Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Dec 2008
- Posts
- 3,499
- Location
- London, UK
Are you Homophobic?
- Thread starter easyrider
- Start date
- Status
I refer to to something I said before:
It's a very revealing line of argument because it requires that the speaker must also believe that homosexuality is so much more appealing than heterosexuality that if it isn't suppressed then there's a good chance that everyone would choose homosexuality.
While homosexuality is clearly far more appealing than heterosexuality is to you, you're wrong in projecting that onto the whole of humanity.
I could imagine a world in which every guy was a werewolf who was sexually attracted only to wooden fences, but that doesn't mean we need to be worried about it actually happening.
I've already presented an alternative method to why gays exist in nature. I have no idea about genetics, but I do know genetic programming. You will surprised the solutions it is able to come up with albeit slower than other methods. The reason we use genetic programming, is to allow us solve problems we can't understand, which has huge solution space. However nature noticed its a good track to take, and went down the path of a certain percentage being gay. It may not be the optimum solution, but it would probably do a better job than we could.
A small change could have so many side effects, linked to so many things, we just could not isolate them. Being gay could help us in many ways we don't know about yet in a overall view, like sibling resource gathering thing I made up earlier. It exists, nature keeps it in the genes. Genes arn't decided to help a individual survive, they actually help society survive as a whole. This is why people do things like altruism, which actually might reduce their chance of survival.
A small change could have so many side effects, linked to so many things, we just could not isolate them. Being gay could help us in many ways we don't know about yet in a overall view, like sibling resource gathering thing I made up earlier. It exists, nature keeps it in the genes. Genes arn't decided to help a individual survive, they actually help society survive as a whole. This is why people do things like altruism, which actually might reduce their chance of survival.
Last edited:
I didn't say nature was conscious.
Nature has many ways of controlling population. Genetic mutations and aberrations are just one of them (both in the over-populated species themselves, or something else in the eco-system which it is dependent on). There's also lack of food, "natural" disasters, changes in the food chain, war, plagues.
To dismiss "naturally occurring" morally abnormal (or unnatural if you prefer) behaviour, which has a clear impact on the population, as not being relevant just shows a lack of insight into the complexities of the subject we are dealing with.
I'll be sure to make a throwaway comment about gay chickens next time if that would help though.
great so you believe in some for of over governing intelligence that directly manipulates peoples minds and bodies.
So by your logic all murders are absolved of guilt because this entity made them do it too?
Please show one genetic modification that exists purely to reduce the number of a species?
Especially in a species that is not facing any physical problem of over population (lack of land or food for example.
Also can you explain why homosexuality is not vastly more common in Africa which actually does suffer those effects rather than the west which does not?
Did you do that with the quantum double-slit experiment as well?
"A single particle goes through both slits at the same time? Heh, that's stupid!"
Homophobic Men Most Aroused by Gay Male Porn
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...106/homophobic-men-most-aroused-gay-male-porn
As if we didn't already know this was the case anyway.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...106/homophobic-men-most-aroused-gay-male-porn
As if we didn't already know this was the case anyway.
Source? Cause I am guessing it probably is, or at least the same as ours, but their societal differences mean its the true numbers are hidden.
He's all your Tefal
In summary - genes are selfish, they strive to persist. There is no genetic 'population control' in the sense suggested.
You've changed man, being a lawyer has made you value your time
I just explained the complexities involved. You know there's no answer to that, which is why you asked it probably. How about the mutation from ape to human which led to the reduction in a large number of species, and the eventual extinction of a few? Is that complex enough and still almost impossible to prove. How about you disprove it?
Yes, because Africa has many many other factors contributing to population control, famine and plagues for starters, with wars helping too. So it may be that there is simply no need for additional controls to be around.
And, no, he's all mine. But after TopGear and The Apprentice.
Just to say genes aren't purely self fish, they actually help society as a whole. There is tons of academic research area. Look up biological altruism. This means behavior that may not help a individual but help the species may emerge.
There tons of different names for it though.
There tons of different names for it though.
Last edited:
you said there were definitely genetic mutations designed to limit the population of the species they are affecting. So surely you must know at least one?
the evolution of humans and their subsequent killing of other speices (along with other environmental factors) does constitute a genetic mutation limiting the population.
That's just humans being better than their competition. as show by we now out numbering them.
Yes, because Africa has many many other factors contributing to population control, famine and plagues for starters, with wars helping too. So it may be that there is simply no need for additional controls to be around.
And, no, he's all mine. But after TopGear and The Apprentice.
Yet Africa is suffering from the affects of over population ie starvation.
The west isn't.
So if gayness is a response to over population it should affect Africa and not the west at all.
There should be no gay people in the west in that case. Also why do many gay peoples till ant children if it's a mechanism to reduce numbers.
I'm indifferent to homosexuality, as long as they don't flaunt it right in front of me by being camp, ect. Or, snogging right in front of me when I'm enjoying a drink at a bar for example. I just don't want to see that in my face.
No, genes are certainly entirely selfish. This is exactly why the behaviour seen in haplodiploid insects and even eusocial mammals (well, mammal, naked mole rat) occurs. Any benefit to "society" is entirely incidental.
In short, altruism most frequently occurs because the genetic material between individuals is virtually identical, they are essentially clones, meaning that individuals will sacrifice themselves because their genes will be passed on anyway. This is why you have worker ants that never bother to reproduce - the chances of their genes being passed on to the next generation is increased if they assist the 'queen' and don't attempt their own reproduction.
ok the genes are selfish, the actual organism its self isn't. This is why people could feel loyalty to family, then extended family, local area etc. But were really shuffling around technical terms now.
Last edited:
- Status