The moral roots of liberals and conservatives

[RandomGuy]

"Psychologist Jonathan Haidt studies the five moral values that form the basis of our political choices, whether we're left, right or center. In this eye-opening talk, he pinpoints the moral values that liberals and conservatives tend to honor most."

TED talk worth watching (18.5 minutes):

https://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind?language=en

[boutons_deux]

... is great justification of how, why Repugs, VRWC, BigCorp are fundamentally immoral.

His finishing point is about "truth" (-seeking, -valuing), and obviously LIES, and fear (paranoia) are the entire basis of the Repug/VRWC ideology.

btw, when lies, propaganda have instilled fear and paranoia and thereby HATE (about knitters, illegals, Muslims, the "others"), one's concern for, solidarity with others is diminished, if not negated. iow, installing fear is a key technique for dividing people against everybody else, "Divided We Fall".

[Clipper Nation]

> Morals
> Liberals

Choose one.

[UNT Eagles 2016]

> Morals
> Liberals

Choose one.
agreed... you'd have to be on ten kinds of drugs to believe the weirdass pansexual non-showering hipsters with purple-green hair and 50 piercings and 100 tattoos have "morals".

[boutons_deux]

agreed... you'd have to be on ten kinds of drugs to believe the weirdass pansexual non-showering hipsters with purple-green hair and 50 piercings and 100 tattoos have "morals".

... aka, evidence, rightwingnutjobs have to LIE to make a "point"

[UNT Eagles 2016]

... aka, evidence, rightwingnutjobs have to LIE to make a "point"
You're an idiot

[boutons_deux]

You're an idiot

You know I'm not an idiot, but I know you're a liar

[UNT Eagles 2016]

You know I'm not an idiot, but I know you're a liar
You're an idiot.

[DarrinS]

I like Johnathan Haidt. He coauthored a piece in the Atlantic called "The Coddling of the American Mind". Worth a read.

[Winehole23]

> Morals
> Liberals

Choose one.Mutually exclusive how?

Just because someone doesn't share your morals doesn't mean they're immoral -- unless you're a religious zealot.

[FromWayDowntown]

Just because someone doesn't share your morals doesn't mean they're immoral -- unless you're a religious zealot.

Even then, immorality wouldn't be an objective truth.

In looking through my diverse Facebook news feed, I've become fascinated by the narrative that liberals are immoral, unintelligent, unpatriotic, Godless heathens who reject objective truths and that conservatives are wholly moral, super-intelligent, thoroughly patriotic, angels who are grounded solely in objective truths.

My favorite is when a "friend" offers that sort of characterization and then complains that liberals won't listen to conservatives.

[DarrinS]

I don't think liberals (in the classical sense) are immoral at all -- quite the opposite, in fact. I don't even think the SJW regressive left is immoral -- just slightly infantile and insane. I'm not going to use their 71 gender pronouns or "check my privilege". Sorry.

[hater]

agreed... you'd have to be on ten kinds of drugs to believe the weirdass pansexual non-showering hipsters with purple-green hair and 50 piercings and 100 tattoos have "morals".

Amen

[Winehole23]

The notion that sexual preference and morals, or any lack thereof, can be deduced from personal appearance, is ridiculous.

[Winehole23]

Is it immoral to have green hair and piercings?

If so, how?

[Winehole23]

Is it perforce immoral to be pansexual?

If so, why?

[Winehole23]

Doubting the begged questions doesn't mean anyone is on drugs.

[hater]

Is it immoral to have green hair and piercings?

If so, how?

It is if you support HillAdolph Shitler

[boutons_deux]

SJW regressive left is immoral -- just slightly infantile and insane

your pronoun gripe is trivial bullshit. is that all you have against SJWs?

[DarrinS]

your pronoun gripe is trivial bullshit. is that all you have against SJWs?

No. they also stifle free speech with ridiculous draconian speech codes.

[UNT Eagles 2016]

Mutually exclusive how?

