The mental illness of being a faggot - "Why are you Gay?" - Black preacher man

[TFT-A9]

Lastly,

rip in pepperonis

 

[Hellbound Hellhound]

U wot m8?
1. Evolution is a process of change where suitable mutations are "selected for" or disfavored by higher or lower propagation. Maybe you mean it has "no end goal"? Which is only true becuase theres not really an "end".

It's not really the case that suitable mutations are selected for, it's more the case that unsuitable ones are selected against. Genetic mutation itself is a random process: if you take a population of a certain organism and relocate them to a totally different environment, it's only one possibility that they will adapt to their new environment through genetic mutation; the other possibility is that they all go extinct.

The emergence of mutations which allow a species to adapt and survive ultimately comes down to luck, and the fact that homosexuality hasn't been selected out of the human condition should tell you that it clearly isn't being selected against. Many people who display same-sex attraction do in fact reproduce: bisexuality exists.

2. As for sex being more about pleasure than reproduction, sex is the only realistic means in which reproduction can happen (in any sort of scale). It having gathered other purposes doesn't change it being the only realistic way to have more generations of man. Sex in absense of pleasure would still continue s o c i e t y, albeit likely different (many other ways to have pleasure). Sex in absense of reproduction would end the species.

Define realistic. Is surrogacy unrealistic? Is it unrealistic for single women to use sperm banks? Is IVF unrealistic? I think you're massively underestimating the degree to which humans have decoupled sex from reproduction. It's now totally possible (and easy) to isolate them from one another if it serves our needs.

The only type of reproduction that heterosexuality really makes easier today is the unplanned kind, and I'd argue that's exactly the kind of reproduction we need to be getting away from. A lot of tradcon types like to go around arguing that homosexuals like to "surrender themselves to their base instincts", but this argument is just as easily applied to heterosexual couples in the developing world who practice no family planning. Funny how I don't see the same level of stigma towards that; especially when the latter is clearly so much more dysfunctional.

3. So does sickle cell anemia.

Sickle cell anemia diminishes quality of life, whereas homosexuality, in and of itself, does not. The biggest harm that comes from homosexuality worldwide is that it still carries a lot of prejudice, but if that's how we're going to argue against something, one could just as easily make the argument that being black in the 19th century was a harmful aberration. I certainly wouldn't accept that argument.

4. By not spreading your genes it is harmful from the evolutionary standpoint, and it certainly is aberrant from the normal, even if it is natural (like most illnesses).

Again with the "harmful". What is harmful about not reproducing on a planet where we already have too many people? In what way is it difficult for homosexual people to reproduce if they really want to?

Like I said, humans have largely decoupled sex from reproduction at this point, and even if this were not the case, sex clearly plays a role in our lives which goes beyond reproduction. As long as the sex is safe, I don't see how it could be harmful. Who is being hurt by it?

 

[KateHikes14]

It's not really the case that suitable mutations are selected for, it's more the case that unsuitable ones are selected against. Genetic mutation itself is a random process: if you take a population of a certain organism and relocate them to a totally different environment, it's only one possibility that they will adapt to their new environment through genetic mutation; the other possibility is that they all go extinct.

The emergence of mutations which allow a species to adapt and survive ultimately comes down to luck, and the fact that homosexuality hasn't been selected out of the human condition should tell you that it clearly isn't being selected against. Many people who display same-sex attraction do in fact reproduce: bisexuality exists.

Persistence of a trait is not evidence of it's health, other paraphilias and rape have existed at least as far back as written records. I would argue that the degree to which one may be facinated or attracted to something/someone is an important aspect in the description of many paraphilia.

Define realistic. Is surrogacy unrealistic? Is it unrealistic for single women to use sperm banks? Is IVF unrealistic? I think you're massively underestimating the degree to which humans have decoupled sex from reproduction. It's now totally possible (and easy) to isolate them from one another if it serves our needs.

The only type of reproduction that heterosexuality really makes easier today is the unplanned kind, and I'd argue that's exactly the kind of reproduction we need to be getting away from. A lot of tradcon types like to go around arguing that homosexuals like to "surrender themselves to their base instincts", but this argument is just as easily applied to heterosexual couples in the developing world who practice no family planning. Funny how I don't see the same level of stigma towards that; especially when the latter is clearly so much more dysfunctional.

