It’s really amazing that even in GD, when someone explains that he is using a word in its clinical sense, people point and say “Oh look at the bad word you’re using!”
Sigh.
I’m not a biologist. But I have studied quite a bit of physics and electrical engineering (those were my majors). And what I found was that a lot of stuff in both those fields was counter-intuitive to me at first glance. Now, once I got into it and understood it, then it was obvious. Although, even today, there’s some stuff which intuitively I find annoying, but if I work the equations or look at the experiments, it’s clear that my intuition is wrong. And I’m not the only one who thinks this with regards to physics or electrical engineering.
When you make a statement that something is “obvious” or “not obvious,” to me that tells me that you don’t have a scientific background. Because when we’re doing science, it’s irrelevant what’s obvious. If everything was obvious, we’d know everything there is to know. You are making definitive statements about a topic which you admit you don’t know anything about. The reason I qualify my statements when we’re talking about evolution is because I’m well aware of what I know and what I don’t know. It would be nice if the people making evolutionary arguments would do the same.
And, I need to correct this:
No, that is not what I said. I said that I don’t know of any papers making a definitive claim about adaptiveness. It’s very clear that you don’t know anything about the topic, so why are you lecturing us about it? Go start a thread in GQ, where you can learn about it.
I am not remotely lecturing you. Seems the other way round actually despite your non expertise in the matter.
I understand how you were using the word I just the entire long post was you trying to justify using it among the general public, and I certainly took no offense, retard is another word that has a clinical and scientific meaning and quite another meaning to the general public.
I mean go for it if you want, but you’re going to have a lot of lay people upset with you.
The statement that something is “obvious” or not is not a scientific statement, and I do have expertise in how science works. Which you obviously don’t.
I put forth that marriage has never been the issue - but it is the closest thing most people can grasp, but the real issue is life (children). The union that creates children is what (in the OP’s sense) is being incorrectly defined as hetro marriage as ‘natural’. Where ‘marriage’ came about has more to do with some legalistic need to define the union that produces children.
So in short, the real goal is children, codified that has equated to hetro marriage and stoning homosexuals in the past (and now). Now that we are a bit nicer we generally don’t do that anymore and accept people for who they are. However that has broken away marriage from it’s origins which is children.
That is a fatal disconnect as marriage can not stand on its own, it only existed because of children - break that link and marriage does not hold value. Allowing Homosexual marriage does not by itself break it, but it does weaken it.
So yes it breaks down to be with who ever you want, call it whatever you want, but children are the future and where we should devote resources and preferred tax status, regardless of sexual orientation and partnership.
Did you mean to post this in a different thread?
I know this kind of discussion brings on the emotions so I’ll forgive your silly shout down style.
I admitted that it was possible it’s adaptive but since there’s not even remotely scientific consensus on it (so not obvious to the biologist community) and no obvious (that’s right, not obvious to me)purpose, I (yes, “I”, the me who is holding the opinion) think it’s just some fairly common fluke.
Lol. Whatever. The only person being silly is you.
I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised anymore by people who choose to revel in their ignorance. But nobody cares what you think about the science, since you admit you don’t know anything about it and don’t care to learn why you don’t understand it.
You haven’t said a single substansive thing to me. Just shouting down. You gave me nothing remotely to affect my opinion because “u r teh dum” doesn’t impress me much.
Uh, no. I explained to you that science is often counter-intuitive and that what seems obvious may not actually be correct. You refuse to accept this. Not my problem.
ETA: And I don’t know if you’re dumb or not. What I do know is that you came into this thread spouting nonsense about a topic which you don’t understand.
I understand perfectly well that nature/science is sometimes counter-intuitive. And I flat out fucking said that I accept that I may be wrong. Bizarrely, you completely ignored it. So, mr internet warrior maybe you should take this as a learning oppurtunity of your own.
Maybe you should stop digging the hole you’re in. If you didn’t want to get into this with me, you shouldn’t have responded to me initially, and you shouldn’t keep responding with this gibberish. You want to keep repeating homosexuality is a fluke, based on nothing more than your ignorance, I’m going to call you out on it.
Seriously? Gibberish? You’re beyond help. Keep tilting those windmills, flame king.
Lol. You can’t admit that you don’t know anything about the topic, can you? Is it really so difficult to admit you don’t know what you’re talking about?
It’s funny, though. While you accuse me of “shouting” or whatever it is, you’ve been the one slinging insults (like “flame king”) in this thread. I would report it, but the insults are so juvenile, that I’m finding them amusing.
Nm.
I clearly know far more about this topic than you. While I’m not a biologist, I did do a biomedical engineering minor. This is why I can spot the faulty evolution arguments a mile away.
Ok, you sucked me back in. What was faulty about the single evolution argument for homosexuality (ie that its related to female fecundity) that I posted about?
I don’t think that’s a faulty argument. It could very well be true. And if you thought that’s what I think, then I guess I have not expressed myself correctly, and we may be arguing past each other. Which is annoying, because that’s been a big waste of time.
But if it’s the case that we go with this argument, then that more-or-less points to homosexuality as being adaptive, as in these genes that cause homosexuality ensure the survival or the species. But, that doesn’t mean that it’s a fluke. It could be that in order to achieve this female fecundity, the only way to do it given our current genome is to have some small percentage of the population be exclusively homosexual. I don’t know that this is the case, I’m just putting out a possibility.
Let’s step back, here. If you can state in detail what you are arguing, then I’ll rewind as well, and we can see if we can get Tomndebb to delete the previous ten posts.
Wel I would say that if that theory was correct, then the genes themselves are adaptive but homosexual men are the cannon fodder for it working. While I know that won’t endear me to other gay rights supporters (because I consider myself one) I also believe it doesn’t matter what the root cause or “purpose” of homosexuality is from a rights standpoint.
And there’s no way tomndebb is erasing posts. He doesn’t roll that like that. 