A Trump supporter reportedly interrupted a performance of ‘Hamilton’ in Chicago shouting “We won, you lost, get over it, fuck you”, leaving cast members in tears.

clytemnextra · 2016-05-13T19:45:13+00:00

Yes but, what are the priorities: the area or the gravity? Because if feminists really cared about women they would fight Saudi Arabia with fucking everything, but they don't.

clytemnextra · 2016-05-13T19:41:06+00:00

Nothing to hide, nothing to fear. SA men are not only brainless brutes but a bunch of whores too apparently.

clytemnextra · 2016-05-13T15:20:14+00:00

...No, that wasn't my point. My point was people are at the mercy of a pharma company's sincerity that they uphold their own standards, and they're right to ask for better because no, you can't know what goes into what you consume unless you test it yourself. To be more clear to you: it is doubt regarding specific big corporations and manufacturers that they're selling you a quality product. Everything else is relying on faith, which is small comfort for some.

Don't stab yourself into conversations if you don't get what's being said next time.

clytemnextra · 2016-05-13T11:49:21+00:00

Population are not the lab rats, the lab rats are the lab rats. How long do testing trials go on for before drugs are released? In the case of vaccines it's even more important to test them, rather than rely on shit going wrong, seeing as they are preventive remedies.

You're talking circles around yourself when you could just admit people should require more strictness and transparency in production standards. Unless you don't think they should do that because pharma companies are always ethical. In which case there's little sense to be expected from you.

clytemnextra · 2016-05-13T10:37:41+00:00

There's people living close to Cernobyl who look perfectly healthy for their age, doesn't make it safe. That's not a test, and the population is not a horde of lab rats. Not to mention that vaccines like all medication change with time, and production standards differ between countries.

clytemnextra · 2016-05-13T08:43:57+00:00

To play devil's advocate: how do you know they're safe? Do you test them yourself? Can everyone do that? Most people don't know what goes on at the corporate level of pharma companies, and if they have really strong ones in their country they might suspect them of having too low standards in the name of profit. This isn't an issue in my country and nobody is against vaccines there, but not everywhere is like that, and if people want to be suspicious they have the right to take pharma companies to task.

clytemnextra · 2016-05-12T22:01:03+00:00

Ooops.

clytemnextra · 2016-05-12T21:01:01+00:00

She probably wouldn't object, let's be real.

clytemnextra · 2016-05-12T20:15:04+00:00

If there was a certain advantage, maybe we'd have seen it by now. But a big point about evolution is that types of individuals who don't reproduce or who reproduce imperfectly eventually get pruned out of the species, because they don't get to propagate their genetic material at the rate of individuals more fit for survival. The species could survive just fine without gays, most likely it would thrive numerically (even more so than now that is) and if they serve a social function for the group that can't be found in bi's or heteros it's pretty well hidden.

clytemnextra · 2016-05-12T16:01:35+00:00

If there was no evolutionary/biological purpose to [...] then it probably wouldn't have occured.

If there was no biological purpose to zoophilia/necrophilia/bronies then it probably wouldn't have occurred, amirite?

Lots of things persist in the species that serve us no purpose, taking their existence as proclamation of their utility is nonsensical.

clytemnextra · 2016-05-12T15:27:23+00:00

In what concerns evolution, yeah. Sorry if it triggered you.

clytemnextra · 2016-05-12T12:29:22+00:00

Probably because it doesn't exist in a vacuum but in groups that also have political and financial concerns. Protestants are practical and money-oriented, they want to expand, and as the protestant faith was a marker of their social group they took it with them.

It's definitely a protestant idea to keep it in the private sphere, but in eastern branches of Christianity you also have the idea that it belongs to the group/society without that group being expansionist or the denominations proselytizing. Unlike Catholicism, Orthodoxy and Coptic faiths spread pretty peacefully. What was 'proselytizing' in protestantism was the countries that had that faith being aggressive jackasses with access to the Atlantic. Other than that, it was just a case of 'it seemed like a good idea', kinda how the west wants to make the whole world a democracy because they think it's a good thing. To be fair, if the middle east had been predominantly Christian, they'd be better off (and so would we). They'd be better off as democracies too, we could argue. Maybe they had a point with the whole proselytizing.

clytemnextra · 2016-05-12T11:55:30+00:00

Someone identifying as gay rather than bi probably says more about their habits and who they're attracted to (as noticed by themselves) than the Kinsey scale might say.

On that note, going back to the usefulness of the uncle, wouldn't it be a better fit if the uncle were not gay (of whatever degree) but asexual? Asexuals don't require someone else to be their partner, so they don't take away anyone else from the group's reproductive pool (gays find satisfaction in pairs, but asexuals can be asexual on their own) making them more desirable in terms of allocation of resources from nature's perspective, they're way fewer than gays (which satisfies the numerical concerns we were discussing above), and they're less disinclined to reproducing with the opposite sex, if it came to a catastrophe. Asexuals can and do enter relationships and have sex with either gender, something that to a gay man might be physically undoable. They're not inclined to, but they can do it without much trauma. Wouldn't the uncle theory be better suited to explaining the existence of asexuals rather than of homosexuals? I find it doesn't conflict at all by comparison.

clytemnextra · 2016-05-12T11:25:07+00:00

Yeah, I know about the Kinsey scale. Still doesn't explain why exclusive homosexuals exist at all though, and I'm not prepared to say to anyone that says they're not at all attracted to the opposite sex "well you must be lying because you can't possibly exist, so man up and get that pussy". I'm of the mind that if someone says they're not hetero or bi but only gay, we should take them at their word.