Again with the "harmful". What is harmful about not reproducing on a planet where we already have too many people? In what way is it difficult for homosexual people to reproduce if they really want to?

Like I said, humans have largely decoupled sex from reproduction at this point, and even if this were not the case, sex clearly plays a role in our lives which goes beyond reproduction. As long as the sex is safe, I don't see how it could be harmful. Who is being hurt by it?

Surrogacy is very unrealistic as a means for continuing the species. It is extremely expensive and quite painful. I certainly do agree with hedonism being bad whether it is heterosexual or homosexual, but being as homosexual sex does not contribute to reproduction nor a healthy family unit it is always hedonistic.

Sickle cell anemia diminishes quality of life, whereas homosexuality, in and of itself, does not. The biggest harm that comes from homosexuality worldwide is that it still carries a lot of prejudice, but if that's how we're going to argue against something, one could just as easily make the argument that being black in the 19th century was a harmful aberration. I certainly wouldn't accept that argument.

That gets a bit into what part of culture are inherent and what part of it is malleable. I think most people who aren't ideologues would agree they are a mix. I'd argue that things seen broadly across time and in different areas are very likely to be inherent, like the homosexual grooming of ancient Greece being very similar to the rent boys in the Middle East or the child drag models/"chickenhawks" in modern America. These behaviors are inherently coercive and shouldn't be tolerated (nor should any child sexuallization).

 

[Hellbound Hellhound]

Persistence of a trait is not evidence of it's health, other paraphilias and rape have existed at least as far back as written records. I would argue that the degree to which one may be facinated or attracted to something/someone is an important aspect in the description of many paraphilia.

Persistence of a trait is simply evidence that it's not reliably being selected against, which means that it can't somehow be at odds with evolution, as you previously attempted to argue. Whether or not it's "healthy" is a separate discussion, but if your argument that it's not healthy rests upon an erroneous appeal to nature, without any clear reference to data, causal relationships, or mitigating circumstances, then I'm disinclined to take it seriously.

Mentioning rape in the context of health is a bizarre way to come at the issue to begin with. What makes rape bad is not that it's "unhealthy", but that it's immoral. I feel like this is what you're trying to argue, but at the same time you want the rubber stamp of nature to embellish your argument because it's otherwise highly tenuous. If we keep the discussion firmly centered on ethics though (as I think it clearly should be), then I think the argument is very straightforward: antisocial sexual behaviors such as rape clearly hurt people, whereas consensual homosexual activity does not.

Surrogacy is very unrealistic as a means for continuing the species. It is extremely expensive and quite painful. I certainly do agree with hedonism being bad whether it is heterosexual or homosexual, but being as homosexual sex does not contribute to reproduction nor a healthy family unit it is always hedonistic.

Surrogacy is expensive, but not when weighted against the cost of the extra lifetime you're bringing into the world. For parents who really want children but otherwise can't, it's an option, and in my opinion, the willingness of those parents to invest so heavily to become parents shows a level of dedication which makes them precisely the kind of people who should be reproducing the most.

Beyond the issue of surrogacy, the idea that the future continuance of our species would be a strenuous task in the absence of heterosexuals is patently ridiculous. Our species has survived population bottlenecks in the past which reduced the global population to as few as 1000 individuals in some cases, and that was before we even had agriculture to help us, let alone any technology.

Today, we have the opposite problem: a global population of 7 billion and rapidly rising, and a soon-to-be reality of not having enough opportunities and resources to provide these new people with; coupled with an energy/climate crisis to top it all off. In this context, hand-wringing about the ostensibly non-reproductive nature of homosexuality is just plain silly.

It also seems to me that you don't understand what hedonism means. Normatively, hedonism is the ethical belief that pleasure should be the barometer of right and wrong, and it's certainly possible to be homosexual and not believe that. Pursuing pleasure from time to time doesn't make someone a hedonist, and hedonism being bad doesn't mean pleasure in and of itself is.

