First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
Cannibalism, It's part of human nature
4557 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Bermuda Triangle
Offline
Posted 5/16/09

QuasimodoSunday wrote:


Well, I could give you a long and drawn out anaylsis on it. But basically it's been theorized that the purpose of homosexuality was to preserve bonds within groups ,which leads to group stability and increases chances of reconcillation amongst individuals within groups and as a form of regulation for population growth. Population growth is only one aspect of reproductive success. If you have too high of a population, the effects would be horrendous simply because there are not enough resources to support an entire population. Not to mention creating a bunch of low quality offspring.So I really don't see a problem in homosexuals not having any children. In that aspect, homosexuals help regulate population growth. In fact it might be better if half-the world is homosexual considering the problems with over-population plaguing the world today. Think about it: Homosexuality has been around for generations. If that trait wasn't beneficial, why didn't it die out along time ago?


Ya I read odin's tidbit on homosexuality in ancient humans. But I'm going to argue on some of your points once again from an evolutionary perspective. True overpopulation is bad, but the fact that it's happening right now is quite a myth. The exact opposite is happening, be it due to homosexuals or not. Even so, there are a lot of straight people who choose not to have a spouse or ever produce children, with or without concent.

Just because something has been around for generations doesn't neccessarily mean it's because of it directly. Let me explain. Sickle cell disease is a bad genetic trait that you can get if you get the homozygous trait, but good if you get the heterozygous trait because it protects you from malaria. Therefore even though the sickle cell trait is technically bad it lives on because it's heterozygous variation is beneficial. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sickle_cell_anemia#Genetics
What I'm saying is, even though the gay trait may not have been passed of for all of it's capabilities, the traits that people are currently hating on, but for it's other traits which help other things. That's one way of looking at it.
Another thing is that having a gay trait just so happens. I mean there's only a small percent of the world that is gay. Remember, evolution is based on genetic chance and outside influences by nature. In this case the outside influence doesn't matter.
4557 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Bermuda Triangle
Offline
Posted 5/16/09 , edited 5/16/09

Allhailodin wrote:


crunchypibb wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:


Well I was speaking from the breeding perspective, if you noticed. But now that I think about it, being gay and having gay relationships are actually two different topics that people have most recently bundled together as one. Now I'm going to speak to all christians while I'm on this topic, the bible in fact doesn't not actually say anything negative about people who are gay, but rather the action of gay sex. Your tidbit gives a perfect example of how being gay actually helps, which I've never really thought of before. IMO, that tidbit you gave was interesting, although I fail to see in some parts where being exclusively gay is helpful like the alerting example. Nonetheless, I myself don't find it offensive that people are gay.


From a genetic prespective being gay is a loose loose situation, as you contribute nothing to the gene pool, but in some cases it might be better to not contribute to the gene pool, but to contribute to the survival of the local popuation, which in turn contributes to the gene pool. So from a genetic prespective gay might not be an automatic loose. because by keeping the population alive, more gets contributed to the gene pool than one single animal is capable of. Idk thats just how I see it


Eh, but you don't technically have to be gay to do some of those things your tidbit said. Are you saying gay people have bad genes, man that's offensive. Go read my previous post to see more of what I have to say.
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 5/16/09 , edited 1/15/10

crunchypibb wrote:

From a genetic prespective being gay is a loose loose situation, as you contribute nothing to the gene pool, but in some cases it might be better to not contribute to the gene pool, but to contribute to the survival of the local popuation, which in turn contributes to the gene pool. So from a genetic prespective gay might not be an automatic loose. because by keeping the population alive, more gets contributed to the gene pool than one single animal is capable of. Idk thats just how I see it


Eh, but you don't technically have to be gay to do some of those things your tidbit said. Are you saying gay people have bad genes, man that's offensive. Go read my previous post to see more of what I have to say.

I'm not saying gay people have bad genes, I'm saying homosexual people usually don't contribute to the gene pool. But if they keep help keep the local population alive, then not contributing to the gene pool gets balanced out, thats all i'm saying. So it balances out naturally.
4557 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Bermuda Triangle
Offline
Posted 5/16/09 , edited 5/16/09

QuasimodoSunday wrote:


crunchypibb wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:


Well I was speaking from the breeding perspective, if you noticed. But now that I think about it, being gay and having gay relationships are actually two different topics that people have most recently bundled together as one. Now I'm going to speak to all christians while I'm on this topic, the bible in fact doesn't not actually say anything negative about people who are gay, but rather the action of gay sex. Your tidbit gives a perfect example of how being gay actually helps, which I've never really thought of before. IMO, that tidbit you gave was interesting, although I fail to see in some parts where being exclusively gay is helpful like the alerting example. Nonetheless, I myself don't find it offensive that people are gay.


