4chan archive /lgbt/ (index)
similar threads
2013-07-27 08:44 1021589 Anonymous (evolution.jpg 631x300 38kB)
(Not trying to be /pol/ or upset you, just venting my thoughts) I can't help but feeling that I (as a gay man) somehow am below a heterosexual man, solely based on my sexuality. I've lived my life so far feeling superior in regards to intelligence and physique, but as I've come closer with my sexuality I've suddenly realised that I (from an evolutionary perspective) am defective and under natural circumstances wouldn't be able to reproduce and carry on my perfect genes to the next generation. Clearly, homosexuals are not supposed to have offspring and enhance the human race - they're inadequate and therefore gets their genes sorted out naturally. So how come someone who's lesser built and don't really offer any advances is more suited to contribute to evolution than I am? How do you not feel inferior to the heterosexuals?

2 min later 1021601 Anonymous
I feel that heteros are inferior.

3 min later 1021604 Anonymous
And as a person who identifies as another gender, I'm bottom rung. Although beautiful people are a whole other class, hmm. Mustn't worry. Welcome to cultural Marxism (yes it's existed for awhile now people)

19 min later 1021693 Anonymous
>>1021589 You can still make babies, OP

24 min later 1021708 Anonymous
Evolution isn't just about making babies, it's about taking care of the babies that get made. Sometimes that's even more important. Adopt a kid. God knows the straight folks aren't doing enough.

27 min later 1021721 Anonymous (1367783271449.jpg 149x161 11kB)
>How do you not feel inferior to the heterosexuals? Simple: I don't have to put up with women. Ever. The only time I have to suffer them is when I get stuck ringing one up at work. I don't have to pretend like I care about their problems, their issues, or their rights, I don't have to suffer through their ridiculous mind games, and I don't have to spend an entire paycheck taking them out on a single date that might not even end with me getting laid. Truly glorious.

29 min later 1021732 Anonymous
>>1021708 This is true. I remember learning about an experiment in college where they took a bunch of groups of chickens. In half the groups, they selected the most fertile chickens and made new groups out of them. In the other, they selected the entire group with the most eggs as a whole and continued breeding them. The second group way out performed the first, because there's more to evolutionary success than making children.

36 min later 1021778 Canola Yogurt
>>1021708 This and, humanity is approaching a very dangerous point in its population right now, environmentally speaking. I think a reduction in population growth is in order to remain viable as a species.

39 min later 1021794 Anonymous
>>1021708 >>1021732 But why wouldn't the homosexual caretakers be the ones with lesser genetics? Seems ineffective to waste a great genepool to take care of an inferior one. >>1021721 I'm happy about my sexuality, and at this point I can still procreate if I want to so I don't feel inferior in that aspect.

41 min later 1021805 kill yourself
>I'm not /pol/ Thinly veiled /pol/ thread. Fuck off OP

44 min later 1021823 Anonymous
>>1021794 Because people aren't superior or inferior? They're just different. But even if you want to call yourself superior, you have absolutely no way of knowing what kind of time bomb your genetics might hold. It's all random.

1 hours later 1021910 Anonymous
>>1021794 >But why wouldn't the homosexual caretakers be the ones with lesser genetics? Seems ineffective to waste a great genepool to take care of an inferior one. There's no "inferior" or "superior" in genetics. There are only those combinations which help further the species, and those that don't. As a caretaker, you would belong to the former group.

1 hours later 1021970 Dante
>>1021778 Part of the problem with that though is that we have it convinced that Darwinism is all about cooperation and have forgotten the competitive aspect of that. We assume that a large population is the best. >>1021823 >People aren't superior or inferior I still don't understand how anyone can say this. Yes, genetics isn't a factor, but overall social hierarchy and the very nature of society means fundamental crucial inequality.

1 hours later 1021992 Squirrel
Homosexality is nature's way of fighting overpopulation. Were doing the race a favor.

