08-06-2014, 01:22 PM | #26 (permalink) |
Lost in Hilbert Spice
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Surrounded by knaves and fools
Posts: 3,460
Internets: 174266
|
Do you cause suffering?
Pedophiles are more likely to reproduce than those with a coconut fetish. You've heard of survival of the fittest before, can you see how being attracted to young girls could be selected for? vs being attracted to coconuts or the elderly? |
08-06-2014, 01:45 PM | #27 (permalink) | |
Spice Master
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 17,969
Internets: 278288
|
Quote:
For some reason, the whole nature/nurture thing with sexual "deviancy" is still under debate, but the simple fact is that evolution isn't perfect and has a wide spectrum of behavioral outcomes. Some dudes want to fuck kids. There's nothing wrong with that, really -- we haven't invented ThoughtCrime yet. It is only wrong if they ACT on these desires, for obvious reasons. So, how many pedophiles are there out there who absolutely refuse to partake (think of a vampire not wanting to kill or hurt humans). What must that be like? Alternatively, what must it have been like to have been gay throughout history and in love with another gay person, knowing you could never, EVER act on it? Man. Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosex...ancient_Greece | |
Psychedelics are illegal not because a loving government is concerned that you may jump out of a third story window. Psychedelics are illegal because they dissolve opinion structures and culturally laid down models of behavior and information processing.
― Terence McKenna |
||
08-07-2014, 09:02 AM | #28 (permalink) |
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 6,113
Internets: 284753
|
Repug, it seems like your main question to me is: why is homosexuality bad? Or to be more specific, why do I think it perverts and degrades society.
I don't even know where to begin. Let's start from an economic perspective. I often hear the argument that homosex is good for the economy bc fags don't have children, so they have larger disposable income. I agree with this argument in the short run. In the long run, the effects are immeasurable. With economic growth tied so closely to human capital, the very same trait of homos that promotes short run economic health most likely impacts our stock of human capital, which in turn hurts economic growth and technological advancement. Of course, you can't measure this impact. Now let's move on to a public health perspective. Homosexuals are disease vectors. They are hotbeds for sexually transmitted diseases. This is why aids is so rampant in the gay "community". Many homos are bisexual, so they spread disease to straight populations. This leads purrfectly into the next reason: homosexuals are sexual perverts. Most homos are extremely promiscuous and have many sexual partners. Why should this bother me? Well it doesn't by itself. But again, homos are disease vectors. Furthermore sodomy is disgusting. If you don't think a bunch of dudes shitting, pissing, and cuming on each other is disgusting and perverted, then you are totally fucked. But again, why should I care? Well I don't, if they are kept in the closet like they should. But when the media is shoving homosexuality down our throats, not only does it feel like an agenda, but it also affects me bc I don't want my children exposed to the disgusting perversion that is faggotry. As I also said, deviancy leads to more deviancy. I'd wager 90% of pedos are also homos. And I'm not even touching on the mentally ill fags who are trying to get/give aids. Finally, homosexuality represents the degradation of the nuclear family, which, in my opinion, is the ultimate goal of the media. A strong nuclear family is the backbone of society, of the economy, and of the morality of our culture. It's certainly no wonder that divorce rates are at all time highs and single parents are extremely common. Make no mistake, there is a war against American families today. Honestly I could keep going, but I won't. |
08-07-2014, 09:20 AM | #29 (permalink) |
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 6,113
Internets: 284753
|
Dent,
How do you feel about the mass immigration being pushed on the UK by the EU? Do you align with labour, UKIP, BNP, or the conservative party (can't remember the name). Is the EU good for Britain? Who controls the EU? Have you been culturally enriched? |
08-07-2014, 12:55 PM | #30 (permalink) | |||||||
Almost there...
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,979
Internets: 161638
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
As for the media shoving it down our throats...I think this is partly a reflection of changing public opinion and demographics in this country. The media is like a mirror. FOX is a mirror for conservatives and MSNBC is a mirror for liberals. Both feel besieged by the other. Both consider the other "mainstream", like that somehow discredits their competitor. The fact is both mirror the legitimate feelings of their constituents. By refusing to acknowledge this they empower the other side and give each other persecution complexes. Take yourself. You are a straight white male. You belong to a group that dominates this country. Yet there is a small group (homosexuals) whose agenda you feel threatened by. Simply by existing you feel like they are attacking your views and beliefs. And every bit of acceptance they get you feel chips away at your power. At least, that's what it seems like. But we live in a pluralistic country that is rapidly becoming more diverse. That isn't going to change any time soon. You say you don't want your hypothetical children to be exposed to homosexuals. Okay. But why aren't you as vocal about poverty? Or alcoholism? Of domestic violence or racism? Aren't these just as bad, if not worse? Why are you so laser-focused on this one issue, when child labor and the sex trade is thriving? What about murder? Can you understand how choosing to focus solely on this single issue, that I think I can argue objectively is less harmful to society than the above examples, makes you come off as strangely obsessed? I'm trying to take your view seriously, because I think being dismissive of people's genuine beliefs only make those beliefs more entrenched. Quote:
Quote:
| |||||||
Last edited by Repugnant Abomination; 08-07-2014 at 01:03 PM. |
||||||||
08-07-2014, 04:14 PM | #31 (permalink) | ||
Lost in Hilbert Spice
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Surrounded by knaves and fools
Posts: 3,460
Internets: 174266
|
My guess is that there's a spectrum, it's pretty easy to compartmentalize these things, nazi germany etc.
