How do you define homophobia?

[zinfamous]

See bolded.

smogzin actually explained it to you quite well; shame you didn't get it.

normal is simply not what you want it to mean from a Biological perspective. This is especially relevant b/c you are trying to make a Biological argument (from which you obviously have no understanding).

Normal implies a statistical significance, an occurrence that has a measurable effect. Homosexuality is very measurable, and thus very normal in a biological sense. This is found all over nature, in almost all species (including insects). For hundreds of millions of years, it continues to exist.

You are simply arguing about averages. You are taking one definition of a word "Normal" (you use in the qualitative, subjective--value-based definition), and try to apply it to Biology (which uses a statistical effect basis to define the term).

Simply put, you really should just drop this argument b/c you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[HeXen]

Fear is simply a reaction to protect ourselves from harm, any kind of harm, physical, financial..etc. More commonly created from anything that is unkown. Death itself is why we even experience fear to begin with. If we were immortal, we instinctively wouldn't even feel pain, much less fear.

 

[HAL9000]

Fear is simply a reaction to protect ourselves from harm, any kind of harm, physical, financial..etc. More commonly created from anything that is unkown. Death itself is why we even experience fear to begin with. If we were immortal, we instinctively wouldn't even feel pain, much less fear.

I disagree, if we were immortal that doesn't mean we are impermeable thus we would need to feel pain.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

That's a fair assessment, but I'm against organised delusion, purely on a logical ground. It causes the spread of delusion and logic is all important. Some people are stupid, so we need to intervene to stop them being fed lies.

So you want to restrict the freedom for people to congegrate around ideas that they have or is it just some ideas?

Look, i don't get them either, to me they seem mostly like people who let their Santa Claus story stick with them in their adult life but there are others that have ideas just as bloody deluded and we can't do much about it without restricting freedom for everyone.

 

[HAL9000]

So you want to restrict the freedom for people to congegrate around ideas that they have or is it just some ideas?

Look, i don't get them either, to me they seem mostly like people who let their Santa Claus story stick with them in their adult life but there are others that have ideas just as bloody deluded and we can't do much about it without restricting freedom for everyone.

I do want to, but if I were in charge I wouldn't do it... I also want to sterilise chavs, If I were in charge I also wouldn't do it.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

smogzin actually explained it to you quite well; shame you didn't get it.

normal is simply not what you want it to mean from a Biological perspective. This is especially relevant b/c you are trying to make a Biological argument (from which you obviously have no understanding).

Normal implies a statistical significance, an occurrence that has a measurable effect. Homosexuality is very measurable, and thus very normal in a biological sense. This is found all over nature, in almost all species (including insects). For hundreds of millions of years, it continues to exist.

You are simply arguing about averages. You are taking one definition of a word "Normal" (you use in the qualitative, subjective--value-based definition), and try to apply it to Biology (which uses a statistical effect basis to define the term).

Simply put, you really should just drop this argument b/c you have no idea what you are talking about.

I completely agree.

If he was right, being Jewish would be an abnormality.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

I do want to, but if I were in charge I wouldn't do it... I also want to sterilise chavs, If I were in charge I also wouldn't do it.

chavs need a good arse kicking, not sterilisation, most grow up eventually.

Why would you want to?

 

[HAL9000]

chavs need a good arse kicking, not sterilisation, most grow up eventually.

Why would you want to?

Because they pass on their defective genes.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

Read through your post and then through mine, i'm fairly sure it makes sense even to you if you do.

No see, I wrote my post. It's fresh in my mind. Your post makes no sense because you made no sense of mine, perhaps because you are incapable. When I said religious law or gay law I did not mean a law pertaining direct to religion or gays. Your point about who those laws would effect is silly in light of what I meant.

It's about the persuasion of the person making the law and the fear of them injecting their bias into that law, not about laws targetd at specific groups.

Actually this is really about making HAL9000 see how he contradicts himself. Now I have to include remedial reading...

 

[HAL9000]

No see, I wrote my post. It's fresh in my mind. Your post makes no sense because you made no sense of mine, perhaps because you are incapable. When I said religious law or gay law I did not mean a law pertaining direct to religion or gays. Your point about who those laws would effect is silly in light of what I meant.

It's about the persuasion of the person making the law and the fear of them injecting their bias into that law, not about laws targetd at specific groups.

Actually this is really about making HAL9000 see how he contradicts himself. Now I have to include remedial reading...

I haven't contradicted myself

 

[SphinxnihpS]

I completely agree.

If he was right, being Jewish would be an abnormality.

