Philosophy Discussion Forums

Sy Borg wrote: ↑August 22nd, 2022, 4:05 pm There's always one.

Yes, there is. And even the empirical facts have no influence over their fantasies:

MAYA EL wrote: ↑June 13th, 2021, 12:40 am I think it's a defect because the person cannot reproduce so long as [their] "preference" is available and in the animal kingdom if there is a defect that's detrimental to the species it will typically have trouble reproducing so to not kill out the entire species.

Yes, that is so. And yet same-sex behaviour is widespread among 'God's creatures'. Funny that...

Sy Borg wrote: ↑August 22nd, 2022, 4:05 pm There's always one.

Bottom line, humans are diverse. Some cannot accept that, and expect everyone to be like them. This is a naive view. Humans are colonial organisms. Large colonies require division of labour, and that requires pluralism. That is, diversity.

It's easy to see the advantage in colonies, or even smaller groups, to have a proportion of the population who do not reproduce. They perform tasks that couples cannot do because they are focused on family life. The elderly (formerly reproductive) also help in this regard.

I by no means expect everyone to be the same infact I expect gays to be gay and they can stay gay for all I care but you are to cought up in this woke movement to even understand what my point even was .

And like you said the elderly can do things that young married people with kids can't do, no need to try and piggy back the old people to try and find purpose

And let's forget that the chances of a gay couple staying together till death do them part is less likely to happen then in every single other group their is within the straight man and woman couples groupes and that includes groups such as the pregnant out of wedlock then married for the kids sake grouped which has a terrible chance of success and yet it still has a way better chance then gay couples do as far as long term marriage is concerned

Now this probably has to do with all the issues that gay people have from their past that they haven't delt with which is usually the main contributing reason that their gay in the first place but I digress

I've tried to make my point as clear as I can and you all still don't get it or your all just playing stupid idk regardless of which one it is I feel like this horse is pretty dead so I'll try to leave it be I'm not interested in the woke defence tactics so please don't waste your time but either way you may have the last word.

Haha! I have nothing to do with the woke movement. I am old school and consider the woke - and those opposing them - to be simple-minded fools. They are generally - both the red-hot pros and cons - are just naive modern adult children babbling about things they don't understand to let off steam.

Consider the paucity of an argument that needs to rely on the old "you're woke" attack, especially when it was obvious that the "offending" posts are unrelated to the woke movement, being based on simple logic that one would think those on philosophy forums would understand. The problem, most usually, is not stupidity, but ignorance of scientific knowledge that has long been freely available to everyone.

How can ostensibly intelligent people remain so unaware of basic science in this day and age? It's wilful ignorance, where dogma and emotions drive their preconceived notions which are then rationalised post hoc. Any evidence that undermines their dogmatic positions is ignored, and scientific breakthroughs have a habit of undermining traditional dogmas.