3 ms·

None of that is true. There are stories over stories of Humans refusing to do harm to other Humans even if it means their death. Conditioning Humans to kill oth

None of that is true. There are stories over stories of Humans refusing to do harm to other Humans even if it means their death. Conditioning Humans to kill other Humans often involves dehumanizing the enemy in order to circumvent that built-in safety measure. Not everybody can just defuse that switch when he needs to. You are ASSuming I am male and heterosexual. You are assuming homosexuality has somehow not evolved naturally or does not play a part in the natural repertoire of Human social structure (spoiler alert: it does, even in terms of procreation). You do not understand sexual desire, which is not about reproduction, even though reproduction can be a side effect (and usually isn't, even without contraception). You do not understand rape and sexual assault which often is not about sex or sexual pleasure.

deltaonefour 5y ago
>None of that is true. There are stories over stories of Humans refusing to do harm to other Humans even if it means their death. These people won't exist given enough time and selection pressure. It's the only logical outcome. Additionally given the nature of natural selection it can be said many many of these people don't exist at all. The majority of the world will not do this unless it has some evolutionary benefit. And that benefit only exists among our genetic progeny. Parents will sacrifice themselves for their kids because of the evolutionary benefit. >You are ASSuming I am male and heterosexual. You are assuming homosexuality has somehow not evolved naturally or does not play a part in the natural repertoire of Human social structure (spoiler alert: it does, even in terms of procreation). You're the ASS here. You can make an argument without throwing an insult. First off I made no assumption about you personally. I also never stated anything about homosexuality. You know what I am? I'm black, I'm trans and lesbian. You're assuming that I'm white, male and straight out of nowhere. Oh how the woke world will destroy you for making such baseless assumptions. Man who cares. >You are assuming homosexuality has somehow not evolved naturally or does not play a part in the natural repertoire of Human social structure I never said I assumed such a thing. I made no statement about this. You made the statement that it DOES play a natural part. I've heard of these arguments. What evidence do you have to support this? I am not talking about logical arguments that illustrate the possibility that homosexuality is an evolved trait. But empirical statistical evidence that show unmistakably that it is an evolved trait. The arguments I hear as it stands sounds a bit convoluted and only shows that homosexuality being an evolved trait is only a theoretical possibility. >You do not understand sexual desire, which is not about reproduction, even though reproduction can be a side effect Ok this is just BS. When did I say sexual desire is only about reproduction? We're done here.

deltaonefour 5y ago

>None of that is true. There are stories over stories of Humans refusing to do harm to other Humans even if it means their death. These people won't exist given enough time and selection pressure. It's the only logical outcome. Additionally given the nature of natural selection it can be said many many of these people don't exist at all. The majority of the world will not do this unless it has some evolutionary benefit. And that benefit only exists among our genetic progeny. Parents will sacrifice themselves for their kids because of the evolutionary benefit. >You are ASSuming I am male and heterosexual. You are assuming homosexuality has somehow not evolved naturally or does not play a part in the natural repertoire of Human social structure (spoiler alert: it does, even in terms of procreation). You're the ASS here. You can make an argument without throwing an insult. First off I made no assumption about you personally. I also never stated anything about homosexuality. You know what I am? I'm black, I'm trans and lesbian. You're assuming that I'm white, male and straight out of nowhere. Oh how the woke world will destroy you for making such baseless assumptions. Man who cares. >You are assuming homosexuality has somehow not evolved naturally or does not play a part in the natural repertoire of Human social structure I never said I assumed such a thing. I made no statement about this. You made the statement that it DOES play a natural part. I've heard of these arguments. What evidence do you have to support this? I am not talking about logical arguments that illustrate the possibility that homosexuality is an evolved trait. But empirical statistical evidence that show unmistakably that it is an evolved trait. The arguments I hear as it stands sounds a bit convoluted and only shows that homosexuality being an evolved trait is only a theoretical possibility. >You do not understand sexual desire, which is not about reproduction, even though reproduction can be a side effect Ok this is just BS. When did I say sexual desire is only about reproduction? We're done here.