Men of boards, what innocent behaviors have you changed out of fear?

OldNotWIse · 28-06-2017 12:13PM

Diemos wrote: »

I don't offer my seat to anyone on public transport, I've been chewed out too many times by old women.
If anyone asks I'll happily stand but I'm done with getting a dressing down in public for trying to be nice.

Really? I cant believe this actually happens

greencap · 28-06-2017 12:36PM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

1. Because I've explained it previously several times ... So much so that it led to accusation of being obsessed.

2. Form following function is not restricted to architecture.
It has everything to do with reproduction. The average weiner being, coincidentally, a pretty good design for the task of impregnating a woman.
The average minge being just about right to receive a weiner.

I really don't know why you fight this.

ScumLord · 28-06-2017 12:48PM

greencap wrote: »

1. Because I've explained it previously several times ... So much so that it led to accusation of being obsessed.

2. Form following function is not restricted to architecture.
It has everything to do with reproduction. The average weiner being, coincidentally, a pretty good design for the task of impregnating a woman.
The average minge being just about right to receive a weiner.

I really don't know why you fight this.

Because it doesn't make any sense. But if you want to live in your own little world with only your own opinion rattling around in there then fine, best of luck with it.

greencap · 28-06-2017 01:33PM

ScumLord wrote: »

Because it doesn't make any sense. But if you want to live in your own little world with only your own opinion rattling around in there then fine, best of luck with it.

It makes perfect sense.

A male spending energy on making sperm while having instincts to place sperm in men is not a system propitious to species survival.

The sperm are functionally compatible with ovum.
They cost calories to develop.
The instinct does not direct the male towards ovum carriers.

Carrying around a slice of bread and eventually putting it in the video player instead of the toaster isn't necessarily an accident. Perhaps that was your intention.

ohnonotgmail · 28-06-2017 01:38PM

greencap wrote: »

It makes perfect sense.

A male spending energy on making sperm while having instincts to place sperm in men is not a system propitious to species survival.

The sperm are functionally compatible with ovum.
They cost calories to develop.
The instinct does not direct the male towards ovum carriers.

Carrying around a slice of bread and eventually putting it in the video player instead of the toaster isn't necessarily an accident. Perhaps that was your intention.

and yet somehow the species has survived despite the presence of gay men and women. and somehow gay men and women are born every year. almost like your simplistic analysis is complete nonsense.

greencap · 28-06-2017 01:45PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

and yet somehow the species has survived despite the presence of gay men and women. and somehow gay men and women are born every year. almost like your simplistic analysis is complete nonsense.

The species has also survived despite the presence of short sighted men and women. (Cough).

Almost like....ah why bother.

ScumLord · 28-06-2017 01:47PM

greencap wrote: »

It makes perfect sense.

A male spending energy on making sperm while having instincts to place sperm in men is not a system propitious to species survival.

But it's already been pointed out to you that the "SPECIES" does get a benefit in healthier communities and children. Your argument might work on an individual basis but at a species level the benefits of homosexuality become more obvious.

The sperm are functionally compatible with ovum.
They cost calories to develop.

Sperm is created every day whether you like it or not, they also die everyday whether you use them or not, it's not like you have a set amount just waiting in your sack and can only be used for making babies. Sperm live around 70 days and if they're not used the body reabsorbs them and uses that energy for something else.

Nature isn't a designed masterpiece, it's a load of random stuff that has found a way to get along and if it even slightly works it gets to go on, but an animal could come up with the best way of doing something and fall off a cliff before it reproduces.. It's full of mistakes and stupidity. Waste is rampant despite life in general trying over and over again to conserve energy.

A man could ejaculate every day of hi life and only impregnate one woman and it would be seen as a success. If another guy only ejaculates once and makes a baby he's not going to get a medal for it.

Natures method of getting animals to reproduce isn't exactly ideal, an animal sees or smells a load of triggers and chemicals take over and make them do something they don't really understand.

greencap · 28-06-2017 02:21PM

ScumLord wrote: »

But it's already been pointed out to you that the "SPECIES" does get a benefit in healthier communities and children. Your argument might work on an individual basis but at a species level the benefits of homosexuality become more obvious.

It gets a type of side benefit, sure.
Then again a silver lining can be found in almost anything if you try enough perspectives, examine enough circumstance.