Just because someone doesn't share your morals doesn't mean they're immoral -- unless you're a religious zealot.

Not a religious zealot, not religious at all, but today's hipsters are fucking weird as fuck.

Liberals tout science, but the scientific, cold hard biological fact is: There are TWO genders, and that is that. And they can make up as many sexualities as they want, but you're either straight or you're going against the grain of nature, that's a fact.

[UNT Eagles 2016]

Is it immoral to have green hair and piercings?

If so, how?

it's fucking disgusting.

[UNT Eagles 2016]

Is it perforce immoral to be pansexual?

If so, why?

it's fucking disgusting. I'd rather see a huge comet hit the earth than than fucking 7 people of both genders and two goats doing the nasty at the same time, seriously.

[Wild Cobra]

Moral roots huh?

Republicans in congress voted 100% YES for the 13th amendment. Only 23% democrats did.

[UNT Eagles 2016]

The notion that sexual preference and morals, or any lack thereof, can be deduced from personal appearance, is ridiculous.

It doesn't have to be 100%, don't be obtuse.

Generalization and stereotypes exist for a good reason -- if a solid or vast majority of conclusion B can be drawn from state A, then the correlation and judgment is valid. If you go by statistics and select a legit sample size, say even 50 or 100 -- you're going to get a solid majority of weird fucks from the disgusting "hippie" group I spoke of earlier.

[Wild Cobra]

It doesn't have to be 100%, don't be obtuse.

Generalization and stereotypes exist for a good reason -- if a solid or vast majority of conclusion B can be drawn from state A, then the correlation and judgment is valid. If you go by statistics and select a legit sample size, say even 50 or 100 -- you're going to get a solid majority of weird fucks from the disgusting "hippie" group I spoke of earlier.

It's all in the way a person carries themselves, speaks, etc. This can be very, very valid for perceiving several attributes of a person.

[UNT Eagles 2016]

It's all in the way a person carries themselves, speaks, etc. This can be very, very valid for perceiving several attributes of a person.

Agree, and every hipster I've met (there's just as many per capita in Denton as Austin, believe me) has the same disgusting, bitchy, whiny attitude and is extremely touchy and sensitive.

I give them all a big fat zero and wish they were all transformed into slugs

[UNT Eagles 2016]

Wild Cobra (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=8523), are you from Portland OR? You should know better than all of us about the faggoty hipster population, tbh.

[Wild Cobra]

Wild Cobra (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=8523), are you from Portland OR? You should know better than all of us about the faggoty hipster population, tbh.

There are very, very many people who I find disgusting.

[UNT Eagles 2016]

There are very, very many people who I find disgusting.

There are a few other groups but they are smaller in comparison. Like the ghetto hoboes of all races (including a lot of whites) with fucked up teeth who are over 30 and can barely speak English and never bothered to be anything but dumb meatheads or get a real job and stop dumpster diving and stop trying to pick a fight with anyone who says hello.

[Wild Cobra]

There are a few other groups but they are smaller in comparison. Like the ghetto hoboes of all races (including a lot of whites) with fucked up teeth who are over 30 and can barely speak English and never bothered to be anything but dumb meatheads or get a real job and stop dumpster diving and stop trying to pick a fight with anyone who says hello.

You should see all the white trash in Portland.

[UNT Eagles 2016]

You should see all the white trash in Portland.

so everyone in portland is abnormal? Between the faggoty hipsters and the ghetto hoboe trash, white and otherwise? Jeez... whatever happened to the NORMAL people? Like the ones that made up over 95% of the population before 1990?

[Wild Cobra]

so everyone in portland is abnormal? Between the faggoty hipsters and the ghetto hoboe trash, white and otherwise? Jeez... whatever happened to the NORMAL people? Like the ones that made up over 95% of the population before 1990?

I guess it depends on ones perception of "white trash." and other terms.

I am guilty of not using proper terminology here, which is bad, because I advocate that "words have meaning."

