The "Gaystapo"

[Reactionary Vanguard]

it does succeed. And heterosexuality (or as Trotskylvania says, hetero-leaning bisexuality) succeeds better, a la greater representation

False assertion - that heterosexuality and homosexuality are perpetuating different code. (And that proportional representation represented fitness or relevance).

they're definitely different code. If they aren't genetically encoded (or some bit of code that makes them mentally lean in that direction), then homosexuality would be a personal decision. and then the whole "We can't change who we are argument falls apart.

And after that proportional representation line, you should apologizing for bashing my understanding of evolution. If homosexuality were as fit, it would be able to propogate itself just as well as the other orientation. Which it clearly does not.

[Ostronopolis]

And now for the applicability of Godwin's Law in the real world... *nods*

[Bottle]

It doesn't make the judgement that we should treat them differently. but it does identify heterosexuality as being stronger

How?

Don't worry...it doesn't. At all.

[Bottle]

they're definitely different code. If they aren't genetically encoded (or some bit of code that makes them mentally lean in that direction), then homosexuality would be a personal decision. and then the whole "We can't change who we are argument falls apart.

Seriously, fingernails on a chalk board. It's just painful to watch this level of humiliation.

[Grave_n_idle]

False assertion - that heterosexuality and homosexuality are perpetuating different code. (And that proportional representation represented fitness or relevance).

they're definitely different code. If they aren't genetically encoded (or some bit of code that makes them mentally lean in that direction), then homosexuality would be a personal decision. and then the whole "We can't change who we are argument falls apart.

Irrelevant. You seem to be under the impression that what is important is perpetuating sexual preference as code. On the contrary, both the co-parents, AND the parents (homosexual or heterosexual) are perpetuating the overall gene-code that is common to the genetic line - of which sex and gender are tiny and inconsequential variations.

[Tmutarakhan]

Whereas you would prefer to kill those kids? Someone is sounding like the Gestapo, but it isn't us.

show me, just show me where I said kill.

You are very coy about saying what you mean; like here for example:

But if you are going to argue that they are as fit as a normal human, then I'm going to the bar to see if I can get as drunk as you

I assume you are trying to say that I drink, which I do not (if that's any of your fucking business); but I do not know what you mean about how "fit" the kids are: fit for what? Fit to live? There's a sweet kid with Down's who works as a greeter at a diner on the interstate, who's thrilled to meet the regulars and thrilled to meet new people; I stopped by there on my recent drive across the country, and although it's been years since the previous time I saw him, he remembered my name and what we were talking about last time-- his mind would not suit him to do my job (I'm a math teacher), but my mind wouldn't suit me to do his.

It is best for the species that it include a wide variety of different types. Humanity apparently survives best with approximately as many gay people as it currently has: we help other people's kids, and make other contributions which help everybody to do better. Consider for example that among wolves, only a minority of individuals are allowed to breed, or more extremely, among bees only a small fraction of a percent are physically capable of breeding: by your logic, it is obviously the breeders among those species who are "least fit"? Your misconceptions about how natural selection works are reminiscent of the 19th-century thinkiing which (yes) underlay the growth of Naziism (hardly a "Godwin" in this context, when the thread was pre-Godwinned!), especially in view of your apparent absence of any humanitarian values independent of your warped pseudo-science.

[Unchecked Expansion]

And after that proportional representation line, you should apologizing for bashing my understanding of evolution. If homosexuality were as fit, it would be able to propogate itself just as well as the other orientation. Which it clearly does not.

Left handedness is in the minority, and is at least partially genetic. Does that make left handed people less 'fit' than right handed?

[Reactionary Vanguard]

they're definitely different code. If they aren't genetically encoded (or some bit of code that makes them mentally lean in that direction), then homosexuality would be a personal decision. and then the whole "We can't change who we are argument falls apart.