That gets a bit into what part of culture are inherent and what part of it is malleable. I think most people who aren't ideologues would agree they are a mix. I'd argue that things seen broadly across time and in different areas are very likely to be inherent, like the homosexual grooming of ancient Greece being very similar to the rent boys in the Middle East or the child drag models/"chickenhawks" in modern America. These behaviors are inherently coercive and shouldn't be tolerated (nor should any child sexuallization).

I agree. The sexualization of children should never be tolerated, because it's clearly harmful. I must have missed where this is a necessary part of homosexuality though.

 

[TFT-A9]

If population is dropping and this is a problem, maybe you should be scolding the heterosexual majority who clearly aren't fulfilling what you seem to think is their duty to propagate and perpetuate humanity instead of a much smaller fraction of humanity that happens to be homosexual. Maybe it has nothing to do with sexuality. Maybe it has more to do with a world and society that doesn't exactly make parenthood attractive for one reason or another.

If child molestation is a homosexual thing, whence cometh all these heterosexual predators? You could try and argue that the homosexual demographic has a higher percentage of predators but you'd need to provide decent cited evidence, and we'd still have the issue of hetero predators being a thing.

 

[SilkGnut]

The most interesting part of this thread is the bizarre hostility with which the OP has been met.

I understand that I am on Kiwifarms and that is just kind of how things go around here, but god damn people seem upset that somebody even wants to have this conversation.

 

[LaxerBRO]

The most interesting part of this thread is the bizarre hostility with which the OP has been met.

I understand that I am on Kiwifarms and that is just kind of how things go around here, but god damn people seem upset that somebody even wants to have this conversation.

I wonder how many of the users of Kiwifarms are faggots, dukes, or bisexuals?

 

[TFT-A9]

The most interesting part of this thread is the bizarre hostility with which the OP has been met.

The tone was at least partially set in the first post, where it went from there is just typical DT.

I understand that I am on Kiwifarms and that is just kind of how things go around here, but god damn people seem upset that somebody even wants to have this conversation.

Smarter people than OP have had similar conversations and have had much more polite responses because they weren't obvious speds posting half-assed bait.

Any kind of debate about how deleterious the dreaded gays are to societal cohesion that centers on naturalistic fallacy, child predators, replacement rate for populations and mental infirmity is pre-loaded with hilariously fallacious presuppositions. There are plenty of insane hetero people. There are plenty of hetero child predators. There are gay people that adopt and reproduce via surrogacy. If we all lived as "nature intended" we'd be dwelling in old hollowed logs and caves with no technology more advanced than sticks and rocks, no medical care to speak of, with short brutish lives that stopped somewhere in the late 30s at best and likely with no greater aspirations in life than surviving another week.

It might depend on what you call "natural" (and that's an entire fucking 55-gallon drum of worms, open it if you care to) but it can be easily argued that art is unnatural, religion and spirituality is unnatural, medicine and technology is unnatural, keeping pets and livestock is unnatural, family planning is unnatural... "nature" isn't some kind of universal good to be upheld, it just is, and it can be a real mean bitch sometimes. Humanity's crowning achievement is realizing that nature isn't something that needs to bind you completely, it can be worked with and around and enslaving yourself dogmatically to the natural is putting yourself at the whim of an uncaring, unfeeling, unresponsive god whose only commandment is "STRUGGLE OR DIE."

 

[Xx_Retard Faggot 1488_xX]

The most interesting part of this thread is the bizarre hostility with which the OP has been met.

I understand that I am on Kiwifarms and that is just kind of how things go around here, but god damn people seem upset that somebody even wants to have this conversation.

Thank you, I've purposely went out of my way at every point to avoid mud-slinging yet here we are. I guess even on this website, wrongthink must be punished....

 

[TFT-A9]

Thank you, I've purposely went out of my way at every point to avoid mud-slinging yet here we are. I guess even on this website, wrongthink must be punished....

The worst you've endured here is being called a closeted fag and getting mocked. Get over yourself.

 

[Xx_Retard Faggot 1488_xX]

The worst you've endured here is being called a closeted fag and getting mocked. Get over yourself.

go commit 41% bud, you have been weirdly following this thread for every post I make. I leave it alone for like a week or 2 and as soon as I reply to someone your there waiting. I know you're prob some trans-gay abomination that even a pride parade would reject, but go outside and stop trying your failed attempts at "teaching dat evil natzee"

 

[TFT-A9]

go commit 41% bud, you have been weirdly following this thread for every post I make. I leave it alone for like a week or 2 and as soon as I reply to someone your there waiting. I know you're prob some trans-gay abomination that even a pride parade would reject, but go outside and stop trying your failed attempts at "teaching dat evil natzee"

Weak shit, don't know what passes muster on your school playground but you're not in Kansas anymore Dorothy.

