Demonizing people

Discussion in 'Religion' started by Sorcerer, Feb 24, 2014.

  1. NMSquirrel OCD ADHD THC IMO UR12 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,478
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    To be more accurate, it has no biological imperative nor rationale for evolutionary development that you understand. Given that evolution has consistently conserved it within populations (and not just in modern humans, and not just in humans period) it is likely that your understanding is incomplete.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    Excellent defense of science against those who would presume to leverage it the way many folks leverage religion, to justify intolerance.

    Perhaps if the religions were not so busy attacking the teaching of evolution, and instead busy with remedial courses in Biology, they could appreciate some of the details behind what you just said. In the first place, the instinctual drive to procreate is implemented as an instinct to couple, not necessarily for productive purposes. The monthly ovulation cycle has its own underlying evolutionary cause, but it's obviously not there to provide 12 opportunities for fertilization per year. That admits that nature provides for many non-productive coupling events

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I hate jargon but sometimes it's a necessary evil.

    Armed with this, that people will couple far more often than they will procreate, we need only ask what else is there besides coupling that motivates sexual partnering. Obviously it's bonding. Bonding for protection of the family, bonding for protection of the community, these are all observed just from a day at a zoo or wildlife park. Male bonding is purely sexual in nature--that is, it's an ingredient of the sexual selection process. If anything this may be the genetic predisposition that wires some brains to merge the two drives into one. Bond male to male for protection of the community. Bond with the one you couple with to protect the family. Or, in what can be a seen as a simple variation on that, probably less complicated than coding for blue eyes, couple with the one you've bonded with. It's no cost to the community (what else are the rejected males supposed to do

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ) and yet it offers benefits through increasing the protection to the community, and reinforcing protection to both community and family through the promotion of bonding.

    That at least would be a plausible way for a person work through the logic of how evolution might account for this diversity in sexual preference. There may be better explanations, but they will never be the ones that try to justify homophobia as it's being played off in the Culture Wars.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. scifes In withdrawal. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,573
    evolution has consistently conserved many things, like religion for example. pedophilia and sociopathy too, as well as a long list of disorders.
    the rest is too weak to bother with, unless explained before and i missed it.
     
  8. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    Religion is not genetically inherited. It, like fashion and music, is a product of human society.

    Let's take one inherited disorder - sickle cell anemia. For a long time everyone thought it was just plain bad; caused illness and premature death in undeveloped society. Someone like Syne would have claimed that "it does not serve a biological imperative nor have a rationale for evolutionary development." So why did evolution preserve it?

    Turns out that the same genes that code for sickle cell anemia confer resistance to malaria. So there was a very strong evolutionary reason for keeping it. We just didn't understand it at first.
     
  9. scifes In withdrawal. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,573
    lol at your feeble attempt. billvon was arguing from ignorance.
    we don't have wings so we're not supposed to fly.
    oh no, maybe we're supposed to fly because maybe evolution had reason for us to work but it's beyond our understanding, like, why else do we have long legs which we can easily attach artificial webbing to which would help in gliding, and later, flying? if we had short legs then we couldn't attach the artificial webbing to. there's definitely a weird and hidden messages in the workings of evolution.
    nature is intolerant, it's called natural selection, you breed less, you die out.
    you don't breed at all, then natural selection will, uh... no that can't be right, natural selection, evolution, science! it CAN'T be homophobic! THERE'S GOTTA TO BE ANOTHER EXPLANATION!!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    religon is a product of evolution.
    get a clue buddy, if god doesn't exist, then where did evil religion come from to infest humanity? aliens?
    not biology, you need that, along with some philosophy.
    there's no reason for it to be for other than to reproduce, that's the engine of life, natural selection, unless you have proof for otherwise, which apparently you do;
    admits, lol
    how many times are other species able to fertilize a year? once? how many times can the chemicals we originated from reproduce themselves and their reaction in a year? 10? how about a million? how long was the period of the "first" fertilization of life? and you're complaining it's only 12 a year.

    -skipped a bunch-

    close to impossible. a joke to suggest "plausible".
    the diversity isn't really a diversity, there's hetero, then there's minorities, occasional mutations which get clipped out quickly.
    imagine a city of homosexual people. now imagine it 5 centuries later.
    staggering.
    you've decided that, and the world will oblige you, reality wouldn't dare to make you sad, or make you think of it as unfair.

    sigh. science.
     