Irrelevant. You seem to be under the impression that what is important is perpetuating sexual preference as code. On the contrary, both the co-parents, AND the parents (homosexual or heterosexual) are perpetuating the overall gene-code that is common to the genetic line - of which sex and gender are tiny and inconsequential variations.

so you're saying that a code segment relying exclusively on kin selection for survivial is just as fit as one in which individuals sexually propogate it.........

[Reactionary Vanguard]

And after that proportional representation line, you should apologizing for bashing my understanding of evolution. If homosexuality were as fit, it would be able to propogate itself just as well as the other orientation. Which it clearly does not.

Left handedness is in the minority, and is at least partially genetic. Does that make left handed people less 'fit' than right handed?

In ways we can't conceive of, why not? Why isn't there an even 50-50 split if it is equally fit?

[Unchecked Expansion]

Left handedness is in the minority, and is at least partially genetic. Does that make left handed people less 'fit' than right handed?

In ways we can't conceive of, why not? Why isn't there an even 50-50 split if it is equally fit?

So, does that make lefties inferior and deserving of ill treatment?

[Grave_n_idle]

Irrelevant. You seem to be under the impression that what is important is perpetuating sexual preference as code. On the contrary, both the co-parents, AND the parents (homosexual or heterosexual) are perpetuating the overall gene-code that is common to the genetic line - of which sex and gender are tiny and inconsequential variations.

so you're saying that a code segment relying exclusively on kin selection for survivial is just as fit as one in which individuals sexually propogate it.........

I'm saying that the perpetuation of the individual gene-line (and the collectively gene-line, arguably) is judged on perpetuation - no other factor.

If a gene-line is best perpetuated by a mechanism fostered by a few parents, and a few more co-parents (eminently likely in a species that has prolonged gestational and adolescence terms), then an arrangement that favours a few parents, and a number of co-parents is optimal.

[Bottle]

And after that proportional representation line, you should apologizing for bashing my understanding of evolution. If homosexuality were as fit, it would be able to propogate itself just as well as the other orientation. Which it clearly does not.

Left handedness is in the minority, and is at least partially genetic. Does that make left handed people less 'fit' than right handed?

Hell, I'll go you one better:

Fertility is negatively correlated with IQ scores*. High IQ scores are, by definition, in the minority. People with higher IQs are less likely to reproduce.

Therefore, people with high IQ are clearly less fit. Which fits right in with why our fitness-obsessed friend is making so little sense...he's too "fit" for piddly crap like facts and logic!

*Citations:
Geary, David M. (2004). The Origin of the Mind: Evolution of Brain, Cognition, and General Intelligence. American Psychological Association (APA)
http://www.jstor.org/pss/1972320

[Bottle]

Left handedness is in the minority, and is at least partially genetic. Does that make left handed people less 'fit' than right handed?

In ways we can't conceive of, why not? Why isn't there an even 50-50 split if it is equally fit?

Probably because handedness, like sexuality, isn't 100% genetic.

[Unchecked Expansion]

In ways we can't conceive of, why not? Why isn't there an even 50-50 split if it is equally fit?

Probably because handedness, like sexuality, isn't 100% genetic.

It's one of those weird ones. And it makes dry wipe markers a right pain to use

[Tmutarakhan]

so you're saying that a code segment relying exclusively on kin selection for survivial is just as fit as one in which individuals sexually propogate it.........

Again: "Fit" for what?
And: what do you think is funny here?

[Reactionary Vanguard]

It is best for the species that it include a wide variety of different types. Humanity apparently survives best with approximately as many gay people as it currently has: we help other people's kids, and make other contributions which help everybody to do better. Consider for example that among wolves, only a minority of individuals are allowed to breed, or more extremely, among bees only a small fraction of a percent are physically capable of breeding: by your logic, it is obviously the breeders among those species who are "least fit"? Your misconceptions about how natural selection works are reminiscent of the 19th-century thinkiing which (yes) underlay the growth of Naziism (hardly a "Godwin" in this context, when the thread was pre-Godwinned!), especially in view of your apparent absence of any humanitarian values independent of your warped pseudo-science.

