|
|
Post by Jack Reed on Dec 28, 2005 0:09:32 GMT -5
Metrosexual, Don't attach any moralistic spin to it: It's Nature, biology. The highest law is the perpetuation of the species. That's pure Darwin. Not one iota religious. Any creature that fails to pass on its genes has--from every objective standard--failed. There's no need to try and attack that by affixing some bogus moralism on it. There is none. Nature is cruel and its blind processes are peremptory. To add some fake ethical gloss is silly. Let me see if I understand this correctly. An unwed and retarded welfare mom, who has five babies by five different crack addicts, is a biological success. An infertile married rocket scientist who adopts five AIDS orphans is a biological failure. Uh, okay. |
|
|
|
Post by psychosemitic on Dec 28, 2005 2:04:09 GMT -5
Metrosexual, Don't attach any moralistic spin to it: It's Nature, biology. The highest law is the perpetuation of the species. That's pure Darwin. Not one iota religious. Any creature that fails to pass on its genes has--from every objective standard--failed. There's no need to try and attack that by affixing some bogus moralism on it. There is none. Nature is cruel and its blind processes are peremptory. To add some fake ethical gloss is silly. Let me see if I understand this correctly. An unwed and retarded welfare mom, who has five babies by five different crack addicts, is a biological success. An infertile married rocket scientist who adopts five AIDS orphans is a biological failure. Uh, okay. well from the natural point of view yes, thats correct however with humans its diffrent you know its not just propogation of the spiecies that makes u a success |
|
|
|
Post by nockwasright on Dec 28, 2005 6:32:11 GMT -5
Homosexuals are a luxury; heterosexuals are a necessity. Society can get along quite well without the former, but without the latter the species would frankly cease to exist. This from a society point of view. But societies do not have a point of view, only individuals do. I would say, for an individual sex is a necessity, or close to it, perpetuating society is not. |
|
|
|
Post by Drooperdoo on Dec 28, 2005 7:36:07 GMT -5
Nockwasright,
Perpetuation of the species is taken out of the hands of "individuals" by something called instinct. Nature hardwires us to behave according to certain pre-set patterns. Individual lions don't mate because of any "intellectual desire" to perpetuate their species; but Nature compels them--though they themselves are unaware of the manipulation of biology.
P.S.--Jack Reed, the unwed welfare mom with five illegitimate children from different "crackheads" is a cartoonish example that is unworthy of you. That's a caricature--and doesn't represent the average. To pretend that it does is disingenuous. Likewise with the equally absurd example of a rocket scientist who adopts five kids. Rocket scientists don't tend to adopt boatloads of children, as per Hollywood celebrity.
So both examples are unrealistic and silly. Obviously, they're used to distort the debate, to inflict it with deformity in a pale attempt to change it ad absurdum.
Sorry but the average is more like: A loving couple who want babies and aren't crackheads. And the average rocket scientist isn't a fun-loving hedonist, who wants nothing but sex-parties and endless adolescence. In truth, people who tend to languish in a superannuated adolescence are NOT rocket scientists, but quite the opposite.
When you want to talk about reality--and the statistical averages that reflect that reality--I'll chat with you. But not if you're going to attempt to dishonestly frame the debate in some cartoonish fashion.
Just the fact that you felt you had to do that shows the weakness of your position.
P.P.S.--For an example of what Jack Reed did let's look at his technique of substituting the exception for the average. If we go by his reasoning, the discovery of electricity was bad. After all, "what if a crackhead gets ahold of electricity and he electrocutes rocket scientists, and fires break out in cities killing millions???" --Clearly it's better that we don't have electricity. Or why have airplanes? They're dangerous, because crackheads might get ahold of the controls and they'd fly them into buildings causing death and mayhem. Ipso facto, it's better not to have airplanes.
So Jack says it's better not to breed because of welfare mothers and crackheads----
I think we can abandon his brilliant rhetorical techniques at this point and see them for what they are: Sheer bosh and nonsense.
