:3
rarWars
joined 2 years ago
Yeah, I'm happy to clarify.
The way I understand it, "bisexual" is a very broad term that encompasses all people who are attracted to people of the same (or a similar) gender as them and also to genders different than their own. That is the "bi" in bisexual, both homo and hetero, not attraction to men and women. Under this definition, pansexuals are a specific type of bi that are attracted to people equally, regardless of gender. There are other microlabels that fit within bisexual too, some of which might better fit how I experience attraction, but this is where we get into the function of a label.
Labels exist to convey general information in a concise way, without having to explain things all the time. Under the bi umbrella, there are only two terms which the average person who's aware of the LGBT community might have heard of: bi and pan. Thus, unless you want to constantly have a definition at hand or send people to the wiki, you are heavily incentivized to use one of those terms. Having no label would be even worse, since then you would need to give a whole spiel every time you're asked. It's ultimately a pragmatic decision to use a term that more people recognize over one that might be more "technically correct."
So, constrained to either bi or pan, I think bi is the more appropriate term for me. Sometimes I feel equally attracted to all genders, but my preferences towards similar and different genders shift back and forth, often being heavily favored in one direction or the other. So I use the broader term of bisexual to encompass the full spectrum of my feelings on the matter.
Hope that helps!
People don't label themselves according to rigid definitions.
- signed, an inclusive bisexual who does not identify as pan
:3 meow :3
Just another item on Russia's Geneva Checklist...
Oh, ok. I still think we might be able to measure such things in the future, but that's a much more defensible position. I don't see how that pertains to spiritualism tho, maybe there's a term that fits that better. Belief in qualia?
I respectfully disagree. There's nothing inherently preventing a future technology that's able to objectively measure personal experiences, since we don't have any evidence to suggest that thoughts and experiences happen anywhere other than physically in the brain.
Thus-far unobserved spirits are an unnecessary addition to the neurochemical processes we know to occur in the brain and know to drive thinking. By Occam's Razor, an evidence-based worldview must reject these unnecessary assumptions.
Also, no, science is not "filling gaps in spirituality". The claim that there are spirits is the positive case, and bears the burden of proof.
I would class those as psychological experiences, not spiritual ones. Just because we currently lack the tools to very precisely and objectively correlate brain activity with specific thoughts, that doesn't mean we can never quantify that at some future date.
This feels like a "spirituality-of-the-gaps". By this definition lightning was a purely spiritual experience until we figured out that it's electricity. Our lack of understanding on a subject doesn't make it magic, it's just something we don't understand yet, and that's ok. The laws of physics existed long before humans existed to describe them, and they'll continue to function long after we're extinct.
I always love coming into the comments on posts like these to see all the lemmings going absolutely FERAL over the fact that a repost has one word that's censored lmao
view more: next ›
Just picked up Crusader Kings II, the base game is free on steam. Definitely right up my alley, so far I like the more diplomatic focus of CK2 compared to the other Paradox games I've played (HOI4 and Stellaris).