I don't look down on someone because of their wealth, rather how they carry themselves and their actions. There are too many people who lack morals in Portland. I did not mean those who by generic definition are white trash.

[Xevious]

Republicans in congress voted 100% YES for the 13th amendment. Only 23% democrats did.
There you go making stupid comparisons/generalizations again. The Dems and Repugs of todays are not the same as the 1860s

I haven't watched the video yet (at work), but will later. As to the discussion at hand, the US Government should not be in the business of legislating morality between consenting adults. As long as you pay your taxes and mind your own business, I could not care less what God you pray to or who you choose to fuck.

Though as I get older, I tend to vote based on who i think will take less of my money more than anything.

[Wild Cobra]

There you go making stupid comparisons/generalizations again. The Dems and Repugs of todays are not the same as the 1860s

Then why is "roots" in the title?

[Spurminator]

Then why is "roots" in the title?

You'll notice neither "Democrats" nor "Republicans" is in the title...

[Wild Cobra]

OK, I jumped to conclusions.

Started watching the video. It's pretty good. Spot on that conservatives are more balanced than liberals.

[boutons_deux]

Spot on that conservatives are more balanced than liberals.

:lol WC is living proof :lol

[Wild Cobra]

:lol WC is living proof :lol

If you say so Shazbot.

[spurraider21]

just watched the video in the OP... it's not bad. and it explains why shills/partisans are the real problem in political discourse

[Wild Cobra]

just watched the video in the OP... it's not bad. and it explains why shills/partisans are the real problem in political discourse

It's actually very good. Explains alot about libtards.

[boutons_deux]

It's actually very good. Explains alot about libtards.

it explains why Repugs/VRWC/MIC love bombing other countries, why they love "strong man" (authoritarian, anti-democratic) governance, and "REGULATIN" anybody who doesn't conform to their idea and white Christian Euro-male paradigm.

[Winehole23]

Liberals tout science, but the scientific, cold hard biological fact is: There are TWO genders, and that is that. And they can make up as many sexualities as they want, but you're either straight or you're going against the grain of nature, that's a fact.That's your opinion. How does biology support the hypothesis that there are only two genders and one "natural" sexual orientation?

Please be as specific as you can.

[Winehole23]

it's fucking disgusting.You have an aversion to it. That does not make it immoral.

[UNT Eagles 2016]

You have an aversion to it. That does not make it immoral.

it's fucking abnormal and a product of the new and stupid generation. Just look at U.S. society 100 years ago, that defines "normal".

[boutons_deux]

You have an aversion to it. That does not make it immoral.

Conservatives are by definition, close-minded, spout "freedom" endlessly, but only for themselves.

Others who don't conform to their ideas are disgusting, and worse.

[UNT Eagles 2016]

That's your opinion. How does biology support the hypothesis that there are only two genders and one "natural" sexual orientation?

Please be as specific as you can.

XY and XX

there's no fucking Z and shit... XXY, XYY etc happen such a very small percentage of the time...it's a statistical anomaly, thus making it abnormal. Hermaphroditic is just as "normal" as Down syndrome or Edward's ("The Hills Have Eyes" syndrome). They're all based on a genetic DEFECT, or mistake, in the chromosomes during meiosis or fertilization cross-over (karyotyping). Defectiveness is ABNORMAL.

[Winehole23]

it's fucking abnormal and a product of the new and stupid generation. Just look at U.S. society 100 years ago, that defines "normal".Usage is king. Custom and conventionality change over time.

[Winehole23]

XY and XX

there's no fucking Z and shit... XXY, XYY etc happen such a very small percentage of the time...it's a statistical anomaly, thus making it abnormal. Hermaphroditic is just as "normal" as Down syndrome or Edward's ("The Hills Have Eyes" syndrome). They're all based on a genetic DEFECT, or mistake, in the chromosomes during meiosis or fertilization cross-over (karyotyping). Defectiveness is ABNORMAL.So much for your hypothesis that there are only two genders.

Where's the support from biological science for your hypothesis that only one sexual orientation is "natural"?

