You should try to remember that I'm only talking about how instinct evolves and expresses in nature, not how it expresses within civilization. I would simply tell you that I think on the level of instinct, modern living is interpreted as a kind of extinction event, in that sense that the instincts are completely smothered and can only express in very deferred ways. For example, when you drive to work / work for 8 hours / drive home... you sit in your car stationary for an hour and a half there, hour and a half back. At work you have to smile and bow your head, and try not to piss off angry random people. This is very smothering of you, and this is nothing like what life would be like in nature. This smothering is inevitable, we are detached from nature.. but the truth is you really have no idea what you would be like if you did not have to deal with this sort of thing on a regular basis. My opinion is you, me, and everyone would feel and act much differently. So you have this very solid identity about yourself and who you are... but that identity is a social construct. I don't think of myself as a social creature, I think of myself as a fish out of water.
Now... as for what you should or should not be doing - I leave that for you to decide. I wouldn't say I'm anti-gay, I think I am pro-gay in the sense that my viewpoint provides some clear understanding as to why human beings act the way they do in a variety of ways. I think I'm correct about it, and I think it actually justifies various behaviors... But I am also realistic about the unchanging parts of nature, the things we are detached from... to me this is the most important part of human beings, their truest selves that have been forgotten. For example, you evolved to have sperm - those sperm have a very definite purpose, it is go to into the egg of a female. There is simply no escaping that. Your body produce that for a reason... Nonetheless, you are a modern repressed creature like everyone.
So... is that a prejudicial attitude? You decide that, I think it is a realistic and well rounded viewpoint of the whole matter. I don't think you're going to get very far by denying evolution, if your identity hinges on that... it's time to reassess your identity.
I was arguing about the "instinct" behind that, and asking whether it was natural or unnatural. If the instinct is a manifestation of "sex drive", then that is arguably advantageous. If the instinct is a manifestation of having sex with things that cannot result in children, then that is arguably disadvantageous. If the instinct is a manifestation of having sex in an opportunistic way on the off-chance it would result in offspring, then that is arguably advantageous. If the instinct is a manifestation of "pleasure-seeking", then that could arguably be advantageous to survival and reproduction in the long-term: it could also be disadvantageous. It really depends. If there was no drive at all, humans would die out as a species.
Humans and chimpanzees like the taste of sugar: many species don't. The pleasure we get from it is usually advantageous to our survival, but it can also be disadvantageous. It doesn't stop it being a "natural" instinct, if it is so.
It is known that bonobos have mutual homosexual sex: this does not produce offspring, but it does release oxotoxin, important for forming bonds between individuals in a group.
Well studies have told us most people who actually fondle kids are straight - so maybe the people touching kids are actually making more kids even if the act of pedophilia itself is so wrong (and even if saying that would trigger and troll everybody)
Didn't that Josh Duggar person get thrown in prison for having child porn? And didn't he have a lot of kids?
Although it sounds disgusting and immoral, a pedophile naturally would want to make more kids in order to have sex with them anyway.... the biggest case of vulnerable victims are ones that a perp can create for himself.
So are you Protestant? Or are you just used to having Protestant privilege and now you're a minority on this forum so you're shocked? People who are pretending to be Protestant don't seem to defend the types of things you're defending when they're completely surrounded by non-Protestants. Th entire US military is basically Protestants recruited through Protestant churches(!) who bomb people with other religions (Muslim, Orthodox, Buddhist, Marxist, etc.,) which makes the American goal of avoiding religion-based wars an utter failure in hindsight. So no one can claim Protestants aren't uniquely privileged in America. Even when you look at people like Hillary Clinton, almost all of them frequently go to Protestant churches. So most Protestant arguments end up being "I'm vegetarian except for steak!" types of spoiled arguments when I hear them.
and evolution cares about the group not individuality or society's morals anyway... a pedophile has 10 children, he gets sent to prison for his crimes (as he abused a few of his own kids and also others as well) and then was killed off by a thug in prison who hates pedophiles for how immoral and gross they are - but the 10 children he made all became productive members of society & contributed to the gene pool themselves, even tho their daddy was just a creepy pedo.
There is no such thing as looking at actions in a vacuum like that... even though everybody in their right mind knows and agrees pedophila is bad, even that doesn't exist in a wormhole.
