# qpw3141, you are an idiot **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [September 11, 2010, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/qpw3141-you-are-an-idiot/553452 "2010-09-11T23:24:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![qpw3141](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/6bbea6/32.png) [@qpw3141](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/qpw3141)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2010, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/qpw3141-you-are-an-idiot/553452/81 "2010-09-13T17:54:52Z")
> [@Meyer6](#): > > **qpw3141** , the OP is right in saying that you lack an awful lot of scientific education. This makes honest debate with you difficult in the same way discussing Shakespeare is difficult with middle-schoolers - we can try, and some info will get across, but the nuances will be lost on you. The problem is that you fervently believe that having read a few Dawkins books puts you on the same footing as someone who actually spends their life studying this stuff. > > You are right in saying that much of evolutionary science necessarily lacks the concrete evidence that we might like to see. You are right that there are holes in our present knowledge that need work. But you can’t just fill in the holes with any old theory you like. It has to make some kind of sense. It has been explained to you over and over the many ways in which your theory does not make sense, but you either don’t want to hear them or lack the knowledge basis needed to understand them. Another content free post. :rolleyes: Don’t do any work on providing any logical argument against, just wave your arms around and wail: “you don’t understand”. Clue: This is how it should go: Me: I think X might be explained by Y You: I don’t think so because Z Me: I don’t think Z applies because W You: But W isn’t relevant here because … This is what happens: Me: I think X might be explained by Y You: I don’t think so because Z Me: I don’t think Z applies because W You: You’re an idiot and don’t understand science. You need to do better. **Much** better. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2010, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/qpw3141-you-are-an-idiot/553452/82 "2010-09-13T18:01:41Z")
Until you can explain why the invisible elf hypothesis is flawed, I don’t see that you have standing to demand elaborate effort from anyone. ---
**Author:** ![Meyer6](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/cc9497/32.png) [@Meyer6](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meyer6)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2010, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/qpw3141-you-are-an-idiot/553452/83 "2010-09-13T18:03:20Z")
**qpw3141** a) I didn’t call you an idiot, I said you lacked knowledge. b) I posted the scientific arguement in the other thread (as did others). This thread is for mocking you. c) you are rude and dismissive at every turn (roll eyes smilies, calling other peoples thoughts ‘strawmen’, etc.) - what makes you think we should take you seriously or treat you politely? ---
**Author:** ![Knowed\_Out](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/knowed_out/32/7380_2.png) [@Knowed\_Out](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knowed_Out)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2010, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/qpw3141-you-are-an-idiot/553452/84 "2010-09-13T18:04:51Z")
I think what \*\*qpw \*\*is saying is that homosexuality is not a trait that’s passed down through the generations because homosexuals technically can’t reproduce. They have to engage in hetero sex to have babies, and in that case, they aren’t purely homosexual, because they get turned on heterosexually. Problem is, humans have faked orgasms ever since sex was invented, so that kind of assertion is flawed. Different strokes and all that. ---
**Author:** ![qpw3141](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/6bbea6/32.png) [@qpw3141](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/qpw3141)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2010, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/qpw3141-you-are-an-idiot/553452/85 "2010-09-13T18:36:49Z")
> [@Meyer6](#): > > **qpw3141** > > a) I didn’t call you an idiot, I said you lacked knowledge. > > b) I posted the scientific arguement in the other thread (as did others). This thread is for mocking you. > > c) you are rude and dismissive at every turn (roll eyes smilies, calling other peoples thoughts ‘strawmen’, etc.) - what makes you think we should take you seriously or treat you politely? [JOINING IN THE CULTURE OF THIS THREAD] Hey, you retarded idiot, check the first post if you want to know where any rudeness comes from. :rolleyes: I don’t really care whether people who are so retarded they have to have a special forum where they can hurl insults and wave their arms about instead of engaging in sensible debate are polite or not. [/JOINING IN THE CULTURE OF THIS THREAD] And pointing out straw man arguments isn’t rude it’s what need doing when people are too stupid to actually argue the point your making and too desperate to just give up. No one has posted any scientific argument in this that stands up. All they’ve been doing is flailing about like idiots. But then this is the idiot’s playground. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![qpw3141](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/6bbea6/32.png) [@qpw3141](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/qpw3141)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2010, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/qpw3141-you-are-an-idiot/553452/86 "2010-09-13T18:37:49Z")
