okay... there are only 2 genders that are biologically NORMAL, and thus not defective... don't be an idiot.
Simple. In nature, animal survival depends on reproduction and ability to reproduce. You cannot reproduce with the same sex, nor an animal of a different species, nor a plant or inanimate object. So that's that.
More pseudo-rational folklore.
If it's demonstrated by biological science that only one sexual orientation is inborn, that only one sexual orientation has evolutionary value, or that other sexual orientations correlate with the extinction of the species, please show us the science.
Please provide statistical proof that there were less sexuals per capita 100 years ago (or even 1000) than there are today. People then couldn't come out. Now they can.
don't hold your breath, Xevious. hand-waving and question begging seems to be the MO.
provide statistical proof that this number is even close to a reasonable percentage to not be abnormal... also, "bisexuality" is 99.9% a cultural fad, but about 1 in 10 US females age 18-30 identify as that... creepy as . Liberal brainwashing FTL
^^^more fake precision, hand-waving, pearl-clutching and pseudo-rationality from Mr. Cold Hard Science.
What's next? Allowing adults to have sex with 12 yr olds?
Most people have an aversion to that. What if that at ude changes in 10 years?
Years back, most people had an aversion to unblessed sex. Now look.
Where does it end now that we have created this slippery slope?
he is mason. in other words, he is someones troll.
Define "morals"
Or... watch the video, you might learn something.
Did you actually watch the video?
You are so bad at critical thinking you don't even know how/why this drips with irony, do you?
sexuality is entirely compatible with evolution and natural selection. I can flesh that out if you wish, or you can look it up yourself.
https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/r.../659/03/Purdue UniversityFallacies are common errors in reasoning that will undermine the logic of your argument. Fallacies can be either illegitimate arguments or irrelevant points, and are often identified because they lack evidence that supports their claim.Mar 11, 2013
Logical Fallacies - OWL - Purdue University
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also Known as: The Camel's Nose.
Description of Slippery Slope
The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question. In most cases, there are a series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to why the intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed. This "argument" has the following form:
Event X has occurred (or will or might occur).
Therefore event Y will inevitably happen.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because there is no reason to believe that one event must inevitably follow from another without an argument for such a claim. This is especially clear in cases in which there is a significant number of steps or gradations between one event and another.
Examples of Slippery Slope
- "We have to stop the tuition increase! The next thing you know, they'll be charging $40,000 a semester!"
- "The US shouldn't get involved militarily in other countries. Once the government sends in a few troops, it will then send in thousands to die."
- "You can never give anyone a break. If you do, they'll walk all over you."
- "We've got to stop them from banning pornography. Once they start banning one form of literature, they will never stop. Next thing you know, they will be burning all the books!"
http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...ery-slope.html
mason is egging him on.
he's being duped by a troll.
sexuality has always been with us, as far back a writing goes, and farther, if memory serves.
It appears that would seem to make it normative that some percentage of humans will always be so.
RandomGuy is an idiot.
When you are afflicted with harm based morality you cannot see the legitimacy of other forms of morality - that's the problem. That is what Haidt is do enting. It's proven because liberals actually cannot understand how conservatives think - they guess wrong. Whereas conservatives and moderates do understand how liberals think (they are aware of harm - particularly since it's the only moral value the media talks about).
Ironically the liberal definition of morality becomes "it is what I say it is", i.e. they treat their subjective sense of morality as objective.
BUT ISN'T AUTHORITY ALWAYS BAD AND LEADS TO HITLER?! That's the essence of the "criticism", which is less criticism than inability to understand what he's talking about. They don't understand that harm-based morality also has a possible bad outcome: an atomized society of stunted emotional development and hedonism which leads relatively quickly (if history is any indication) to the collapse of that society. When the collapse happens they'll go down not understanding it. "Guys! Market Forces! This doesn't even make any sense!"
Some people you will just never be able to explain reality to. They are too wrapped up in the self and the intellectual frivolity of their peers.
"It's proven because liberals actually cannot understand how conservatives think - they guess wrong. Whereas conservatives and moderates do understand how liberals think"
Holy , conservatives/Repugs providing ample evidence of how ing stupid they are.
Prove a sexual exists. Claim isn't proof. Lifestyle isn't proof. You need to prove preference.
Prove this.
Not at a micro level. The genetics of the sexual will not be passed along if the sexual maintains a sexual life. Artificial insemination is a mechanism to bridge that gap, however it doesn't mean that gap doesn't exist. Dialysis will bridge the renal function gap but it doesn't negate it because not all renal problems will be addressed, and not all sexual males or females will have the number of offspring that their hetero counterparts will. Because there's likely no genetic component to sexuality outside of development issues, this would not probably not be an evolutionary issue, ergo not a "survival of the species" issue unless the species was narrowed to only sexual people.
Group selection in general fails at the micro level too. Just because it "fails at the micro level" doesn't mean it wouldn't be compatible with evolution. That said, it's unlikely that there is a "gay gene" or group of genes that definitively makes you gay. It is considered to be far more likely that it is possible for people to have a genetic predisposition to be gay, combined with environmental factors or hormone levels during development.
Didn't I say that?
"Not at a micro level. The genetics of the sexual will not be passed along if the sexual maintains a sexual life. Artificial insemination is a mechanism to bridge that gap, however it doesn't mean that gap doesn't exist. Dialysis will bridge the renal function gap but it doesn't negate it because not all renal problems will be addressed, and not all sexual males or females will have the number of offspring that their hetero counterparts will. Because there's likely no genetic component to sexuality outside of development issues, this would not probably not be an evolutionary issue, ergo not a "survival of the species" issue unless the species was narrowed to only sexual people."
The discussion was about whether or not sexuality is unnatural. You'd have to define unnatural first, but if it was something along the lines of "cannot lead to survival of the species and instead would lead to extinction" then sure, if the species is only sexuals. That's true for murders as well. Murder is detrimental to survival at a micro level but it doesn't seem to affect us at a macro level. So you have to define your parameters. The ins ution of sexuality (if there is such a thing) is a macro level affect. sexuals are each micro level, their ability to reproduce isn't hindered but their tendency to do so is. This is the same with animals who, for whatever reason do not mate successfully.
Don't strain yourself, Dunning-Kruger Boy.
Bear in mind that you need to conceptualize people as what they are for reproductive purposes: a collection of genes.
Allele frequency between generations varies because a set of genes is either advantageous or disadvantageous on a NET basis.
It is entirely possible for a gene to have positive and negative affects on an organisms ability to reproduce. A good example is a pea tail.
Alleles also can have beneficial effects when weakly expressed (increasing their frequency), and negative effects when strongly expressed (decreasing frequency).
There are also entire species where the existence of non-reproducing adults determines the viability of offspring, such as wolf packs. Social species that live in groups allow for this, and humans are just such a social group.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
