"Reddit can't be conservative. That requires an intelligence most redditors lack." This opinion and others spouted in BestOf thread regarding Ann Coulter....Expected but juicy drama (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
279 ups - 98 downs = 181 votes
200 comments submitted at 14:02:48 on Oct 19, 2013 by DaedalusMinion
I have him tagged as Retard but i can't remember why. It seems this isn't the first time he said something stupid.
Oh nice, RES saved the link.
["Homosexuality is a birth defect I hope we can eliminate."] (http://np.reddit.com/r/AdviceAnimals/comments/1oqgyc/iveheardaboutthehivemindbutdamnhavea/ccunafh?context=5)
Technically he's correct. I mean, a man is supposed to like women, so something has to go slightly wrong during development in order for them to be gay. I mean, nothing wrong with being gay, I don't care about it, but still, it's not like it's supposed to be a thing.
Love how people are downvoting this, can't you kids handle facts? What's the matter, you think basic logic is somehow homophobic?
> so something has to go slightly wrong during development in order for them to be gay.
[citation needed]
last I checked homosexuality has been found in 1500+ species.
I don't think downvoting the guy for playing devils advocate is fair.
His point is that biologically, a species needs to reproduce to survive. This is the only "goal" of any creature, to reproduce and keep its kind going. It's a instinct to do so.
Homosexuality cannot lead to procreation by natural means, and it actually takes two viable mates out of the gene pool, which is damaging to the reproduction of species.
Luckily, humans have advanced well beyond the need to "only reproduce", which is why we should be working to supporting other and not discriminating based on how we were born.
> This is the only "goal" of any creature, to reproduce and keep its kind going.
Nope nope nope nope. Naturalistic fallacy aside, this might be the number one sin in thinking about evolution. Individuals do not maximize genetic fitness, they execute adaptations that have been baked into their genes from the previous generations. Evolution happens retrospectively and on the population level, not the individual level. Over many generations, populations will tend to be dominated by individuals with traits that increase their (inclusive) genetic fitness, but they do that despite the fact that no individual thinks about it. But over time individuals who happen to have beneficial adaptations tend to make up a larger share of the population.
And we know this from person experience. When we think about sex we don't think "hmm, this will increase my genes as a fraction of the next generation", we think "yay boobs" (or dick or whatever). Nobody consciously makes plans based on increasing inclusive genetic fitness. Parents don't take care of their children because they carry their genetic line (or adoption would never happen), they take care of them because they love them.
The best example of this distinction is modern obesity. Eating fast food all day certainly doesn't increase genetic fitness, but it is delicious. That's because we're still executing the adaptations from the days when fats and sugars were rare and it did increase fitness to eat as much as we could while we had the chance. If we think of individuals as trying to maximize fitness then the behavior makes no sense, but if we think of them as executing adaptations from the past it makes perfect sense.
Given your last paragraph you are likely aware of the logic leap in your first paragraph...
Super uncle theory.
Where a family, pack, herd (breeding unit) has a higher chance of having offspring that survive and thrive if they have additional adults involved; which occurs when an adult sibling doesn't have their own offspring; which can occur if they're gay.
Lol, I'm aware of the theory, but I've never seen it referred to as "Super Uncle Theory".
What an awesome name.
The problem with that theory is that being gay is not in any way the best way to fulfill the requirements. If anything, asexuals should be the "super uncles".
>Homosexuality cannot lead to procreation by natural means, and it actually takes two viable mates out of the gene pool, which is damaging to the reproduction of species.
Really? Worker bees are all female but don't reproduce, and they aren't exactly an evolutionary dead end. Reproduction isn't a sort of biological categorical imperative for living creatures. Having non-reproducing relatives can aid in the propagation of genetic material.
And I feel like we have to ask why this is relevant in the first place. Humans have all sorts of seemingly non-adaptive behaviors. We don't talk about bungie jumpers being deviants because they put their genetic line at risk for no definitive reproductive gain. Do we need people to play the Devil's advocate when talking about treating people like human beings?