  10. scifes In withdrawal. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,573
    I wanted to let this go because it's off topic here, but i came across the following and it might be relevant;
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology_of_religion
    http://evolution.binghamton.edu/religion/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/BeginnersGuide.pdf
    science works in mysterious ways.
    should we stop trying to cure diseases because they might have hidden benefits?
    should we disregard what we know for what we don't know?
    it still is an argument from ignorance.
    until sickle cell anemia was discovered to have that relation to malaria resistance, the correct, and scientific thing to do, was to try and eradicate it, we work with the evidence that we have, not what might pop up later on.
    syne's comment is common sense and the basis of science, work according to evidence. homosexuality is the antithesis of breeding.
    there's really no other way to put it.
     
    Last edited: Mar 25, 2014
  11. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    I think this is the most overt, smack-you-over-the-head example of scientific ignorance enabling bigotry. Because this person doesn't understand biology or natural selection, they think they've excused their hatred with a rational argument.

    Okay, sorry, THIS is the best example. Not only is an ignorance of evolution, but also of history and archaeology.
     
  12. scifes In withdrawal. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,573
    lol, welcome welcome, you honor us with your presence.
    now that we each got the welcomes out of the way, how about doing that thing they call discussion?
    or you prefer i report you for trolling and meaningless content, you know you added nothing here but mentioning the names of some knowledge fields and expressing your unexplained feeling of superiority over others, i mean i looked for something to look up or reply to but there's nothing. come on, give me something to work with here..
     
  13. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    Nothing you've said warrants a direct response, for the reasons listed. Instead, I thinks it stands as a crystalline example of the topic of this thread.
     
  14. scifes In withdrawal. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,573
    If it doesn't warrant a direct response then don't respond.
    reported for trolling.
     
  15. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    I wasn't responding to you. Does the concept of a forum require explanation, or can I trust you to figure it out?
     
  16. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    It's generally accepted that homosexuality is not an inherited trait, since it's uncommon for identical twins to both be gay. Some suggest that it may be caused by conditions in utero, although AFAIK no one has figured out how to identify those conditions. Others insist that it's affected by the home environment in the first couple of years, but again nobody has got even a draft of a list of possible triggers.

    In any case, there's little disagreement among the professionals (professional psychologists, not professional preachers and politicians, many of whom are less "professional" than a garbage collector) that sexual orientation is a done deal long before puberty: as a preadolescent begins to feel the first stirrings of sexual feelings, he already knows which gender they're for. If he vacillates it's because the elders in his life insist that his own feelings should not be trusted, in favor of what they want. (Except for that tiny demographic who are genuinely bisexual.)

    Carl Jung would certainly agree with you, although he might not put it that way since genetics was not a mature science in his day. He tells us that the legends, rituals and images that comprise religion are archetypes, instinctive behaviors programmed into our neurons by our DNA. (I repeat, he would not use this language but this is how it translates into modern science.) Most instinctive behaviors, such as refusing to step off a cliff, are survival traits, passed down because the people who didn't have them died before puberty.

    It's hard to understand why belief in a supernatural creature, who lives in an invisible, illogical supernatural universe and only pops in on us occasionally just to fuck up our lives, would have been passed down. Perhaps it's a random mutation that made it through a genetic bottleneck: humans almost became extinct around 70-80KYA and were reduced to just a few thousand. Both "Mitochondrial Eve" and "Y-Chromosome Adam" are ancestors of every living human, so their archetypes are our archetypes.

    That could never have happened until quite recently. More often than not, homosexual men and women pretended to conform, married a spouse of the opposite sex, and had children. In some cases the spouse knew and allowed him/her to have clandestine liaisons. In a few cases both spouses were homosexual. In other cases it was not too hard for a gay man to have liaisons anyway since in many eras it was considered the husband's right--although it would have been much more difficult for a lesbian.

    In modern times, perhaps we'll see large gay communities--well wait, we already have West Hollywood and about half of San Francisco to study. Gay people reproduce just fine, using surrogates, sperm banks, etc. It's a good thing. Considering how creative many of them are, I'd hate to lose their DNA.
     
  17. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    Why not?

    It's hard to say whether you're recognizing the damage such prohibition can cause, or simply the futility of it. As such, I'll hold my congratulations.

