Dewey wrote a book!
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in Dewey wrote a book!:
I'll be moved by calls for tolerance when they're applied to people who vote differently from the person doing the moralizing.
Education is extremely important.
-
@Horace said in Dewey wrote a book!:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Dewey wrote a book!:
I'll be moved by calls for tolerance when they're applied to people who vote differently from the person doing the moralizing.
Amen. Which is pretty much the point I was making much further up. Tolerance has to be a two-way street. Today it is not.
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in Dewey wrote a book!:
@Klaus said in Dewey wrote a book!:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Dewey wrote a book!:
And before somebody says their can’t be an evolutionary advance to being homosexual, because they can’t breed, then answer why it occurs so frequently in nature.
Of course homosexuals can breed, and they do. They just enjoy it less. The vast majority of homosexuals has had heterosexual intercourse at some point.
Yes, of course that’s true. My point was that some have said that homosexuality is not a trait that is evolutionary advantageous, however if that was the case why does it show up even in societies where it heavily discriminated against?
The advantageous part is that sexual urges can be overwhelmingly motivating, even in the face of cultural condemnation. Why those urges are so variable, well, I guess that's complicated. But same-sex attraction, as abnormal attractions go, are probably not top of list for wondering how or why they exist.
-
-
@Moonbat said in Dewey wrote a book!:
Man this gives me deja vu from 2007 debates lolThat it does.
Quiet, you! Go back to 2007 where you belong!
(Also, HEY! How's it goin'?)
-
@Klaus said in Dewey wrote a book!:
@89th said in Dewey wrote a book!:
I'm talking about sexual attraction. Ok sexual attraction disorder, or sexual attraction impairment, or sexual attraction disease, or whatever you want to call the deviation from the normal sexual attractions of human beings. If being bipolar is a disorder, I think abnormal sexual attractions (e.g., to the same sex) could be considered as such (again there is a spectrum of extremes).
In what sense is it an "impairment" or a "disease"?
All of this is only based on it being less frequent than heterosexual attraction?
Then you could just as well call red hair an impairment and a disease. Your whole argument is based on it occurring less often ("abnormal").
I guess we should start with a base. I'd assert that it is the fundamental wiring of human sexuality to be attracted to the opposite sex for the purpose of procreating. It's why we have a penis and women have a vagina. It's why our hormones increase earlier in life, to begin the procreation process, and why the urges decrease over time as the need to procreate diminishes. Forget the meaning of "normal" but in the pragmatic sense, it is the norm for humans to be attracted to the opposite sex.
If you disagree with this, then ok... probably aren't going to do anything but argue in circles.
But if you agree with this, then to answer your question it's an impairment or whatever as an attraction to the opposite sex is on the spectrum of sexual attraction deviation. By default does this make it wrong? No. Religiously, sure... Culturally, some say yes, some say no... depends where values are at the moment, something that is always changing. Laws are just codified morality, after all. So if there is a sexual impairment or disorder, it is similar to other mental (or physical) malformations... biological diversity, to @Doctor-Phibes 's point, which I can see.
It's a little concerning that someone your age is still holding such views.
I'm not sure why. The facts haven't changed from 30 years ago. Wouldn't it be more concerning that politicians have changed their minds based on the prevailing wind of what is popular? It's the same facts back then as is it is now, so why would my view change... peer pressure?
BTW you didn't answer my question about a dude banging his mom. You cool with that? Love it love, after all.
-
@Moonbat said in Dewey wrote a book!:
Man this gives me deja vu from 2007 debates lolThat it does. (And you're still wrong :P)
(Hello all).
Hahaha sometimes I see the yin yang GIF online and I think of you btw.
-
@89th said in Dewey wrote a book!:
If you disagree with this, then ok... probably aren't going to do anything but argue in circles.
I do, unfortunately.
BTW you didn't answer my question about a dude banging his mom. You cool with that?
Yes, I'm cool with that when everyone involved is adult and consenting.
-
DON’T let them eat cake.
- RFK Jr -
https://nodebb.the-new-coffee-room.club/topic/24914/the-slate-of-hate/9?_=1729512654662
https://nodebb.the-new-coffee-room.club/topic/28578/a-christmas-celebration/22?_=1729512656646
https://nodebb.the-new-coffee-room.club/topic/23577/spreading-joy-and-inclusion/2
And from 2006.
This is the kind of stuff that, once seen, is difficult to forget.
-
@Klaus said in Dewey wrote a book!:
@89th said in Dewey wrote a book!:
If you disagree with this, then ok... probably aren't going to do anything but argue in circles.
I do, unfortunately.
BTW you didn't answer my question about a dude banging his mom. You cool with that?
Yes, I'm cool with that when everyone involved is adult and consenting.
Sorry, but that's perversion writ large. But it is the logical extension if everything is fine between consenting adults.
How are you on clitoridectomies?
Always remember, Operation Valkyrie was an act of sedition.
Warning: I post things that interest me. Read and comment at your own discretion. -
-
@Klaus said in Dewey wrote a book!:
@Jolly said in Dewey wrote a book!:
How are you on clitoridectomies?
Is it done to consenting adults? No.
As defined by the age of consent in those cultures that practice it, you are going to have willing adult female participants.
That makes two consenting adults behind closed doors, by my cipherin'.
Always remember, Operation Valkyrie was an act of sedition.
Warning: I post things that interest me. Read and comment at your own discretion.