>Luckily, humans have advanced well beyond the need to "only reproduce", which is why we should be working to supporting other and not discriminating based on how we were born.
I think /u/schwasome was trying to explain inclusive fitness to dispel the idea that homosexuality is "damaging to the reproduction of species."
If he was then he used a terrible example! The entire reason the bee system works is due to the presence of a genetic hierarchy, the queen bee is vital to the colony but all of the workers are expendable. It's not inclusive fitness because the workers are designed to keep the queen alive, the emphasis is entirely on the females that can breed and even if that wasn't the case, the female bees are not homosexual. It's at best a really poor analogy and at worst a really bad demonstration of a biological system.
My point was just that having non-breeding members of a population is not an existential threat to the species. It wasn't meant to be directly analogous.
In my view good example would be something like the fact that we are social mammals and there is a big precedent for non-human social mammal species taking care of their ill/elderly/disabled or even members of other species, apes do it, dogs do it, I believe whales and dolphins have been known to do it. Even though that individual animal has no biological 'purpose' the rest of the group may still care for it.
Another neat thing is that risk taking and the desire to go "bungie jumping" can be explained in evolutionary terms. Lets say we have two guys, John and Bob living in a valley with their wives. They know nothing about the world outside the valley and it is surrounded by very steep crags that would take several days to climb. The valley is vegetated but the soils are poor, both John and Bob can get enough food to feed themselves and their families but sometimes there will be famines and everyone goes through cyclical periods of malnourishment. John is a stay at home kind of guy, he feeds his family, works his very best for them and just does what he needs to get by. Bob however is a bit of a wildcard, sometimes he gets obsessed with certain ideas and spends ages trying to do new things, true, his family have to work a lot harder to make up for his inconsistency, but sometimes he finds better ways to do things. One day Bob wakes up and says I'm going to climb those crags and see what's on the other side. He does so, he nearly dies, but he makes it and he finds a vast fertile area with very good hunting, he takes his family there and they can finally live without periods of starvation, they are able to produce many times more children than poor John ever can and those children grow up much healthier.
Lets say there were 500 Johns and 500 Bobs, 450 of the Bobs died climbing the crags or found nothing but desolation, but the other ones still made it, those Bob being the founders of a population will have their genes proliferated amongst a much wider area and have a much larger genetic lineage than any of the Johns ever could, spreading the risk taking behaviour quite widely. Having just high-risk takes would kill the population quite quickly but having just low risk takers would stagnate the population.
U 1 of dem collage boyz eh? Gotcha a fancee diplomo? spits
Dude, you do know humans don't have breeder queens, right?? and that there aren't any gay bees. Your oh really just isn't applicable as a comparison.
My point is that an adaptation can help propagate the species without making an individual more adapt at reproduction.
> I don't think downvoting the guy for playing devils advocate is fair.
I don't think playing devils advocate using layman understanding of a field in place of evidence is fair enough to warrant a position being upvoted/ignored.
>His point is that biologically, a species needs to reproduce to survive. This is the only "goal" of any creature, to reproduce and keep its kind going. It's a instinct to do so. Homosexuality cannot lead to procreation by natural means, and it actually takes two viable mates out of the gene pool, which is damaging to the reproduction of species. Luckily, humans have advanced well beyond the need to "only reproduce", which is why we should be working to supporting other and not discriminating based on how we were born.
This is the sort of layman conjecture that does deserve downvotes. Few, even homosexual, animals/people have always been or will be 100% homosexual. There's nothing stopping a 100% homosexual person from breeding either. You can still impregnate others or become pregnant. It's not like becoming homosexual destroys your ability to reproduce at any point for any reason.
It removes the drive to have sex with the opposite gender and makes you less likely to reproduce.
You do know reproduction is actually pretty dangerous right? The only reason it's done it because it feels really good. Take away that sexual drive and you are much less likely to reproduce.
You sound like a biology student in high school.