Why would it mean that if there is no survival and reproductive value to raping a child? And wouldn't raping a child be even more likely to cause the men in the tribe to tear the person apart? Have you ever seen how in arms people get when they hear someone has raped a child?
Stop being intentionally stupid.
Generally people go after the thing that turns them on, and there's one main thing that does it... if it's kids that's where the energy will get channeled into, i.e. it won't be channeled into grown women to the same degree. So I really doubt that pedos have the same success ratio with grown women as do normal straight males.
You see things in terms of "evolutionary benefit".
Surely something that is less harmful to the individual's survival has a higher "evolutionary benefit" than something more harmful?
Pleasure-seeking is a key driver of behaviour - it need not have any survival and reproductive value. I have no idea why you think this.
People who aren't Catholic are Protestant or Orthodox or maybe Coptic. There are people pretending to be Pope in their backyards or otherwise not identifying with the Catholic Church.
I'm mostly just asking if you're Protestant and providing arguments for how normalized Protestantism really is. It's so normalized that Americans can wage crusades without realizing they're waging crusades when the entire country was founded to get away from the religious wars of Europe. ...I actually want to cry or lament for that fact when it's put that way.
sorry but I can't really agree with that, considering how many guys I know like to say 'my wife is gone and I'm horny'
U could be into the kids more, but try to compartmentalize/hide it better because u also realize how wrong it is. People eat both their vegetables and their sweets after all.
"Normal str8 males" are most likely the ones being caught with real kids lol. Sorry but that just isn't a token of righteousness or purity to me.
@DogOfDanger you argue against being like Genghis Khan (the most successful person from an evolutionary perspective in the last 800 years), and yet you seem fond of being an asshole.
Instinct is molded by successful reproduction, and that's it. It's not molded by what gives you pleasure... the pleasures purpose is the reproduction. That molding is the very reason males are attracted to females.
BTW - sugar intake obviously increases survival. But when you talk about refined sugar... that refinement is a modern industrial process. You don't have access to big gulps in nature, you're not gona get diabetes in nature...
I've said repeatedly I recognize that modern society is a derailment of instinct. I actually say it's interpreted by instinct as an extinction event.
Yeah, I knew this went deeper for you. The bonobos example is an interesting one that I've heard before-
a) that behavior is the exception, not the rule
b) that species has had its habitat destroyed, they're also poached. Normally bonobos are evolved to roam in giant areas of hundreds of square miles... they don't do that now, humans surround them and they're in this small area. So the social structure is top-heavy. The females are evolved to select for monkeys at the top of the social hierarchy, but what happens is... they all go for just the alpha male monkey. And the other male monkeys are left trying to dethrone the alpha male. The gay monkeys are at the bottom of the pecking order, they basically have a sense of learned helplessness.
I'm not saying things like this don't happen in nature. All I'm saying is it isn't the natural instinct driving it, it's certain repressive circumstances that block the instincts. Under normal, healthy conditions, those monkeys would go claim their own territory & they'd be the alpha male roaming in a giant area. Some female would follow them & they'd go create their own little separate monkey tribe, and so the process would continue - that's evolution, that's what forms the instincts. In your example that isn't happening, the alpha male is claiming all the women.
To interpret natural instinct you have to keep in mind the ideal conditions, because those are the success conditions. The alpha male is the one spreading his seed in your example, not the repressed gay monkeys - their genes are dying out.
Under normal and healthy conditions, you would feed the dog in your avatar and show him some compassion.
Does the dog deserve it for being gay and not a str8 white alpha male?
I suppose I can understand it then. Carry on being an alpha male with Ben Shapiro.
lol, read your first paragraph:
"The naturalistic fallacy should not be confused with the appeal to nature, which is exemplified by forms of reasoning such as "Something is natural; therefore, it is morally acceptable" or "This property is unnatural; therefore, this property is undesirable.""
Civilized conditions are not ideal conditions. The ideal conditions, as far as instinct is concerned, are natural homeostatic conditions. They're the conditions instinct evolved within, the conditions that are not smothering to it.
Now... you keep saying stupid things intentionally because you have this deep need to disagree to justify many of your ideological fixations, but everything you've said has been addressed and now you're just repeating yourself, so... unless you have something new to say, we are done.
