Address the cause, not the symptoms.
Entitled whiners who think that they should have a candidate that perfectly matches every random opinion they have?
Address the cause, not the symptoms.
Entitled whiners who think that they should have a candidate that perfectly matches every random opinion they have?
GP: long, well thought out post illustrated with relevant examples.
You: YOUR RONG!111
I never said anything about biology "wanting" anything. All you can do is try to twist my words,
Sure you did. You said:
The reasons that people come up with not to procreate have no basis in reality as far as biology is concerned.
Biology has no concerns. It does. not. care.
Biology "cares" (I will use your own poor word choice) because reproduction is one of the qualities of life as far as the actual science of Biology is concerned.
Life is harder to define than you think. If you naively pick criteria you end up with mules not being alive. But either way, biology doesn't care, and doesn't form any kind of sound basis for morality.
Just do a search of homosexual gangs to see examples of gay street crime.
Ah I see, the onus is now on me to find evidence to support your points.
My point is that there is NO scientific evidence whatsoever
Oh I see, itt's not evidence because you don't like it. Gotya.
At worst, they are sick and depraved individuals.
aaah now your true colours finally show. You couldn't keep in the moralizing any longer, I see
No, not obviously. You spew shit then get offended when I don't magically realise what your point is supposed to be under the poorly chosen words you used.
You give examples of domesticated animals...
You're the one who claimed the purpose of domesticated animals is to reproduce, not I.
I am sure you can see that reproduction is a normal and healthy part of a life form on Earth.
It's pretty common, and generally healthy. But by no means universal. Many, many organisms do not reproduce. Many completely healthy individuals are physiologically incapable of doing so (hive dwelling insects and mammals for example). But anyway so what? It's not normal for life to wear clothes. That's uniquely human. It's not normal for life to cook its food either.
If being gay is such a normal and healthy thing, why don't we all try it.
Because we can't. There is no mechanism by which I could choose to be gay. OOh tell you what! Since you believe that gayness is a choice, prove it. Go be gay for a week, then stop. Spend that week fucking men. If you can choose to do it for that week, then I'll concede that it is under your control.
So what? You think that using an appendage other for something other than its evolved intent, while completely ignoring its biological intent is a sign of health and normalcy?
Given our brain evolved to do so, yes.
Do you think bonobos eschew normal breeding to engage in lifelong homosexual behavior? No they stick their dick in whatever, but they don't ascribe to some philosophy that they only screw other male monkeys, you retard.
Ah I see. You came up with an easily disproved claim and your counter is to call me a retard. Smooth.
I am saying reproduction is a fundamental part of life.
What about mules, other hybrids, worker bees, naked mole rats, the wide variety of homosexual animals out there and so on and so forth? They are all alive.
If you are compelled to behavior that completely obviates reproduction, that is what we call unhealthy behavior for a life form.
Except (a) it doesn't---you keep ignoring where I point out the opposite---and (b) it;s what YOU and other like minded moralising closet cases call unhealthy behaviour, not what WE do.
That is different from "wanting to wiping out all life"
So why did you equate the two?
although all life would be wiped out if it engaged in the same practice.
Life is doomed either way.
The other companies gave no answer, which for any company that didn't have a history of inadvertently enabling genocide was IMO the right thing to do. Such political trolling really shouldn't even be dignified with a response, in general.
But you're right about IBM. Ethically speaking, they should have been the first to say no, given what happened the last time they helped with a database of everyone in a particular religious group. Then again, it is also possible that because IBM and its employees were not punished for their role in enabling the Holocaust, the bean counters that run the place would dutifully enable another one. Scary thought.
You are just splitting hairs whenever I make a point.
No I'm splitting paragraphs whenever I have a point. Zing!
But no, you're dismissing arguments you don't like without addressing them. Your philosophy seems to be based on what biology wants. I claim, biology wants nothing so your entire line of reasoning is void.
