Last edited by timber; 09-28-2022 at 06:25 PM.
This notion of gene survival is also no longer in vogue. I mean Dawkins did a lot of work, but the field has moved past this point.
Please research this, before you affirmatively claim it. I refer you back to the first sentence. There is some speculation that gay siblings, uncles, aunts, are all advantageous. Further, why cant a gay person have sex with a woman, or a gay woman have sex with man at least once enough to produce a child? Gayness is not altogether directly inheritable from parent to offspring. So, something is going on, but its not a direct trait, like dominant or recessive genes.What homosexuality definitely does not do is increase the probability of successful survival and reproduction.
I'm not sure you are aware, but I personally know a dozen gay men and woman with their own genetic children. So.
If gayness played no role, purpose, usefulness, from a genetic standpoint of survival of the species, then it would not exist, as per your argument. Life has had millions of years to wipe it out, or not even create it in the first place. So, it stands to reason that it is at very least neutral a difference and has no net negative effect on survival of the genes - and therefore species. So that blows the moral arguments out of the water as well, if "the natural state of affairs" was what morality on this topic stems from (and it does for everything else sexual that "the church" seems to protect example: union between man and woman). I guess you could say that disease associated with sodomy in preindustrial era, is enough of a reason to think homosexuality is destructive, but I would point out that disease also effects straight people just as much, HIV in North America and Europe notwithstanding.
As a last point here, I get a kick out of people that think homosexuals played no role in the advancement of Civilization. We wouldn't even be on computers right now without a gay person. And that extends to every single piece of anything we have going for us throughout all of history. I'm not saying gay people are responsible totally, but they have played their role. So from a cultural technological standpoint, gay people are very important for the survival of Civilization. That's just a straight up fact.
Deal with it.
Last edited by timber; 09-28-2022 at 06:29 PM.
Not only are you suggesting that celibacy can cause a mental disorder, you're also suggesting people lose all morals due to celibacy. There's no scientific evidence to back this.
It's a very dark way to see humanity(for me at least) and we're going to have to agree to disagree.
Last edited by chriscorey; 09-28-2022 at 09:07 PM.
Forcing priests to be celibate seems silly since being an adult male without children should have nothing to do with spiritual knowledge or power, that should come from, you know, the intellect, actions, and the rest of the spirit and not from what's between the legs, but a silly doctrine still doesn't make good people into pedos at all. And probably doesn't particularly attract them since various monks and nuns (including Catholic ones) are celibate and don't have this problem on this scale. No, it's just easy access + not being expected to have a wife + the seal of confessional most likely. Granted, I don't think Catholics should tell murders or even rapes to the police since, if you actually look at what the police as well as the military does, state governments are often even worse, though no one expects them to be saints so they focus on Catholics. I just think they should stop forgiving the same sins over and over behind closed doors without people, you know, actually repenting and stopping doing it. But then they couldn't maintain the dogma that you can't avoid sinning, so they have to let pedophiles keep doing it, otherwise you might also be able to stop telling white lies or overeating, then you'd realize you don't need their one-time symbolic baths or their human sacrifice or spells and they'd be out of business.
Last edited by Coeruleum Blue; 09-29-2022 at 12:00 AM.
You're thinking about gene propagation in an incestuous way - if the organism is limited to helping along the genes of its family members it's because it can't branch out & reproduce, it's due to scarcity in the environment... there's no social mixing of genes happening. You're just talking about an extremely restrictive, repressive environment that is blocking successful reproduction. That's exactly what I've been talking about, I'm saying that's the fundamental cause. Genes being weeded out of existence due to their not being adaptive in an environment.
If there were no problems in the environment there'd be no need to sacrifice ones own self-interest to help out aunts / uncles / cousins, you are actually making the case for what I'm saying.
Also... you haven't separated celibacy from homosexuality in regards to these effects. Why doesn't the instinct just turn off in these scenarios where it would be beneficial? Why is it channeled into something else that has no reproductive value? The answer is the instincts can't be turned off like that, because it isn't evolutionary for them to be.