The presence of myopia in society is a positive in so far as it encourages the development of ophthalmologists and the associated training centers, and encourages the development of the academic print industry leading to economic growth.

Still, as a condition, its not very advantageous to reproduction.
And from another perspective could be seen as an evolutionary flaw.

Sperm is created every day whether you like it or not, they also die everyday whether you use them or not, it's not like you have a set amount just waiting in your sack and can only be used for making babies. Sperm live around 70 days and if they're not used the body reabsorbs them and uses that energy for something else.

You mean to say that the stock is rotated, as though in preparation for some kind of rare event. This event would surely be important if theres all this manufacture, preparation, synchronization. I'd argue that actually the primary function of sperm is indeed that of making babies.

Although yes there is the side benefit of it being handy for making post-its.

Energy expenditure on a quickly perishing subsystem which functionally interacts with the female equivalent. Constant renewal and stock rotation. High numbers.

Nature isn't a designed masterpiece, it's a load of random stuff that has found a way to get along and if it even slightly works it gets to go on, but an animal could come up with the best way of doing something and fall off a cliff before it reproduces.. It's full of mistakes and stupidity. Waste is rampant despite life in general trying over and over again to conserve energy.

Riiight, a flawed system, built around probability, in which random events occur.

A man could ejaculate every day of hi life and only impregnate one woman and it would be seen as a success. If another guy only ejaculates once and makes a baby he's not going to get a medal for it.

Natures method of getting animals to reproduce isn't exactly ideal, an animal sees or smells a load of triggers and chemicals take over and make them do something they don't really understand.

Ok. And what.

Your post is rambling and makes no one point, its full of patronizing referrals to multiple possibilities without forming any one point. Consistent with someone desperately searching.

Heres mine before you ask.
Homosexuality as a trait is not advantageous to reproduction and species survival.
If seen from a subjective point of view where evolution has an 'intention' then it is as much a mistake as conditions such as short-sightedness, asthma and so forth.
Costs energy, leads to no reproductive goal, thus ultimately self defeating (from one subjective biological viewpoint).

ohnonotgmail · 28-06-2017 02:25PM

greencap wrote: »

It gets a type of side benefit, sure.
Then again a silver lining can be found in almost anything if you try enough perspectives, examine enough circumstance.

The presence of myopia in society is a positive in so far as it encourages the development of ophthalmologists and the associated training centers, and encourages the development of the academic print industry leading to economic growth.

Still, as a condition, its not very advantageous to reproduction.
And from another perspective could be seen as an evolutionary flaw.

You mean to say that the stock is rotated, as though in preparation for some kind of rare event. This event would surely be important if theres all this manufacture, preparation, synchronization. I'd argue that actually the primary function of sperm is indeed that of making babies.

Although yes there is the side benefit of it being handy for making post-its.

Energy expenditure on a quickly perishing subsystem which functionally interacts with the female equivalent. Constant renewal and stock rotation. High numbers.

Riiight, a flawed system, built around probability, in which random events occur.

Ok. And what.

Your post is rambling and makes no one point, its full of patronizing referrals to multiple possibilities without forming any one point. Consistent with someone desperately searching.

Heres mine before you ask.
Homosexuality as a trait is not advantageous to reproduction and species survival.
If seen from a subjective point of view where evolution has an 'intention' then it is as much a mistake as conditions such as short-sightedness, asthma and so forth.
Costs energy, leads to no reproductive goal, thus ultimately self defeating (from one subjective biological viewpoint).

you have evolution backwards. It is only if a trait is significantly disadvantageous that it dies out. Homosexuality clearly does not meet this criteria as its continued presence throughout history shows.

greencap · 28-06-2017 02:38PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you have evolution backwards. It is only if a trait is significantly disadvantageous that it dies out. Homosexuality clearly does not meet this criteria as its continued presence throughout history shows.

And during the time in which a trait exists?

Is it still disadvantageous in the meantime?

Or do you have to wait for it to die off and then go ... Disadvantageous!!

cgcsb · 28-06-2017 02:41PM

me_right_one wrote: »

I'm not homophobic. I dont hate gay people or treat them any differently. And I know plenty, who I get on with as well as anybody else.