    It's hard to believe that this is said with a straight face, especially since it immediately followed this sentence:

    I picked this quote to demonstrate that we have losing the point of religious discussion, and the point of religion by focusing on one group of people who seem very keen to do what they do, with pride, to the point of infiltrating long standing institutes, which are in complete opposition to their way of life. [/quote]

    I'm honestly not sure what this sentence means. Could you have a go at trying it again?

    Again, I find this passage to be confounding in its density. What, exactly, are you saying? Try using common definitions, and speaking plainly rather than relying on buzzphrases or colloquialisms.

     
  18. NMSquirrel OCD ADHD THC IMO UR12 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,478
    heres a thought..

    the one person who gets demonized as soon as they are elected.. the President of the United States.
    I don't know how many presidents I have seen get elected then we get inundated with Impeach rants and such
    facebook is loaded with them.
    I think every president that I know of (when I started paying attention to the presidency) has been demonized.
     
  19. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    The office of the President is a farce to be honest... you have very little actual power, since the House/Senate/Congress et al can pretty much block you at every turn if they so choose (eg, if they are controlled by the other party). It isn't even about what's right for the country, it's just about making sure the "other side" doesn't look good *shrugs* And as a result, the President gets all the blame when the House/Senate/Congress are the ones stopping things from getting done.

    And I don't just mean with Obama... the last SEVERAL Presidents have had more red-tape issues than they have actual policy issues!
     
  20. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    President Obama is an unique situation, since there was an even stronger effort, by the majority media, to sanitize the discussion away from demonization, so even damming facts were left out of the discussion.

    Demonization often exaggerates the bad, but in this case, the facts of being a demon were sanitized. For example, as a young man running for state office, all his opponents in his party left the race early, because Obama's and his cronies released sealed court records. That was illegal but Obama is known to break even his own laws.

    Normally this would be brought up as objective news, not demonizing, by real journalist, but it was sanitized. Obama sends the IRS after citizens, which even Nixon never did, yet all you hear is crickets, with lies and denies considered a valid answer.

    President Bush was demonized as the next Hitler, but Obama was raised to sainthood as the next Messiah. Obama even got a Nobel Peace before he did anything. Talk about a mirror approach to demonization. That is like a freshman in college getting his graduation diploma on the first day of school. This type of con is more sinister, since it is subtle and can slide under the radar of people, easier than demonization. Most people don't want to be mean and will be defensive toward demonization. They do wish to be happy and kind so anti-demonizing will be easier to slide under the radar.
     
  21. Sorcerer Put a Spell on you Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    856
    It's almost as if the US system has been set up to neutralise govt. The 2 parties are fairly evenly balanced so you get the flip-flop every 4 or 8 years, presidential terms are limilted, and the Senate/House are often opposed to each other and/or the govt, thus ensuring that nothing much happens (except for stuff like Iraq, which is a big exception). Maybe the point is that the industrial/military congomerate which actually runs the place can just get on and do what it wants without being bothered by piddling issues like democracy....

    Hey, this is off topic, sorry. Maybe the mods would like to start a new thread?
     
  22. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    Religion is not genetic. So how do you equate it having been "conserved" through evolution?

    Which are disorders. Homosexuality is not a disorder. If it were, then heterosexuality would also be classified as a disorder.

    It is my experience that anytime someone begins a sentence with "lol", then any insult or clever quip that may follow is usually one based on stupidity. This rambling post of yours is a prime example of this.

    Homosexuals can and do have children.

    So what exactly is your point?

    Can you please provide scientific references for this?

    The primitive human brain and even more primitive human understanding of their surroundings.

    Yes.. People have sex only to have babies... Don't really get out much, do you?

    Depends on the species.

    Bonobos are known to have a hell of a lot of gay sex and also sex for pure pleasure and for conflict resolution..

    That's the same argument racists use against others..

    Irony.

    Would be like any other city. Homosexual people do have children.
     
  23. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    If the "disease" is being black, having a foreskin or sweating when you run - yes, we should absolutely be smart enough to realize that those things are not really diseases. Even if you don't like blacks, or don't like to sweat, or think everyone should be circumcised.
    Nope. We should always be learning more.
    Even if that killed millions from malaria? Would that be the smart, scientific thing to do? Or would it be wiser to learn more so we can make better decisions?
    So are condoms. However, they are generally a good idea for people to use. The scientific evidence points to a reduction in disease through their use.
     

Share This Page