[Winehole23]

A strident folklorical insistence on the importance of social conventionality won't cut it -- that's not "cold, hard science."

[UNT Eagles 2016]

So much for your hypothesis that there are only two genders.

Where's the support from biological science for your hypothesis that only one sexual orientation is "natural"?

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.

[Winehole23]

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.

[Xevious]

it's fucking abnormal and a product of the new and stupid generation. Just look at U.S. society 100 years ago, that defines "normal".
Please provide statistical proof that there were less homosexuals per capita 100 years ago (or even 1000) than there are today. People then couldn't come out. Now they can.

[Winehole23]

don't hold your breath, Xevious. hand-waving and question begging seems to be the MO.

[UNT Eagles 2016]

Please provide statistical proof that there were less homosexuals per capita 100 years ago (or even 1000) than there are today. People then couldn't come out. Now they can.

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 fuck. Liberal brainwashing FTL

[Winehole23]

^^^more fake precision, hand-waving, pearl-clutching and pseudo-rationality from Mr. Cold Hard Science.

[Wild Cobra]

You have an aversion to it. That does not make it immoral.

What's next? Allowing adults to have sex with 12 yr olds?

Most people have an aversion to that. What if that attitude 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?

[clambake]

he is mason. in other words, he is someones troll.

[RandomGuy]

> Morals
> Liberals

Choose one.

Define "morals"

Or... watch the video, you might learn something.

[RandomGuy]

agreed... you'd have to be on ten kinds of drugs to believe the weirdass pansexual non-showering hipsters with purple-green hair and 50 piercings and 100 tattoos have "morals".

Did you actually watch the video?

[RandomGuy]

OK, I jumped to conclusions.

Started watching the video. It's pretty good. Spot on that conservatives are more balanced than liberals.

You are so bad at critical thinking you don't even know how/why this drips with irony, do you?

[RandomGuy]

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.

Homosexuality is entirely compatible with evolution and natural selection. I can flesh that out if you wish, or you can look it up yourself.

[RandomGuy]

What's next? Allowing adults to have sex with 12 yr olds?

Most people have an aversion to that. What if that attitude 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?



Fallacies 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
https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/659/03/Purdue University

http://image.slidesharecdn.com/logicalfallaciespowerpoint-110729100320-phpapp02/95/logical-fallacies-powerpoint-10-638.jpg?cb=1368176873

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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/fallacies/slippery-slope.html

[clambake]

mason is egging him on.


he's being duped by a troll.

[RandomGuy]

it's fucking abnormal and a product of the new and stupid generation. Just look at U.S. society 100 years ago, that defines "normal".

Homosexuality 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.

[UNT Eagles 2016]

RandomGuy is an idiot.

[spankadelphia]

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 documenting. 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.

[boutons_deux]

"It's proven because liberals actually cannot understand how conservatives think - they guess wrong. Whereas conservatives and moderates do understand how liberals think"

:lol Holy shit, conservatives/Repugs providing ample evidence of how fucking stupid they are.

[DMC]

Please provide statistical proof that there were less homosexuals per capita 100 years ago (or even 1000) than there are today. People then couldn't come out. Now they can.

Prove a homosexual exists. Claim isn't proof. Lifestyle isn't proof. You need to prove preference.

[DMC]

Homosexuality 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.

Prove this.

[DMC]

Homosexuality is entirely compatible with evolution and natural selection. I can flesh that out if you wish, or you can look it up yourself.

Not at a micro level. The genetics of the homosexual will not be passed along if the homosexual maintains a homosexual 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 homosexual males or females will have the number of offspring that their hetero counterparts will. Because there's likely no genetic component to homosexuality 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 homosexual people.

[spurraider21]

Not at a micro level. The genetics of the homosexual will not be passed along if the homosexual maintains a homosexual 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 homosexual males or females will have the number of offspring that their hetero counterparts will. Because there's likely no genetic component to homosexuality 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 homosexual 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.