>It removes the drive to have sex and makes you less likely to reproduce.
Which is why it's propagated in over a thousand species right?
>You do know reproduction is actually pretty dangerous right? The only reason it's done it because it feels really good. Take away that sexual drive and you are much less likely to reproduce.
I wasn't aware being homosexual made friction on your genitals feel worse.
To be fair, you don't sound like an educated person with such catty remarks like "you sound like a teenager". You seem immature/insecure, since you're into that sort of analysis.
That's not what I said at all and it seems like you're just biased due to being immature/insecure, since you're into that sort of analysis.
BTW It's not my fault he's using crap logic and naturalistic fallacies to describe homosexuality in animal and human populations. If he didn't want to be called out he could of kept the layman opinion to himself.
You didn't say he sounded like a teen? How old were you when you were in highschool, just out of curiosity
Being homosexual makes it less likely for you to be doing it with someone of the opposite gender. That's my point. If a species needs to reproduce (which they all do), then any trait that causes individuals to mate with the same gender instead of the opposite is detrimental to the species.
That is why even though it's observable in many species, it is not common. If it were common, the species most likely would have died out.
Does this mean homosexuality in humans is bad and should be eliminated? Not at all. But it does mean that it's an undesirable trait to have as a species because it hurts our chances at reproduction.
> Being homosexual makes it less likely for you to be doing it with someone of the opposite gender. That's my point.
And it's incredibly ignorant, and irrelevant, as shown.
>That is why even though it's observable in many species, it is not common. If it were common, the species most likely would have died out.
Most species have died out. Stop using layman understand to prosecute your ignorance.
>Does this mean homosexuality in humans is bad and should be eliminated? Not at all. But it does mean that it's an undesirable trait to have as a species because it hurts our chances at reproduction.
No, all this means is you have no idea of what you're talking about and should stick to kiddy mobas and leave biology alone.
How is it ignorant? If a species doesn't reproduce the species doesn't survive. That's why sex is hard programmed into us to make is want to have sex. If most of the population was homosexual the species will struggle to survive.
You're issue is you think I'm attacking homosexuals and view it as a birth defect and something that needs to be eliminated. It's not. However, at the same time, you cannot say its a desirable trait to have if you are speaking purely on biological terms.
I find it funny you choose the fact I play LoL to attack me instead of anything else on my post history. Sorry if I offended you. I think the fact we as a society should and are trying to accept homosexuals is a fascinating thing, as it just proves how far away from animalistic instincts we have come ("survival of te fittest" is no longer needed)
>>Being homosexual makes it less likely for you to be doing it with someone of the opposite gender. That's my point. > And it's incredibly ignorant, and irrelevant, as shown.
Lol wtf? How is what /u/madmax_410 said ignorant? All he said in that quoted part is that a *homosexual* is less likely to be doing it with the opposite gender.
And stfu with this "stop using layman". Bitch I doubt you are some fucking highly educated biologist with a fucking PhD in genetics.
I'm not downvoting because he's playing devil's advocate. I'm downvoting because he's saying that I have a birth defect and are therefore somehow abnormal.
Technically speaking, you are abnormal. Normal essentially means frequent, not correct.
I don't even know how to respond to that...
The best would probably a realization that words have technical and colloquial definitions, and your choice to consider only one or the other reveals more about you than it does of the other guy.
Youre likely taking it far too personal. Being susceptible to heart disease could be classified as a birth defect. Sickle cell could be considered a birth defect. The definition of normal is contentious but in terms of falling into the statistical mean its objectively abnormal. If were strictly classifying normality in mathematical terms its a fair descriptor.
Right, when all else fails just tell the guy that he's overreacting. That'll go over well...
I dunno what "all esle" failed. Im simply stating by the most basic definition of abnormal homosexuality can be fairly labeled thus. Whether the guy playing devils advocate had a different agenda i dont know. I work third shift, this is an abnormal shift as most people work daytime hours. Im simply pointing out the basic definition of the term normal. If your feelings are more important than facts and logic i kindly recommend avoiding the internet as you will have a bad time.
