Quasars demand rogaine

Joe wrote:

Lord Norton wrote:
Really? Optimal fertilization constitutes preference now? Flies have preferences? Did the fly say I really enjoyed getting more load inside of her rather than rough sex? There is no way to measure preferences in this regard.
Lord Norton wrote:
There is no planning behind it, it is just inherited behavior like a mechanism. This sounds to me like a case of the jargon being misunderstood in context.
Lord Norton wrote:
my suspicion about flies in general is that they do not do a considerable amount of thinking before they decide to procreate.

Above - according to Norton - by daffily intensionalizing an orthodox, bio-term (preference), the phenomena associated it (sexual selection) blasts-out of the gates of reality into non-being. Applying his linguistic sleight-of-mind to astronomy, an entire class of celestial objects is but one equivocation away from vanishing into a jargonized misunderstanding.

Quasars are celestial objects: star-like in dimension but galaxy-like in the magnitude of their energy emissions. Quasars recede at high velocities relative to earth, and they are located at cosmological distances - near the fringes of the observable universe. One might commit equivocation with the verb "to recede", forcing it to apply in human-only contexts - in this case - to human standards of male beauty and economic downturns.

The resulting nortonism is:

"Quasars cannot recede relative to the earth - because the words "recede" and "recession" have been arbitrarily restricted to human problems! Only hairlines on balding men recede due to male pattern baldness! Did the quasar say: "I need Rogaine!"? Only human economies descend into recession! There is no way to measure recession in this regard, and there is no planning behind it."

What should be impressed on the equivocator is this: your cockamamie confounding of distant, celestial objects and human problems does not undermine the fact that quasars are located at cosmological distances. To specially plead that quasars do not suffer from follicle problems, demand Rogaine or experience economic downturns is a tautology. Quasars recede at blistering velocites relative to the earth - despite all attempts to rip them out of reality with screw-ball word-spells. Evidence is needed to show how astronomers have gotten the fact of their existence (and their recessional velocities) incredibly wrong. Similarly, we should have the base-line, intellectual humility to accept what biologists say about sexual selection: that it operates in the mating-systems of insect species (driven by female preferences for male ornaments) - not take it upon ourselves to re-work the terminology over which we have absolutely NO authority.