[quote]Headhunter wrote:
rstanley wrote:
Kerns is obviously a small minded bigot. Her arguments have not a shred of validity. The only people they would make sense to would be other bigots.
Disprove her arguments.
Quit accepting whatever you’re told simply because its politically correct.
You can either question, or be well-liked. Go along and ‘fit in’, or actually think.
[/quote]
You think? i haven’t seen it.
[quote]Regular Gonzalez wrote:
orion wrote:
Makavali wrote:
orion wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Assuming people act in their own self-interest, then gay people may not act in the interest of straight people.
Actually, most animals act in the interest of the species. Self-interest is more a subset of that primary goal.
No they don´t or they would not kill other offspring to replace them with their own.
Even cute dolphins do that.
As un-PC as this may sound, if the other offspring can be killed so easily, then they are probably weak genetic stock and would have been taken out by other predators anyway. All they are doing is improving the gene pool.
I’d say that’s improving the species odds.
Either that, or it’s a genetic fuck-up, noting that a lot of animals live within societies, and others don’t.
It is neither.
Puppies are weak and as long as they are young their mothers cannot or will not conceive from the dominant dolphin/lion, whatever that has just killed or chased away the previous dominant male.
So, by killing the offspring of their predecessors the females can get pregnant with the new alpha males offspring sooner, which saves valuable time, because, after all, who knows how long the new Alpha Male will remain in that position.
That leads to the conclusion that a lion is not so much concerned with helping his species along but to produce as much copies of his own specific lion genes as possible.
Group selection simply does not fly.
The fact that the lion was able to chase away or kill the previous dominant male likely means that he is genetically superior. It is in the best interests of the species that the mother immediately focuses on producing his genetically superior offspring rather than those of the previous male.
You are right that the lion does not care about helping his species. The results of his actions though are in fact inadvertantly in the best interests of the species.[/quote]
If you have to make that argument it would work better if you said that, though a lions time in the sun will end without exception, it lasts longer if he is genetically better suited to the task,hence more offspring. Even super-lions grow old though and their still superior puppies die with them.
Where it all falls down of course is that a lions genes will happily mutate into another species if it suits them, so they will only work “in the best interest of the species” when it suits them which it very often doesn´t. The whole concept of species is flawed when it comes to evolutionary biology anyway.
There also is no reason why genes should cooperate with anything outside the bodies they use to procreate, unless it helps them in some way. They only cooperate inside a body because they share only one exit into the next generation, the gametes, so even that cooperation is a forced uneasy alliance.
There is simply no conceivable way how and why genes would cooperate on a group or even species level, if they do anyway, it is a coincidence.
[quote]I AM wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
… A cock is NOT meant to go anywhere but into a woman for making a child.
So conversely, a vagina is only supposed to have a penis go into it, correct?
This coming from the guy who wanted to give a dildo to his daughter.[/quote]
Dildos… very, very unnatural.
I am disappointed in him that his daughter is not pregnant yet, which would be the natural state of things.
Instead he is denying her the real thing and forces rubber toys on her.
[quote]orion wrote:
Dildos… very, very unnatural.
I am disappointed in him that his daughter is not pregnant yet, which would be the natural state of things.
Instead he is denying her the real thing and forces rubber toys on her.
[/quote]
Headhunter has transcended nature.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
orion wrote:
Dildos… very, very unnatural.
I am disappointed in him that his daughter is not pregnant yet, which would be the natural state of things.
Instead he is denying her the real thing and forces rubber toys on her.
Headhunter has transcended nature.[/quote]
“If a man builds a thousand bridges and sucks one dick, they don’t call him a bridge-builder… they call him a cocksucker.”
Sorry, HH, but it seems that, despite your 7,800 posts, that one thread is gonna be the one to follow you around from here on out.
Pedo.
[quote]orion wrote:
Regular Gonzalez wrote:
orion wrote:
Makavali wrote:
orion wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
There also is no reason why genes should cooperate with anything outside the bodies they use to procreate, unless it helps them in some way. They only cooperate inside a body because they share only one exit into the next generation, the gametes, so even that cooperation is a forced uneasy alliance.
There is simply no conceivable way how and why genes would cooperate on a group or even species level, if they do anyway, it is a coincidence.
[/quote]
What about ant colonies or bee hives.
A worker ant or bee will happily sacrifice it’s life for the benefit of the group.
[quote]anonym wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
orion wrote:
Dildos… very, very unnatural.
I am disappointed in him that his daughter is not pregnant yet, which would be the natural state of things.
Instead he is denying her the real thing and forces rubber toys on her.
Headhunter has transcended nature.
“If a man builds a thousand bridges and sucks one dick, they don’t call him a bridge-builder… they call him a cocksucker.”
Sorry, HH, but it seems that, despite your 7,800 posts, that one thread is gonna be the one to follow you around from here on out.
Pedo.[/quote]
It’s not even that. HH is using the same logic and arguments the Westboro Baptist Church does. And I’m pretty sure everybody here agrees the WBC is bigoted and wrong. (Except, maybe, HH himself.)
[quote]Regular Gonzalez wrote:
orion wrote:
Regular Gonzalez wrote:
orion wrote:
Makavali wrote:
orion wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
There also is no reason why genes should cooperate with anything outside the bodies they use to procreate, unless it helps them in some way. They only cooperate inside a body because they share only one exit into the next generation, the gametes, so even that cooperation is a forced uneasy alliance.
There is simply no conceivable way how and why genes would cooperate on a group or even species level, if they do anyway, it is a coincidence.
What about ant colonies or bee hives.
A worker ant or bee will happily sacrifice it’s life for the benefit of the group.
[/quote]
They do that for the benefit of their own genes because the only way their genes get to the next generation is through the queen.
It is similar to the cells in your body who cannot procreate by themselves, that makes them pretty much irrelevant and replaceable.