Have you spent 15 years dealing with something that you have no control over? Something that's torn you apart and made you wish you had the guts to kill yourself?
Have you been tormented, teased, violently attacked or RAPED over things that you have no control over?
Have you been kicked out fo your family because you are an "Abomation to god" and a "Sinner" even though you have no control over what you're feeling?
I'm more saddened by the fact that apparently you can't or won't get angry over the way non-straight people are treated in this world than anything.
And termonology has a lot to do with it.
Also, you are assuming that nonsexuality is abnormal when it's been observed in 100s of species of animals.
TL:DR You're calling me a freak and you're suprised I get angry?
Edit: Also, the dismissive "You should avoid the internet" Only makes me think you're a stuck up prick. Just so you know.
I don't understand your point, many developmental issues are shared by other species.
I have a giant poisonous scorpion tail. I'll be distracting my prey with hand movements and mock fighting when they get a giant barb lodged into their back.
Yeah ok Freud. So open same sex relationships in Greek and Roman civilization was all a matter of 'slighty wrong' development?
Is != ought.
And it isn't even is.
Something going "wrong" during development would imply a deviation from healthy. I don't see how homosexuality can be deemed unhealthy. If it turns out that hand dominance is determined in utero, are lefties the result of something going "wrong"? If not, explain why homosexuality is, without either implying that is is ought, or that evolution is a theory of ethics.
I never said it was unhealthy and you can't compare sexuality, something that that moves the species forward, to which hand is dominant. At the same there's a pretty good chance that it's not supposed to happen. What purpose does homosexuality have? Or transsexualism? They don't have a evolutionary purpose, so I fail to see why this would become a normal part of human development, the idea is to procreate, so it could be no different than autism (which I have, so sorry for having an IQ double that of the morons downvoting like pathetic white knights that can't think past "herp derp homophobe huehuehue"), or down syndrome really, 1 slight error somehow changing their behavior. I mean autism makes me vastly more intelligent and logical, doesn't mean it's wrong to have, in fact it's a good thing, but that doesn't change the fact that something went wrong during development in order for it to exist.
And sorry to use more logic but everyone likes to point out that being gay isn't a choice and that you are born gay, if that is the case then being gay is genetic, so is transsexualism, no other way to influence such things at that stage, so just like many, many, many other genetic issues it is more than likely that being gay or transsexual is just another one of them. Unless you can explain how a female in a males bodies makes sense to happen on purpose.
Also, I'm not saying I have anything against being gay or transsexual people can do whatever they want and be whoever they want, which I've said before, I'm just talking about why people end up being gay.
>evolutionary purpose
What?
>moves the species forward
What?
>it's not supposed to happen
According to what? Evolution isn't a set of rules. It's a result. There is no 'supposed to happen' in evolution. This whole post is nonsensical, and you're just implicitly making evolution into a theory of ethics. Anything that doesn't help that individual procreate is apparently defying the law of evolution. This is nonsense, your understanding of 'normal' and 'wrong' is nonsense, and you're not arguing in good faith with your sudden spurt of ridiculous insults.
I'm not going to argue with you anymore. I'm not an evolutionary biologist, nor am I a philosopher of science, and it's obvious that neither of us has a firm enough grasp of evolutionary theory to be reasonably debating this. Have a good day.
> What?
Evolutionary purpose, a reason for it to exist and make the species better at something.
> What?
Move things forward, changing things, you know like going from hunchback to standing up straight
> According to what? Evolution isn't a set of rules. It's a result. There is no 'supposed to happen' in evolution. This whole post is nonsensical, and you're just implicitly making evolution into a theory of ethics. Anything that doesn't help that individual procreate is apparently defying the law of evolution. This is nonsense, your understanding of 'normal' and 'wrong' is nonsense, and you're not arguing in good faith with your sudden spurt of ridiculous insults.
