MensTennisForums.com

MensTennisForums.com (http://www.menstennisforums.com/index.php)
-   Non-Tennis (http://www.menstennisforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=3)
-   -   Clydey and Friends' Philosophical Paradise (http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=134665)

Clydey 11-29-2008 10:19 PM

Clydey and Friends' Philosophical Paradise
 
Let's move the discussion to this thread. Is there a moderator with the patience to move some of the posts from the ACC thread to here?

Clydey 11-29-2008 10:30 PM

Re: Homosexuality and Evolution
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by q.j. (Post 7874562)
Clydey really read your quote once again, the italic lines are the exact and the only things that you are doing.

Procreation and lesser species have always been an easy bait for the naive to categorize something as preferable or not to the species. But human species isn't and animal collective per se, civilization is far more complex than that, it is a big leap away from what is a human in term of 'species' therefore, Darwinian argument in its original or even slightly modernized form are never enough to clearly define a right path of humankind or the lesser parts of it, the dead-ends, while it seem quite sufficient when it comes to other animal species and their evolutionary path.
I suggest you concentrate more on your studies and your hobbies and a little less on forums like this, and if you consider my suggestion malicious or patronizing, please don't as i wish the same thing to myself, oh how i wish for it..

You're not getting it. I have said repeatedly that homosexuality is not wrong and that I am not prescribing Social Darwinism. I also did not suggest that there was a right path. My argument is purely an evolutionary one. It is other people who are taking me in a different direction.

It is a simple fact that homosexuals are much, much less likely to pass on their genes. You are taking the argument in a different direction completely. The only thing I have stated is that homosexuals are inferior from an evolutionary perspective. Nothing more, nothing less. I am not saying that they are worth less, nor am I advocating Social Darwinism. It is simply a fact that heterosexuals are more likely to pass on their genes.

Clydey 11-29-2008 10:35 PM

Re: Homosexuality and Evolution
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Garson007 (Post 7874570)
What's the argument then? This is something where "science" does fail at times in that it doesn't say -anything-; nothing you are saying is relevant to anyone anywhere in the world.

Pointless discussion isn't worth it when you can come out in a worse light afterwards.

There is no argument. Prima Donna stated a fact, but used incorrect terms. People misunderstood what he said about homosexuals being biologically inferior.

He simply meant that they are less likely to pass on their genes. What I am saying is separate to the gay marriage issue in the other thread. I joined in and attempted to clarify what I thought Prima Donna meant about biological inferiority. As he attested, I did clarify it.

It was at that point that people started foaming at the mouth, thinking I was calling homosexuals morally inferior.

Garson007 11-29-2008 10:35 PM

Re: Homosexuality and Evolution
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by JolánGagó (Post 7874572)
You need to do a lot more than playing Prima Trolla's game in order to be considered a clown worthy of ACC Final. The whole "biologically inferior" bullshit was spewed as an argument against gay marriage, it wasn't a discussion on Darwinism. If keeping gays from marrying is right due to their less likeness to pass on their genes, the same must be applied to a wide range of circumstances. For fairness' sake everyone must then take tests on fertility, male potency and so forth before getting a marriage license. No fuckíng one marrying here until they absolutely prove they can and will pass on their genes.

I haven't read the thread myself and considering that the topics discussed under a thread normally evolve quite a bit from page to page it wouldn't be so absurd of me to remark that he might not have meant it in that light. However, was it in reply to being awarded marriage rights, then yes, you are 100% correct and Prima is one bit AC.

Garson007 11-29-2008 10:45 PM

Re: Homosexuality and Evolution
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Clydey (Post 7874601)
There is no argument. Prima Donna stated a fact, but used incorrect terms. People misunderstood what he said about homosexuals being biologically inferior.

He simply meant that they are less likely to pass on their genes. What I am saying is separate to the gay marriage issue in the other thread. I joined in and attempted to clarify what I thought Prima Donna meant about biological inferiority. As he attested, I did clarify it.

It was at that point that people started foaming at the mouth, thinking I was calling homosexuals morally inferior.