"the bible in fact doesn't not actually say anything negative about people who are gay, but rather the action of gay sex"

Actually some Christians believe that being gay and just being attracted to members of the same sex is as bad as having sex with people of the same gender.

And while we are on the same subject,some people believe that the term "Homosexual" is inaccurate and misleading as there is a difference between being attracted to members of the same sex and being in a relationship with them and actually having sex with them. The term "Homosexual" implies a sexual connotation when it doesn't really full represents the full nature of being attracted to someone. In fact there is such a thing as being a "Gay asexual." You can be attracted to members of the same sex but it doesn't mean you want to have sex with them. You can read more about it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexuality


That's if they they give in to their gay fantasies regardless of having gay sex, but actually being gay is not morally wrong. This is kind of where the gray line gets blurred and things get ugly when people talk about this topic.

I agree to your second paragragh, people just don't see the difference and I think there needs to be awareness of that so people don't get kicked out of the military just because they're gay. Watch the part in this episode where they talk about it, it's near the beginning at 3:57.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/index.jhtml?episodeId=227349
1846 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / Davis, California
Offline
Posted 5/16/09

crunchypibb wrote:


QuasimodoSunday wrote:


Well, I could give you a long and drawn out anaylsis on it. But basically it's been theorized that the purpose of homosexuality was to preserve bonds within groups ,which leads to group stability and increases chances of reconcillation amongst individuals within groups and as a form of regulation for population growth. Population growth is only one aspect of reproductive success. If you have too high of a population, the effects would be horrendous simply because there are not enough resources to support an entire population. Not to mention creating a bunch of low quality offspring.So I really don't see a problem in homosexuals not having any children. In that aspect, homosexuals help regulate population growth. In fact it might be better if half-the world is homosexual considering the problems with over-population plaguing the world today. Think about it: Homosexuality has been around for generations. If that trait wasn't beneficial, why didn't it die out along time ago?


Ya I read odin's tidbit on homosexuality in ancient humans. But I'm going to argue on some of your points once again from an evolutionary perspective. True overpopulation is bad, but the fact that it's happening right now is quite a myth. The exact opposite is happening, be it due to homosexuals or not. Even so, there are a lot of straight people who choose not to have a spouse or ever produce children, with or without concent.

Just because something has been around for generations doesn't neccessarily mean it's because of it directly. Let me explain. Sickle cell disease is a bad genetic trait that you can get if you get the homozygous trait, but good if you get the heterozygous trait because it protects you from malaria. Therefore even though the sickle cell trait is technically bad it lives on because it's heterozygous variation is beneficial. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sickle_cell_anemia#Genetics
What I'm saying is, even though the gay trait may not have been passed of for all of it's capabilities, the traits that people are currently hating on, but for it's other traits which help other things. That's one way of looking at it.
Another thing is that having a gay trait just so happens. I mean there's only a small percent of the world that is gay. Remember, evolution is based on genetic chance and outside influences by nature. In this case the outside influence doesn't matter.


Oh? From what I understand I thought the Earth is overpopulated. Would you mind explaining to me how the opposite is true and if it
is true that there is an actual threat to declining human population?.Regardless, I never said that gays are the only means of population regulation. I meant that they're ONE of them(Along with other factors such as war, hunger,asexual couples, sterile couples, fertile couples who decided on not having kids,etc). Yet, it seems to me that gays are the only people blamed and condemned for not contributing to world population growth and that them not DIRECTLY contributing to population growth is seen as a negative.This is a bit of a double-standard considering that gays are not the only people who don't produce children or the only factors of population regulation. Yet people justified homophobia by saying they don't contribute to population growth. My point is that population growth is not always considered a good thing and to condemned gays for not contributing to it is a bit short-sighted. Population growth is highly overrated if you ask me.