1 hours later 1022152 Anonymous
If homosexuality is genetically predetermined, it doesn't necessarily mean that your genes were determined to be inferior. Just expendable in the bigger picture. Also, "natural circumstances" would be what? When we were cavemen? What does it matter where we'd have ended up in the hierarchy of primitive, tribal societies? We may be technically still animals but we don't live like them and we don't exclusively judge a person's worth based on how they could have best survived or procreated if they'd lived in a time before language. Any evidence that homosexuality is not an isolated defect and has implications about a person's mental wellbeing and competence comes from studies that ignore social pressure and alienation.

1 hours later 1022188 Anonymous
>>1021823 That's an obvious lie. Some people are superior to other people.

1 hours later 1022206 Anonymous
>>1021992 >Implying overpopulation is real Not in the First World, it isn't.

1 hours later 1022252 Anonymous (medicin_135397763.jpg 460x306 60kB)
>>1021823 >>1021910 Superiority does indeed exist and it's the reason species survive and evolve. Sure you could say that everyone's just different but when those differences come into play with the sorroundings there are some who stand a better chance at surviving and evolving than others. My questions still stand. Why would my intelligent genepool go to waste instead of those less fortunate? How does it not make you feel inferior that you're not supposed to expand your greatness? >>1022152 >it doesn't necessarily mean that your genes were determined to be inferior It kinda does since it means that I'm not supposed to procreate. >Also, "natural circumstances" would be what? Well basically anything before the point of artificial insemination.

1 hours later 1022268 Anonymous
>>1021992 There have been studies that show that the female siblings of gay men are more fertile than those who have heterosexual siblings. Contrary to your beliefs homosexuality might be the cause of future overpopulation.

2 hours later 1022303 Anonymous
>>1021589 Does being homosexual somehow make you unable to reproduce?

2 hours later 1022334 Anonymous
Why don't you just fuck a woman, have a baby with her, and then leave her to take care of the baby?

2 hours later 1022351 Anonymous
>>1021589 >Understanding evolution >you

2 hours later 1022396 Anonymous
>>1021589 Who gives a fuck? We're too homogenous and don't experience many selective pressures beyond being attractive. Genetic evolution means nothing for us now, and the only significant evolution now is memetic.

2 hours later 1022411 Anonymous (34576894356809.png 1506x228 59kB)
/thread

2 hours later 1022460 Anonymous (education1.gif 267x199 173kB)
>>1022303 >>1022334 I don't get turned on by a woman and wouldn't be able to impregnate her. >why dont all virgins just get a dog to fuck? >>1022351 Please enlighten me, faggot. >>1022411 See >>1021794 Also, why not make this 5% have no sexual desire whatsoever? Fucking another of the same gender seems rather pointless seeing as it doesn't lead anywhere and finding likeminded is a bit of a struggle with what the 5% and all... Not buying it.

2 hours later 1022513 Anonymous
>>1022252 >Superiority does indeed exist and it's the reason species survive and evolve. But it's not an absolute scale, if being tall is a strength today, it can become a weakness tomorrow if the environment changes.

2 hours later 1022520 Anonymous
>>1022460 >I don't get turned on by a woman and wouldn't be able to impregnate her. You don't have to fuck a woman to impregnate her. Are you retarded?

2 hours later 1022530 Anonymous
>>1022460 Evolution doesn't always makes sense. It's not perfect even though we've had millions of years of it. It's just what's survived well so far. Having 5% of couples not be able to reproduce but raise kids is plausible to help the overall clan. And having two parents is usually better than one. I don't know too much about asexualism but I don't think it usually works out well for them seeing as many times one partner tends to suddenly find their sex drive later on in the relationship.

2 hours later 1022547 Anonymous
>>1022460 >I don't get turned on by a woman and wouldn't be able to impregnate her. Yeah, you could. If you really tried. I'm fucking positive that the majority of gay men throught history have been able to father children, even if they don't enjoy the sex itself.

2 hours later 1022560 Anonymous
>>1022460 >I don't get turned on by a woman and wouldn't be able to impregnate her. Bring out the turkey basters

2 hours later 1022601 Anonymous
>>1022252 >It kinda does since it means that I'm not supposed to procreate. Nature isn't always perfect and precise. It's unknown what actually determines homosexuality but it's not based on an extensive, comprehensive evaluation of your potential as a person. For all we know, it's randomized.