Also... if you're posing a scenario where one set of genes die out so that another can live on... you're imagining this altruistic cooperation of genes, but taking it so far as to dismiss the inherent competition for survival, so... when altruism undermines your very survival it ceases being beneficial. It may be inconvenient for you to see nature as a game of survival... but survival is necessary, go watch a cheetah chase down a gazelle. The alpha male monkey benefits tremendously from the fact he's getting all the female monkey mates, sure, but the other monkeys are dying out, and what you aren't seeing is the broader problem & cause.
It's true the genetic / evolutionary gay explanation has been studied far more than explanations such as environmental or social factors... the latter are generally shunned by stupid people, case in point you / others in this thread. Whats also true is a coherent explanation is still very lacking, usually people have to be forced to accept the explanations.
The dismissal of environmental / social causes is an emotional / social conformity one, not a scientific one... people can come up with all the evolutionary theories they like, what they need is evidence of genetic causality. The genetic evidence is ultimately pretty weak - you'll never get around the twin studies, and they've already searched very thoroughly using supercomputers for this set of gay genes... they only found very complex clusters of genes / epigenetics that have some minor correlations, there is no way of separating out that data from environmental factors or intermediary effects, so.... you're basically talking about coming up with a theory that defies basic principles for an effect that is only weakly supported by evidence.
It's a politically relevant issue, people generally want it to be true, they come up with all sorts of theories but the evidence isn't there. And tbh the explanations never make much sense. Try describing the proposed mechanism - you haven't done that. Show you understand how this works, you've just implied someone has surely figured it out somewhere.
I'll also say that psychology tries to be a science but it is closer to a pseudo science, it has the worst peer-review process of any science, the subject matter itself is very intangible which leaves it open to people affirming their preconceived notions, it's also almost entirely left-leaning people, who also tend to have much lower IQs than other scientists, so... I would not really expect anything except genetic explanations to be taken seriously by psychologists due to what this explanation means to them socially...
They can successfully reproduce, they do not succeed at the same rate. When we talk about evolution we're talking about net effects over billions of years, where even minor advantages amount to big differences. We're talking about what is responsible for all the complex and refined structure of life, it's not a messy mechanism. And we're talking about evolved instincts. Again, evolutionary forces were there molding the first cells... that then became sponges that evolved into jellyfish, fish, worms, and then animals... all the way along, at every step, every single chemical process that produces life, there was successful reproduction accounting for it. Even very small disadvantages in survival / reproduction mean everything on this scale, this is why your biology is so incredibly refined and sophisticated, this is why your arguments on evolution make no sense... these theories / explanations that you people come up with really just seem to be desperate attempts.
Last edited by DogOfDanger; 10-02-2022 at 10:17 PM.
Telling somebody God won't properly love them or save them (the supposed supreme being and creator of the universe mind you) unless they completely abstain from sex - it's clear as day if they genuinely listen to that advice, how it can fuck somebody up psychologically. Not like they will go 'Hey, I might as well be a pedo' over night- but it can be another ingredient in the cauldron as it were.
Sexuality is a kind of 'Fi' thing for most people anyway, most of us don't really want to be whores or sluts and we want more to find one special person to fool around with. But you're denying them even that, and telling them that's wrong. Did you really think you could fool God by being private and respectful you little homo? Unella is looking at you hatefully, fag.
idk about them already being pedos and using the church as a cloak of innocence. I'm sure some do that yes, but that doesn't seem very smart as there seems to be better and more clever ways to hide being a pedophile than that. And it clearly does not work. For some reason I didn't consider them using the church to try and cure pedo-ness that was already inside them- I can see that being true, but I still think my way is the most common. It's not like I think all sexual repression is the cause of pedophilia lol but that along with other factors can be the right deadly mixture.
If you view sexuality as bad (even when it's not), then naturally when you express your sexuality it will actually be bad.
In the Love, Victor TV show there's an inspiring moment where a bigoted priest tells the mom of a gay son that she's giving up on God for accepting her son's homosexuality. She then rightfully tells him "Oh, I'm not giving up on God. I'm giving up on you." You go gurl!
