Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678
Results 176 to 191 of 191

Thread: Y DNA R1b and homosexuality

  1. #176
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    05-11-15
    Posts
    56

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    U152/R1B1B2A1A2D*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    T2f1

    Country: USA - North Carolina



    Quote Originally Posted by Fire Haired14 View Post
    1) Me vs Lebrok+Angela+Maleth,+mr Y82. LOL.

    2)Anyways, stop treating me like I'm an idiot(xAngela who has been respectful). Be respectful. All I'm arguing is sexuality can be perverted. That's it!!! Stop stirring off topic. Directly respond to that argument. There's really no point to arguing this, because we know human sexuality can infact be perverted. There are known examples. You guys ignore this fact, because of your fear it means some gay people aren't gay. But you're perfectly ok with saying some straight people are actually gay or bi. That's a double standard.



    3)
    I never disputed this. I'm not saying I completely agree, but this wasn't something I was arguing against. I said I don't believe men who leave their families because they say they're gay "are completely gay".



    4)My culture is the most accepting culture of gays in the world. Many other cultures kill gays. Seeing homosexuality as immoral isn't a cultural trait, like wearing a certain style of clothing. It is a consistent trend in humans, and there's must be an inborn not cultural reason. Cultural relativism doesn't work for homosexuality. There are countless cultures who have no or little contact with each other, and see homosexuality as strange or immoral.

    5)I never read ancient writings, but I have read a few. Pre-Christian Germania didn't allow sex before 18, polygamy was looked down on and less popular than monogamy, and women were flogged if caught in adulterous acts. Tacuitus, who was Roman, praised Germans for this. He, and therefore Roman culture, clearly understood the idea of adultery. They committed adultery, but that doesn't mean they didn't have a concept of it. I once read writings from a famous Roman poet. He called his books "Dirty little books" and wrote that young girls shouldn't read them, and it was nothing compared to the sexuality in TV shows around today. Like I've described before, all humans see certain sexual acts as appropriate or inappropriate. Inappropriate acts are adulterous. If you want to argue with me, respond only to that. I'm not being rude.

    6)
    Dude, just stop it. Stop, making lies about me. You should get an infraction if you keep posting lies about me. I'm fascinated by a lot of topics. That's how my brain works, and I've always been like this. Before DNA, it was baseball. Before Baseball, it was Mario/Luigi and Sesame street. IMO, Angela is similar in being ultra-into subjects, or even more extreme than me. Do you think she's gay to, because she writes a lot about it?

    7)So, if your wife cheated on you, you wouldn't say she did something wrong? Condemnation and any mention to morality(wrong), is subjected and close minded?
    1) There is a good reason you are outnumbered, the newer progressive say of thinking it catching on and will gain momentum whether or not you like it... I mean no offense by this, it's simply the way it is...

    2) I remember calling you "fire-brained" (which I meant as a reference to a sort of "temper" and, in my mind, a heat that has compromised your rational mind's ability to be objective... Other than that could you refer me to where I have been disrespectful? You have shared your opinions and I have shared mine and tried to explain my reasoning... Even if it is a bit heated that does not equate to disrespect... I was trying to be succinct, blunt, and sometimes humorous, but if I have been disrespectful, I apologize and will keep the tone more civil (and thus hopefully more productive) from here on out.

    3) Why do you presume to think for them? What gives you the right to question their homosexuality any more than they have the right to question your hetero nature?

    4) You are right that it is still taboo in many places and much more accepted here (we used to have a slave holding democracy... was that not good enough? Should we have stopped progressing then? Should women be allowed to vote?)... But beyond that you are wrong... All kinds of things used to be punishable by death... Apparently you didn't bother to read my post on the evolution of society on the "Brussels" thread, but it applies here too, you have a regressive worldview that thinks it has the right to limit the personal freedoms of others based on your moral preference... You can remain as morally opposed as you want... That is your right, but a majority of Americans do, of will soon, support equal rights, and when they do, those rights should be extended to those people regardless of the feelings of the minority... In fact, even if only 51% of Americans decide, let's say, Cannabis should remain illegal, I feel like it is a bit odd that they can dictate what rights should be extended to the other 49% (it's called tyranny of the majority...)... Why are people so threatened by the rights extended to others? How will it hurt you?