You're also glomming on to my individual words (like "outside") while completely ignoring the point. Free will is very poorly defined. Every definition you use I can pick holes in. So, when you claim being gay is a matter of free will, I claim your argument is invalid because you can't even define what free will is.
In fact you have an incredibly black and white view of the world which doesn't account for the large amount of nuance present. You dismiss anything not fitting this as "pedantry", "splitting hairs" or other things.
You are also willfully ignoring half the points I'm making by playing dumb, viz:
what claim did I make that you require evidence of?
You claimed biology cares who people have sex with. There is no evidence biology cares about anything.
You're claiming gay people are mentally ill, again with no evidence. You cite a something thoroughly discredited as evidence even that itself had no evidence for it which is why its now discredited.
Oh yeah, you claimed a gay gang was the second largest (? or merely very large) in the country or some gang filled area or something. Again, not a single little morsel to back that up.
Would you like me to continue?
if there was any kind of evidence that being gay is an immutable trait one is born with, then you would have cited it long ago.
I've given the same example something like 4 times now. Instead of addressing it, you pretend I never gave it. I shall not give it again, but this another great example of you simple making shit up to fit your prejudices. If you don't like some evidence, just keep pretending your opponent never gave it until he gives up!
If we observed a cell that refused to divide, we would say it is dead or inert.
No, we don't. Heart, brain and neural cells don't generally divide in adults. That's why neurological injuries or heart attacks have such long term effects. I can assure you however that my heart cells are very much alive. Red and white blood cells don't divide either.
Oh there you go! There's another thing you claimed without evidence which is not in fact true.
If we observed a domesticated animal refusing to mate, we would take it to a doctor and ask what is wrong with it.
Doe that apply to any of the following domesticated animals: mules, hinnies, capons, bullocks, gelding, steers, barrows or wethers?. Does it apply to spayed or neutered dogs and cats too? The very fact we have those words proves that we place considerable value on animals for purposes other than mating.
You keep putting forth the "fact" that mating is the only goal in life. This is not a fact. It does not matter how much you mate. In 1e9 years, the earth will run out of free carbon. In 2 or 3e9, the earth will scorch because of the rising luminosity of the sun. In 6e9 years, the earth will fall into the sun and be consumed. Eventually the sun will cool to a black dwarf, red dwarfs will burn out and stellar formation will cease. Breeding won't delay that.
There is no moral reasoning or feel-good explanation needed here. We see how biological machines are generally supposed to operate.
No, we take a non-breeding animal to the vet only if we want it to breed for some specific purpose. We don't attempt to fix every example of non-breeding because we claim to be some enforcer of how biological machines are supposed (and supposed by whom?) to operate. In fact we purposely create animals that can't breed.
Penis is made for vagina,
No, it's not made for: it evolved for. Splitting hairs? You'd like to think so, but no. You lack precision in language when trying to debate precise things. This is why you're doing so badly, because you fuzz over things with imprecise language then use that fuzz for reasoning. I give you something more precise:
Penis is made for vagina, it is just a coincidence that it works for butts and mouths and titties and feet and microwaved cantaloupes.
Our penis evolved for that (and peeing on things), but so what? That means less than nothing, because evolution does not care. At some point our brains then further evolved to take advantage of all the other things a penis could be used with. Our brains (and those of bonobos too) have evolved to take pleasure in getting off by what ever means. We've even identified some of the mechanisms and neurotransmitters involved.
Deviate from this intended behavior, and assume the role of aberration.
Do you believe that evolution intended for us to live in cities, operate computers? If so then you're being aberrant 24/7 instead of (according to you) a gay person being aberrant at most a few hours per week.
Anyway your philosophy is flawed because not only does evolution not have "intent" but the very notion is actually against evolution. If evolution had a purpose and everything operated precisely as intended then further evolution could not occur.
but if you are drawn to behavior that is fundamentally opposed to life itself
You just equated not wanting to have children with wanting to wipe out all life. You're certifiable.
The G3 series had a ferrite choke a quarter inch from the plug, and that quarter inch of wire constantly broke, causing fires, so they recalled the entire lot of them and replaced them with the yo-yo power supply.
