Trade agreements...

[Sibling Lambicus the Toluous]

...how you can claim that nature "intended" anything at all.

It's, because I observed that all of our actions have consequences and they are carried out by 'some power'. To me it's logic (or nature), which works according to certain laws and principles. To other people this power might be God or non-existing. Like it or not, our actions are being 'filmed' and dealt with! That' why I aim to play by its rules, because I experienced the consequences and prefer the pos to neg ones.

If nature does have "intent", then (and I think I read it somewhere once) "by its fruits you shall know it."  Homosexuality exists; if this was not intended by nature, God, or whatever other intelligent mechanism you have in mind, then the fact that a deity/supernatural force/whatever can't get nature to be what he/she/it/they want it to be like raises major theological questions all by itself.

... if that is your position, fine, but hopefully you now recognize it as a personal belief that is not (and shouldn't necessarily be) shared by everyone else.

I never had a problem with recognizing, that we all are free to earn our insight the hard way.Yet, personally I preferred to learn the easier way (from others); don't you, too? Of course it has to 'work' or I have (had) to keep searching to find what's working for me.   

But what works for you, however much thought you put into it or however much personal struggle it required, is still what works for you.  Where you have ended up is not necessarily where everyone else should end up.

You may be at the summit of your own peak, but there can very well be other mountains in the range.

[

If nature did not intend homosexuality, then why does it exist? After all, unless you consider homosexuals to be inorganic, they are human, and therefore part of nature.

Observing nature, many things seem imperfect. Also it could be sequences brought on by neg (or illogical) action by members of previous generations. It could be induced by chemical interference etc. All we can do is to compare the state of the majority to off-norms and draw conclusions from there to amend them.

It seems like you've made the assumption that "off-norm" = "deficient", and I'm not sure how you got to that conclusion.

Who is that "capitalist monster and the 40 robbers"?'

It's our sordid, mean capitalist politicians and their ideology! Like communism, both are devils. Yet, if I have to choose, I still prefer to put up with the latter... until something better pops up!

Communism?  Really?

Wait... hang on.  From the other stuff you wrote, it sounds like you're in favour of capitalism, right?

I recall a quote I heard a while back: "democracy is the worst system of government ever, except for ever other system ever tried."

As mention, the only means I have to interpret nature's implications is by way of observation and comparison to the nature's rule/ norms. Example: The majority of us have two legs and two arms.  Thus, if I observe that 1 in 10 has a limb missing, I assume that the norm is 2 legs and 2 arms. I wouldn't go thus far as to call this kind of conclusion 'patent nonsense'.

If we based our decisions of what is "good" and "bad" by population norms, then I'd expect that all of my hobbies would suddenly be unavailable to me.

But if we're going by "norms" as a measure of what's best, apparently I'm deficient, since I'm not a woman, don't live in Asia, and survived past infancy.  

[jjj]

 

the members of the species that have the trait would die out

I don't think there exist conclusive scientific evidence of the exact genetic inheritance. All I know that it somehow happens; just as a person is born with a handicap.
Well, if the term 'handicap' is wrong than call it an 'abnormality', because the norm is heterosexuality. Another observation is that the human body is designed for heterosexual activities. Any other use/ abuse leads to bleeding and muscle destruction.
 

Homosexuality exists; if this was not intended by nature.

Yet, still there's a logical explanation for why it happened, which we still don't know to explain.

Where you have ended up is not necessarily where everyone else should end up.

I never insisted in that, but chances are there quite a few transferable patterns.
I

t seems like you've made the assumption that "off-norm" = "deficient", and I'm not sure how you got to that conclusion.

As mentioned, by observing, comparison, pondering, reasoning etc. I had decades of practice in it and it really works for me. It's how I solve most problem for my friends and myself. How do you solve your problems?

...a quote I heard a while back: "democracy is the worst system of government ever, except for ever other system ever tried."

It's definitely not my quote.

[goat starer]

As mention, the only means I have to interpret nature's implications is by way of observation and comparison to the nature's rule/ norms. Example: The majority of us have two legs and two arms.  Thus, if I observe that 1 in 10 has a limb missing, I assume that the norm is 2 legs and 2 arms. I wouldn't go thus far as to call this kind of conclusion 'patent nonsense'.

equally we could take the total number of people, divide them by the total number of legs and find that the 'norm' is for people to have 1.998 legs each. We could then start removing peoples toes to make them fit the norm.

which would be stupid.

if you look for and promote the 'normal' state on the basis of the majority condition then you are essentially drifting into fascist waters. Life is not about one 'normal' state it is about a bell curve of diversity. Some abnormalities hinder the individual, some help them, all should be accepted.

Your philosophy is about lowest common denominators and is inherently flawed as it simply does not recognise or value the real way in which nature operates - preffering to advocate rather unpleasant 'utopian' views.

The 'norm' in the world is for people to be asian. lets aim for a world where everybody is asian!  

[jjj]

 
S

ome abnormalities hinder the individual, some help them, all should be accepted. Your philosophy is about lowest common denominators and is inherently flawed as it simply does not recognise or value the real way in which nature operates - preffering to advocate rather unpleasant 'utopian' views. The 'norm' in the world is for people to be asian. lets aim for a world where everybody is asian! 

Nothing of the sorts! Far better than that! >>>My method of observing nature and reasoning is quite adaptable/ flexible and takes into account diverse factors, depending on the matter to be investigated. In some cases it's the norm, which is crucial, in other cases it the shape, size, weight, frequency, color, intensity etc.

Your philosophy is ...

It's not my philosophy... it's rather my method by which I probe the truth.

[ivor]

Your philosophy is ...
It's not my philosophy... it's rather my mythology by which I probe the truth.

So your "myth" is your "truth?" 