OK, not really evolution, but natural selection. And I'm not talking about things don't help procreate, but something that straight up stops you from procreating. And I insulted people that deserve being insulted, so what? That doesn't change my argument at all, in fact it's not even an argument, just ideas.
I would fuck a dude, I can still procreate. It's not like my plumbing withered and died when I realized I didn't just like woman...
From a biological perspective it really makes no difference why you are less likely to reproduce, only that you don't...
From a biological perspective a lot of genes are shared between siblings.
> I'm just talking about why people end up being gay.
And completely fucking it up.
How am I? How do I talk about it correctly then? Should I make sure to repeat the fact that I have nothing against people being gay and that anyone can do what ever they want, at the end of every sentence? Should I ignore facts and pretend being gay is just some magical gift given to us by an all-powerful sky wizard? shud i tlk lyk dis cuz der is 2 many stoopid cunts to tlk abowt da geenetks lyk an intligent purson? Or what?
To me it seems like people are just mad because they are pretentious neckbeards and white knights, the type of scum you get on /r/atheism and they are mad because I questioned the source of homosexuality, but they don't have a real counter argument against homosexuality being a genetic defect just like the hundreds of other genetic defects that effect a persons personality so they just downvote.
> How do I talk about it correctly then?
With sources.
> Should I ignore facts
You think your posts are facts? Lel.
I need sources to say sexuality is genetic? I mean, it is, partly due to hormones too, and hormone imbalance will probably be caused by genetics, and of course brain structure but that too is heavily influenced by genetics. If I really need to source something that basic, here.
As for saying homosexuality is a genetic defect and there is no or little evolutionary purpose, the best argument so far seems to be that males with these genes act more feminine and so females are attracted to them more, as long as it doesn't make them gay. That is also on the page I linked to. But of course if that is true then it very often goes too far and makes people gay so that doesn't really work.
Not so much the first part, but this shit
>As for saying homosexuality is a genetic defect and there is no or little evolutionary purpose, the best argument so far seems to be that males with these genes act more feminine and so females are attracted to them more, as long as it doesn't make them gay. That is also on the page I linked to. But of course if that is true then it very often goes too far and makes people gay so that doesn't really work.
you definitely need a lot of sourcing. This is just crap.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biologyandsexual_orientation
Turns out it wasn't on the same page, but a slightly different one. It's under "Sexual orientation and evolution". And why is it crap? Like I said, out of the arguments for a purpose there that seems to be the best and I've never seen anyone present a real argument other than those.
You don't need sources, don't worry.
As long as you don't mind looking like you're a homophobe and like you're talking out your ass.
There is no "supposed" about it, unless you're religious and feel that we were designed with a purpose.
I agree his comment his rather ignorant but I think he's trying to say that men are biologically supposed to reproduce with women or maybe I'm looking too hard into it.
Yeah, I think that's what he was driving at.
Perhaps this was simply an attempt at meta-drama?
In that regard, he is correct, but we just don't have an outstanding need for it right now. That and our species isn't programmed to serve the overall population.
If homosexuality was seen as more pleasurable, I don't understand why we still wouldn't reproduce? All of the sex I've had to date has been for pleasure while trying to prevent reproduction.
50-60% of homosexuals have experienced child abuse compared to 8% of hetero. Just saying
REV UP THOSE SOURCES
Almost sounds like the parents would beat up the kids that acted 'sissy' or something.
Cause/effect. They don't become gay because they experience child abuse. They experience child abuse because most people AKA most parents were homophobic bigots. Our moral zeitgeist is getting better so those numbers are dropping. If your idiotic idea (That abuse causes gayness) is correct then along with the drop in child abuse there should also be a diminishment of actual young gays following by five to ten years. Which isn't the case.
If you're going to walk around pretending you're on the 20% side of the Dunning-Kruger effect then keep your mouth shut , or people will find out the truth.
Holy shit, I just googled Dunning-Kruger into Anosognosia, and I think I've found my favorite word ever. Thank you.