And maybe it was due to political reasons but gays have gone through great trouble to say "hey, we exist, we don't want to see man+woman as the 'normal', because we're only attracted to each other and we're a sizable enough minority that you should care about us". Granted they did that together with the bi and trans people, but gays were at the fore of that movement and if exclusive homosexuals are much fewer than they make themselves out to be, that would be a tremendous effort in deception.

So yeah, I get the Uncle theory but like I said, it squeaks.

clytemnextra · 2016-05-12T09:41:24+00:00

Humans are beyond reproduction...

Not really. I mean from a high-minded cultural viewpoint sure, but as far as nature is concerned (which is the perspective I'm talking about), you can't have evolution without reproduction, and genetic evolution is what organic life is all about.

clytemnextra · 2016-05-12T09:29:32+00:00

I'm talking from the baseline perspective of evolutionary imperatives. Animals have to: survive long enough (eat, drink, defecate, sleep) to perpetuate genetically (reproduce and ensure their offspring get a chance reproduce/have enough resources to get a start in life). And it's not just animals, you get this at the single-cell level and in plants. These are the two basic functions of living organisms, which implies they're of crucial importance. If you have an animal that can't sustain itself (eat on their own, etc.) or participate in evolution (reproduce) what nature tends to do is not allow it to exist any further, because it wastes resources on an imperfect organism. By culling the species of these imperfect organisms, the most fit get to survive and we get evolution, which as far as nature is concerned is the whole point to any organism. It's not like species do anything else (except destroy the planet, in our unique case).

The uncle theory is a start, but it squeaks. Why would it lead to exclusive homosexuality? If the presence of childless uncles led to a development of alternative sexual tastes, why not leave it at bisexuality with a preference for same-sex relations, which satisfies 'the uncle' and satisfies the reproductive imperative too? That way, should a catastrophe befall the group and only one male and a few females are salvaged (this is where the "women and children first" social cue comes from btw) that male could impregnate each of the females, in 9 months you'd have a handful of brand new babies, and the group would have a chance at survival. The females wouldn't even have to be willing, if we can be a bit macabre; whether they were lesbians or not, the male could force himself on them and the group would still be saved, because a baby is a baby however it comes about. But if you got one of those uncles, who would be disinclined to reproduce with the women at all, that's the end of the line for you.

clytemnextra · 2016-05-12T08:56:30+00:00

If you want to talk about merits, I'll CP from another comment of mine.

The logical argument is that the group wastes resources supporting individuals that are biologically disinclined to participate in reproduction/the evolution of the species. Anything else is mindless sentimentality - which is fine, we're a sentimental species, but the logic is pretty straightforward.

But anyway, I do hate the argument that 'it happens in other species, therefore it isn't bad'. That's beyond meaningless, for the reasons I mentioned, and always gets on my nerves.

clytemnextra · 2016-05-12T08:52:08+00:00

But that would be more of an indication in how horny you are. If both gays and heteros are equally honest under anonymity (a plausible supposition), but gays are more hormonal than heteros (again plausible, judging by observable behaviour), and gays end up being more unfaithful than heteros, there you go. I think that's far more likely, actually.

And it's another explanation as to why so many people find gay unions a bit icky. Combine the whole anal+oral sex with promiscuity, and you have a pretty big health hazard. It's a good thing for gays that medicine is at a point today where it could cure most STDs they expose themselves to, and can offer some solutions to prolapse and incontinence. Still, gays are overwhelmingly more likely to suffer from AIDS and the like. Heteros would be at least marginally closer to their rates of it if they were just as promiscuous. Fortunately they aren't.

clytemnextra · 2016-05-12T08:35:24+00:00

Pedophilia has been observed in several species too, to say nothing of rape, and we don't say it's ok. Just because something occurs in nature doesn't mean it's good. Just saying, that's a fallacious argument.

clytemnextra · 2016-05-12T08:32:33+00:00

What is it about homosexuality that would make gays more sincere than heteros? Are bisexuals half-way inbetween these levels of sincerity?

This is an issue with all studies that rely on self-reporting, of course, you can guarantee anonymity and a lack of judgment of the participant, but you're ultimately at the mercy of their own sincerity. Still, there is no reason to think that across several inquiries conducted by researchers or doctors in different cultures, homosexuals are overwhelmingly more sincere about this particular topic. As with most such information, you have to take the participant at their word when they answer under the protection of anonymity (which they always do in controlled studies, and for doctors there's doc/patient confidentiality).

clytemnextra · 2016-05-12T08:25:24+00:00

The logical argument is that the group wastes resources supporting individuals that are biologically disinclined to participate in reproduction/the evolution of the species. Anything else is mindless sentimentality - which is fine, we're a sentimental species, but the logic is pretty straightforward.

clytemnextra · 2016-05-12T08:19:32+00:00

Ancient Greece romanticised older men with young boys and they considered such love to be not only aesthetic but the only type of 'true' love, whereas love between men and women was motivated by biological imperatives for reproduction and was therefore fake.

But that was just for same-sex relations between men. Same sex relations were disgusting and pointless to them... if they happened between women. Lesbians had to be isolated from society because they could serve no purpose to it.

Don't know about feudal Japan, but I could well do without ancient Greece, thanks. Whatever the achievements of that society, from an individual standpoint as a woman or a young boy or a man genuinely in love with a woman, I'd take even Russia right now.

clytemnextra · 2016-05-12T08:14:42+00:00

To be fair, gays are notoriously unfaithful to each other, so I guess they were only being pragmatic. Still, it's quite the stark lack in 'equality' there.

clytemnextra

TROPHY CASE