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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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!
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.)
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.
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.
Nope, but I’m getting my estimation of you intellectual equipment more confirmed by the minute.
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.
Have you read the other thread? 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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
“Everyone” doesn’t need to be unfaithful, but the majority of adults have engaged in infidelity at some point in their lives.
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.
After dinner is fine, though. If you do it with a mint.
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.
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.
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.
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.