As for your second point I understand what you are implying. "Gay" is considered a mutation which means that there's a mistake in a genetic code and thus had little to do with adaption initially(i.e. "Gay is more of a "byproduct trait" than an "adaption."). It's also true that mutations rarely contribute to fitness. However some mutations do become beneficial("Lactose Tolerance" originated as a mutation and now it became highly beneficial) though rarely. In this case, I believe "gay" is one of them. Ig "gay" was a typical mutation, it would have been lost a long time ago.Most of the evolutionary explanations for "homosexual activity"involves in more of a "social, ecological sense" than a striclty "breeding, genetic sense".Remember, evolution is NOT strictly about genetics. For example as Allhailodin and I explained, homosexual activity helped the stability of groups and increase social bond and intimacy within groups in the past. Plus the pure hedonism of non-conception sex that is homosexual activity decreases stress and intensity within groups which in itself increase reconciliation and compromise.By having an intimate group, you can have a stable population and with a stable well-adjusted population the population can pass on its genes to the next generation The same purpose implies for homosexual nonhuman animals that were studied(i.e Bonobos, Gorillas, Chimpanzees, etc).That's one of the main theories Anthropologist believed are the benefits of "homosexual activity." Considering the point that Allhailodin made and my explanation of how homosexual activity helps bonding, I believe it became a trait that was helpful despite it being a"mutation.".As Allhailodin stated "homosexual activity" may not directly help a population but it still helps a population albeit indirectly nonetheless.

There's my two cents.haha.
1846 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / Davis, California
Offline
Posted 5/16/09 , edited 1/15/10

crunchypibb wrote:


That's if they they give in to their gay fantasies regardless of having gay sex, but actually being gay is not morally wrong. This is kind of where the gray line gets blurred and things get ugly when people talk about this topic.

I agree to your second paragragh, people just don't see the difference and I think there needs to be awareness of that so people don't get kicked out of the military just because they're gay. Watch the part in this episode where they talk about it, it's near the beginning at 3:57.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/index.jhtml?episodeId=227349


"That's if they they give in to their gay fantasies regardless of having gay sex, but actually being gay is not morally wrong. This is kind of where the gray line gets blurred and things get ugly when people talk about this topic".

Unfortunately, that's not really an ideology shared by all Christians.I have actually met extremists Christians who told me that even if there is no sodomy or sexual activity and that you don't act on your sexual feelings, being Gay is still wrong. I don't know what type of Christians you associate with,but there are actually Christian out there who believed that just BEING gay is still immoral because it equates with thinking "bad thoughts." So I really hate to break it to you but people do actually believe that being gay and not acting out on homosexual activity is still as wrong as actually acting them out.The bible may say otherwise but people interpret it differently all the same.

And yes some people actually think that there's no such thing as a "Gay virgin" which pisses me off to no end.
4750 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21
Offline
Posted 5/17/09
i wouldn't have the guts to eat someone XD but maybe the situation might be "eat or be eaten" but i still wouldn't do it.
4557 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Bermuda Triangle
Offline
Posted 5/17/09 , edited 1/15/10

QuasimodoSunday wrote:

"That's if they they give in to their gay fantasies regardless of having gay sex, but actually being gay is not morally wrong. This is kind of where the gray line gets blurred and things get ugly when people talk about this topic".

Unfortunately, that's not really an ideology shared by all Christians.I have actually met extremists Christians who told me that even if there is no sodomy or sexual activity and that you don't act on your sexual feelings, being Gay is still wrong. I don't know what type of Christians you associate with,but there are actually Christian out there who believed that just BEING gay is still immoral because it equates with thinking "bad thoughts." So I really hate to break it to you but people do actually believe that being gay and not acting out on homosexual activity is still as wrong as actually acting them out.The bible may say otherwise but people interpret it differently all the same.

And yes some people actually think that there's no such thing as a "Gay virgin" which pisses me off to no end.


Okay I'm just gonna throw it out there and go ahead and admit I'm Catholic, which I've seen some quite a lot of hate lately. The differences in the Christian sects are quite astounding and in fact I just might as well make a topic on it. Yes I know there are Christians who think otherwise of my statement (where I bolded should have stated that) but I decided to add my input to show further clarification. Ya, that no such thing as a gay virgin pisses me off too.
4557 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Bermuda Triangle
Offline
Posted 5/17/09 , edited 1/15/10

QuasimodoSunday wrote:

Oh? From what I understand I thought the Earth is overpopulated. Would you mind explaining to me how the opposite is true and if it
is true that there is an actual threat to declining human population?.Regardless, I never said that gays are the only means of population regulation. I meant that they're ONE of them(Along with other factors such as war, hunger,asexual couples, sterile couples, fertile couples who decided on not having kids,etc). Yet, it seems to me that gays are the only people blamed and condemned for not contributing to world population growth and that them not DIRECTLY contributing to population growth is seen as a negative.This is a bit of a double-standard considering that gays are not the only people who don't produce children or the only factors of population regulation. Yet people justified homophobia by saying they don't contribute to population growth. My point is that population growth is not always considered a good thing and to condemned gays for not contributing to it is a bit short-sighted. Population growth is highly overrated if you ask me.