> [@Knowed\_Out](#): > > I think what \*\*qpw \*\*is saying is that homosexuality is not a trait that’s passed down through the generations because homosexuals technically can’t reproduce. They have to engage in hetero sex to have babies, and in that case, they aren’t purely homosexual, because they get turned on heterosexually. Nope, not even close to what I’m saying. ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2010, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/qpw3141-you-are-an-idiot/553452/87 "2010-09-13T18:40:49Z")
> [@qpw3141](#): > > This thread was started by someone who, like yourself, lacked the wherewithal to debate in a calm and rational manner and preferred to abandon the GD thread and come here where he could rant and swear, hurl insults and indulge in ad hominems to his hearts content. I am debating in a rational matter. I’m also calling you a fucking retard, because you are one, and you need to hear it. > [@](#): > > For a trait to succeed it does not need to affect a particularly large proportion of any population. No, but for us to say a trait exists, it needs to be demonstrable in some percentage of the population. So far, you’re hypothesizing a trait that is active in approximately 0% of gay men (where it would be useful), 0% of bisexual men (where it would be useful), and some small percentage of heterosexual men (where it’s useless, since they wouldn’t have sex with other men, anyway). Are you getting why you’re tarded yet? > [@Knowed\_Out](#): > > I think what \*\*qpw \*\*is saying is that homosexuality is not a trait that’s passed down through the generations because homosexuals technically can’t reproduce. No, he’s saying it’s natural to be grossed out by fags, because thinking fags are gross is nature’s way of keeping men fucking women, like God intended. Because lordy lord if a man didn’t gag on his supper at the thought of another man’s cock up his ass, well, the whole human race would just cease to be! ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2010, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/qpw3141-you-are-an-idiot/553452/88 "2010-09-13T18:44:49Z")
> [@qpw3141](#): > > 1. More sex with men implies less sex with women. I don’t know many people who are lucky enough to spend all their waking hours having sex. Anyway, if bisexuality or homosexuality constituted a serious disadvantage to producing offspring, it would have been selected against. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2010, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/qpw3141-you-are-an-idiot/553452/89 "2010-09-13T18:48:36Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > No, but for us to say a trait exists, it needs to be demonstrable in some percentage of the population. So far, you’re hypothesizing a trait that is active in approximately 0% of gay men (where it would be useful), 0% of bisexual men (where it would be useful), and some small percentage of heterosexual men (where it’s useless, since they wouldn’t have sex with other men, anyway). To be fair, for the first two categories to count as 0%, you’d have to ignore the far-right social conservatives. That’s not really a joke, either. It’s gone beyond a simple throwaway line, beyond “it’s funny because it’s true”, into a simple fact. A substantial portion of vehemently anti-gay-sex men are in fact homosexuals or bisexuals who have some revulsion to homosexual acts (but at the same time enough of an attraction to them to think that choice is paramount in avoiding the temptation of sweet mansex.) ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2010, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/qpw3141-you-are-an-idiot/553452/90 "2010-09-13T18:51:56Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > Because lordy lord if a man didn’t gag on his supper at the thought of another man’s cock up his ass, well, the whole human race would just cease to be! “No imagining cocks up your ass at the dinner table!” was my mother’s tireless reprimand. ---
**Author:** ![qpw3141](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/6bbea6/32.png) [@qpw3141](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/qpw3141)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2010, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/qpw3141-you-are-an-idiot/553452/91 "2010-09-13T18:59:02Z")
> [@acsenray](#): > > > [@qpw3141](#): > > > > 1. More sex with men implies less sex with women. > > I don’t know many people who are lucky enough to spend all their waking hours having sex. Two words: pair bonding. > [@](#): > > Anyway, if bisexuality or homosexuality constituted a serious disadvantage to producing offspring, it would have been selected against. Only if it were hereditary and AFAIK there’s no evidence that is the case. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2010, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/qpw3141-you-are-an-idiot/553452/92 "2010-09-13T19:02:51Z")
> [@qpw3141](#): > > > [@acsenray](#): > > > > I don’t know many people who are lucky enough to spend all their waking hours having sex. > > Two words: pair bonding. Two more words: Serial monogamy And another one for laughs: Infidelity > [@](#): > > Anyway, if bisexuality or homosexuality constituted a serious disadvantage to producing offspring, it would have been selected against. Only if it were hereditary and AFAIK there’s no evidence that is the case. [/QUOTE] So you’re proposing that “revulsion” against homosexuality is genetic but homosexuality itself isn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2010, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/qpw3141-you-are-an-idiot/553452/93 "2010-09-13T19:04:50Z")