    5) Yes, all sorts of sex can be seen as perversion... What's your point? Where or if you draw a line is all subjective... If hetero sex is not a perversion, why is gay sex? What is the difference other than in your mind? Do you have the need/right to force your standards on others? If I were gay I would not care if it was called a civil union of marriage so long as I had the legal rights... I do think it is a little silly to try to force churches to perform ceremonies... If they want to hold on to outdated doctrines and refuse marriage, fine, that is their religious right, go to the magistrate and get married (state reps should NOT be allowed to refuse marriage like some of these southern states were trying to do)... Personally I would not want to get married in a church that did not support my lifestyle anyway... So what is the point in forcing their hand... I see that as a separate issue from the legal policy side... And I think things would progress more quickly for the good of both sides if a compromise was struck... Leave the religious stuff out of the government... That is how this system was intended to run... Obviously some rules like murder and theft have a (essnetiall universal) religious element, but they are clear violations of natural rights and thus are illegal... gayness and gay union/marriage is not a violation of YOUR rights, but trying to prevent it is a violation of homosexual rights...

    6) Agreed... We don't have the right, or at least it is not productive, to slander one another... Bear in mind Fire-haired that we also have a different attitude toward gayness, so it's not really as derogatory as someone who thinks it is a perversion might perceive it.

    LeBrok, we both know this is no way to change a person's mind even if we get satisfaction resorting to such tactics when someone is seemingly being resistant to a rational argument. Plus I have really enjoyed our interaction, so don't get booted (must be that gay R1b attraction kicking in! j/k)!

    7) What the sweet Jesus did I say that implied that cheating is moral? Please quote me saying anything that implies as such and I will clarify what I was attempting to say! I think people have the right to be in open relationships, closed ones, or anything in between so long as it is CONSENSUAL... This is not the same as cheating... Lying, in my mind, is immoral, and cheating is based upon this, not to mention all the interesting infections you could bring home to your partner... But they have the right to have whatever kind of "contract" they want, in my mind... If my wife wants to bring a girlfriend into our bedroom she gets my opinion and then we decide together from there what is appropriate and acceptable to both of us, and it is our right to do so... If she cheats on my I'll show her the door and would expect her to do the same for me...

    Lying is wrong and denying people basic rights and equal treatment is also wrong... As Angela eloquently pointed out...

    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    you have to get out of your own head. You can't assume that your opinion, which is very dependent on your particular cultural and religious experiences, is universal.
    Quote Originally Posted by LeBrok View Post
    You are 16 with not much education and neither life experience.
    Wait Fire-haired, you are only 16? You have so much time to figure this all out and I think there is still hope! Also, I feel bad for calling a kid less than half my age a name... I thought I was arguing with some older fellow who should know better... I will chalk this up to you being embedded in some regression southern culture that you may still break free from! I am not being sarcastic... many people are "victims" of these kinds of worldviews because they are immersed in it from a young age... I was raised in the south, but by a "libertarian socialist," if you will, so I had a pretty unfair opportunity to develop open-mindedness.

    Cheers mate!

  2. #177
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    05-11-15
    Posts
    56

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    U152/R1B1B2A1A2D*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    T2f1

    Country: USA - North Carolina



    Quote Originally Posted by Fire Haired14 View Post
    Anyways, don't lie about me, to make me appear immature(16) and not intelligent(often corrected in other subjects), to disqualify what I argue here. If you want to argue against me, argue against what i say.
    .
    Oops, I thought LeBrok was being literal... Shows how smart I am... suddenly the end of my last post has an air of condescension that I did not intend... Sorry about that!

    Quote Originally Posted by Fire Haired14 View Post
    1)Would intolerance of homosexuality be so popular, if it was "relative to the culture", like style of clothing is? I never denied there have been/are cultures which accept homosexuality in some situations. I know they exist. What I'm arguing is, it is popular for humans to see homosexuality as an inappropriate form of sexuality, and therefore there must be something inborn causing unrelated cultures to do this. Would you agree there are enough cultures who see homosexuality as immoral, more than who create pizza, to bring this into consideration? I think the inborn trait, is seeing certain sex as inappropriate, and homosexuality which is rare and goes against the whole idea of what sex is(penis+vagina, reproduction), is going to be seen as abnormal and immoral by many humans.