A lot of this has to do with self awareness, which is not the same as consciousness, babies aren't self aware but they're conscious. The analogy of "fighting" against our selfish genes isn't great imo. I think that every human is in many ways sick, and I think the WHO definition agrees with this. http://www.who.int/about/definition/en/print.html Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity. History goes back a long time, homosexuality has been around for hundreds of millions of years. I don't see the nature/nurture debate, of course all is nature. One picture for you! and a quote from Bostrom's new book. Mating strategies are complex, look at all these deviants! And the quote "The image of evolution as a process that reliably produces benign effects is difficult to reconcile with the enormous suffering that we see in both the human and the natural world. Those who cherish evolution's achievements may do so more from an aesthetic than an ethical perspective" - Nick Bostrom, Superintelligence, p. 174 Quote:
I don't have a problem with immigration, I do have a problem if it's used to abuse. We could go into specifics regarding my local area, but I'd like to understand the bigger picture first. I don't think too much about the EU. One quote for you Quote:
| ||
08-07-2014, 10:27 PM | #33 (permalink) | |
Gangnam Style
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: DH's Massage Parlor
Posts: 6,383
Internets: 213510
|
Quote:
DH, I like you. The following statement isn't me trolling or hating on you in any way. When I see people rage this hard on a group of individuals, it's usually because they don't understand them. Then, they meet someone who is a decent human who happens to be one. Before you know it, they become one. DH, I think you're a closet homosexual. I'll still hang out with you and I won't persecute you like it seems you would any of us if we said we were gay. I've accepted some pretty embarrassing statements you've made, but I think behind all your hate for things you seem to know nothing about, I still will call you my friend and go out places with you, because I can see past your sexual preference and see you as a person. I think you are an inherently good person who just lacks social education. I used to be very anti-gay, but mostly because I was afraid they'd hit on me and I wouldn't know how to react. After having MANY gay guys hit on me, I've just learned to laugh it off and move on. These guys are GREAT people and VERY good at helping others become great people. On a side note, the flaw in your "Disease vectors" argument, is that if they truly do transmit diseases to each other at the rate you suggest, they'd all die off, which should make you happy. If they were all truly gay, they'd only transmit to other gays and not women. The only legit argument against homosexuality I've seen is that since they don't reproduce, they go against human evolution, which is bad for our species. | |
08-07-2014, 11:10 PM | #34 (permalink) | |
COME ON YOU YANKS
|
Quote:
...and let's not forget Repug's point about adoption, something that wouldn't apply to the above folks. | |
08-08-2014, 02:43 AM | #35 (permalink) | |||||
Lost in Hilbert Spice
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Surrounded by knaves and fools
Posts: 3,460
Internets: 174266
|
<3<3<3<3<3<3<3<3<3<3<3<3<3<3<3<3<3<3<3<3<3<3<3<3<3 <3<3<3<3<3
F3lix, I like you. The following isn't me trolling or hating on you in any way. Quote:
I understand why people get pissed off with this nonsense. DH is closer to monster than "inherently good" imo.. apply the felicific calculus. Quote:
How are we defining disease? value judgements? dodgy appeal to nature? (I'm interested in this) Quote:
Quote:
What do you mean bad for the species? Same goes for DH with his "bad for economy" do you think the species/conmy is a unitary subject of experience? China brain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I'll argue that homosexuals are better for the MEMBERS OF the species than those that have had children (selfish bastards) It's impossible to "go against human evolution" the mechanism of natty S that is, anyway. Quote:
<3<3<3<3<3<3<3<3<3<3<3<3<3<3<3<3<3<3<3<3<3<3<3<3<3 <3<3<3<3<3 Yes this post is a bit childish. | |||||
08-08-2014, 07:29 AM | #37 (permalink) |
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 6,113
Internets: 284753
|
Go fuck yourself f3lix, you god damned idiot.