Slight correction. I'm not sure if they actually caused fires; they were recalled because they considered them to be a fire risk from overheating, which presumably was caused by shorting caused by the cable failures.
What is the only thing that simple lifeforms do, from single cell organisms to more complex beings? Procreate in order to perpetuate the species. The reasons that people come up with not to procreate have no basis in reality as far as biology is concerned.
No, they have no basis in reality as far as _you_ are concerned. Biology doesn't care. It has no reasons. It simply exists.
We classify problems that impede normal function as mental or physical illness.
Except you have chosen yourself to be the arbiter of "normal", and come to think of it, the arbiter of "problems" too.
The only basis we have for judging something as normal or healthy is pure biology, not vague philosophies created by people.
I literally could not get any more basic in empirical observation (aka fact), than this.
There's no empericism in anthropomorphising biology.
If we were being farmed as domesticated animals, being looked upon by an alien race whose comprehension was far outside our understanding, the ones that were not reproducing would be looked at with wonder, "what is wrong, here?".
And that's relevant how? Firstly, there is no higher power farming us for meat. There is no one to care. And if there were, why would I give a fig what they thought?
I would include straight people that refuse to reproduce for some philosophy in the same regard,
See, this is where you're being very hypocritical and your biases leak through. You classify gay people as mentally ill because they don't "reproduce", even though some of them in fact do you haven't dropped your classification of them as mentally ill. So, you keep trying to argue one thing but you're deciding where you end up a-propri. You've now as a sop to my inconvenient fact decided to call something like 20% of the population mentally ill. Of course you're not even being consistent there: you're not classifying people who have few offspring as somehow more deficient than those who have more.
TL;DR You've invented a philosophy about a sentient version of biology in order to reach a conclusion you want to reach and are presenting that as a fact.
The DC parts of the yo-yos sometimes degraded in the same way, but the internal sparking just darkened the wires without tripping any breakers.
Insulation plastic falls apart after a year? Hm, tell that to the PSU for my Macbook Pro bought in 2012... Still in perfect condition. But then, I never wind the cable using the ears, I always just wrap it around the PSU itself while leaving a generous loop from where the cable exits the PSU.
It has nothing to do with how you wind it. I've seen Apple power supplies that were never wound up at all where the outer insulation became brittle and flaked off in large chunks. I'm not sure if it was sun exposure or heat exposure, but something causes the jackets on the early MagSafe cables to chemically break down.
Case in point: Mac laptop chargers have been known to suffer from frayed cables due to Apple's insistence on a design that lacks adequate strain relief. This has been a known engineering defect in their chargers since the PowerBook G3 series design almost two decades ago
As far as I'm aware, Apple has never in its entire history built a good laptop power supply:
So saying that third-party Mac laptop supplies are worse than the real thing might be true, but it is like saying that a Pinto is worse than a Corvair. They do, however, build reliable USB power supplies... but their cell phone power cords are even worse than their laptop power cords. Fortunately, there are many third-party manufacturers building Lightning cables that are actually built to last.
Part of what makes these problematic is largely that they're trying to look like Apple products. Apple makes really small power supplies, which makes it much harder to create knock-offs that work. Nobody makes knock-offs of Android supplies; they just make cheap USB power supplies. Because they aren't trying to hit an absurdly small form factor, they don't cut corners to the same degree, and the supplies tend to be more reliable at a given price point. That said, the Apple USB supplies cost $19, and the usable third-party branded supplies usually start at about $12, so there's not a lot of savings to be gained even when you take away the form factor.
More significantly, because they're trying to look like Apple products (and often pretending to be Apple products), they can't be branded. If they were, Apple would go after them for violating their design patents (and trademark violations if they use the Apple logo). That entire selling model is incompatible with branding. As a result, there's no hit to their reputation if the product doesn't work. They just change the name on their Amazon or eBay account and go right back to fooling people. So there's also no incentive to make a quality product.