2 hours later 1022613 Anonymous
>>1022460 >I don't get turned on by a woman and wouldn't be able to impregnate her. All you really need to do is jerk off until you're about to climax and then stick it in. Not that hard.

2 hours later 1022673 Anonymous (cheers.jpg 450x338 33kB)
>>1022513 Intelligence is always a strength >>1022530 Well no but that's a rather big flaw to be left out by evolution imho considering what homosexuals have endured. >>1022520 >>1022560 >>1022613 Y'all bitches need 2reed the fucking thread. >>1022547 Well here's to hoping! >>1022601 >It's unknown >but it's not based on Can't make a claim like that, sister. I do get your point though and I realise it's rather pointless thinking about.

3 hours later 1022675 Anonymous
>ITT: a scientifically clueless, but pseudo-intellectual straight conservative man from /pol/ pretends to be a self-hating gay man to troll >gets told repeatedly >resorts to calling everyone a faggot lel

3 hours later 1022692 Anonymous
>>1022460 >why not make this 5% have no sexual desire whatsoever? >make >implying it's a plan >implying evolution isn't just random shit that happens

3 hours later 1022693 Anonymous
>>1022673 It's almost creepy how determined you are to label yourself "inferior" based on arbitrary evolutionary traits that no longer judge whether or not your genes are passed along due to our general advancement as a species.

3 hours later 1022711 Anonymous
>>1022692 This. So many people think human evolution follows this predictable, set-in-stone blueprint according to the claims of secular and religious texts about ideal human traits and behavior and what have you. Just no.

3 hours later 1022725 Anonymous
>>1022673 >Well no but that's a rather big flaw to be left out by evolution imho considering what homosexuals have endured. It may not be perfect but it has no amount of shed tears by homosexuals(myself included) would make a difference. Evolution isn't really a 'thing' to be flawed. Interesting fact. They think sickle-cell anemia evolved as an adaptive advantage to malaria. In areas where malaria is rampant, it is actually beneficial to have the disease.

3 hours later 1022739 Anonymous
>>1022725 >b-but muh genetic racial superiority through evolutionary pseudo-science!

3 hours later 1022756 Anonymous
>>1022725 > big flaw to be left out by evolution imho considering what homosexuals have endured. >implying evolution is a sapient force that cares about your feels Holy shit, it's like some people have just replaced god with evolution and think it's all the same.

3 hours later 1022774 Anonymous
>>1022756 This. Evolution is naturalistic, not teleological. It's amazing how little people seem to understand this.

3 hours later 1022786 Anonymous
>>1022756 >Holy shit, it's like some people have just replaced god with evolution and think it's all the same. >implying OP isn't just using the term "evolution" as a stand-in for God because he's a conservative troll who doesn't actually understand evolution outside of the concept of an omniscient, anthropocentric deity telling it what to do

3 hours later 1022841 Anonymous (gråtbebis.jpg 537x640 111kB)
>>1022692 >>1022711 >>1022725 >>1022756 >>1022774 Seeing as homosexuality is deviant and unpractical and pretty much always has been I don't see the reason why it hasn't faded away. Sure "random shit happens" but it gets sorted out by efficiency. Explain to me the efficiency of homosexuality (besides the nurturing part already debated).

3 hours later 1022879 Anonymous
>>1022841 Nobody's saying that, holy shit are you retarded?

3 hours later 1022918 Anonymous
>>1022879 >what is a quote playing the retard card lightly, are we?

3 hours later 1023050 Anonymous
>>1022841 >What I say happens happens because I say it happens the way I say it happens >the world doesn't work the way it works unless it makes logical sense to me personally within my limited realm of understanding

3 hours later 1023058 Anonymous
>>1022841 I don't know what you want here. Do you want us all to officially admit we're freaks in need of eugenic culling to assuage your desire for objective certainty in the universe?