[The Meromorph]

But if we're going by "norms" as a measure of what's best, apparently I'm deficient, since I'm not a woman, don't live in Asia, and survived past infancy.  

This quote should be immortal!

[jjj]

Your philosophy is ...

It's not my philosophy... it's rather my method by which I probe the truth.

So your "myth" is your "truth?"  ROFL

See, that's what meant: you are not constructive!

[Opsa]

I think that the problem may be the word "normal". That is a very misunderstood word. Perhaps a better word would be "average", which has to do with statistics. On average, humans have two legs, two arms, are heterosexual, are women and live in Asia. The rest of us are other than average, but still exist within nature. We are not mutants, we are simply less in number than the average.

That's my opinion about homosexuals, as well. There are fewer of them not because of a flaw, but because here are more heterosexuals. Big deal!

I think it's silly how jjj accuses others of judging and goes on to call things "evil", etc. It's too bad we don't all live in his dark little world, then we'd have a clue as to what he's on about. Personally, I prefer fresher air. Please excuse me if this sounds unkind, but that's the truth for me. 

[jjj]

Yes, 'average' seems a better term... but we need to do a bit of lateral thinking. Thanks for doing it on this one...

I think it's silly how jjj accuses others of judging and goes on to call things "evil", etc.

I didn't call homosexuality 'evil'.
Our inherited/ acquired, neg traits causing us to act evil.

[ivor]

I didn't call homosexuality 'evil'. Our inherited/ acquired, neg traits causing us to act evil.

So what you are saying is:

inherited negative trait = homosexual = acting evil

I am saying:

eugenics = acting evil = jjj

What's the difference?

[Opsa]

I didn't say that you did call homosexuality evil, did I? I don't appreciate having my words twisted around.

You've called other things evil: government for example.

[Alpaca]

jjj, this example has been brought up a few times, and you have yet to address it. Please, I beg your pardon if you have already and I just haven't noticed.

There are more women than men in the world. Asian people constitute the largest ethnic group in the world. (Nuances of ethnicity and the broad term "asian" aside.)

According to your observation of the majority as the standard by which nature's "intention" can be measured, do you consider all men to be abnormal? What about all non-asian people?

[Griffin NoName]

And yet again you abandon the answer... I was curious about your insight of the situation, but once again you throw away my question... Now you say it's a fairytale. Earlier you have put it like it has been a serious idea of yours, an experiment that would work if put into action.

Don't you get 'quick ideas', which soon are proven unworkable? Well, that's one of them! No point to stir it up... since it has got the mentioned disadvantages. If you still insist in having some of these weird question answered, please rephrase them in another context.

Kiyo, in jjj's defence, I believe his switch to describing the vision as a "fairytale" was his way of acknowledging that the points you and others made in challenging it are correct, and that you have changed his mind on the subject.

Thx. Alpaca... that it! You see, I don't stubbornly insist in unworkable theories. That's why we discuss and sort them out. Also we should  take no offense on personal views, but rather help each other to amend them for the better. Instead some of you prefer to judge and my expressed opinions and merely decry them as 'offensive'... This tactic ('tictac') isn't helpful; i.e. it doesn't help me changing opinion for the better. Allow me to speak out, dear, strict Moderators!

My bold.

You are being allowed to speak out. We have not instructed our Moderators to treat you any differently to anyone else. Indeed no one else has used the word Moderation or even hinted at it. There are no strict Moderators.

Whether you agree or not, I interpret "Allow me to speak out, dear, strict Moderators!" as a raising of the stakes. As something inserted for us to react to. I also believe that a lot of other statements by you have this flavour - something to cause reactions. This is stimulating a lot of debate. In itself debate is good and we like it. Some of those stimulating phrases you scatter through your posts many find offensive. Toadfish are not easily offended. To use an ongoing debated word, it is not the norm round here to be offensive or be offended. It occurs to me that you like a kind of engagement in conversation which is not popular here. Why otherwise would you write "Allow me to speak out, dear, strict Moderators!" when there's no need for it?

I am asking this as an Administrator of this site. While many here are joined in discussions with you, many are staying away from it. I am asking this in consideration of all our members happiness. I am not asking it privately in a PM as I would like others to see your answer. I would hope you won't draw others into this aspect (eg. quoting others) as I am asking it directly of you and not raising it as a general discussion for our members.

[Darlica]

the members of the species that have the trait would die out

Another observation is that the human body is designed for heterosexual activities. Any other use/ abuse leads to bleeding and muscle destruction.
 

You are out on very deep water now my friend and from what I can tell by you posts you don't have the slightest clue on how to navigate them...

Are you aware that women can get irreparable damage to their genital area when raped. How does that fit in in your "human body is designed for heterosexual activities" theory?
(actually I'm of the opinion that rape has very little do with sex but that is entirely differnt can of worms)

There are also many heterosexuals engaging in "activities" that I suppose you would classify as norm breaking... what do you call them?

Also, I have never heard about any "muscle destruction" due to lesbian "activities" which are to be considered as homosexual "activities" since two people of the same sex are involved.

Frankly, this line of arguments are as dumb as the old one that your brain will decay and you will grow hair on the palms of your hand if you masturbate! 

Damage to the body occur when one part isn't paying attention to the other for some reason, and that goes for all thinkable partner constellations. 


/D

[Aggie]

genetic it is one of two things: a) a genetic mutation or b) a hereditary genetic trait
Aren't genes consistently mutating? Why then the need to subdivide them into these two categories?  Or do you mean genetically related specie?

Genes do not constantly mutate.  It's very possible that the genes passed down to a child from the parents are completely identical to the parents (although they do get a good shuffling during meiosis, the alleles are unchanged).  Genetic damage does happen constantly, but most DNA is in non-reproductive tissue, and a HUGE percentage of DNA is 'non-coding'.