> [@qpw3141](#): > > 1. Hence, if a man were to evolve a distaste for homosexual sex that, as a side effect, causes him to focus more on having sex with women then it will tend to aid him in passing on his genes. What evidence is there that anyone’s level of distaste for homosexual sex has anything to do with his focus on heterosexual sex? ---
**Author:** ![qpw3141](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/6bbea6/32.png) [@qpw3141](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/qpw3141)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2010, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/qpw3141-you-are-an-idiot/553452/94 "2010-09-13T19:09:59Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > > [@qpw3141](#): > > > > This thread was started by someone who, like yourself, lacked the wherewithal to debate in a calm and rational manner and preferred to abandon the GD thread and come here where he could rant and swear, hurl insults and indulge in ad hominems to his hearts content. > > I am debating in a rational matter. For some value of rational. > [@](#): > > I’m also calling you a fucking retard, because you are one, and you need to hear it. Nope, you’re resorting to ad hominems because, like a lot of the other people in this forum, you don’t have the intellectual equipment to make points rationally so you have a bit of a stab at doing that and the call the person who disagrees with you names. Intelligent people usually grow out of that by just past puberty. > [@](#): > > No, but for us to say a trait exists, it needs to be demonstrable in some percentage of the population. So far, you’re hypothesizing a trait that is active in approximately 0% of gay men (where it would be useful), 0% of bisexual men (where it would be useful), and some small percentage of heterosexual men (where it’s useless, since they wouldn’t have sex with other men, anyway). Completely untrue. What I’m saying is that for those who are capable of being attracted to either sex if their disinclination for same sex sex outweighs their attraction for it they won’t indulge which means that they will not remove themselves, temporarily or permanently, from the pool of those who are potentially passing on their genes. > [@](#): > > Are you getting why you’re tarded yet? Nope, but I’m getting my estimation of you intellectual equipment more confirmed by the minute. 😉 > [@](#): > > > [@Knowed\_Out](#): > > > > I think what \*\*qpw \*\*is saying is that homosexuality is not a trait that’s passed down through the generations because homosexuals technically can’t reproduce. > > No, he’s saying it’s natural to be grossed out by fags The mother of all straw man arguments. :rolleyes: It’s has nothing to do with being grossed out by fags. Just any disinclination to have sex with others of the same gender. I have said before that it’s a great pity that this thread (or the one from which it stemmed) was using the term ‘revulsion’ because, really, that’s just the extreme case and those who claim actual revulsion may well have problems with their sexuality that those who are merely disinclined probably don’t. ---
**Author:** ![qpw3141](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/6bbea6/32.png) [@qpw3141](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/qpw3141)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2010, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/qpw3141-you-are-an-idiot/553452/95 "2010-09-13T19:11:01Z")
> [@spark240](#): > > > [@qpw3141](#): > > > > 1. Hence, if a man were to evolve a distaste for homosexual sex that, as a side effect, causes him to focus more on having sex with women then it will tend to aid him in passing on his genes. > > What evidence is there that anyone’s level of distaste for homosexual sex has anything to do with his focus on heterosexual sex? None whatsoever (that I’m aware of). ---
**Author:** ![Meyer6](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/cc9497/32.png) [@Meyer6](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meyer6)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2010, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/qpw3141-you-are-an-idiot/553452/96 "2010-09-13T19:18:10Z")
> [@qpw3141](#): > > And pointing out straw man arguments isn’t rude it’s what need doing when people are too stupid to actually argue the point your making and too desperate to just give up. > > No one has posted any scientific argument in this that stands up. All they’ve been doing is flailing about like idiots. But then this is the idiot’s playground. 😃 Have you read the other [thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=577732)? There is plenty of scientific debate going on over there, although I suspect much of it goes whizzing over your head. I have seen no flailing in that thread. I myself just posted a nice scientific response to some of your points in that thread a minute ago, so don’t try to pretend nobody is engaging you. There are many posters on this board who are true scientists who have spent a lot of time and effort understanding the intricacies of evolutionary biology. Great Debates is a place for arguing in good faith, and many actual scientists have responded to the Great Debates thread with interesting, well thought out answers. You don’t like those answers. That doesn’t make all those actual scientists idiots who are too stupid to understand your point of view. If you want to go against the grain, scientifically speaking, you need to be ready to defend your ideas and not just brush off other peoples comments by calling them strawmen (or worse). In the actual scientific community criticism is a huge part of the process of creating new theories and having them accepted. Name calling and eye rolling is not an acceptable response to such criticism. So, if you can’t stand the heat, maybe you should stay out of the kitchen. ---