 

[Xx_Retard Faggot 1488_xX]

Weak shit, don't know what passes muster on your school playground but you're not in Kansas anymore Dorothy.

My school playgrounds didn't let stalkers like you at them. You woulda been shot dead fag, a fate too good for yourself.

 

[TFT-A9]

My school playgrounds didn't let stalkers like you at them. You woulda been shot dead fag, a fate too good for yourself.

Oh so the teachers molested you instead? My sympathies.

 

[KateHikes14]

Persistence of a trait is simply evidence that it's not reliably being selected against, which means that it can't somehow be at odds with evolution, as you previously attempted to argue. Whether or not it's "healthy" is a separate discussion, but if your argument that it's not healthy rests upon an erroneous appeal to nature, without any clear reference to data, causal relationships, or mitigating circumstances, then I'm disinclined to take it seriously.

Mentioning rape in the context of health is a bizarre way to come at the issue to begin with. What makes rape bad is not that it's "unhealthy", but that it's immoral. I feel like this is what you're trying to argue, but at the same time you want the rubber stamp of nature to embellish your argument because it's otherwise highly tenuous. If we keep the discussion firmly centered on ethics though (as I think it clearly should be), then I think the argument is very straightforward: antisocial sexual behaviors such as rape clearly hurt people, whereas consensual homosexual activity does not.

It can be an extension or an overexpression of helpful or neutral traits, a more benign example would be color-blindness. It has existed for some time and despite being at odds with evolution it is not selected hard against because it 1 is frequently not expressed despite many people being carriers 2 it's impacts are not catastrophic. Other paraphilias share this to varying degrees, some with relatively benign effects but all of them have at least a small impact within the fact that we all are living in a s o c i e t y so our decisions impact each other. Natural is not the decider of health especially when the negative impacts are seen.

Beyond the issue of surrogacy, the idea that the future continuance of our species would be a strenuous task in the absence of heterosexuals is patently ridiculous. Our species has survived population bottlenecks in the past which reduced the global population to as few as 1000 individuals in some cases, and that was before we even had agriculture to help us, let alone any technology.

Today, we have the opposite problem: a global population of 7 billion and rapidly rising, and a soon-to-be reality of not having enough opportunities and resources to provide these new people with; coupled with an energy/climate crisis to top it all off. In this context, hand-wringing about the ostensibly non-reproductive nature of homosexuality is just plain silly.

Pointing out how non-viable and undesirable (unless the coercion of impoverished woman to be brood mares for rich homosexual men is desirable to you? Doubt it.) is surrogacy is not handwringing, merely an observation that sex is nothing but a hollow act within the confines of homosexual relationships on the whole is non-generative. As for concerns of overpopulation it's not really a concern fueled by reproduction in the developed world.

It also seems to me that you don't understand what hedonism means. Normatively, hedonism is the ethical belief that pleasure should be the barometer of right and wrong, and it's certainly possible to be homosexual and not believe that.

I well understand what hedonism is. I also understand many things are possible, I hardly care how viable it is to be a non-offending pedophile either.

I agree. The sexualization of children should never be tolerated, because it's clearly harmful. I must have missed where this is a necessary part of homosexuality though.

It's persistence and defense (within the community and allies) throughout time is part of what makes homosexuality objectionable, at least to me. Taking them at the word that there is nothing wrong with it (as they see it and tolerate it) then there's something wrong with them.

If child molestation is a homosexual thing, whence cometh all these heterosexual predators? You could try and argue that the homosexual demographic has a higher percentage of predators but you'd need to provide decent cited evidence, and we'd still have the issue of hetero predators being a thing.

It's greater incidence than normal people is the issue. Obviously ideally all of it goes away . Failing that we have a group that continues to tolerate child predation (chickenhawks being the prominent example) with the insistence that it is acceptable.