But it is my opinion that homosexuality is a mental illness. Well, its either a mental illness, or a physical one. Having three arms would be seem as a physical illness. Not necessarily a bad one, but definitely not normal. Having a penis when your mind tells you you should have a vagina therefore, is also a physical illness.

Now, up until lately, there was no problem discussing and debating this. But about 5 years ago, anyone who "wasn't a bit gay themselves" suddenly became hitler. Now you cannot say anything, without first considering if it will hurt someone else's feelings on the matter, ESPECIALLY if you are an alpha male, stereotypical straight man.

So my changed behaviour is that I suss someone out first to see if they will be offended by everything re gayness, or if they're ok. If they're the offended type, I just don't discuss any controversial topics with them.

Its a sad reflection on society when people cant just "talk".

Sweet Jesus. What a loon.

ohnonotgmail · 28-06-2017 02:42PM

greencap wrote: »

And during the time in which a trait exists?

Is it still disadvantageous in the meantime?

Or do you have to wait for it to die off and then go ... Disadvantageous!!

there are lots of human traits that are disadvantageous. Just not significantly disadvantageous for evolution to get rid of them.

greencap · 28-06-2017 02:43PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

there are lots of human traits that are disadvantageous. Just not significantly disadvantageous for evolution to get rid of them.

Just not significantly what?

ohnonotgmail · 28-06-2017 02:46PM

greencap wrote: »

Just not significantly what?

do you think i missed a word in my post?

....... · 28-06-2017 02:46PM

This post has been deleted.

greencap · 28-06-2017 02:50PM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Of course I don't.

Evolution belongs only to those who share your opinions.

Anyone who says anything you dont like is wrong and you'll leave.

So there.

ScumLord · 28-06-2017 02:53PM

greencap wrote: »

It gets a type of side benefit, sure.

That's how nature works, white skin was a mutation that came with a side benefit so it took off.

Nature has no intention, it has no design, it's just stuff that worked for the previous animal.

You mean to say that the stock is rotated, as though in preparation for some kind of rare event.

No, like every other cell in your body cells have a life span and then need replacing. No part of your anatomy has any idea what's it's doing, it's just alive and doing what comes naturally.

ScumLord · 28-06-2017 02:55PM

greencap wrote: »

Of course I don't.

Evolution belongs only to those who share your opinions.

Anyone who says anything you dont like is wrong and you'll leave.

So there.

Evolution is a scientific theory, opinion doesn't come into it. Show us a scientist that agrees with you and has research to back it up. So far all we've heard is your opinion.

I'm just regurgitating what smarter people have told me.

Christy42 · 28-06-2017 03:00PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

and yet somehow the species has survived despite the presence of gay men and women. and somehow gay men and women are born every year. almost like your simplistic analysis is complete nonsense.

Many species have also survived with a gay members as part of it. This means that it has survived for quite some time.

It is also not a minor change. You have ~10% of your population as reproducing. It seems unlikely (but possible) for it to be a large net negative on the survival of the species in so many different species. Therefore it seems logical to see what it could be linked to. More protection or more helpers in the group for instance without the extra dependents from children could be worth the extra cost in terms of food and increase the survival probability for the group as a whole (and the gay individuals families can carry on the genes).

As long as there is a net benefit than evolution will favour the trait. The ratio of straight/gay would be important here.

Obviously this is just a theory with no hard evidence for it but this is not a settled question in general. I agree with notgmail that a simplistic argument that does not take into account the fact humans are social beings and the importance of the tribal unit as a whole will not give a decent answer. Certainly dismissing any benefit from an evolutionary perspective is insufficient.

greencap · 28-06-2017 03:10PM

ScumLord wrote: »

Evolution is a scientific theory, opinion doesn't come into it. Show us a scientist that agrees with you and has research to back it up. So far all we've heard is your opinion.

I'm just regurgitating what smarter people have told me.

You're asking me for a scientists personal subjective opinion on a topic which you say opinion doesn't come into.

You're very mixed up in which perspective is being used.
Perhaps on purpose.

I've explained in both objective/non-personal and subjective/personal terms.

If we look at homosexuality from the point of view of there being;

(1) No intention : then homosexuality is a circular system which leads to no new production. Energy is expended on sperm production, arousal, sex, orgasm, recuperation, sperm production, arousal, sex, orgasm, sperm production. This system does not result in procreation and species continuation.

