Jump to content

Psychedelicacy

Members
  • Posts

    5
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • College Major/Degree
    BSc (Hons) Botany
  • Favorite Area of Science
    Phytomorphology

Psychedelicacy's Achievements

Lepton

Lepton (1/13)

-4

Reputation

  1. I am busy with exams at the moment, so do not think that you have won and I am conceded - far from it. When I am finished getting all my A+'s, I shall return, and with supporting evidence. My last exam is on the 11th, but I will likely not be in any great rush to back on here as one could understand; being the start of my summer and all (southern hemisphere). All I ask is you try to compress your main issues and I will mine, I really cbf'd both re-answering the same questions (Oph.), nor dealing with the tedious task of chopping multiple quotes and what-not. Prenotes: I should probably make this clear, when I talk about homosexuality I practically exclusively refer to male on male sex, female on female sex I consider is likely a 'different ballgame' with all sorts of different origins, biology and consequences - and something that I have yet to even contemplate nor interpret.. Male homosexuality probably does occur in nature, I never did, and am not arguing the contrary (I simply defamed the OP simply due to the shady and obviously fallacious 'evidence' and oh-so obvious bias). Male homosexuality is an understandable occurrence in nature, whatever the cause of it; be it sexual frustration or some form of bonding. Arguments: 1) Homophobia didn't just spring out of nowhere and that it is likely a biological artifact not a 'magical' social anomaly (simply blaming religion is far from an adequate answer for homophobia). That the occurrence of homophobia indicates that homosexuality is likely a negative trait for ones biological fitness in a modern human context. 2) Homosexuals are far more likely to both contract and distribute sexually transmitted infections due to their very high and disproportionate numbers of sexual partners, this fact alone is likely one of the key biological answers as to why homophobia exists in modern human societies. Rant (reasoning): Stop trying to make science subject to politically correct ideals, science is about fact, not about making you feel like a good person. Science answers to nothing but evidence, the day science becomes a tool for liberals to congratulate themselves, we are all surely fucked. See y'all in a few weeks..
  2. I am implying that anyone who uses a purely 'natural' context i.e. using indiscriminate examples of wild animal social interactions as a supportive homology or analogy for human social interactions and issues in an argument is a fool. So yes, we are 'more than just animals', we live in a way completely alien to any other species on earth, our closest comparisons would perhaps be ants, termites, bees, wasps, moles or groundhogs, but their societies are still completely incomparable to ours beyond a few 'skin-deep' similarities. It is perfectly sound and reasonable to use natural examples to explain certain biological and behavioral traits in humans, but the minute you start using broad natural examples to simply blanket-explain modern human social issues, you are being incredibly short-sighted, to overlook the implications of the way we live in a biological debate is simply wrong and completely lacking in scientific rigor. You can not, in any conceivable way, argue against that. What I am arguing is not that homosexuality does not occur in the wild.. What I am arguing is that homophobia did not just magically spring out of nowhere independently in every modern human society, there must be some biological reasoning as to why there is homophobia in modern human societies, unless you want to believe in fairytales. After my proposal I then I offered a theory that tried to explain why homophobia might have arisen in modern human societies using fundamental biology principals.. I never once claimed, or even implied my theory to be fact, I openly said it was a theory without any scientific proof known to me...Unlike many of the posters in this thread, who seem to be more than happy making rampant and frivolous assumptions with the sketchiest of references and proof.. May I remind you all, that this forum is about science, and not loose speculation and pseudoscience..
  3. Sweet Jesus, you have obviously never even entertained the idea of reading what I have said. Here, now, once again, you launch into the accusations of semantics, when you are the greatest culprit of all. You pull me up with one so-called inaccuracy, which you fail to see was a dramatization of what was obviously being said in OP, with a lacking retort full of smug rebukes and lacking entirely of any science. I proposed sound scientific questions in my original post, care to answer those? If you would have even read my post you would have realized how irrelevant and presumptuous your half-witted supposed questions are. 1. Are you denying the considerable amount of homosexual activity occuring in the animal kingdom? Where, ever, did I deny that? If you had read my post you would have realized my question was why homosexuality would be a negative thing in the human population. I blasted the frivolous assumptions that the OP made on the claims of homosexuality in the wild due to the use of less than scientific sources. 2. You say we do not live in the wild. what has that got to do with the issue? It has everything to do with the issue, if you cannot differentiate between the effects of modern social living and a nomadic existance then, well, perhaps this place isn't the place for you. 3. Are you saying if we lived in the wild homosexuality would be natural, but in a 'civilised' world it is not? Of course it would, again, can you not spot the differences between the modern societal constructs and a wild populations? Can you not envisage the differences? Are we all just animals and that is all there is to it? You sir, would get laughed out of any scientific debate with that kind of idea, be it in a place with actual scientists and scientifically minded people. How about this, why is homosexuality taboo in so many modern societies huh? Answer that. Your arguments are weak and blind, please, go learn science before trying to argue science - it will simply become tedious having to reply to such asinine retorts.