    2)Was Germania Judieo-Christian? Was Tacitus Judeo-Christian? Is India Judeo-Chirtsian(homosexulaity is outlawed there)? These ideas aren't exclusive to Jews. One Greek mention to rampent homosexuality amoung *some* Celts, doesn't mean all Celtic-speakers loved homosexuality. For all we know, this Greek writer exaggerated homosexuality among some Celts(probably ones who lived next door to Greece), because it would be interesting reading. He called their homosexuality, "strange", BTW.

    1) How do you still not get that culture and society evolves and changes? We have explained in many times in many ways... Social norms, mores, values, etc... all change... I mean I am not going to miss the local stoning of the adulterers because I am busy typing this reply... We don't live in a stagnant world... No offense, but I have said my piece, as have others more eloquently, and if you don't get it I think I should stop wasting my time, trying to get you to have a more open mind, when it is clear you will only reiterate points that we have already quashed...

    2) History is cool, but who cares in this context? It doesn't matter what their attitude was towards homosexuality in the context of how we will do things today... We are dealing with the present day... present people... present rights... I possibly had some gay ancestors (esp since I am R1b! j/k)... ok? So? What difference does that make now? Let's focus on improving the world now since that is all we have... As we have established, social norms evolve just like everything else... How weird would be if the entire universe evolved except for a few human aspects? Why do people assume consciousness is a flat land? I think some Germanic tribes adopted Arian Christianity before the Romans were Catholic... not that this is relevant to the discussion at hand.

    You have yet to convince us that our plethora of points are wrong... you just keep reiterating the same nonsense... And I mean that in the most constructively critical way possible...

  3. #178
    Elite member Fire Haired14's Avatar
    Join Date
    20-04-14
    Posts
    2,194

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b DF27*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    U5b2a2b1

    Country: USA - Illinois



    @mr y82,

    You're arguing a straw man, because of your prejudices(everyone has them). I am arguing: 1: Sexuality can be perverted. 2: All Humans see some sexuality as inappropriate and therefore immoral.

    Only, argue against those opinions. Angela is the only who has done this. Lebork is the worst example. He loves lying, being sarcastic, and stirring off topic. You on the other hand, aren't like that, you just don't understand what I'm saying.

    Also, mr y82, I don't believe you'd be ok with your wife bringing a girlfriend to your bed. If so, do you believe in polygamy? BTW, I don't really problem with polygamy. The idea of monogamous marriage, which is the only type of marriage in the US, is the couple stays loyal to each other. They don't have any other sexual partners. I believe you're intentionally shutting off the part of your brain which says, "No she's my woman.", because of fear that makes you closed minded.

  4. #179
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    05-11-15
    Posts
    56

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    U152/R1B1B2A1A2D*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    T2f1

    Country: USA - North Carolina



    Actually no, I don't have a problem with Polygamy... To each his own... In fact, if it were legal and my wife and I consented to have a "sister-wife" I would accept and embrace this... My sex drive is a little more than hers, haha... In all seriousness though, each couple or group, or whatever, decides what is acceptable for themselves... I would not accept a man into our relationship because I am not interesting in pursuing sexual relations with a man, and my wife understand, accepts, and respects that, as I do her affinity for women... The sexual encounters she has had with women have been in my presence, and we agreed that I would not have direct sexual contact with the "3rd wheel," which I have been fine with... You have to find what is comfortable with both parties and respect those boundaries while being aware of the potential for regret!

    My wife is "my woman" in the sense that we make these important life decisions together... And I am "her man" in the same sense... I am not trying to be open-minded, I am... I have a temper that can be triggered, feelings that can get hurt, and my own prejudices (as you pointed out), but that does not change my belief system regarding the extension of rights to others! It's almost like you are looking out for me and worried that I will get hurt because I am not really in touch with how I feel... I actually really appreciate that sentiment... I think you have a kind and good "soul" and I appreciate the cordial back and forth.