If you are arguing that the stereotype of alpha-male doesn't exist, when we are both sitting here using the term, you are just being ignorant.
Yes, i am arguing that it is so ill defined that it is absolutely useless. I notice that you have yet again refused to define it. It's becoming increasingly obvious that you have conceded my point but won't admit to it.
You accuse me of being a "raging douche-bag" for what?
I'm accusing you of being a "raging douchebad" for not having good reading comprehension and misunderdtanding what I read so poorly that you thought I was accusing you of being a raging douchebag.
For classifying gayness as a mental illness when even the psychiatric association only retracted their classification after lots of protesting as opposed to research?
There was no solid research that put gayness as a mental illness in the first place. Just some very old, very recycled anti Greek propaganda, fresh out of Canaan.
I am sure hearing facts
I'll let you know when I hear one from you. So far, you haven't provided any, just opinions.
If you can give me a good reason that one is "born gay",
I've given you the same reason about 4 or 5 times now. You keep ignoring it. I'll do it once more. People have tried and failed to "pray away the gay". They live in societies where gayness is considered bad, they really REALLY don't want to be gay and they put in a lot of effort to not be gay. And yet they keep on failing. That sounds like it's pretty innate to me.
or that being gay is not equivalent to an illness from a biological standpoint
No, you have to give one good reason why it is. Reproduction doesn't cut it. If I simply choose (as a straight man) to not have kids for various reasons, then I'm not ill. If a gay man goes one of the mildly convoluted routes like using a surrogate to have a kid, then he even gets to reproduce.
Your criteria are entirely arbitrary.
Typical: "anyone who is critical of gay propaganda is a closet case".
Except you're note being "critical of gay propaganda", you're literally making shit up to support a point you already hold.
If you want evidence that gayness is represented at a higher rate in criminals, drug-abusers, pedophiles, and mental illness I can get it for you
You mean unlike your made-up fact about gay gangs?
Anyway I'm sure your data corrects accounts for some underlying causitive factors like for example the general marginalisation of gay people.
Being gay was one and the same with the psychological disorder of neuroticism until it was changed in the 80's due to, get this, not research but people protesting and yelling "bigotry"
Yep. Because it was a stupid medical opinion based on bigotry, not evidence. I like how you implicitly take the status quo to be true.
The previous classification was the result of almost 200 years of research.
lol. That's such a wild claim, I don't even know where to begin.
I would, however, classify that as a mental illness.
I'm very glad then that you have absoloutely no say in what is and is not a mental illness.
I proposed that white, straight males are often discriminated against because of a perceived stereotype (alpha-male).
Except there's no even remotely consistend definition lf "alpha male" because "alpha male" isn't a thing. There's also no evidence you gave for being discriminated against merely for being male and fitting to some stereotype you refuse to define.
You might be discriminated against for acting like a raging douchebag, but yeah I'm cool with that and "raging douchebag" is not currently a protected category. Also, it spans the enture gamut of humans and you can find raging douchebags of all stripes (any race, male, female, transgender or other, gay, straight or bi, tall, short, any ethnic background, any culture, any religion etc etc).
You are the one who started talking about mustaches and nonsense
I was mocking you for your use of the meaningless term "alpha male".
So go on, define it.
I see you have decided to not actually address anything
Ah fantasy meets reality, I guess. I addressed most of your points. My guess is that my rebuttals were so devastating that you've fantasised that I did no such thing and have transmuted that in your mind to me not addressing your points.
Look at how many of your responses here are simply different forms of "you are wrong".
That's because you make a bunch of wild-ass claims without any evidence, like "gays are criminals". Basically it has become apparent that you are deeply bigoted and are using scientific-sounding language to justify your bigotry post-hoc.
I think I also understand why you thought I was insulting you! You porbably thought I was implying you are gay. It's sad that you think that's an insult.
Now I think you are a bigoted closet case. Lose the attitude, find yourself a nice twink (or bear if that's you scene) and you'll be much happier.
To invent, you need a good imagination and a pile of junk. -- Thomas Edison