3 hours later 1023064 Anonymous
>>1022841 >muh begging the question

3 hours later 1023072 Anonymous
>>1022841 >Justify your existence to me in the way I want you to justify your existence to me Fucking people, man.

4 hours later 1023097 Anonymous
>>1022841 >Sure "random shit happens" but it gets sorted out by efficiency. I guess it does. >Explain to me the efficiency of homosexuality (besides the nurturing part already debated). Explain to me the efficiency of painful childbirth, or the fact that we breathe through the same hole we eat and drink through. Evolution is fucking weird, anon. Roll with it, and stop presuming you have the omniscience and foresight of a deity, where you could properly identify the teleological goal of all human evolution based on what little knowledge you have, let alone a trait as nebulous as homosexuality.

4 hours later 1023106 Anonymous
>>1021589 If you're so worried about your precious genes you should consider donating semen.

4 hours later 1023119 Anonymous
>>1023106 >implying small-mindedness, delusions of grandeur and superiority, and a neurotic obsession with one's narcissistic lust for immortality or "genetic destiny" are positive traits to pass on to the next generation

4 hours later 1023139 Anonymous
>>1023119 Regardless, that's not for you to decide. If he really wants to pass on his genes, and there's a woman willing to bear his children, then it will happen.

4 hours later 1023145 Anonymous (missed1.gif 299x216 2093kB)
>>1023050 Tell me where I'm wrong and explain how it really is. >>1023058 Read the OP, I've made 2 very clear questions I want you to discuss. I honestly don't know if you guys are just stupid, really this fragile or simply trolling me - if it's the latter then congrats I fell for it, I guess? If not, try and actually read the thread before you start stirring up shit and completely missing the point, thx!

4 hours later 1023192 Anonymous
>>1023145 Your entire approach is wrong. You're wrong because you're assuming there is a "right", that there is a way things "should be", yet if you understood even the most basic principles of evolutionary theory you'd see that it is naturalistic. I have a feeling this is above you though, and I'm not even trying to sound patronising.

4 hours later 1023243 Anonymous
>>1021589 >as I've come closer with my sexuality I've suddenly realised that I (from an evolutionary perspective) am defective and under natural circumstances wouldn't be able to reproduce and carry on my perfect genes to the next generation. Even if you don't reproduce, your existence can serve the purpose of the collective survival of our species - whether it is working to help nurture or protect the young of the group, simply by not contributing to overpopulation, or in some other way. >Clearly, homosexuals are not supposed to have offspring and enhance the human race - they're inadequate and therefore gets their genes sorted out naturally. Well, historically, homosexuality has never been a barrier to reproduction. Almost all the famous homosexuals in history had children. >So how come someone who's lesser built and don't really offer any advances is more suited to contribute to evolution than I am? There's no design to it. >How do you not feel inferior to the heterosexuals? I regularly stroke my ego.

4 hours later 1023270 Anonymous (you keep using that word.jpg 400x345 112kB)
>>1021604 >Welcome to cultural Marxism Wha?

4 hours later 1023347 Anonymous
>>1022841 >Explain to me the efficiency of homosexuality In terms of homosexual behaviour in bisexuals (likely to have been common amongst early man): If males view each other as potential sexual and social partners rather than as merely competition for resources and females, they will be more likely to co-operate in acquiring resources, preparing shelter, defending the group from attack, etc. In terms of exclusive homosexuality (if that is not merely a C20th phenomenon): It imposes a limit on population growth whilst continuing to provide individuals who can take part in acquiring resources, defence, etc. We might find evidence for this as an evolutionary trend in the apparent increase in the probability that offspring will be homosexual if they have older siblings.

4 hours later 1023385 Anonymous
>Clearly, homosexuals are not supposed to have offspring and enhance the human race - they're inadequate and therefore gets their genes sorted out naturally. Perhaps you have not heard of the studies, but there is a strong correlation between homosexuality and having multiple older brothers. The more older brothers one has, the more likely they are to be gay. This of course implies that homosexuality is correlated with the prenatal environment, which is entirely dependent on the health of the mother and the state of her womb. Modern science seems to imply that homosexuality is not related to genes, but rather to this environment. By this logic, your genes may be perfect but if your prenatal environment is conducive to homosexuality, you will be gay anyway.