Your hole is just something to be used for other men's pleasure. You were evolved with a prostate inside your anus, why aren't you getting it stimulated by a thick Italian dick right now instead of wasting time with a woman who you will probably end up disrespecting and devaluing anyway because she will get tired of your insufferable rants about male and female compatibility. And she will see thru how ur not an alpha male and laugh at your beta male ways.For example, you evolved to have sperm - those sperm have a very definite purpose, it is go to into the egg of a female. There is simply no escaping that. Your body produce that for a reason... Nonetheless, you are a modern repressed creature like everyone.
So... is that a prejudicial attitude? You decide that, I think it is a realistic and well rounded viewpoint of the whole matter. I don't think you're going to get very far by denying evolution, if your identity hinges on that... it's time to reassess your identity.
Considering I knew I was gay ever since I was 5- I highly doubt that's the purpose of my cum- and I wanted to show you what it felt like.
No, I actually see very close parallels between bonobos and gay human males. What I'm saying is the behavior is not driven by an evolved instinct, because the behavior has negative reproductive value, and that it is clearly being expressed within a social environment where the instincts are blocked - i.e. the alpha male is the only male getting females.
Your sperm is definitely designed for fertilizing a female egg cell. If your identity hinges on denying this fact... you need to reformulate your identity, as I've explained. You have a right to be gay, I've provided plenty of rational justification for why you may be gay - may have always been gay - but you do not have a right to deny facts about nature and biology. If this is what you require of me I'm sorry, but that is just an unrealistic requirement, and I'm not pretending black is white.
Chinpanzees don't rape offspring . They might kill them like males of other species kill offspring that is not their own, for the simple reason that they want to pass on their genes and not the ones of other males. Also, humans are not chimpanzees. Chimpanzees have not gone into space (just so you can understand the breadth of difference that there is between a chimpanzee and a human). Humans have instincts like animals, but normally their higher thinking ability trumps them, as do as well the constructs of society, since the human is a highly social entity. Now that said, I don't think it has never been a natural instinct in a human to engage in sex with a non-sexually mature human. That is a corruption, originally caused by something. In tribes and old cultures that were somewhat preserved from western culture contamination, it never happened. When a man lost control of their natural urges, they raped an adult woman, not a child. Same happens with animals. Everything has to follow some logic. Raping a child over an adult follows no logic (it doesn't provide any advantage compared to the case for raping a woman). The only ones I can think of are the following (if anyone is triggered by these, I apologize): 1.wanting to fuck up the child (for some reason) 2. Being unable to rape a woman, or it is simply easier to rape a child since they cannot defend themselves like a woman, and dissociate easier, effectively hiding the crime. Regardless, it requires a great seed of evil, and greatly germinated, to think in these terms and rape a child. It is a product of Evil, which is a human thing and not of instincts which are an animal thing. That's why animals don't do it.
Since that has zero survival reproductive value this claim just makes no sense, but I don't think for you it is about making sense, I think it is this need to emotionally justify yourself... but again, I'm not pretending - you can come up with an identity that allows you to be gay but still does not deny biology, it is very doable... keep trying.
Evolution does give nature a purpose. For example, your penis has a purpose - it is to get sperm into a vagina. Evolution gives nature a purpose, correct.
Ok, I'm tired and you aren't saying anything interesting. Goodbye!
It actually has tons of survival reproductive value, since gay men are often caregivers to children where str8 ppl can't or won't be. You are not more rational or logical than me just because ur a breeder male, what a fucking stupid and tired card. U were the one trying to emotionally justify YOUR fragile heterosexual identity by attacking me, I was merely showing u what it felt like.
It's not as simple as 'durrr str8 sex make da baby I am such a special person' /drool. Studies have proven that the female siblings of gay males are MORE fertile than other females... so the very fact of me being gay HELPS THE HUMAN POPULATION & REPRODUCTION, it doesn't hinder it- you simple minded Republicunt idiot.
What we are doing here is describing natural instinct - what it is, how it behaves, and we do this by looking at how it evolved... this is not a matter of belief, it actually just brushes up against your beliefs .. instead of looking deeper for a reconciliation, you spaz about it and deny reality... you do this because you are stupid.