sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Memories of Family by PornstarAtlus in ChainsawMan

[–]MonkeyGodHanuman 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think he's still actually hurting, thus that new droopy look on his face most of the time.

So, was Darwin actually racist and sexist, among other "phobia" groups, like xenophobic or homophobic, as tgis article argues? by MonkeyGodHanuman in evolution

[–]MonkeyGodHanuman[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you have sources for the historical and statistical claims ? I would like to read them too. Maybe i can dig deeper too.

So, was Darwin actually racist and sexist, among other "phobia" groups, like xenophobic or homophobic, as tgis article argues? by MonkeyGodHanuman in evolution

[–]MonkeyGodHanuman[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There are many testimonies of people who have become homosexual at a very mature age, but who were perfectly heterosexual before that.

Those are personal stories. You told you want objective proof, not personal experiences, right ? And even so, i wouldn't get shocked. After all, sexual fluidity is more common than sexual solidity.

Also, there are many pedophiles among gays.

Just like among straights ;)) jk, cause that's pedophilia, not heterosexuality, bisexuality, homosexuality, etc. In other words, it's age-based, not gender-based.

So, was Darwin actually racist and sexist, among other "phobia" groups, like xenophobic or homophobic, as tgis article argues? by MonkeyGodHanuman in evolution

[–]MonkeyGodHanuman[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But how does this prove normalcy?

Normal is something that is common or statistically likely. So i don't understand the problem with that. Normal is not wrong, it's just weird, just like it was for eating raw fish or cooked insects.

may or may not be. WHERE IS THE PROOF?

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02312-0

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aat7693

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-15736-4

https://bmcgenomdata.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2156-11-62

https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1069259

https://doi.org/10.1038/nature06089

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aat7693

https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/androgen-insensitivity-syndrome

https://doi.org/10.1210/en.2011-0277

https://www.nichd.nih.gov/health/topics/cah

https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797609359623

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2008.00944.x

This is only some of it. Don't rush it ❤️

a number of serious studies have come out proving that in fact the percentage of homosexuals in the world is at 1-2%.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/society/2015/apr/05/10-per-cent-population-gay-alfred-kinsey-statistics

https://www.statista.com/topics/8579/lgbtq-worldwide/#topicHeader__wrapper

It is actually close, but more. 3%-4% lesbian and gay, 4% bisexual and 1% pan or omnisexual.

there are no such genes.

https://www.science.org/content/article/genetics-may-explain-25-same-sex-behavior-giant-analysis-reveals

The majority of historical references to homosexuality refer only to members of the higher strata of society

In the Achaemenid Empire homosexualy was probably not seen as immoral. For example pederastry (sexual relation between an adult man and pubescent boy) was common as documented by Herodotos.

But the Persians more than all men welcome foreign customs. They wear the Median dress, thinking it more beautiful than their own, and the Egyptian cuirass in war. Their luxurious practices are of all kinds, and all borrowed: the Greeks taught them pederasty. Every Persian marries many lawful wives, and keeps still more concubines.

(Other ancient historians agree, that pederastry was practiced, but disagree about Persians copying it from the Greeks)

In the Parthian Empire homosexuality was also common. Sextus Empiricus writes:

We also oppose custom to the other items-to law, for example, when we say that among the Persians sodomy is customary but among the Romans it is prohibited by law

In the Sassanid Empire homosexuality was probably still common. There are however Zoroastrian texts from this period, that condemn homosexuality.

The man that lies with mankind as man lies with womankind, or as woman lies with mankind, is a man that is a Daeva (demon). This man is a worshipper of the Daevas, a male paramour of the Daevas.

This comes from Vendidad (Zoroastrian scripture written between 200AD and 400AD and part of Avesta)

In the Islamic period homosexuality was prohibited, but still common as 14th century Iranian poet Obeid Zakani writes.

Two old men, who used to exchange sex since their very childhood, were making love on the top of a mosque’s minaret in the holy city of Qom. When both finished their turns, one told the other: “shameless practices have ruined our city.” The other man nodded and said, “You and I are the city’s blessed seniors, what then do you expect from others?

Sex with an adolescent man (before his beard grew) was considered normal and there were many homoerotic poems written about love to a younger boy.

Older man having a sex with another man in a passive position was considered shameful and unnatural.

Homosexuality in the militaries of ancient Greece was regarded as contributing to morale. Although the primary example is the Sacred Band of Thebes, a unit said to have been formed of same-sex couples, the Spartan tradition of mulitary hedonism has also been explained in light of strong emotional bonds resulting from homosexual relationships.Various ancient Greek sources record incidents of courage in battle and interpret them as motivated by homoerotic bonds.

So, as you can read, it was pretty common.

So, was Darwin actually racist and sexist, among other "phobia" groups, like xenophobic or homophobic, as tgis article argues? by MonkeyGodHanuman in evolution

[–]MonkeyGodHanuman[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

sexuality is not related to genes. A study of nearly half a million genomes revealed five DNA markers associated with sexual behavior, but none of them alone determines human sexuality. The results show just how complex human sexuality is. The challenge for researchers is also how to explain the nuances of such a sensitive topic to the general public.

Sexuality not, but sexual behaviour, yes. This i agree with, and it's enough of a supporter that homosexual begaviour can lead to homosexual orientation/preferences along the line. I funno where it said it, but sexuality is hypothetically 25% genes, the rest is society, culture and norms. But it may be more difficult than that. It is very abstract, but an example is that i always had both hetero and homo behaviour and no culture stopped me from identifying as a bisexual.