*facepalm

 

[SphinxnihpS]

I haven't contradicted myself

Yes you have. You have been quite hypocritical. You have even agreed with me on it. LMAO!

 

[HAL9000]

Yes you have. You have been quite hypocritical. You have even agreed with me on it. LMAO!

I agree that I dislike prejudice based on innate characteristics or characteristics you can't consciously choose, but I am also happy to be prejudiced against characteristics based on choices. As are most people, most people are not happy to be racist, but are happy to dislike Nazi's.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

No see, I wrote my post. It's fresh in my mind. Your post makes no sense because you made no sense of mine, perhaps because you are incapable. When I said religious law or gay law I did not mean a law pertaining direct to religion or gays. Your point about who those laws would effect is silly in light of what I meant.

It's about the persuasion of the person making the law and the fear of them injecting their bias into that law, not about laws targetd at specific groups.

Actually this is really about making HAL9000 see how he contradicts himself. Now I have to include remedial reading...

Ah, so i was to assume you were talking about what you meant rather than how reality is?

Are you that fucking daft?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

*facepalm

Are you perchance retarded or have a reading problem?

Or are you too fucking daft out of general principle to understand that average doesn't mean normal and that all people who are not average are not abnormal?

You seem to have a problem with reality.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Yes you have. You have been quite hypocritical. You have even agreed with me on it. LMAO!

No he hasn't you retarded fuck, but go right ahead, portray your stupidity for all of us whilst explaining it.

It should do for a good fucking finale on this thread.

 

[dank69]

It's a philosophical axiom not of my invention. The concept has been around for ages. You most frequently see it in Buddhism. It goes something like this:

You have a dollar. You losed the dollar. You get mad. The reason you got mad is because now you can not buy something with that dollar. The dollar itself is a representation of resources. It is a credit/token which can be exchanged for resources. All life needs to gather and consume resources to stay alive. You got mad because you fear not having the resource. You fear not having the resource because it puts you one step closer to death than if you had it. You fear death instictively. All fear ultimately = fear of death. You can boil down any negative emotion in such a manner. Sad, angry, disgusted, annoyed, irritated, enraged, ashamed, all = fear of dying.

probably at it's core base. When you look at fear as a primal response mechanism--the "fight or flight" response--it is directly tied to self-preservation.

I honestly don't think it is a stretch to make that connection. Why would we fear anything if we did not expect to die--assuming we fear death? (Most people fear death, I believe).

further, it is the fear of death that essentially leads to the creation of religion--the fear, lack of understanding, need to explain what is so painful.

The irony is that those who claim to have no fear b/c Jesus is with them are actually scared shitless at their core--simply because they are religious.

I disagree that all fear equals fear of death. What about fear of pain? You *could* make the argument that all pain is the brain's way of telling your body to avoid deadly situations/things, but what about in the case of torture? What if someone is given the choice of eternal torture or death? Many people would choose death over eternal/extended pain. People often do.

 

[roguerower]

In this case, people who don't procreate are abnormal, people who are a sexual are abnormal. People who are straight but just have sex for pleasure are abnormal. People who have heart transplants are abnormal. The vast majority of the planet are abnormal. People who mate for life are abnormal. If everyone is abnormal. then there is no normal.

Congrats, you've skewed yet another argument. If you want to argue these situations on a case-by-case basis go for it, I don't feel like going back and forth because you feel like it. My original arguement was for male-female couplings vs. male-male or female-female couplings.

smogzin actually explained it to you quite well; shame you didn't get it.

normal is simply not what you want it to mean from a Biological perspective. This is especially relevant b/c you are trying to make a Biological argument (from which you obviously have no understanding).

Normal implies a statistical significance, an occurrence that has a measurable effect. Homosexuality is very measurable, and thus very normal in a biological sense. This is found all over nature, in almost all species (including insects). For hundreds of millions of years, it continues to exist.

You are simply arguing about averages. You are taking one definition of a word "Normal" (you use in the qualitative, subjective--value-based definition), and try to apply it to Biology (which uses a statistical effect basis to define the term).

Simply put, you really should just drop this argument b/c you have no idea what you are talking about.

Homosexuality is not a common/genetic trait that is passed on, therefore it is not normal. That is my argument. I am not disagreeing with you on the fact that it is not a measurable occurence. What I am arguing is that it is not an evolutionary advancement that is passed on from generation to generation. It is an occurence that happens to a rather sizable percentage of a population but that is where it dead ends since it can not be passed on to offspring. Homosexuality is an evolutionary dead end throughout the animal kingdom.