It might depend on what you call "natural" (and that's an entire fucking 55-gallon drum of worms, open it if you care to) but it can be easily argued that art is unnatural, religion and spirituality is unnatural, medicine and technology is unnatural, keeping pets and livestock is unnatural, family planning is unnatural... "nature" isn't some kind of universal good to be upheld, it just is, and it can be a real mean bitch sometimes. Humanity's crowning achievement is realizing that nature isn't something that needs to bind you completely, it can be worked with and around and enslaving yourself dogmatically to the natural is putting yourself at the whim of an uncaring, unfeeling, unresponsive god whose only commandment is "STRUGGLE OR DIE."

RETURN TO MONKE

 

[TFT-A9]

It's greater incidence than normal people is the issue. Obviously ideally all of it goes away . Failing that we have a group that continues to tolerate child predation (chickenhawks being the prominent example) with the insistence that it is acceptable.

There are people within the LGB who want nothing to do with the chickenhawks and have been trying to figure out for years now how to resolve any issues of such, but just like most other people who prey upon other human beings, chickenhawks have wormed their way into positions of power. It's not like they show up to the party screaming HEY I'M A CHOMO, either. One day someone realizes that John Q. Gayman, the chair of the local GLAAD chapter or whatever the fuck, is chasing underage tail and they realize Mr. Gayman now has all this money and influence to shield them... and they'll likely try to burn everything around them down if you root them out.

It's the same story played out dozens of times. TCAP made a lot of people think that predators were all incredibly dumb and gullible. The dumb ones get caught. The really fucking nasty ones? They're the ones who have enough power and money to buy or bury anybody who comes for them. Rooting them out can quickly turn into a high-risk endeavor or a Prisoner's Dilemma. These are not people who are particularly shy about hurting others.

 

[Vingle]

Don't really have anything to add to the thread, and haven't seen any powerleveling about them being a faggot.
Anyway. I'm a fag, and it's hard, because the majority are libtards and support troons. Immigration too, in spite of niggers beating them up. A bit sad to look at, but also funny because it's so bizarre.
So yes, most gays do deserve to be still born. Not all, but that can be said about most people. But the fags do provide the least entertainment and even Null don't see any appeal in the lolcow-fags.

Op do still sound like a retard though

 

[Hellbound Hellhound]

It can be an extension or an overexpression of helpful or neutral traits, a more benign example would be color-blindness. It has existed for some time and despite being at odds with evolution it is not selected hard against because it 1 is frequently not expressed despite many people being carriers 2 it's impacts are not catastrophic. Other paraphilias share this to varying degrees, some with relatively benign effects but all of them have at least a small impact within the fact that we all are living in a s o c i e t y so our decisions impact each other. Natural is not the decider of health especially when the negative impacts are seen.

If something as minor as colour blindness is a fitting analogy for homosexuality then you're practically conceding the argument, especially when the former is clearly more prohibitive than the latter in the ways that matter (a colour blind person can never see certain colours in the way that a person with normal vision can, while someone who is homosexually inclined can still reproduce).

Pointing out how non-viable and undesirable (unless the coercion of impoverished woman to be brood mares for rich homosexual men is desirable to you? Doubt it.) is surrogacy is not handwringing, merely an observation that sex is nothing but a hollow act within the confines of homosexual relationships on the whole is non-generative. As for concerns of overpopulation it's not really a concern fueled by reproduction in the developed world.

It depends upon how you define "desirable". Surrogate mothers can earn a lot of money through surrogacy, and as long as they're doing it out of passion, rather than economic coercion, then I really don't see the issue with it. I never described surrogacy as "desirable" anyway; I simply said that it's an option, and one that's by no means limited to homosexual couples. Would you deny the option of surrogacy to a committed heterosexual couple who are struggling to conceive, or is your opposition rather more opportunistic in relation to this discussion?

And yes, it is hand-wringing to pretend that homosexuality could ever present a problem for the continuance of the species, not just for the reasons I've given, but for the simple fact that we currently live in an age of unprecedented runaway population growth worldwide. Worrying about certain people not having children today is like worrying about not having enough water when you're chained to the bottom of the Mariana Trench. It shows a staggering inability to assess current priorities.