4 hours later 1023402 Anonymous
>>1022252 >Superiority does indeed exist and it's the reason species survive and evolve. Sure you could say that everyone's just different but when those differences come into play with the sorroundings there are some who stand a better chance at surviving and evolving than others. I repeat: there is no "superiority". Like you yourself said, there are differences, and those differences play with different environments in different ways. What is good in one environment would die in another environment. Therefore a context-free concept of "superior genes" is complete nonsense, and you should not be pushing it.

5 hours later 1023855 Anonymous (1372352191380.jpg 1000x750 180kB)
>>1021589 as a heterosexual who just happened by this board, i must congratulate you on your integrity and your honesty, you just made me consider homosexuals more valid people from an intellectual perspective, so perhaps keep to that, although you might be somehow unfit to contribute to the overcrowding of this planet, nothing stops you from expressing yourself intellectually/artistically. just please dont end up like most other leftist gay pride morons who seek acceptance and attention more than making any logical sense. oh and if you feel like you should really somehow transmit your genes theres no problem with it really, its your life and your decisions to make. pic not intentionally related

5 hours later 1023902 Anonymous
>>1023385 >Modern science seems to imply that homosexuality is not related to genes, but rather to this environment. Well, no, it's both. I think the best hypothesis based on the evidence so far is that everyone has a gene that can make them straight, bi or gay, and the environment in the womb "switches" that gene to one of those positions. Almost everything about the human condition is a product of the complex interplay of genes and environment.

6 hours later 1023956 Anonymous
>>1023402 superiority does exist, it's just highly relative and an easy way to say "better adapted". if you're offended by the concept doesnt justify you bashing it imo, it shouldnt even be that big of a deal, it's just that nobody wants to be the relative "inferiors", as it is a pejorative denomination, but that doesnt exclude those such people from having their own identitarian pride, as you said yourself, everyone is different.

6 hours later 1023993 Anonymous
>>1023902 >the environment in the womb "switches" that gene to one of those positions thats makes very little sense to me. i agree with freud to some extent when it comes to homosexuality, it's mostly a mattter of early childhood conditions. if there were genes related to homosexuality, they would have most likely died out

6 hours later 1024055 Anonymous
>>1023855 >heterosexual >has that pic on computer

6 hours later 1024069 Anonymous
>>1021589 I am more intelligent than all but maybe 3 or 4 heterosexuals I've ever met in person in my life. Better looking then maybe 30 or 40 of them. I'm manlier than all but maybe 1 or 2 of them. By almost any other measure I am also above average. It's true that my financial situation is subpar. It's true that my number of friends, etc. is well below average. But the way I look at it, and the way I've ALWAYS looked at it, even before I had problems in those areas, those things are not inherently good. What's the use of lots of money if you get it by scamming people, blow it in bad investments and wasteful spending, and are unhappy even when you have lots of money? What's so good about having lots of friends if all you're friends are losers and you're a loser so that they'll be friends with you? Straight people like you who lie constantly like to frame this question like having no children is a score of 0, and having any children is at least a 1 if they're not worth anything at all all the way up to 100, where your child grows up to be Einstein or Bill Gates or Bruce Lee or the president or whatever. I look at it like having the world's worst kind of child is a -50, and having the next president as your child is a +50, and having none is 0. So even in that regard I'm better than most heterosexuals.

6 hours later 1024117 Anonymous
>>1023956 Success exists. There is evolutionary success. But until that success happens, you don't know what is going to be better or worse. You can't look at anything in the present and consider it superior or inferior. You can only look at things in the past.

6 hours later 1024153 Anonymous
>>1024117 Also, what's inherently "good" about evolutionary success? There are infectious diseases, molds, cancers and parasites everywhere. It's statistically likely that there are colonies of mold harmful to your health that are trillions of organisms in size or larger in your home, as something like 80% of all homes have levels of mold harmful to human health in them in the U.S. and you're statistically likely to be posting from the U.S. That mold sure did succeed in terms of evolution. But do you fall to your knees and worship it, and imagine that you should suck it's moldy dick because it's awesome? So why should I give a shit about losers like you who will probably infect this world with more losers at some point?

