The next Luke Longnecker (well maybe)

Discussion in 'General Chat' started by RLQ, Jun 25, 2012.

  1. That was just a meandering rant that didn't respond to anyone in particular, because I joined this thread too late to really participate in the conversation very well.
     
  2. There is a large body of data on the 'nature versus nurture' argument. Typically they take a gay person, and characterize the likelihood of another person being gay based on the relationship between them. For instance, the likelihood of a random member of society also being gay is roughly 10%. A person who is not biologically related, but was raised in the same household has a very slightly higher than 10% chance, and so on, right up to identical twins raised in the same household, which are very (very) slightly under 100%.
     
  3. Unfortunately the only person that needs to read your post, remington, wont. And if he does he wont understand it or will be in complete disagreement by the fifth word and wont give your post its due merit
     
  4. +1
     
  5. Hey AMg, I liked your story about the pigeon playing chess by the way
     
  6. Oh and Vanilla, I loved that third paragraph, awesome.
     
  7. How is what I said flawed? Homosexuals tend to live that certain lifestyle and not repopulate.

     
  8. doesnt change my beliefs
     
  9. Or.... I didnt read your post because you make worse posts than Veyronman, which I actually cared to read his whole post.
     
  10. I think I may know about them a little more than you.
     
  11. if gays were natural f*gs would poop butt babies
     
  12. uh, thanks?
     
  13. #163 BuickGNXkillsALL, Jul 4, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    I didn't know that about animals... But then again Ive had pets all my life, Ive been hunting for almost a decade and I've always liked animals, so I've always payed attention to nature and animals and never came across an animal participating in homosexual behavior.. I'm not saying your post is wrong, but I am saying that Ive observed animals nest, give birth, mate, eat, drink, go about their business, sleep and just be animals. and I have never seen an animal participate in any homosexual acts. Ive seen dogs humping everything, but that doesnt make it a homosexual act. They are humping everything: Their owner, the couch, any animal it sees... I cant believe many of you guys are arguing this and even attempting to compare an animal to a human.
    An animal doesnt have relationships like a human. It doesnt choose to have a relationship, it doesnt have emotions or a conscience, it doesnt choose it's sexual desires. But I believe humans do.

    I believe my experiences and observations in life more than what an article states.
    (Yes I did read your wikipedia article)


    Ok I'll take your statistics as truth. But it Still wouldnt change my beliefs.
    thanks for taking your time to post for this lost cause.
     
  14. Oh I do seek information about the subject alright. But I dont believe everything I read.

    what you are saying about traditional marriage is between one man and a harem already makes no sense. So the natural ratio of man to woman was already 1:10 or whatever the average harem population consisted of? Why did that ratio of men to women change?
    Your post may sound educated with your professional or fancy wording, but that doesn't mean it is accurate.

    But nevertheless you made a good post, I enjoyed it.

    (also forgive me, there are paragraphs and paragraphs of posts here), so If I dont respond to everything and to everyone I am not trying to ignore you.
     
  15. yeah why should i pay attention to science and facts when i can already feel the truth in my gut?
     
  16. some pretty epic ownage by remington in here.
     
  17. I was waiting for the responses from koko to figure out whether I should ever come back in this thread.

    Nope.
     
  18. The ratio of men to women wasn't other than 1:1 at any point in history. However, there is a large body of genetic evidence to say that men have had reproductive success on the order of 25% over the last quarter-million years. That number is closer to 70% for women (which, given historically high infant mortality, is the vast majority of women to have reached reproductive age). While the role of women has been almost exclusively reproductive, men had many others, including being expected to die in war and hunting. If a man was not in a leadership role, his reproductive options were very limited.

    This is the case in many primate species. For instance, it is observed in gorilla socialization that a group is led by a single adult male who monopolizes reproductive rights within the group, with numerous women and children. As adolescent males grow, they eventually challenge the adult male, and almost universally will lose (being this challenge takes place before adulthood), being ejected from the group. Males form bachelor groups until they can, from the outside, challenge for a leadership position. Most however, never succeed, and die without ever fathering a child.
     
  19. Oh my god
     
  20. Hes a scientist
     
  21. yeah i agree, can anyone disprove that post? I don't think so.
    Fairly concrete scientific evidence to prove his point also.
     
  22. I thought thats how you were borned
     
  23. Holy shit you are dumb. The natral ratio of male to female wasnt 1:10, rather the less dominant males didnt get to reproduce.. A bit like how you still arent getting any action today and so taking out your frustration on homosexuals
     
  24. im pretty sure dogs have emoptions you st
     
  25. If you take your mate's fleshlight and use it, youre obviously homosexual!
     

Share This Page