In this case, people who don't procreate are abnormal, people who are a sexual are abnormal. People who are straight but just have sex for pleasure are abnormal. People who have heart transplants are abnormal. The vast majority of the planet are abnormal. People who mate for life are abnormal. If everyone is abnormal. then there is no normal.

I completely agree.

If he was right, being Jewish would be an abnormality.

John, I don't know if this is sarcasm or you're making a point. Care to elaborate?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

John, I don't know if this is sarcasm or you're making a point. Care to elaborate?

Being Jewish means you are less than one tenth of the population on earth, that's abnormal?

Either that or being of Judaic faith means you are, either way, you lose your argument.

When it comes to genetics, abnormalities are passed on through genetic traits all the time, does that mean that they are normal occorances? Look up AIS, if what you are proposing would be correct then being intersexual would be normal.

You simply have no leg to stand on in this discussion because you are trapped in your own ignorance, you don't really know anything about genetics and it doesn't seem like you know anything about society either.

I'd suggest you just leave before you make an even bigger fool out of yourself.

 

[jonks]

From a strictly biological standpoint, homo sapiens are born, raised, procreate through sexual intercourse, support their offspring and die. That is normal. A pairing of homosexual men OR women can not do that unless a third party is brought in.

So a m/f couple who are 60 and past procreating are abnormal too I guess. If only a small fraction of people are normal then, and most people are abnormal, wouldn't that make the normal abnormal?

 

[jonks]

Being Jewish means you are less than one tenth of the population on earth, that's abnormal?

0.1? Try 0.0025.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

0.1? Try 0.0025.

I believe that is "less than one tenth".

 

[HAL9000]

Congrats, you've skewed yet another argument. If you want to argue these situations on a case-by-case basis go for it, I don't feel like going back and forth because you feel like it. My original arguement was for male-female couplings vs. male-male or female-female couplings.

Yes, but if you apply this theory to that, you must therefore apply it to all else similar.

 

[zinfamous]

Homosexuality is not a common/genetic trait that is passed on, therefore it is not normal. That is my argument. I am not disagreeing with you on the fact that it is not a measurable occurence. What I am arguing is that it is not an evolutionary advancement that is passed on from generation to generation. It is an occurence that happens to a rather sizable percentage of a population but that is where it dead ends since it can not be passed on to offspring. Homosexuality is an evolutionary dead end throughout the animal kingdom.

let me repeat: you are confusing "normal" with "common"-that is not at all what normal means in a biological sense. This is not about "the ave, or the greater occurrence of x is therefore more acceptable."

You take normal to mean "majority." This is meaningless here. it's possible that you also like to use that as a double meaning--suggesting a moral value when using the term "normal." This is not only dubious, but extremely malicious when trying to confuse it with science.

Another issue that you don't understand about evolution: what do you mean by "advancement?"

Plenty of things happen through natural selection. very, very really are these things considered beneficial. Being that evolution occurs across population, and not individuals; it certainly is not a dead end. it will continue to occur because it offers no real deliterious disadvantages to the populations in which it occurs.

Besides, homosexuals are not sterile. There is nothing from a biological sense that prevents them from having offspring.

Anyway, humans have managed to surpass the environmental constraints of evolution for many, many generations. It's quite probable that this occurred when we first settled down into large farming communities.

 

[roguerower]

Being Jewish means you are less than one tenth of the population on earth, that's abnormal?

Either that or being of Judaic faith means you are, either way, you lose your argument.

When it comes to genetics, abnormalities are passed on through genetic traits all the time, does that mean that they are normal occorances? Look up AIS, if what you are proposing would be correct then being intersexual would be normal.

You simply have no leg to stand on in this discussion because you are trapped in your own ignorance, you don't really know anything about genetics and it doesn't seem like you know anything about society either.

I'd suggest you just leave before you make an even bigger fool out of yourself.

A person is Jewish because of their involvement in the Judaic faith and Jewish culture, not because there is a genetic trait which makes them Jewish, just like there's no genetic trait which makes someone Christian or Muslim. There are genetic physical traits passed on which are associated with the jewish population, but a person with such traits can be christian or muslim and not a jew.

Once again, my original argument was that a male-female coupling is the norm over a male-male or female-female coupling because population growth and thus evolutionary growth is due to the former, not the later. Can you refute this?

I never associated abnormality with other sexual practices, nor did I associate abnormality with religous practices. That was neckbeard and you.

EDIT: Zin, what do you mean by common? When has a male-male or female-female coupling ever produced a viable offspring without assistance? It's been a while since I took a biology course but I'm pretty sure the number is 0, i.e. same-sex couplings are not normal in the sense that they do not contribute to population growth.