Today we have porn and too much materialism. Have we fallen into the "darkness of matter"?
But Christianity aims high, heaven, that ultimate goal. And you can't expect a religion to be complete, although it would be nice. Jung thought alchemy was more complete because it deals with the dark side also.
Piano legs are interesting. I can imagine them as being indecent.
But all religions have their peculiarities. In pagan religions they used to sacrifice humans. I don't know much about the eastern religions. But I don't see any reason to emphasize the bad sides of Christianity as it is expressed in the core myth. It doesn't have to be perfect, but a connection to a myth is something to be treasured and maybe developed.
I personally have an interest in Christianity because it's part of my tradition and the only religion I have a real connection to. I don't take it dogmatically, but through music, reading the Bible etc. I can maybe make the myth a part of my spiritual life.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
Secondly, I wouldn't equate smarts directly with IQ, I say this because I've known more than one genius whose opinions on things were quite dumb... like their value systems were not coherent. One thing about IQ is it only tests you within a very limited time period.... if you look at the greatest intellectual contributions they were made by people who thought about particular things over their whole lives, and they formed very deep and sophisticated value systems. I know people who don't score too high on IQ tests yet have well formed value systems, so...
Also... usually peoples aspirations don't exceed their abilities...
That being said, IQ correlates well with most of what we think of as intelligence, with alot of measures of social success, and it is well validated.
Denying statistical fact does not make you a good person.
Last edited by DogOfDanger; 09-30-2022 at 10:28 PM.
Mesopotamia is where humans came from, it is obviously relevant in a conversation on noble savagery, you little idiot...
Last edited by DogOfDanger; 10-01-2022 at 02:37 PM.
@DogOfDanger Mesopotamia isn't savage at all, though. Mesopotamia was the first civilization. Humans didn't evolve from monkeys that lived in Iraq, humans sprung up in lots of places but the first civilization was in the Fertile Crescent.
I think IQ is a good measurement of intelligence, but based on its correlation with SAT scores, it's probably not innate at all. And if it were, who would care? It wouldn't even matter if some races were smarter than others on average because that says nothing about individual intelligence, nor would it mean anything about evolution since most people have never seen a random distribution in their lives, random distributions can be all over the place. But instead of saying it doesn't matter, you said intelligence is a bad thing because you only need it to live in civilized places unlike Mesopotamia (when Mesopotamia is literally the paragon of a civilized place,) and that's ridiculous.
a) IQ is loosely correlated with SAT scores, it's also correlated with some physiological markers, I read one study showing it correlated with the amount of time it takes an electrical impulse to propagate across a synapse. The flynn effect seems to have stopped in the last few decades ... individual IQ also remains consistent within age groups measured over time. Attempts to increase IQ through training have also consistently failed.
b) mesopotamia is a natural paradise and a natural habitat for humanity. I never said it was a savage place, savage was actually your phrase, but it is definitely a natural habitat for humanity - obviously, since the first civilization formed there. The temperature is perfect, food and water is abundant...
c) I have no idea what this sentence is trying to say: "nor would it mean anything about evolution since most people have never seen a random distribution in their lives, random distributions can be all over the place"
d) I have never said anything remotely like this: "But instead of saying it doesn't matter, you said intelligence is a bad thing because you only need it to live in civilized places"
e) "It wouldn't even matter if some races were smarter than others on average because that says nothing about individual intelligence," - then why are you asking me about it? It does matter if your conversation is about the success of various races in society, though - career success being something that IQ is a good predictor of.
Last edited by DogOfDanger; 10-02-2022 at 10:08 PM.
On average the variation of IQ between family members is greater than the variation between races.
IQ isn’t set in stone, either. We know that prenatal factors and early childhood environmental factors can impact long run life outcomes (including adult IQ)
If somebody truly is an intimidating and logically bad ass str8 male, I will just avoid interacting with them altogether. Duh.
I don't want to derail the thread too much, but yeah - Te cares about data like that. It's important and vital to them for some strange reason. It's probably not #AllTeValuers but Te Valuers + ones get in some sort of position of authority around others.