|
|
|
|
Post by asdf on Dec 28, 2005 7:49:15 GMT -5
Metrosexual, Don't attach any moralistic spin to it: It's Nature, biology. The highest law is the perpetuation of the species. That's pure Darwin. Not one iota religious. Any creature that fails to pass on its genes has--from every objective standard--failed. There's no need to try and attack that by affixing some bogus moralism on it. There is none. Nature is cruel and its blind processes are peremptory. To add some fake ethical gloss is silly. Let me see if I understand this correctly. An unwed and retarded welfare mom, who has five babies by five different crack addicts, is a biological success. An infertile married rocket scientist who adopts five AIDS orphans is a biological failure. Uh, okay. Yeah, biology. That class you probably failed. Zoological/Biological altruism is irrelevant to the point he was making. So basically because he's such a nice guy we're going to pretend his genes were passed on? "Uh, okay." I don't remember seeing anything about political correctness in the mission statement for this board. |
|
|
|
Post by Jack Reed on Dec 28, 2005 8:18:17 GMT -5
^^Get a grip, Drooperdoo. I never once said that my examples represented average or common situations. I intended for them to be extreme. I used them to express a point that was obviously lost on you.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jack Reed on Dec 28, 2005 8:28:36 GMT -5
Let me see if I understand this correctly. An unwed and retarded welfare mom, who has five babies by five different crack addicts, is a biological success. An infertile married rocket scientist who adopts five AIDS orphans is a biological failure. Uh, okay. Yeah, biology. That class you probably failed. Zoological/Biological altruism is irrelevant to the point he was making. So basically because he's such a nice guy we're going to pretend his genes were passed on? "Uh, okay." I don't remember seeing anything about political correctness in the mission statement for this board. That's not what I meant at all. Some of you people are way too hostile. Maybe you're going through "LOTR" and "Star Trek" withdrawal. Who knows? |
|
|
|
Post by nockwasright on Dec 28, 2005 10:07:20 GMT -5
Nockwasright, Perpetuation of the species is taken out of the hands of "individuals" by something called instinct. Nature hardwires us to behave according to certain pre-set patterns. Individual lions don't mate because of any "intellectual desire" to perpetuate their species; but Nature compels them--though they themselves are unaware of the manipulation of biology. Yeah meread the selfish gene too. Nature is everything that is, so Elton John is as much nature as the niagara falls, two birds copulating, a spiderweb, the colosseum a mund and a condom. Nature is a completely useless concept. Idividuals, lions or humans mate because they like sex. Sex is a reasonable scope of an individual. Pepetuating society much less (unless they already have children and care for them). I don't see how what you say affects this statement. |
|
|
|
Post by nordicyouth on Dec 28, 2005 10:59:19 GMT -5
Wow. Pat yourselves all on the back for being liberal and tolerant...PSYCH! Most hetrosexual men are uncomfortable at best with homosexuals (save lesbians grinding at a nightclub ;D). But go on and blame it on the 'faggots.' Right. The people most comfortable and secure with their sexuality are the one's that don't give a damn about homosexuals. And Betrand. If you go to prison, trust me, it ain't God that's gon' be yo' daddy  |
|
|
|
Post by metrosensual on Dec 28, 2005 11:24:32 GMT -5
I said before. I DON'T WANT KIDS. I don't care about fulfilling my biological goals. I care about fulfilling my social goals as most homosexuals do. I couldn't care less about 'failing' biologically. The majority of the 6 billion people we share this planet with are heterosexual and in LEDC's (where the overwhelming majority live) they're churning out on average 7 children a family. I don't care about making a contribution to the gene pool.
|
|
|
|
Post by Drooperdoo on Dec 28, 2005 11:43:48 GMT -5
Metro,
This is my last post on this subject. (It's silly to keep harping on it.) But your point is a valid one: Man is different from the animals because--for the first time--a creature existed that had the capacity to override Nature, to make a conscious decision and by so doing free himself from the blind forces that drive all other beasts before it. In a world with an ever-larger population, some thinkers hypothesize that it's best to encourage a different lifestyle. It's no coincidence that homosexuality is being de-stigmatized, and that abortions became more accessible.
The powers-that-be are terrified by the spectre of over-population.
So there are definite benefits to deciding not to pass on your genes. Definite benefits for the individual.*
My only point to you, though, was that one could be against homosexuality--or, rather, find it undesirable in the larger sense--due to Darwinian thought, and that it doesn't have to be rooted in religious bigotry.
* I noted that remaining childless definitely has benefits for the individual. For the society, it's more problematic. After abortion was legalized in the United States, the "baby boom" was artificially ended. In reality, the Baby Boom didn't stop on its own. Studies have calculated the loss in tax revenue to society from all those "missing people". Likewise, society pays another price when it invites Third World immigration to fill the gaps left by the host-country's population-dip. The US has frequent race-riots, as France just experienced. Likewise poverty-stricken Third World immigrants bring their own raft of problems with drug-running, human-trafficking, gang-bangers, un-immunized children bringing Third World diseases, etc. So deciding to add to your nation's plummeting birth-rate is good for the individual, while being problematic for the larger society.
|
|
|
|
Post by gelaye on Dec 28, 2005 17:07:42 GMT -5
at the end of the day, just think of the millions of heterosexual people in the world that choose/ don't have children and get married - think of the large number of straight men in particular who never get married and have a family and just live hedonistic lifestyles - same with some hetero women..............................not all gay people are crazy and horny the whole time haha, there are 'normal' gay people, just like there are normal heteros
|
|
|
|
Post by Drooperdoo on Dec 28, 2005 17:19:00 GMT -5
Gelaye,
Homosexuals are far less of a danger to society than immature heterosexuals, for the sole reason that homosexuals represent a mere 1-2% of the population.
It's far more socially de-stabilizing when you have heterosexual playboys who don't want to grow up, people who see sex as a sport, a lifelong endeavor--and end up leaving a string of pregnant unwed women.
There's a reason that institutions like marriage exist--to protect the women and children.
When that institution breaks down, society is left to pick up the slack--with increased taxes in order to subsidize single mothers who apply for welfare.
There are real consequences to human immaturity. We all pay a price for the actions of irresponsible morons.
|
|
|
|
Post by murphee on Dec 28, 2005 17:26:55 GMT -5
I never had children (was infertile) and have a happy life, but I agree with Droop that *biologically speaking* I am a failure and dead-end.
Not all are meant to have children and personally I like the married and childless life I have, but I have not passed on my genes for future generations. (My infertility is not due to genetic unfitness but rather to something that happened to my mother when I was in utero).
|
|
|
|
Post by murphee on Dec 28, 2005 17:31:57 GMT -5
"Homosexuals are far less of a danger to society than immature heterosexuals."
I also agree with this statement.
|
|
