 |
|
Guynemer
|
|
Whose DL are you, widdle Wiggums?
Kindly provide a Fox link as evidence, if you will.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
GeneralTacticus
|
 |
of Melbourne, Australia
Dec 2001 time: 15:18
|
|
Why would a tax break induce gays/obese people to change? Wouldn't that just be an incentive NOT to change?
In any case, Wiggy, we have enough difficulty with overpopulation as is. We don't need any more. If you say that homosexuality is 'depopulating the planet', well and good, the place (IMO) probably NEEDS some depopulation (natrual depopulation that is, not mass murder).
Last edited by GeneralTacticus on 08-04-2002 at 09:13
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Logical Realist
|
|
California
Jan 2002 time: 21:18
|
|
Well first off I'd like to say that I think Wiggy has any right to express any opinion he wants, no matter how crude, and any judgement, no matter how bigoted.
The Constitution protects that, and if you limit HIS speech on the basis of preference or disagreement, then you are opening a door for all kinds of censorship some of which you may not desire.
Its true that freedom of speech does not apply if it infinges on the rights of others...but who's rights has he infringed on and how? What law says one does not have a right to voice a bigoted opinion?
Fundies says that atheists are evil and deserve to go to hell all the time.....and I dislike that....but I admit they have a right to it. And also know that I will always have to counter that claim whenever it is made....the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
Now onto Wiglaff:
In regards to homosexuality being successful because homosecuality is surviving and spreading:
quote: Lots of negative traits spread... |
Even if they do, they don't usually last for very long. They are naturally selected. Homosexuality has been with our species for thousands, more likely millions, of years.
quote: This thread has always assumed that the obese deserve one as well. |
They could "deserve" that on a different basis than other than that of a purely Darwinian standard. For example, that might be made out of sympathy or to make them more productive in the long run.
We are again talking about tax cuts for gays based on your pseudo-Darwinian standard and I have shown that going by your pseudo-Darwinian standards that such tax cuts to make gays straight would actually be undesirable(since that would lower my fitness(resources) and increase their own(give them a chance to reproduce).
quote: No it's not. Unless you consider homosexuality to be a positive trait for the species, regardless of how it reduces your will to reproduce, I'm simply stating the truth and presenting an obvious (perhaps too obvious) yet new point of view. |
(On Wigloaf's anti-gay stance being compared to racism)
That's a non sequitar...why does it have to be shown to be positive to be compared to racism? Also you define the idea of "positive for a species" very narrowly and simplistically, and incorrectly according to modern evolutionary theory. BTW how is integration of races positive for the species, even by your definitions?
quote: but I sure as hell would like to know how it could ever be positive. |
Ok, here are some reasons.It could give a tribe of people mor manpower, while not increasing competition among males for mates. It could allow a vent for males unable to get mates to release their sexual frustration, decreasing incidents of rape. It helps add new members while making sure the population being born doesn't get too big. It helps with our own overpopulation problem by creating people wwho do not have reproduce. Things like that. Such behavior can also help with male and female bonding, making the group more unified. Stuff like that equal coulds though each is purely hypothetical.
quote: If you want me to tell you why homosexuals are bad, that's easy. They have a condition that lessens their will to reproduce with a female to the point where they don't do it. And once that happens, no normal reproduction takes place. |
Actually, even given your backwards view, it would be bad for gays and good for straights, as that would leave more opputunities open for the straights.
But alas, you still fail to recognize that the Darwinian good might be worthless, in terms of its value, to us organisms. An organism does not consciouslly care about its genes, it cares about satisfying its desires which in the past just happened to be good at spreading genes. If the organism finds an easier way to satisfy its desires, that doesn't help genes spread, then it is reasonable to expect such an organism to take that course of action. We as human being may then value things over and apart from the spreading of genes. From a moral viewpoint then, you cannot say that a failure to reproduce is automatically bad. As we might not care about reproduction, in our own cases or other's.
All you are saying is that gays will not spread their individual genes. This may be bad in a Darwinian sense,(may in that if they help family and such spread genes they can still be counted as good at spreading genes, like worker ants help queens) but so what? What makes you think people value the evolutionary process? I personally don't to that extent.
Also what makes you think that homosexuality has to be positive or negative? Why can't it just be neutral?
So far all you've done is demonstrate a lack of understanding in what evolution is and how it relates to morality. I suggest you do more research before commenting further. And actually aknowledge my posts.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Wiglaf
|
 |
Cambridge
Dec 2000 time: 23:18
|
|
quote: Yes, I can --- the legitimate, intimate, monogamous relationships that gays and lesbians develop. The same kind of relationships that heterosexuals want.