IEE therapist: "Did you know Samuel that gay youth are eight times more likely to kill themselves? EIGHT TIMES!" (this was back when it was really eight times supposedly - and its like three times now or something idk. Again - it's irrelevant, but I'm sure a LIE will supervise me on the correct number)
Yeah but this is supposed to be about me here isn't it. I don't mean to be self-absorbed, but come on. What does that have to do with my psychological issues that u supposedly can help me fix. That doesn't actually do anything to make people feel sorry for them or help gays anyway - instead an anti-gay person is just like "Of course they off themselves more. If I were a gay- I'd kill myself too."
And likewise, just because 10,000 homosexuals jumped off a bridge with campy ACME spikes at the bottom - doesn't mean I would as well. There's another good joke in there somewhere, but it's lost to me at the moment.
The distribution of individual intelligence seems random, though, because it is mostly correlated to environmental and hereditary factors that are essentially randomized. Additionally, there are far more retarded people than geniuses, and far more stupid people than smart people. The average intelligence appears to be much higher than the mode intelligence, so it seems perfectly accurate to say most people are dumb.This sort of thing is why psychology is not taken seriously as a science... IQ distributions are not random, they're normal distributions based on giant samples... honestly, what you even talking about?
When we're talking facts I expect you to deal with it or yes, leave me alone if you can't.
Last edited by DogOfDanger; 10-07-2022 at 03:16 PM.
Last edited by Coeruleum Blue; 10-07-2022 at 03:04 PM.
The average African IQ is actually way below 86, there's not even a question about that - again it's due to nutritional deficiencies, cultural differences, etc.
Last edited by DogOfDanger; 10-07-2022 at 03:06 PM.
I also want you to go on about things, because the entirety of your argument is based around IQ but I think IQ is bogus because I think most people are stupid. I think civilization matters. Mesopotamia is a civilization. Humans are better off in civilization than in the wild. So intelligence does matter. But 99% of people, more or less, are screwed. This is regardless of race. Most white people are screwed just like most black people are screwed. The fact that IQ tests don't show that most white people are screwed is a problem with IQ tests, not the fact they accurately show most black people are screwed.
The facts about evolution is that me fucking a man and not a woman isn't harming evolution- it's helping it, because gay males naturally have sisters that are very fertile. That's a fact. I think you're probably LSI with Ne PoLR. Your own homophobia and typical Republicunt blame-the-victim asshole thinking is blinding you about the truth of the natural world and science, and yet you try to justify that you aren't being false- ur being factual, but you're not really being factual at all. You fucking a woman isn't any more natural or morally superior than me fucking a man is - you just think that because you've drunk the kool-aid of Republicunts. You say you don't care for both sides, but that's just something you say to attempt to manipulate other people. I can smell the Repubicunt Asshole str8 Male all over you.
Yawn. Keep projecting
We can see that there's all this besides-the-point nonsense that you get derailed by and read into, things that are either totally irrelevant to the conversation, or attitudes you assume I'm holding that I do not and never have suggested.
We've already discussed your ideas on evolution, feel free to address those comments above. Again, these 'tad incestuous' theories on evolution forgo the organisms own survival / reproduction on behalf of their sisters - you need pretty serious conditions of scarcity to setup incentives for that. My point all along has been this is driven by problems in the environment. Clearly the organism would much prefer to just go & propagate its own genes, mixing them directly with other organisms, if it had a choice - this is much more beneficial to it then being limited to promoting its sisters genes. That there is scarcity in the environment has been my point all along.
You could use this line of argument to claim that shooting oneself in the head is beneficial evolutionary if it allows others to have more food, or the dead body provides food for others, increasing the chances they'll live on... Or that, when necessary, eating ones family members is an evolutionary behavior. Dahmer-party scenarios... Black widow spiders do eat the males after being inseminated, but as I explained earlier, evolution is driven by relatively homeostatic conditions over billions of years, not fringe extinction-like scenarios. For a black widow this is evolutionary due to the frequent food shortages in their environment combined with the need for alot of energy to produce many offspring... it's an act that has a very direct and large evolutionary payoff. For a human beings there are no such frequent food shortages & reproductive opportunity that eating the mate would solve, so there is no basis for developing an evolved instinct to eat ones mate, if you were in a situation where this was necessary it would be contrary to all of your instincts. It might be beneficial to your survival, but it would not be instinct-driven. Also notice that all black widows do this...