First off, sorry but if I were advocating eugenics then I would openly do so. Also humanitarian values have nothing to do with the understanding of science.

The bee and wolf examples are not a strong corollary. In their cases, evolution has crafted them into strongly hierarchical social structures, almost asserting that the ones on top are the fittest, and that the underlings are mere tools to perpetuate them. Humanity being much more horizontal (with no clear biological forumla for who will lead us) has genetic competition define the makeup.

Let's bring up the point that gay people rarely (sometimes with other straights but rarely) reproduce directly, or through artificial methods defying mate selection. Their existence depends on phenotypically average carriers kin selecting each other. Once a gay "exhibitor" comes into being, the line almost always ends there. Just because they aren't exist doesn't mean they sit on a chair of even height

[Zaras]

How?

go back and read the discussion up to this point

No, you tell me why heterosexuality is stronger. Cite your sources.

[Reactionary Vanguard]

In ways we can't conceive of, why not? Why isn't there an even 50-50 split if it is equally fit?

So, does that make lefties inferior and deserving of ill treatment?

Darwinially, yes. And only deserving of ill-treatment if a society claims it wants to create rights based on "natural law".

[Reactionary Vanguard]

In ways we can't conceive of, why not? Why isn't there an even 50-50 split if it is equally fit?

Probably because handedness, like sexuality, isn't 100% genetic.

even if it's not completely, that means a code segment still exists to predispose individuals in that direction

[Bottle]

Probably because handedness, like sexuality, isn't 100% genetic.

even if it's not completely, that means a code segment still exists to predispose individuals in that direction

I like how you throw around terms like "code segment." Makes your bullshit sound extra science-y!

[Grave_n_idle]

Left handedness is in the minority, and is at least partially genetic. Does that make left handed people less 'fit' than right handed?

In ways we can't conceive of, why not? Why isn't there an even 50-50 split if it is equally fit?

Why would there be?

Why is D-DOPA biologically inactive, while L-DOPA is not?

If L-DOPA and R-DOPA are equally fit as molecules, why does mass production via Ethane-1,2-diylbis[(2-methoxyphenyl)phenylphosphane] only generate the L-DOPA variant?


The answer, of course, is that science doesn't feel the need to shape itself to your peculiar prejudices, and 'equally fit' is not the same as 'equally represented'.

[Reactionary Vanguard]

Hell, I'll go you one better:

Fertility is negatively correlated with IQ scores*. High IQ scores are, by definition, in the minority. People with higher IQs are less likely to reproduce.

Therefore, people with high IQ are clearly less fit. Which fits right in with why our fitness-obsessed friend is making so little sense...he's too "fit" for piddly crap like facts and logic!

And high IQ people often control the lower IQed people in class based societies. If anything its a predator-prey symbiosis, not an indication of fitness. Without the reproduction disparity, the pyramid would collapse. I invite you to indicate how gays would have a csimilar control over straights.

*Citations:
Geary, David M. (2004). The Origin of the Mind: Evolution of Brain, Cognition, and General Intelligence. American Psychological Association (APA)
http://www.jstor.org/pss/1972320

[Reactionary Vanguard]

even if it's not completely, that means a code segment still exists to predispose individuals in that direction

I like how you throw around terms like "code segment." Makes your bullshit sound extra science-y!

No, it's because the Human Genome Project has determined that traits do not hinge on single genes as once thought. It's now believed to be a combination of genes, hence, code segment.

[Reactionary Vanguard]

go back and read the discussion up to this point

No, you tell me why heterosexuality is stronger. Cite your sources.

A practical application of the Origin of Species' tenets. i will gladly read a source that you offer indicating that homosexuality is indepndent from the mechanism of natural selection

[Grave_n_idle]

No, you tell me why heterosexuality is stronger. Cite your sources.

A practical application of the Origin of Species' tenets.

Vague, non-specific allusion =/= citation.