Typical intellectual coward retort. I never argue from emotion. Never. Ever. Ever.
- You literally started your argument with "I despise" Your own words from 20 minutes ago disprove you.
There’s that awesome display of lack of reading comprehension skills 🙄
Every word in the English language has a different meaning, and that meaning is discerned based on the context in which it is given.
The argument you gave is worthless. It has no relevance to human beings. It is patently a false equivalency fallacy.
Other species are irrelevant. They don’t possess sentience like human beings. They operate on innate pleasure principles, they don’t think about it, they just do.
- You missed the point. Ideology is exclusively human. If humans share a trait with most animals, that trait is not an ideology.
The ideology is rooted in mental emotions rooted in physical pleasure (what Freud called the Id). The ideology is the theory derived from the emotive thought process, the physical pleasure is purely instinctual (i.e., innate).
- pseudo-intellectual smoke screen. IDEALOGY is "a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy."
- Capitalism is an ideology. Capitalism is NOT "rooted in mental emotions rooted in physical pleasures," whatever that clusterfuck of redundancy is meant to signify. Unlike you, I claim no insight into Adam Smith's instinctual pleasures.
Yet another example of your lack of linguistic skills.
In the context of this discussion, ideology is defined as:
Comparing Capitalism to the ideology of the LGBTQ+&-😛 is a gross false equivalency fallacy. There is no comparison given the fact that you’re using the wrong definition where this discussion is concerned.
we recognize the emotion amongst our species. Doesn’t mean we go up to other people and squirt our eyes at them
- You mean crying? I've definitely seen humans cry before.
Squint, the iPad autocorrected to squirt. Animals, like cats, squint as a form of showing affection or approval (like smiling).
Again, another example of your lack of reading comprehension skills. People either make typos or autocorrect is missed when submitting a post.
Clearly your mind is incapable of reading between the lines and discerning what was actually mean based on the entirety of the rest of the sentence where that one misspelled, typo, or clearly autocorrected word is concerned.
before we smell their butts.
- Seen humans do that too. Human mothers smell their babies' butts 20 times a day.
Goddamn, another example of lack of reading comprehension skills. Quoting out of context fallacy. False equivalency fallacy.
Again, context matters. Normal human beings do not go around smelling other human beings butts when socializing with them.
Motherhood and getting used to changing their nasty diapers has nothing to do with the piss poor analogy you used comparing non-sentient animals to human beings sexuality.
Human beings think about it then make a choice. Animals don’t choose. They just do.
- By definiton, a trait found in most animals is evolutionarily adaptive- it helps that species to survive. The more social a species become, the more homosexual behaviour is in evidence. Clearly, homosexuality is a social adaptation for socially intelligent species. Humans should always chose to conserve those traits that help preserve us a species. Put another way: what gifts God gave us, let no man scorn
By definition, homosexual behavior as the anthesis of survival.
- Mainstream science strongly disagrees.
Cherry picked, emotively drive, and subjectively inferred opinions you mean. Of course these type would disagree.
It’s unnatural and patently de-evolutionary. It’s not adaptive.
- I have already pointed out that because homosexuality is commonplace in nature, it is natural. SInce species become more homosexual as they become more intelligent, homosexuality facilitates social interaction. Gay genes are strongly associated with very fertile matrilineal lines across primate species- meaning that mothers that have a lot of babies also produce extra, non-parental individuals to help raise those babies.
Homosexuality is no more common place than transgenderism is. LGBs have consistently been less than 4% of the population in this country pre-covid. Trans, less than 0.5%. Because of the social contagion and children being impressionable and liberals brainwashed into peddling the abuse, those % have blown up (not too much, but enough to alarm everyone to pass laws against further indoctrination into the corrupt ideology).
There is no “gay”, no more than there is a “trans” gene. It’s all genetic defects/abnormalities in the brain compounded by social contagions that push impressionable people over the edge into that madness.
I mean really, we all have the capability for sadistic violence, but we choose not to act on it for all the right reasons.
It’s a perversion of nature.
Nope. Fact.
There has never been a human society/culture where only one gender evolved let alone survived without reproduction (which requires the other gender) to present day.
It demonstrates the decline of a species when they cave entirely to their pleasure principles over heterosexuality and rational logic, as nature intended.
- Let's let biologists, not bigots, speak to Nature's intent.
No one needs to be a biologist to research, learn and state objective observable facts. Only bigot here is you, clown.