What I have said the entire time - all I have really said - is that some behaviors are not driven by evolved instincts. I then went on a long winded explanation of how instincts can be blocked, or how organisms can be forced by circumstances to act in ways contrary to the instincts.
And btw... learn that correlation isn't causation, the sister increased fertility could also be a sign of increased female dominance and stifling matriarchy within the family, for all you know.
Showing that gays help their family members isn't enough to show evolutionary incentive, you'd actually need to demonstrate the sexual preference itself somehow directly contributed to the sisters successful survival / reproduction here, compared to something else like celibacy or straight male incels helping their sisters... AND that this is more beneficial than the organism continuing to seek its own successful reproduction while helping in the meantime (good luck with that one). You haven't demonstrated any of this, so...
Again, what you're presenting here is not a well analyzed idea, and it's uprooting the foundations of evolution out of a desperate need to change the facts...
Bias has no place in conversations about this topic, be biased elsewhere.
BTW - how do you provide the evolutionary incentives for gay children with no siblings in your scenario?
Maybe, while you're at it, you can also explain how transgenderism evolved... I'd really love to hear that explanation. Seeing as the condition is actually impossible without society defining it and modern medicine creating it. But it is a unique set of sexual conditions, and your claim seems to be that every such set of condition is evolutionary. Unless you're making exceptions for just your particular preferences and ignoring the others...
Last edited by DogOfDanger; 10-07-2022 at 11:07 PM.
Last edited by DogOfDanger; 10-07-2022 at 11:23 PM.
To be a priest is to serve God with one's entire life. Those who enter priesthood for personal power quickly find it a most miserable vocation. Some of these stay, though, living a life of great hypocrisy that is clearly anything but Catholic. But just because false priests exist doesn't mean real ones don't exist. We have heroes in these dark times, just as in previous dark times, as St. Nicholas, Bishop of Myra was in his day. Modern day lights-in-the-darkness include Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigaṇ and good Bishop Athanasius Schneider.
Yes, you are right, abusers are often children who were abused. Yes, so much of the time. God sees all hearts, and His heart breaks for the pain they endured as well as the pain they are now inflicting on others. He loves ALL, and He desires all to be saved. But He calls for repentance. In that call He is long-suffering. But if that call is never answered, the wages of sin is death.
There is much wrong everywhere in our world right now. Churches, governments, and every kind of leadership are all infiltrated by enemies of God and of the people. But ALL of our enemy leaders will soon face the aggressive judgment of God. This will be seen by the world. Then the people will rejoice when God gives back to us all that has been stolen from us. God says it is much more than we realize - and for many generations back! God says He will restore us and He will pour out His glory and blessings, healing, health and prosperity on us. We will live on earth how He intended us to live on it. We have a great future!
[Sorry, you mentioned me in this at the top, but I have been and continue to be immersed in my work, so I did not see this. I know there is something else of yours I wanted to respond to, and I hope to get to it soon. But this discussion - wow. I skimmed a few pages but it is not my thing. I can't follow it. It is drawing mostly male interest].
Good short article of facts. Of course, something really is wrong when Catholic priests consist of as many pedos as everyone else, instead of far less, considering the fount of Graces they have available to overcome everything. So, that is very terrible.
But God is cleaning house, and we will soon see!
"A man with a definite belief always appears bizarre, because he does not change with the world; he has climbed into a fixed star, and the earth whizzes below him like a zoetrope."
........ G. ........... K. ............... C ........ H ........ E ...... S ........ T ...... E ........ R ........ T ........ O ........ N ........
"Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the Church, is often labeled today as fundamentalism... Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along
by every wind of teaching, looks like the only
attitude acceptable to today's standards." - Pope Benedict the XVI, "The Dictatorship of Relativism"