Posted: May 26, 2012 9:11 am
SeriousCat wrote:Before engaging in any intellectual queries, that is drilling down the different orders of logic of different positions on a topic, one should ask themselves whether the topic is worth discussing. Would having or not having the obviously satirically and adbsurdly named 'gaydar' change your behaviour towards an individual who is perceived as homosexual? If you are respectful of others and of fundamental human rights, the ideal answer would be no. Striving for the operationalisation of that answer in our own lives, it can be said that this topic is completely pointless. Whenever hearing an assertion of fact, there are two basic questions that must be asked: (1) How was this assertion verified; and (2) If the assertion was correct, what would be its significance. The first question you ask should be the one that is easiest to answer, thus potentially saving you from a lot of irrelevant work.
Seems pretty relevant to gay people. It's embarassing to hit on people and be rejected.
More generally I don't agree with the principle anyway, there are lots of areas of intellectual discussion, investigation and discovery that are fascinating, discussed and worthy of discussion that have not one shred of potential interaction with behaviour for anyone. What would the behavioural consequences of truth of the continuum hypothesis be?