[DMC]

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 homosexual will not be passed along if the homosexual maintains a homosexual 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 homosexual males or females will have the number of offspring that their hetero counterparts will. Because there's likely no genetic component to homosexuality 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 homosexual people."

The discussion was about whether or not homosexuality 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 homosexuals. 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 institution of homosexuality (if there is such a thing) is a macro level affect. Homosexuals 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.

[RandomGuy]

RandomGuy is an idiot.

Don't strain yourself, Dunning-Kruger Boy.

[RandomGuy]

"Not at a micro level. The genetics of the homosexual will not be passed along if the homosexual maintains a homosexual 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 homosexual males or females will have the number of offspring that their hetero counterparts will. Because there's likely no genetic component to homosexuality 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 homosexual people."

The discussion was about whether or not homosexuality 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 homosexuals. 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 institution of homosexuality (if there is such a thing) is a macro level affect. Homosexuals 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.

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 peacock 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.

[RandomGuy]

Didn't I say that?

genetics of the homosexual will not be passed along if the homosexual maintains a homosexual life.

False.

Fails for social species.

Consider:
Two siblings. One homosexual, one not.

The hetero sibling has a child, and, by extension an aunt or uncle, with no offspring to care for. If something happens to the hetero parent, the homosexual sibling can step in and provide resources for the offspring that vastly increase its survival chances.

One can assume that homosexuality, likely a host of gene effects, some more strongly expressed than others, is carried by the offspring.

[DMC]

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 peacock 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.

Fine, but the homosexual doesn't fit into those hypothetical categories. Homosexual, by definition, does not reproduce through normal sexual interaction since like genders cannot produce offspring. This isn't a social limitation, but a biological one.

[RandomGuy]

Fine, but the homosexual doesn't fit into those hypothetical categories. Homosexual, by definition, does not reproduce through normal sexual interaction since like genders cannot produce offspring. This isn't a social limitation, but a biological one.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13674-evolution-myths-natural-selection-cannot-explain-homosexuality/

The evidence is there through a search. There are, unsurprisingly, actual studies on it.

Again, you seem to be confusing entire organisms with the individual alleles and gametes.

http://phys.org/news/2015-01-evolutionary-homosexual-behavior-beetles.html

Same sex behavior happens quite a bit in many species, including other primate species. This strongly implies that there are things working that means homosexuality is not as clearly negative to reproduction as you seem to believe.

[z0sa]

Conflating political spectrum with morality assumes there are absolute moral poles. I dont buy it.

[Wild Cobra]

You are so bad at critical thinking you don't even know how/why this drips with irony, do you?

Isn't balance the middle of a scale? All five indicators were in the middle for the right, and highly skewed for the left.

[Winehole23]

Lot of people here deeply invested in proving homosexuality is unnatural and wrong.

It's odd to me that such dire emphasis is laid on who other people fuck and how. The topic clearly stirs passion.

[DMC]

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13674-evolution-myths-natural-selection-cannot-explain-homosexuality/

The evidence is there through a search. There are, unsurprisingly, actual studies on it.

Again, you seem to be confusing entire organisms with the individual alleles and gametes.

http://phys.org/news/2015-01-evolutionary-homosexual-behavior-beetles.html

Same sex behavior happens quite a bit in many species, including other primate species. This strongly implies that there are things working that means homosexuality is not as clearly negative to reproduction as you seem to believe.

Look at what you're implying: that same sex partners can produce offspring. If there was a shipwrecked on an island and there were only men on the ship and no one ever rescued them nor discovered the island and 140 years later someone visited that island, would you expect they might find human life?

If not, why?

If so, how?

[Winehole23]

You seem to have keen psychological insight into other posters based on fleeting interactions online. How did you acquire it?

[RandomGuy]

Look at what you're implying: that same sex partners can produce offspring. If there was a shipwrecked on an island and there were only men on the ship and no one ever rescued them nor discovered the island and 140 years later someone visited that island, would you expect they might find human life?