  4. I am a potent critic, and currently suffering from a degree of heat stress from being in the sun all day, what I said I meant, just it was formulated rather poorly. First of all, the reason I use the rolleyes 'emoticon', was that OP quoted directly from wikipedia, without showing the slightest aptitude or foresight to first even check the source, and secondly actually review the material. Blind, unreferenced tangents are not science, simple. Had he checked the reference and seen the little note in the list, and shown some level fortitude I would have not of started out on such a harsh foot. http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn Oh, I am quite sure that claiming one thing that contradicts scientific fact as scientific fact, is actually a perfect example of pseudoscience. Argue all you wish, just don't call it science. Well, considering the source claims that one whole genera and one whole phyla completely lack sexual reproduction, when they very obviously do, would infact be a large blight in any scientific argument. You can argue otherwise, just don't call it science. Snide, hostile, small minded AND emotionally loaded? Wow, geez, golly, you know what? I didn't realize being the harsh hand of science and reason was such an awful thing, sorry, I didn't realize this place was Sunday school. Oh wait, or is this a scientific forum? Yeah, you know, I am pretty sure, that this isn't Sister-Marys' Bible circle.. It is a place to talk science, well, sorry for talking science, but I cannot help but if any place on the web, this would be the place to talk science, wait, am I wrong? Have you ever met a scientist? Have you even debated with a scientist? I can assure you right now, that if you were to propose such a flawed argument as the OP has, to any schooled person, they wouldn't be quite as soft as I have been. Emotions and bad wikipedia quotes is not science, the OP completely failed to even deliver the slightest thread of science to this debate. I am 'acting' the way I am, because things like what the OP has posted and you all have praised is the cornerstone of every great urban legends' or wives tales' beginning. Congratulations, well done, my argument is doomed! Lucky this isn't about semantics.. Hey, but it can be if you want.. Just keep clutching at straws and it will be! And finally, you later retorts lack any substance so I will not even bother commenting on that, except go study some biology before making biological claims.. Oh no wait, I thought I might just join in the semantics to, I am not anxious at all, why would you claim I am? Oh, and the pseudoscience bit, yeah. I didn't claim my theories to be science, I clearly stated that. Why do you say I am trying to propose it as science when I clearly did not? Semantics that all you want..
  5. I have not read all the posts in this thread, only the first few, so I am not sure if this has been mentioned already.. First off, in the last quote in OP (wikipedia ), it mentions both Echinoidea spp. (Sea Urchins) and Aphis spp. (aphids) "never have sex at all" [sic], which one must assume means sexual reproduction; a lack of.. Well, sorry to give ya the bad news, but, well, that is completely fallacious. While many aphid species may employ parthenogenesis regularly, it is far from their only source of reproduction. It is common knowledge that common garden aphids will reproduce sexually during stressful environmental conditions, likely to increase the likelihood of at least some of their genes surviving - only returning to asexual reproduction when conditions are optimal. And sea urchins, like aphids, are only partially dependent on asexual reproduction, google really is your friend.. And then to top this little tangent off, the reference for that nice little slice of pseudo-science was the exact same page as the second citation in OP. Regarding this rather large blight on your argument, I would strongly advice starting again and trying to find some legitimate scholarly articles instead of, well, what you have now [nothing]. Be wary of your sources, if you are going to try and argue something in the realm of science, you will need to back up you claims, with, well, science.. Now, to your approach on this argument, first; it would be obvious to guess that you have no schooling in science, everything about your posts and replies reeks of bias and scientific incompetence. Emotions have no place in a scientific argument, unless you are a psychologist, and psychology isn't science.. Your glaringly obvious bias and lack of any substantial proof of said claims is ironically, quite comparable to what I would expect from poorly educated Christians trying to argue creationism. Secondly, considering all what you have claimed is indeed true [?], you are simply overlooking the greater picture. You are looking at this in a purely 'natural' and out of context view, you say: "look at nature, look at animals in the wild having homosexual sex, they do it, so it must mean we should", giving complete ignorance to the fact that we are not those species, we do not live like them, we do not live in the wild, we do not live in small groups. And I must mention that by using the word homosexual, I do not imply animals that will only have sex with the same sex exclusively; I strictly mean any form of intrasexual sexual contact. Now, to look at this rationally, first we must ask ourselves: "what factors of homosexuality that would possibly make it a detrimental act [biologically] in a population?", and: "what is different about how we live, and how animals live, that might make homosexuality overall a negative act in our context?", and: “why would homosexuality become taboo in modern society in the first place?” (why would societies deem it illegal or sinful? There has to be a biological and is probably an ecological answer to this, unless you want to argue this in a creationist sense). I think, but I do not know, I can only postulate, that the reason homosexuality has become taboo in so many modern societies is that in a large and well-connected society, that homosexual sex drastically increases the spread of infections (particularly sexual) within a large community, especially considering homosexual promiscuity and the subsequent very high rates of sexually transmitted infection in the homosexual community. Now you must consider, in a large community where any disease is likely to spread incredibly quick regardless of transmission route, how would homosexual sex cause itself to become a negative act (reduce the fecundity of involved parties)? Basically, I think answer to why homosexual sex would reduce a males fecundity (over-looking the obvious) lies in the factor female choice, it is going to be quite obvious in a large community with well-developed communication, who exactly is having homosexual sex and what their health is like, especially considering the pre-modern societal context. A human female, in a human society is simply not going to be as likely to choose to reproduce with a potentially infectious male who will likely bear less-fit offspring (higher likelihood of infection and negative societal stigma of homosexual offspring), and likely cause her to loose fitness via infection. From this simple problem, in our early societal beginnings, I am sure is the seed that stemmed all the modern homophobia in all its forms that exists today, seeing as homosexuality being a negative sexual trait in a breeding community, any males possessing the ability to hide it, most likely would. Homophobia is not likely some almost supernatural anomaly as many make it out to be, it is a natural force and can be explained by science. What I have mentioned, I do not believe to be in the truth and is not well thought-out in any sense, nor have I quoted any scientific work - it is purely a theory that I simply came up with it as I wrote this now, nor have I actually thought about this problem in any depth before and should be regarded as such. All I can truly argue is that there is a scientific answer to this ‘problem’.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.