6 hours later 1024157 Anonymous
>>1024117 Success is relative. What is evolutionary success? Surviving as a species? Growing as a species? Where is the fine line where there is ultimate success in population before it becomes too much population and is negative to survival? And wouldn't the optimum amount of population be different for different people?

6 hours later 1024317 Anonymous
>>1023993 >if there were genes related to homosexuality, they would have most likely died out You're not even reading, are you?

6 hours later 1024405 Anonymous
>>1024153 i like how you analyse the essential aspect of thinking of oneself as superior, but i did say it is only an easy word for well adapted. i dont worship success, if anything im attracted to it, but success would imply an objective aim, and therefore, you impliy that evolution has an objective aim. it then comes down to wether you accept evolution or not. >why should I give a shit about losers like you who will probably infect this world with more losers at some point? you're visibly upset at this point. you shouldnt give a shit, that would be my personal worry, however dont think yourself in right of impeding me from using the word "superior" when discriminating between specimens of the human race which we are, it's merely a judgemental approach to life, deal with it fggt

6 hours later 1024446 Anonymous
>>1024317 reading what? allow me to elaborate my point. admitting there is a genetic factor contributing to homosexuality. >homosexuals are unlikely to have offspring >their genepool is unlikely to transmit >over the years "genetic homosexuals" which would hypothetically be less likely to reproduce, therefore die are likely to out

7 hours later 1024470 Anonymous
>>1024157 Evolutionary success is the survival of your genes.It's not better or worse than anything else, that's just what it means. Humans are evolutionary successes and the dodo bird is an evolutionary failure. I'm not worshipping people who procreate more or worshipping species that survive as better than those that die out. I'm actually on your side that you can't judge things as objectively better or worse. That mold is just a mold. It's going to do what a mold does. People do what people do. None of that is better or worse. And until it's over, we can't even tell if it's an evolutionary success or not.

7 hours later 1024488 Anonymous
>>1024405 I'm not reading the last half of your shitpost when you put so little effort into making the first half of it make sense. In the first half of that shitpost all you did was imply that evolution has a purpose, and that gays are failing that purpose and straight pieces of shit like you are automatically better, AGAIN, like you've already done several times with your samefaggotry and shitposting.

7 hours later 1024598 Anonymous (1330180502970.gif 250x295 66kB)
>>1024488 >missing the point >getting madder and madder >stop repressing me, you masterrace superior straight maestro >butthurt/10 i'll give it to you for the samefaggotry and shitposting though

7 hours later 1024641 Anonymous
>>1024598 The point is that you're an epic piece of shit Christian dubs master.

7 hours later 1024700 Anonymous (136959748528.gif 330x332 1003kB)
>>1024641 ty

10 hours later 1026008 Anonymous
>>1023902 That sounds like a huge load of bullshit. Do you have any evidence to back up this ridiculous sexual wheel of fortune gene theory?

10 hours later 1026038 Anonymous
>>1024069 >I'm a genius >I'm handsome >I'm manly >How come I'm poor and no one likes me? lel. Keep deluding yourself.

10 hours later 1026149 Anonymous
>>1026038 I'm really not deluding myself though. I'd say you are, considering that you're implying that everyone who ever has it good deserves it for some reason and vice-versa.

42 hours later 1034575 Anonymous
>>1021721 Oh god this. The amount of times my mates talk about how they are attracted to women but they hate their personalities. I dont get how they could live like that. Being attracted to something that irritates you. Plus a penis is just so much more appealing than a wet gaping chasm that stinks of fish.

43 hours later 1034681 Anonymous
A book I read had some interesting things to say on this subject. Even if you're a biological dead-end, that doesn't mean that you are useless to the species. Man is a pack animal. Even if you're not one of the ones who reproduces, you still can contribute to the well-being of the pack, care after the young, hunt, and generally ensure the continuation of the pack for generations to come. The act of reproducing is far from the only thing you can do for humanity- in fact, we're actually a bit overpopulated.