As for your second point I understand what you are implying. "Gay" is considered a mutation which means that there's a mistake in a genetic code and thus had little to do with adaption initially(i.e. "Gay is more of a "byproduct trait" than an "adaption."). It's also true that mutations rarely contribute to fitness. However some mutations do become beneficial("Lactose Tolerance" originated as a mutation and now it became highly beneficial) though rarely. In this case, I believe "gay" is one of them. Ig "gay" was a typical mutation, it would have been lost a long time ago.Most of the evolutionary explanations for "homosexual activity"involves in more of a "social, ecological sense" than a striclty "breeding, genetic sense".Remember, evolution is NOT strictly about genetics. For example as Allhailodin and I explained, homosexual activity helped the stability of groups and increase social bond and intimacy within groups in the past. Plus the pure hedonism of non-conception sex that is homosexual activity decreases stress and intensity within groups which in itself increase reconciliation and compromise.By having an intimate group, you can have a stable population and with a stable well-adjusted population the population can pass on its genes to the next generation The same purpose implies for homosexual nonhuman animals that were studied(i.e Bonobos, Gorillas, Chimpanzees, etc).That's one of the main theories Anthropologist believed are the benefits of "homosexual activity." Considering the point that Allhailodin made and my explanation of how homosexual activity helps bonding, I believe it became a trait that was helpful despite it being a"mutation.".As Allhailodin stated "homosexual activity" may not directly help a population but it still helps a population albeit indirectly nonetheless.

There's my two cents.haha.


Oh I didn't say that the world was underpopulated which is what you seem to incur. I meant that world population is geared towards decline. Plus overpopulation apparently is based on more than just birth and death rate. I myself am not fully endowed about the subject but it usually depends on who you ask on wether or not the world is overpopulating or declining. Like I said I don't know much but that's what I've heard and I intend to learn more about both sides in the near future.
While I was at it I took a look at the world census. Although population is rising it seems fertility rate is getting lowered and from what I've seen from other sources the current fertility rate points towards decrease. http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/idb/worldpopinfo.html

Think about it, even if homosexuality does help a tribe that person doesn't actually pass on their genes along with their trait. In order to keep something in the gene pool, the genes that make up a trait need to be shared, not the actual trait. Like if your son suddenly had bushy eyebrows and neither of you or your spouses family tree had bushy eyebrows it might be because the genes that makes bushy eyebrows finally got together to make such a trait. Same mostly likely goes for homosexuality. Just about anything can help a population but if that trait that helps doesn't actually get passed on it can hardly be called genetic tradition since it's not passed on by the direct decendent.

Sadly homosexuality happens more on genetic chance in my opinion because of what I've stated above. Think about it, the only way the homosexual trait can be stopped is if you kill the parents before they conceive the child. But we wouldn't know with our current technology and nonetheless killing of people for such reasons in unprecedented. So either way homosexuality will stay in the gene pool but it's not in there because the user had sucess with it and passed it on (unless they did pass it on but I imagine is quite rare being who they are), but because all the genes required to make homosexuality still exist for other reasons.
5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 5/17/09 , edited 5/17/09

QuasimodoSunday wrote:


Oh? From what I understand I thought the Earth is overpopulated. Would you mind explaining to me how the opposite is true and if it
is true that there is an actual threat to declining human population?


If the Earth was truly overpopulated by humans, everyone in the world would be suffering just as badly as most people in 3rd world countries do, and virtually every large animals species that can't be domesticated would be extinct, and all plants that are too large or aren't beneficial to humans would be exitinct too. We're not overpopulated, resources just aren't being distributed evenly. The U.S alone only makes up 5% of the world's population, but we use about 25% of the world's resources.

I don't think we're in threat of declining, but we definetly aren't overpopulated.
553 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / New Zealand
Offline
Posted 5/17/09 , edited 5/17/09

Cuddlebuns wrote:


QuasimodoSunday wrote:


Oh? From what I understand I thought the Earth is overpopulated. Would you mind explaining to me how the opposite is true and if it
is true that there is an actual threat to declining human population?


