporate supplicant fuck, Tue 10 Aug 2021, 23:01,
Reply)
"Odd, strange, peculiar, abnormal" *was* sexual deviance
or at least moral deviance. I admit the sexual element only really came to predominate in the early C20th. The point is that it wasn't a cultural choice then, it was a moral one.
The point I'm making is that any scientific vision that doesn't see itself a temporary stopgap until something better comes along is a bunch of hooey.*
*not that kind of hooey, you pervert.
(, Wed 11 Aug 2021, 3:15, Reply)
Moral relativism is one thing, scientific/factual relativism is just Republican Party level insane.
The word I chose includes sexually 'deviant' people, but is not limited to it.
One's sexuality is widely understood to not be a choice.
The scientific method incorporates your strangely redundant point about scientific vision.
We can't seem to agree on matters of fact, or even agree on a common lexicon, so this conversation is going nowhere!
(
brb man-child cuck corporate supplicant fuck, Wed 11 Aug 2021, 14:42,
Reply)