**Author:** ![qpw3141](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/6bbea6/32.png) [@qpw3141](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/qpw3141)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2010, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/qpw3141-you-are-an-idiot/553452/97 "2010-09-13T19:18:20Z")
> [@acsenray](#): > > > [@qpw3141](#): > > > > Two words: pair bonding. > > Two more words: Serial monogamy This is, unfortunately, the level of logical ability that seems to be so prevalent in this thread. Serial monogamy is the exact reason why disinclination for same sex sex could aid passing on genes. During any phase when someone is being monogamous with someone of the same sex they are not passing on their genes unless: > [@](#): > > And another one for laughs: Infidelity Indeed, they are succumbing to infidelity. But there is no evidence that everyone is unfaithful and even if they are it’s always possible that they’d be unfaithful with someone of their own sex. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > > [@](#): > > > > > > Anyway, if bisexuality or homosexuality constituted a serious disadvantage to producing offspring, it would have been selected against. > > > > Only if it were hereditary and AFAIK there’s no evidence that is the case. > > So you’re proposing that “revulsion” against homosexuality is genetic but homosexuality itself isn’t. Disinclination to indulge in same sex sex **may** be hereditary. AFAIK there is no evidence that it isn’t and there is no evidence that homosexuality is. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2010, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/qpw3141-you-are-an-idiot/553452/98 "2010-09-13T19:25:14Z")
> [@qpw3141](#): > > > [@acsenray](#): > > > > Two more words: Serial monogamy > > This is, unfortunately, the level of logical ability that seems to be so prevalent in this thread. > > Serial monogamy is the exact reason why disinclination for same sex sex could aid passing on genes. During any phase when someone is being monogamous with someone of the same sex they are not passing on their genes unless: People don’t need to be producing offspring continuously in order for them to pass their genes on to a new generation and they don’t need to produce offspring with every single sexual partner. There’s no reason why this would be selected against. > [@](#): > > Indeed, they are succumbing to infidelity. But there is no evidence that everyone is unfaithful “Everyone” doesn’t need to be unfaithful, but the majority of adults have engaged in infidelity at some point in their lives. > [@](#): > > and even if they are it’s always possible that they’d be unfaithful with someone of their own sex. Exactly. ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2010, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/qpw3141-you-are-an-idiot/553452/99 "2010-09-13T19:26:01Z")
> [@Ludovic](#): > > To be fair, for the first two categories to count as 0%, you’d have to ignore the far-right social conservatives. I’m considering the number of vehemently anti-gay conservatives who later turn out to be gay to be statistical outliers. They’re hilarious (and telling), but they don’t represent a statistically significant percentage of the gay population. > [@VinylTurnip](#): > > “No imagining cocks up your ass at the dinner table!” was my mother’s tireless reprimand. After dinner is fine, though. If you do it with a mint. > [@qpw3141](#): > > Nope, you’re resorting to ad hominems because, like a lot of the other people in this forum, you don’t have the intellectual equipment to make points rationally so you have a bit of a stab at doing that and the call the person who disagrees with you names. No, I’m driving trucks through the gaping holes in your argument, and also pointing and laughing, since this is a forum where I don’t have to be nice to idiots. > [@](#): > > Intelligent people usually grow out of that by just past puberty. Fortunately, I didn’t. You know what else most intelligent people have done by puberty? Taken a class in basic biology. Which apparently you missed. > [@](#): > > It’s has nothing to do with being grossed out by fags. Just any disinclination to have sex with others of the same gender. You know what we call a disinclination to have sex with others of the same gender? _ **Heterosexuality.** _ You fucking idiot. So, yes, if that’s where you want to move the goalposts, you’re right. Heterosexuality \*is \*nature’s way of ensuring that a species reproduces itself. What a fucking insight! Maybe you can get your own show on the Discovery Channel. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2010, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/qpw3141-you-are-an-idiot/553452/100 "2010-09-13T19:35:31Z")
At this point I’m comfortable saying that \*\*qpw3141 \*\*is either fishing for a “scientific” justification for his own homophobia or else is a closet case desperately trying to convince himself he’s not. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/qpw3141-you-are-an-idiot/553452.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/qpw3141-you-are-an-idiot/553452.md?page=6)