But of course, you want to deny that homosexuals and bisexuals are humans with the same needs as heterosexuals. |
Something that replaces your will to reproduce with a new drive to just be good friends is definitely negative and harmful for the species, Mr. Fun.
quote: The Constitution protects that, and if you limit HIS speech on the basis of preference or disagreement, then you are opening a door for all kinds of censorship some of which you may not desire. |
Exactly...
quote: Even if they do, they don't usually last for very long. |
The flu's been around at least as long as we have. Obese people have as well. So have various birth defects. You couldn't be any more wrong...
quote: Ok, here are some reasons.It could give a tribe of people mor manpower, while not increasing competition among males for mates. It could allow a vent for males unable to get mates to release their sexual frustration, decreasing incidents of rape. It helps add new members while making sure the population being born doesn't get too big. It helps with our own overpopulation problem by creating people wwho do not have reproduce. Things like that. Such behavior can also help with male and female bonding, making the group more unified. Stuff like that equal coulds though each is purely hypothetical. |
If the trait is applied to the entire species (which it is trying to do), we're gone. I'm sure you can find all sorts of isolated scenarios where homosexuality can be useful (I could tell you a couple nutty ways having no limbs would be great)...that's not the point. Our biological purpose is to reproduce (unless you disagree?). Homosexuality is a gross violation of that natural law in every way.
quote: Nuh-uh. Freedom of speech extends only until you infringe on the rights of someone else. And boy, is that ever what you're doing. |
How have I infringed on the rights of others, again? Whatever.
quote: Homosexuality wonīt spread wiglaf. It remains confined in 5-10% percent that most stats say. |
Thank God (although some links to back that would be...err, rather nice). Let's get rid of it while we still can instead of letting it loose on the general population like we did with obesity, and inform the public of the reasons being gay is harmful.
If you're gay now, that's fine as long as you realize it isn't a good thing to be. You can feel good about it but certainly shouldn't be all "Yes I'm A Homosexual" or whatever if you know much about biology and how most humans are intended to reproduce.
quote: Now, I would like to ask you-- if people can be changed from gay to straight, wouldn't that mean that they weren't really gay in the first place? That they are just confused straight people? How do they come to this confusion? |
People can be changed from fat to thin, it's worth a shot.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Guynemer
|
|
Whose DL are you, Wiglaf?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Wiglaf
|
 |
Cambridge
Dec 2000 time: 23:18
|
|
quote: You mean links like the ones you have given us? You started the thread, you prove it! |
Huh? You want me to prove something Gianny said? Whatever. This thread is so full of people like you it's not even funny.
quote: Being gay, by itself, does nothing to harm you personally |
Weellll, there's always that increased STD risk. But that's besides the point anyway (meaning, hear me out). The real reason the government is concerned with overweight people is that they can create a negative trend, and quickly, in America that eventually screws the majority of us over with heart problems, etc. It harms the species, it like homosexuality is a threat.
quote: How can homosexuality being 'trying to spread to the whole species'? You are making it sound like it's part of someone's evil plan to exterminate humanity. Even if it is a genetic disorder (which it's not, if anything, it's a psychological disorder), genetic disorders do not 'try to spread'. |
It has the potential. People are still becoming homosexuals constantly and the culture nowadays is becoming more and more tolerant of their behavior.
quote: Whose DL are you, Wiglaf? |
We established this months ago. No one's.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Guynemer
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Wiglaf
We established this months ago. No one's. |
Really? Musted have missed that. Could you provide me with a FOX link, if you please?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
SociableMartian
|
|
Hi... I'm new here...
Apr 2002 time: 05:18
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Anunikoba
To set the record straight:
Fat people don't get tax breaks; people losing weight do. |
Exactly. And unrepentant gays shouldn't get tax breaks; gays attempting to straighten themselves out should.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
SociableMartian
|
|
Hi... I'm new here...
Apr 2002 time: 05:18
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Guynemer
Really? Musted have missed that. Could you provide me with a FOX link, if you please? |
What's the big deal with these FOX links???
|
|
|  |
 |
|
-=Vagrant=-
|
 |
here and there
Feb 2002 time: 07:18
|
|
quote: Originally posted by SociableMartian
What's the big deal with these FOX links??? |
They are Wiglaf's one and only TRUE source for information. Maybe...
Last edited by -=Vagrant=- on 09-04-2002 at 21:40
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18. Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|