If you're honestly legit telling me that you think I'm a homosexual, then you are definitely not my friend, and I want nothing to do with you. Your retarded, tumblr-feminist level argument is a strawman, which is essentially the only fucking arguments I've seen against anything I've said. "You don't like X, so you must be X". It's what SJWs do when they have no real argument, so they try to shame those who offend them. It's essentially an ad hominem strawman fallacy. I never said I hated gays or that all gays should be killed. I think the reaction to what I said is quite telling about you guys and how fragile your world view is (just like tumblr feminists). No tolerance for intolerance, lol. Sounds like a funny way of saying hypocrisy. However I did say that the promotion of homosexuality in the media and in schools is not right. Homosexuality is a mental disorder that should not be promoted as "normal" and normal people shouldn't have to live with the gay agenda shoved down their throats. Homosexuality, in my opinion, is degrading to the moral fabric of our society. One thing I want to say in response to Repug: there is a war on families because people without families have only one place to look for support, the government. I hate all of you so mother fucking much. I post a legit article about homos and the entire conversation immediately degrades to you faggots calling me a homosexual. It's pathetic. |
08-08-2014, 08:09 AM | #38 (permalink) |
Emperor Meow
|
It all adds up. Maybe we can help DH by introducing him to some other gay guys. I think DH would be attracted to the more discrete, less feminine type. All he needs is one of those situations where he gets to know somebody, befriend them, then find out later.
|
#YOLO
|
|
08-08-2014, 10:26 PM | #46 (permalink) | |
Gangnam Style
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: DH's Massage Parlor
Posts: 6,383
Internets: 213510
|
Quote:
While we're at it, I'm pretty sure I've taken many more philosophy classes than DH and the philosophy 100 lecture on fallacies and straw man arguments show DH really doesn't know what he's talking about. My last two statements in my post are the furthest thing from a straw man argument. On the other hand, DH throws several red herrings in his retort. | |
08-08-2014, 11:02 PM | #47 (permalink) | |
Lost in Hilbert Spice
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Surrounded by knaves and fools
Posts: 3,460
Internets: 174266
|
Quote:
Yea, I got one question man, "tell me who's next?" | |
08-09-2014, 12:26 PM | #49 (permalink) |
Lost in Hilbert Spice
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Surrounded by knaves and fools
Posts: 3,460
Internets: 174266
|
How can the existence of homosexuals be explained if ‘they go against human evolution?’
Here are a few ideas as to why homosexuals are not detrimental to evolution: If parents can raise a maximum number of viable offspring, an investment of an asexual/homosexual child would increase the care available to the other siblings (kin selection) therefor increasing the maximum number of viable offspring the parent can produce. In larger family units such as those of our ancestors, the benefit of an asexual/homosexual would be greater than in smaller families that are more common in the last few generations. As to homosexuals specifically, having an attraction to the opposite sex may link the homosexual individual to a specific parent pair without being detrimental to the reproductive output. E.g. A gay man may be attracted to the male parent therefor support the family without contributing to the females reproductive output. I’d be interested to hear any ideas you have as to why homosexuals have survived natural selection if they’re bad for the species? How do you explain homosexuality in other species? |
08-09-2014, 01:48 PM | #50 (permalink) | |
Spice Master
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 17,969
Internets: 278288
|
Nature, the ultimate engine of creation, which absolutely does exist (At least to organic beings), has created homosexual beings, and that's really where the argument ends for me. Whether there is a "purpose" to the creation of gay people or not is irrelevant --- there may not be a purpose to anything except to simply exist. Your biological arguments for reproduction are along the lines of eugenics. To continue along these lines of denial is simply conversational masturbation or complete refusal to accept WHAT IS, in contrast of how you wish it to be, DH.
Also: List of animals displaying homosexual behavior - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Homosexual behavior in animals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia One of the best points i've heard about homosexuality being a choice, is summed up here: Quote:
You need to either start meditating or doing some (positive, healthy) drugs, man, otherwise you're heading down a path of intense suffering imho. I say that from personal experience. I would hate to see you crash and burn like myself (and many others) have simply by not opening yourself to a bit of vulnerability and listening to reason of people who are trying to HELP you understand reality AS IT IS --- not oppose or diminish your thoughts and ideas. I still have a lot of hope for you, but you gotta open up to the possibility that you may be wrong --- about a lot of things. I sure was. | |
Psychedelics are illegal not because a loving government is concerned that you may jump out of a third story window. Psychedelics are illegal because they dissolve opinion structures and culturally laid down models of behavior and information processing.
― Terence McKenna Last edited by Mr. Blonde; 08-09-2014 at 01:55 PM. |
||