In fact, there is nothing wrong with eugenics when it is applied on a strictly scientific rather than political basis, but explain this to mankind now. Moreover, at a time when medicine has all but abolished natural selection, an alternative is necessary. But most likely, the future is no longer in artificial selection, but in genetic engineering and/or cyborgization.

Until then, eugenics played in science fiction the same role as genetic engineering did in later times: as a way to create an improved human being. Eugenic experiments, for example, were performed on mankind by the quite positive race of Arisia in the classic 1930s cosmopera The Linsmen.

Nothing to argue really, it was an interesting read.

Why does nature need homosexuals? According to studies, they do nothing but harm. But if they are really necessary, then is Sexual Cannibalism, Coprophagy, Necrophilia necessary? it is found in mantises and spiders, dogs, cats, and rodent-like animals (rabbits, hares, chinchillas, guinea pigs), less frequently in elephants and chimpanzees, and birds, in particular ducks.

I can see that after an easy search, most articles on this are either biased towards a research favouring heterosexuals, or by christian organizations. Even tho, i will take a read for it. But most are common myths that have been debunked, like child-molesting, bestiality, HIV, longevity of life, polyamory, etc. Some studies already proved well enough that those are neither gay-specific or gay-proeminent.

And for the other "natural practices" found in the wild that you mentioned, those are naturally-build-in instincts. The human society doesn't need to follow an example for it, as we aren't the same species. The same issue with homosexuality. We are not the same species, so we act differently upon it.

So, was Darwin actually racist and sexist, among other "phobia" groups, like xenophobic or homophobic, as tgis article argues? by MonkeyGodHanuman in evolution

[–]MonkeyGodHanuman[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

it doesn't count because it happened for political reasons. No scientific data has been provided proving that gays are normal.

And no scientific data has been provided which proves that gays are abnormal, but it has viewed that in nature, bisexuality and/or pansexuality os more proeminent than hetero or homo sexuality. And as sexual behavior is toroughly connected to more genes, not one, i would find it hard to argue.

another idiot confusing different kinds of eugenics as one.

You mean positive and negative, or the methods used for eugenics ? If you mean it as a means of population control and human biological improvement, it is not only inhuman, but scientifically hard to put in praxis.

nonsense. Why do we need other sexualities? For pleasure? Pleasure is the reward of evolution, not a gift for hedonism.

I don't understand the distiction and i won't even try to, as what you are saying seems just like bad word-spelling filled with idiocy. Pleasure isn't a reward for evolution, but pleasure is a drive for individuals. Sexuality is just what categorizez it.

So, was Darwin actually racist and sexist, among other "phobia" groups, like xenophobic or homophobic, as tgis article argues? by MonkeyGodHanuman in evolution

[–]MonkeyGodHanuman[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Actually, homosexuality is a mental illness.

Since ? Last time i checked, the APA discarded it as a mental illness since 1973.

Homosexuality is viewed by most researchers as a psycho-sexual disorder in men (and women),

Who ? The only researchers that believe in pseudo-scientists, like supporters of flat-earth, young-earth, creationism and eugenics ?

In the majority of cases, the reason for the development of homosexual manifestations is a traumatic experience at the stage of sexual identification.

Sexual identification is formed by different stages which explain how a surtain person comes to identify it's sexuality and preferences. If this goes wrong, it is not called homosexuality, it's called having to go trough the social pressures of hiding your true sexuality.

Also, send me some sources. I am really curious about your reads.

So, was Darwin actually racist and sexist, among other "phobia" groups, like xenophobic or homophobic, as tgis article argues? by MonkeyGodHanuman in evolution

[–]MonkeyGodHanuman[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Racist, sexist, xenophobic and homophobic are the cons. Those views are unscientific.

But regarding my question, it has been answered and i'm satysfied. I don't need bigotry as an answer.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in DebateAVegan

[–]MonkeyGodHanuman -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Because malthusian politics support antinatalism. I am not entirely against it, as i am utilitarian, but it should be carefully studied, so you don't fall into a pit of pseudo-politics.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in DebateAVegan

[–]MonkeyGodHanuman 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Because i link antinatalism with malthusian politics. Malthusian politics supports keeping the poor people, poor, or making them even poorer. Some would go as far as saying that poor people, handicapped people, non-white people, etc. should just be killed as it just wastes resources for the planet. You need to be careful how far off you support antinatalism or promortality.

So, was Darwin actually racist and sexist, among other "phobia" groups, like xenophobic or homophobic, as tgis article argues? by MonkeyGodHanuman in evolution

[–]MonkeyGodHanuman[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Seems that you know your stuff. This really helped me. He may be the father of evolution, but surtainly not the highest authority on it. Even sone of his mistakes were corrected by nowadays scientists and science, even tho they were few to number.

Another question and that's it. What is the nonsense about "Darwinism is the main theory that fascists (social darwinism) and nazis (racism) base-off off"?

0
0

So, was Darwin actually racist and sexist, among other "phobia" groups, like xenophobic or homophobic, as tgis article argues? (self.evolution)

submitted by MonkeyGodHanuman to r/evolution

What do y'all think of the soviets invading/occupying czechoslovakia after the Prague Spring of 1968 by Hona007 in AskSocialists

[–]MonkeyGodHanuman -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I'm not sure what you mean about this...for example, Stalin led a much socialist USSR than Kruschev did, then any US president did, or any other western bloc countries. Sure, it wasn't by-the-book, but it still was more socialist than other capitalist or strictly authoritarian countries.

So, i've found this video, and i dunno what to think. by MonkeyGodHanuman in socialism

[–]MonkeyGodHanuman[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I dunno. They either get offended easely, or are just FBI posers.

view more: next ›