If the Earth was truly overpopulated by humans, everyone in the world would be suffering just as badly as most people in 3rd world countries do, and virtually every large animals species that can't be domesticated would be extinct, and all plants that are too large or aren't beneficial to humans would be exitinct too. We're not overpopulated, resources just aren't being distributed evenly. The U.S alone only makes up 5% of the world's population, but we use about 25% of the world's resources.

I don't think we're in threat of declining, but we definetly aren't overpopulated.


In a sense we are overpopulated.
Increased living standards in developing countries and more countries developing leads to higher demand of products like steel and crude oil to fuel the economies of the various countries.
With this sudden rise in countries like Vietnam, India and China the west can no longer keep up with its wasteful lifestyle products (like steel) once abundant are now rationed as they are sent to countries that have far more building developments i.e China.
Now I don't have any statistics to support this but I think it's safe to say that a family in the 1st world uses more resources in a year than a 3rd world family -this is still the norm as the 3rd world countries have larger popn.'s than first world countries but as that begins to change people see that we have overpopulation because of scarcity of products.

TL;DR we are overpopulated based on our current resource eg steel, Crude oil that fuels our economy
If our main resource was people (like the Romans) we wouldn't see ourselves as overpopulated because of the abundance of potential slaves.
5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 5/18/09

Fightingmonkey wrote:


Cuddlebuns wrote:


QuasimodoSunday wrote:


Oh? From what I understand I thought the Earth is overpopulated. Would you mind explaining to me how the opposite is true and if it
is true that there is an actual threat to declining human population?


If the Earth was truly overpopulated by humans, everyone in the world would be suffering just as badly as most people in 3rd world countries do, and virtually every large animals species that can't be domesticated would be extinct, and all plants that are too large or aren't beneficial to humans would be exitinct too. We're not overpopulated, resources just aren't being distributed evenly. The U.S alone only makes up 5% of the world's population, but we use about 25% of the world's resources.

I don't think we're in threat of declining, but we definetly aren't overpopulated.


In a sense we are overpopulated.
Increased living standards in developing countries and more countries developing leads to higher demand of products like steel and crude oil to fuel the economies of the various countries.
With this sudden rise in countries like Vietnam, India and China the west can no longer keep up with its wasteful lifestyle products (like steel) once abundant are now rationed as they are sent to countries that have far more building developments i.e China.
Now I don't have any statistics to support this but I think it's safe to say that a family in the 1st world uses more resources in a year than a 3rd world family -this is still the norm as the 3rd world countries have larger popn.'s than first world countries but as that begins to change people see that we have overpopulation because of scarcity of products.

TL;DR we are overpopulated based on our current resource eg steel, Crude oil that fuels our economy
If our main resource was people (like the Romans) we wouldn't see ourselves as overpopulated because of the abundance of potential slaves.


Everyone, or at least a lot more people, could have those things if certain 1st world countries (U.S) wasn't so wasteful with them. We have plenty of resources, they just aren't being distributed evenly, mainly because living standards are rising and they are already too high in some places (IMO).

When people think of overpopulation, they think that there are too many people for the Earth to be able to sustain, and that is the common misconception that I was aiming to clear up. Like you I don't have any statistics, and I don't know anything about our economy, so you may be right about steel and crude oil. But I'm fairly certain that most people in most terrible impoverished countries could live much better lives and have more of the bare basics (clean water, appropriate clothing, and food every day) if certain other countires were willing to make some sacrifices.
Posted 5/18/09

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


CecilTheDarkKnight_234 wrote:

Even it was to save my own life i could not eat another person at all, I would rather I die than do that I really would.
only one way to find out. Willing to test that?

I lock you up in a tomb with no way out and no food. Only water.... I lock you away with two other people,,, Let us find out what happens first? do you die of lack of food? do you eat the first one two die? Do you go mad and kill someone than eat them? Or do you off your self...?
If you wish to find out I be happy to set it up for you.' I build a metal box just for it.

with plumbing. for bathroom, shower, and water.. But nothing else. I even have a cooling system added in to keep you nice a cool and not dien of heat stroke.




well i am 30ibs over weight so i have a little extra packed away and i would rape 1st
4930 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / F / Singapore
Offline
Posted 5/19/09
If cannibalism will be the last resort for me to live then I think I'll die.
21223 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 5/19/09
I say chow down. What are you waiting for?!
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.