(2) Intention : then homosexuality is a disadvantageous flaw of sorts, not dissimilar to auto-immune disorders. Bodily energy is used for sperm, reproduction is dissuaded by instinct. Theres a discord, one intention defeated by another.

I'm sure I could find a highly qualified scientist to back up what I've said by the way, and one who would continue on to say a whole lot more, way beyond what I opine.
I'd simply have to trawl some ... lets say ... politically active sites to do so.

And when I came up with such an individual, be it from the Saudi Wahabi university of jihad or the Caucasian preservation society it wouldn't mean I was right or wrong.

....... · 28-06-2017 03:11PM

This post has been deleted.

ScumLord · 28-06-2017 03:19PM

greencap wrote: »

You're asking me for a scientists personal subjective opinion on a topic which you say opinion doesn't come into.

No, I'm asking you to point to any kind of science that backs it up, but any scientist would do at this point.

I've explained in both objective/non-personal and subjective/personal terms.

No, you've only given your opinion. Can you give any examples of any other person that agrees or backs up what your saying?

If we look at homosexuality from the point of view of there being;

We're laypeople, us looking at it is only going to lead to nonsense.

I'm sure I could find a highly qualified scientist to back up what I've said by the way, and one who would continue on to say a whole lot more, way beyond what I opine.
I'd simply have to trawl some ... lets say ... politically active sites to do so.

And when I came up with such an individual, be it from the Saudi Wahabi university of jihad or the Caucasian preservation society it wouldn't mean I was right or wrong.

So it's only homophobic propaganda websites saying this?

cgcsb · 28-06-2017 03:29PM

Weird how this thread just devolved into a gay-bash. Considering the content of the OP had no relation to the subject. Also weird how gay men, again, get the blunt end of the bash. The gay girls mostly just get thoroughly ignored.

greencap · 28-06-2017 03:44PM

ScumLord wrote: »

No, I'm asking you to point to any kind of science that backs it up, but any scientist would do at this point.

Very well, I shall find for you a scientist with an opinion generally in line with mine.

No, you've only given your opinion. Can you give any examples of any other person that agrees or backs up what your saying?

And what exactly have you given.

We're laypeople, us looking at it is only going to lead to nonsense.

Just cause we're laypeople doesn't mean we're right or wrong.

So it's only homophobic propaganda websites saying this?

Does the messenger matter. Facts aren't reliant on popularity.

Newton was interested in the occult and magic and was a loner.

silverharp · 28-06-2017 03:55PM

greencap wrote: »

You're asking me for a scientists personal subjective opinion on a topic which you say opinion doesn't come into.

You're very mixed up in which perspective is being used.
Perhaps on purpose.

I've explained in both objective/non-personal and subjective/personal terms.

If we look at homosexuality from the point of view of there being;

(1) No intention : then homosexuality is a circular system which leads to no new production. Energy is expended on sperm production, arousal, sex, orgasm, recuperation, sperm production, arousal, sex, orgasm, sperm production. This system does not result in procreation and species continuation.

(2) Intention : then homosexuality is a disadvantageous flaw of sorts, not dissimilar to auto-immune disorders. Bodily energy is used for sperm, reproduction is dissuaded by instinct. Theres a discord, one intention defeated by another.

it didnt matter though, all through evolution from primate to human its said that only 40% of males ever passed on their genes whereas 80% of females did, this ensured that the better quality genes were passed on. No woman was left un-impregnated because there happened to be a gay male in the tribe :pac:

....... · 28-06-2017 03:56PM

This post has been deleted.

greencap · 28-06-2017 04:07PM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Theres also a significant number of professional offense takers.

greencap · 28-06-2017 04:08PM

silverharp wrote: »

it didnt matter though, all through evolution from primate to human its said that only 40% of males ever passed on their genes whereas 80% of females did, this ensured that the better quality genes were passed on. No woman was left un-impregnated because there happened to be a gay male in the tribe :pac:

I don't remember suggesting otherwise.

....... · 28-06-2017 04:09PM

This post has been deleted.

greencap · 28-06-2017 04:12PM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

lol

Men of boards, what innocent behaviors have you changed out of fear?

Comments