43 hours later 1034781 Anonymous
>>1021589 None of this pecking order nonsense for me, that's for self-loathing /pol/tards. I am quite confident that I am physically and mentally superior to 99.9% of the people I interact with IRL (let alone on 4chan,) That's not arrogance but quantifiable fact: see every standardized test I've even taken. Most people around me know it too. My sexuality doesn't play into this very much, but frankly if I choose to procreate at some point I don't think I'll have a problem.

43 hours later 1034791 Anonymous
>77 posts and 11 image replies omitted gr8 b8 m8

43 hours later 1034846 _shark_
>>1021970 you're speaking outta both sides of your ass there paco. in the first response you're talking about genetic darwinism and the second sounds pretty much like social darwinism. the latter is a big no-no in the eyes of most everyone. >>1024446 >this makes sense to me >i've done no tests, have done no genetic research whatsoever, no lab work, no peer evaluation >but this makes sense so it seems like a perfectly valid thing to throw up against the previously established, agreed claims of people with the correct method and resources have already found. >>1023402 beauty has been found to be a great indicator of genetic superiority. essentially beauty is "last on the list" in terms of development and are very expensive, resource-wise and take a lot of coordination on the cells part. the fact that certain factors are present on the natural physical form indicate that the body developed along one's natural genetic instructions with less impairment than another. now, i qualify this with the fact that obviously environmental variables play into this as well - simply things like nutrition or air quality. but there are also genetics that go into play as well.

45 hours later 1035172 Anonymous
Evolution doesn't mean shit. Look how well the ant has done. Does anyone marvel at the ant? No. We are past evolution now, we will soon reach the stage where we can control our own genome and nothing like this will matter

45 hours later 1035355 Anonymous
>>1021589 really? Well I'm asexual man and feel superior to gay and straight sex drones

46 hours later 1035527 Anonymous
>>1021589 No offence, but you are inferior for the ways that you mentioned. That doesn't mean you aren't able to contribute to your people, though. "Equality" is a delusion that will never exist in real life. All people are unequal. Do you think most peasants throughout European history sat around all day worrying about the fact that kings lived happily? Of course not, because they accepted inequality as the way of the world.

46 hours later 1035609 Anonymous
I don't think so op. You could still get a woman pregnant if you really had to. Whether you like her or not, most animals fuck a female and ditch her anyway. There's no reason to feel inferior on an evolutionary standpoint

46 hours later 1035769 Anonymous
>more suited to contribute to evolution not more suited to - you could provide better babies than a degenerate straight man - its what you want to put your penis into that makes you unable to concieve man

51 hours later 1037535 Anonymous
>>1021589 Just don't think of everything in extremely scientific terms. I'm Atheist, but I don't spend every second of my life thinking 'I am drinking this glass of juice because it is my own choice, not the choice of some god' I just do what I want to do. Even if you do think of it in scientific terms, think of it this way, why would you trust another person like a child of yours to continue your genetic legacy after you die when you have no control over them and whether they get fat or handicapped or whatever. And why do you even worry about contributing any children to the world when there are more than enough humans on Earth and will more than likely be more than enough for generations to come. You aren't a wasted human just because you don't want to reproduce, you are a wasted human if you don't live your life how you want to live it and end up moping around until you off yourself.

51 hours later 1037633 Anonymous
>>1021589 if it were such an evolutionary weakness it would have been bred out a long time ago.

51 hours later 1037658 Anonymous
>>1037535 >I am drinking this glass of juice because it is my own choice >2013 >thinking free will exists just goes to show that even atheists can be deluded

51 hours later 1037672 Anonymous
>>1037658 I know technically free will doesn't exist, but I meant I don't consciously think to myself 'what I do isn't being controlled by any god' I probably should've worded that better.

54 hours later 1039158 Anonymous (1363210681928.png 180x200 17kB)
>>1021721 >tfw lesbian >tfw its actually breddy gud and fun bro polite sahge

3.195 0.269