I get what you're saying. I'm just saying that it has no relevance. I don't know how Prima came to creating this "biological inferior" debacle and still think that it was somehow relevant. Points of interest, while nice and all, is not useful when people are arguing something completely different and can only interpret what has been said negatively.

From what I understand Prima was out trolling, trying to lure people into a flame-fest. There really is no other explanation to bring this up. Unless, of course, he's once again thinking he has to show everyone just how delusional he is about his own intellect.

Clydey 11-29-2008 10:50 PM

Re: Homosexuality and Evolution
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Garson007 (Post 7874629)
I get what you're saying. I'm just saying that it has no relevance. I don't know how Prima came to creating this "biological inferior" debacle and still think that it was somehow relevant. Points of interest, while nice and all, is not useful when people are arguing something completely different and can only interpret what has been said negatively.

From what I understand Prima was out trolling, trying to lure people into a flame-fest. There really is no other explanation to bring this up. Unless, of course, he's once again thinking he has to show everyone just how delusional he is about his own intellect.

I don't think he was trolling. He aired some unpopular views (judging by how they were received on here), but he wasn't trolling.

I can't recall why it was relevant to the initial argument. I came in when someone raised Prima's statement in a completely different thread. I simply clarified what he meant. I didn't state anything radical. I lost count of how many times I said that I was referring purely to their capacity to procreate.

LinkMage 11-29-2008 10:55 PM

Re: Homosexuality and Evolution
 
You are already out of the ACC, Clydey. Already started campaigning for next year?

JolánGagó 11-29-2008 10:55 PM

Re: Homosexuality and Evolution
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Garson007 (Post 7874602)
I haven't read the thread myself and considering that the topics discussed under a thread normally evolve quite a bit from page to page it wouldn't be so absurd of me to remark that he might not have meant it in that light. However, was it in reply to being awarded marriage rights, then yes, you are 100% correct and Prima is one bit AC.

It was the star point on Prima Trolla's defense of the ban on gay marriage.

q.j. 11-29-2008 10:59 PM

Re: Homosexuality and Evolution
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Garson007 (Post 7874629)
I get what you're saying. I'm just saying that it has no relevance. I don't know how Prima came to creating this "biological inferior" debacle and still think that it was somehow relevant. Points of interest, while nice and all, is not useful when people are arguing something completely different and can only interpret what has been said negatively.

everything that need to be said about this whole mess.

Clydey 11-29-2008 11:00 PM

Re: Homosexuality and Evolution
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by LinkMage (Post 7874642)
You are already out of the ACC, Clydey. Already started campaigning for next year?

Yes, I'm campaigning for the ACC by stating basic facts.

Heterosexual people are more likely to reproduce.

Someone lock me up. I'm coming out with some real crazy shit.

Garson007 11-29-2008 11:01 PM

Re: Homosexuality and Evolution
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by JolánGagó (Post 7874644)
It was the star point on Prima Trolla's defense of the ban on gay marriage.

That's just retarded, not at all constitutional under the western world.

Clydey 11-29-2008 11:03 PM

Re: Homosexuality and Evolution
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by q.j. (Post 7874654)
everything that need to be said about this whole mess.

I don't recall stating anything about relevance. I clarified what Prima Donna meant. Nothing more, nothing less.

I'm not responsible for others' poor reading comprehension. I simply could not have been any clearer.

q.j. 11-29-2008 11:09 PM

Re: Homosexuality and Evolution
 
wood from the trees, is that how you say it?

Good night clydey :)

Clydey 11-29-2008 11:12 PM

Re: Homosexuality and Evolution
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by q.j. (Post 7874686)
wood from the trees, is that how you say it?

Good night clydey :)

Just about right.

G'night.

RagingLamb 11-30-2008 02:18 AM

Re: Homosexuality and Evolution
 
Homosexuality is from what I understand not a genetic trait, and hence not a heritable trait. So evolution can't really work on it. If homosexuality was "evolutionarily inferior" it would have ceased to exist a long time ago.


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:50 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.