If not, why?

If so, how?

If you got out of that "same sex partners can produce offspring". My apologies for not communicating effectively.

My point was:

same sex behavior exists, not just in humans but in other species. As far as we can tell, homosexuality has been around a long time.

Since natural selection is rather ruthless at weeding out genes that are clearly deleterious, this implies that the genes/gene groups that govern homosexuality is/are not solely deleterious.

[RandomGuy]

Fine, but the homosexual doesn't fit into those hypothetical categories. Homosexual, by definition, does not reproduce through normal sexual interaction since like genders cannot produce offspring. This isn't a social limitation, but a biological one.

Wolves live in matrilineal packs.

Often non-alpha females do not reproduce in a given year.

Yet the presence of these non-reproducing females increases the odds of the year's cubs surviving, because wolves hunt in packs, i.e. are social. In this way the collective genes of the group are passed on.

Humans are the same.

In social, cooperative species, you cannot isolate consideration of any given set of alleles to individual organisms.

[Winehole23]

XY and XX

there's no fucking Z and shit... XXY, XYY etc happen such a very small percentage of the time...it's a statistical anomaly, thus making it abnormal. Hermaphroditic is just as "normal" as Down syndrome or Edward's ("The Hills Have Eyes" syndrome). They're all based on a genetic DEFECT, or mistake, in the chromosomes during meiosis or fertilization cross-over (karyotyping). Defectiveness is ABNORMAL.very interesting thread on just this topic:

11035246030500061184

[Winehole23]

1035246030500061184

[RandomGuy]

very interesting thread on just this topic:

11035246030500061184

tweet not showing up.

but yes, both sex, sexual identity, and sexual preference are all on spectrums, and not really binary

[101A]

Even then, immorality wouldn't be an objective truth.

In looking through my diverse Facebook news feed, I've become fascinated by the narrative that liberals are immoral, unintelligent, unpatriotic, Godless heathens who reject objective truths and that conservatives are wholly moral, super-intelligent, thoroughly patriotic, angels who are grounded solely in objective truths.

My favorite is when a "friend" offers that sort of characterization and then complains that liberals won't listen to conservatives.

If you take the "patriotic" adjective out of your conservative "friend's" description of liberal, it would describe (in the age of Trump) my liberal's views of conservatives (especially Trump voters). Of course most of my friends are academics (live in a college town, run in college circles), so from their standpoint most everyone is unintelligent.

It is, however, the belief that those that disagree are not only wrong, but stupid and immoral that has created such a divide and inability to have any type of Socratic dialogue. Not very effective for the country, but very effective at giving 2-year (sic) term congressmen lifetime jobs while "living" in gerrymandered districts.

[Chucho]

It is, however, the belief that those that disagree are not only wrong, but stupid and immoral that has created such a divide and inability to have any type of Socratic dialogue.

That's a certain few people in this form to a T. They know who they are.

[Chucho]

When do you have to become responsible for your own thinking?

ever notice that it’s party of trumpers that always cry about being divide when they suck at the cock of trump who started as a birther, and has continually and factually been proven to be racist and sexist in his life.

Yoi support a party that has shown total disregard for poc and women and lgbtq striving to remove their rights and the rote ruins under the 14th amendment


You're an idiot.

[Chucho]

Jesus you are spurt smart. Just terrible. Stick to arguing with the lessers on here, you’re way out of your depth at the adult table

Said Mr. Pigeonholed-1-point-of-view-closed-minded-idiot. Get a new schtick.

[Winehole23]

tweet not showing up.

but yes, both sex, sexual identity, and sexual preference are all on spectrums, and not really binaryshows up for me

[FrostKing]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_8hLQmfudM

[Winehole23]

Feminism allegedly damages the marriage cow, also known as a bride.

What is paterfamilias but disposal of wife, daughter and children qua cattle?

[RandomGuy]

shows up for me

Possibly because the image is in your local cache. That happens sometimes when linking things from other places.

Dunno.