I well understand what hedonism is. I also understand many things are possible, I hardly care how viable it is to be a non-offending pedophile either.

The fundamental difference is that a non-offending pedophile still poses a potential threat to society, while an adult interested in consensual homosexual activity does not. Homosexuality in and of itself is no more hedonistic than heterosexuality, unless you wish to argue that any sex which doesn't result in pregnancy is hedonistic—and therefore bad—in which case most heterosexual sex falls under the same umbrella.

It's persistence and defense (within the community and allies) throughout time is part of what makes homosexuality objectionable, at least to me. Taking them at the word that there is nothing wrong with it (as they see it and tolerate it) then there's something wrong with them.

The fact that you could confuse homosexuality with a small group of activists who by no means represent the majority of homosexuals hardly warrants a response. I think this speaks for itself.

 

[Lemmingwise]

I'd also dispute the idea that sexuality is purely about reproduction.

Good point

I'd argue that reproduction is more of a side effect, and that the primary purpose of sex (at least as far as we conscious beings are concerned) is recreational.

What a fucking loon.

Reproduction is only a side effect of sex? The difference in being thinking conscious beings is twofold in this context. You can think and plan about reproducing on the one hand and you can be convinced to not care about things that you should care about.

Current day ideologies generally seem to favor perspectives that focus only on the materialist and on your own lifetime only. If you have a good time, who cares about the future? Recreation becomes a paramount subject and reproduction becomes a side-issue, for those who find that more recreationally fulfilling.

The ideologies that deviate from this are either modern conceptions of traditional perspectives (like muslims or christians) or look at such things as global warming that want to try and leave the earth better (or mitigate damage) for future generation (even if their understanding of pollution is usually nonexistant and they're likely to be taken advantage of).

Anyone that focuses on his or her own life only, not reproducing is likely to have a negligent effect on what things will be like after his or her death.

I find that common among homosexuals as well, a kind of defeatist attitude toward forces of history who's story has not yet been written. Like european homosexuals and their view towards islamification, many considering it a force that can not be stopped, so no sense in trying.

 

[KateHikes14]

If something as minor as colour blindness is a fitting analogy for homosexuality then you're practically conceding the argument, especially when the former is clearly more prohibitive than the latter in the ways that matter (a colour blind person can never see certain colours in the way that a person with normal vision can, while someone who is homosexually inclined can still reproduce).

Color blindness is a simple and oft given analogy for the transmission of detrimental genes. As for something with a genetic component addiction is fairly similar, it has various effects and levels of impact, almost all are negative.

It depends upon how you define "desirable". Surrogate mothers can earn a lot of money through surrogacy, and as long as they're doing it out of passion, rather than economic coercion, then I really don't see the issue with it. I never described surrogacy as "desirable" anyway; I simply said that it's an option, and one that's by no means limited to homosexual couples. Would you deny the option of surrogacy to a committed heterosexual couple who are struggling to conceive, or is your opposition rather more opportunistic in relation to this discussion?

And yes, it is hand-wringing to pretend that homosexuality could ever present a problem for the continuance of the species, not just for the reasons I've given, but for the simple fact that we currently live in an age of unprecedented runaway population growth worldwide. Worrying about certain people not having children today is like worrying about not having enough water when you're chained to the bottom of the Mariana Trench. It shows a staggering inability to assess current priorities.

The fundamental difference is that a non-offending pedophile still poses a potential threat to society, while an adult interested in consensual homosexual activity does not. Homosexuality in and of itself is no more hedonistic than heterosexuality, unless you wish to argue that any sex which doesn't result in pregnancy is hedonistic—and therefore bad—in which case most heterosexual sex falls under the same umbrella.

Homosexual acts cannot result in reproduction, it's practice does not serve a relationship that can reproduce. It can only be hedonistic, whether it be for the act itself or the relationship. You brought up the surrogacy as an explanation for how it can be as effective as heterosexual reproduction, it simply cannot on a scale large enough for the production of another generation and subsequent ones, at least not without economic coercion at the minimum.

The fact that you could confuse homosexuality with a small group of activists who by no means represent the majority of homosexuals hardly warrants a response. I think this speaks for itself.

The locking of ranks to protect abusers continues to be disappointing, but for you to say else would be dishonest.