    As per above... I said "5) Yes, all sorts of sex can be seen as perversion..." I invited you to maintain your right of seeing gay sex in this light... All I did is ask you to respect those who feel differently, and don't think that legal policy should be based on moral grounds that clearly do not infringe upon the rights of others... which they don't... I think you are the one who has not adequately argued to the contrary, but you keep saying we have not instead? I really don't get what else I can say about perversion... You agreed it is subjective... I think people should have the right to practice their "perversions" with other consenting adults, and have legal rights as couples (or more) if they choose to... You apparently do not support this... That does not mean that I am disagreeing that most people think some actions are perversions... That is a totally unrelated issue, in my mind. When I said I have libertarian leanings I meant it! haha... But I also believe the economy must be controlled and taxes are useful (when not used for senseless bombing). I am worried about my own personal rights and others, not about the kind of lifestyle they choose for themselves...

    LeBrok's just one of those liberal Canadians, with their universal healthcare, trying to ruffle your feathers, right LeBrok?
    Pretty sure LeBrok's a kind soul too, and if more of the world was willing to participate in conversations like this I think, ultimately, the world would be a better place.

    Cheers!

  5. #180
    Elite member Fire Haired14's Avatar
    Join Date
    20-04-14
    Posts
    2,194

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b DF27*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    U5b2a2b1

    Country: USA - Illinois



    @mr y82,

    It's all good. When it comes to laws, I support letting people do almost anything. However, I do think many gay couples, which is unlikely for there to be, isn't good for society. And my interpretation of legal "freedom" IMO is differnt from most people(until freedom includes something they disagree with). Legal Freedom isn't actually real freedom. It's freedom to do anything that isn't wrong or crazy. People have differnt limits. My limits on what is crazy or wrong, is pretty small, but it depends on the circumstances. For example, my limits in my family are very differnt.

    I'm not sure what Lebrok's deal is. I have caught him lying several times, so.. I'm against a lot of liberalism when it comes to social issues not economics. I don't know much about economics, but from what I do know, I side more with liberals. Your liberal socially and conservative economically, while I'm the opposite. Most Americans, don't understand economics and social issues are two differnt subjects, and you don't have to be liberal or conservative in both.

  6. #181
    Regular Member John Doe's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-06-14
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    599

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E-PF1975
    MtDNA haplogroup
    K1a9

    Ethnic group
    Ashkenazi Jewish
    Country: Australia



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fire Haired14 View Post
    @mr y82,

    It's all good. When it comes to laws, I support letting people do almost anything. However, I do think many gay couples, which is unlikely for there to be, isn't good for society. And my interpretation of legal "freedom" IMO is differnt from most people(until freedom includes something they disagree with). Legal Freedom isn't actually real freedom. It's freedom to do anything that isn't wrong or crazy. People have differnt limits. My limits on what is crazy or wrong, is pretty small, but it depends on the circumstances. For example, my limits in my family are very differnt.

    I'm not sure what Lebrok's deal is. I have caught him lying several times, so.. I'm against a lot of liberalism when it comes to social issues not economics. I don't know much about economics, but from what I do know, I side more with liberals. Your liberal socially and conservative economically, while I'm the opposite. Most Americans, don't understand economics and social issues are two differnt subjects, and you don't have to be liberal or conservative in both.
    Define wrong and crazy, what you may define as such might be defined as different by another. As for laws well, there are always laws the individual doesn't agree with, it doesn't however mean one's view be enforced on everyone else. You don't believe people of the same sex have the right to marry? Fine, don't believe in that, you have every right to, but others have the right to disagree with you. As for economics, it's truly funny when it comes to American politics, the so called Conservatives of the GOP are indeed conservative when it comes to issues of family, religion etc, but economically they belong to the "Liberal" school of thought (Liberal in the sense of limited to no state intervention in anything concerning economics), while Democrats, while Liberal on issues of family, religion, culture etc do tend to be more sympathetic to the idea of Universal Healthcare, food stamps, government spending on roads, minimum wage etc. Add to that the fact that until the 1960s when the Southern Democrats switched to the GOP the Democrats were usually the ones with a large Conservative lobby (Southern Democrats), while the GOP was the more Socially Liberal party founded by the one who freed the slaves.

  7. #182
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    05-11-15
    Posts
    56

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    U152/R1B1B2A1A2D*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    T2f1

    Country: USA - North Carolina



    ^you understand our system more than most Americans, as demonstrated by this point, haha. I do however define myself as "economically liberal" below, even though I lean away what you are defining as "liberalism"... So screw labels, haha, I do explain my position. Conservative implies they resist change... It was socialists, progressives, etc... here in the early 1900s that drove change, thus making those positions "liberal" (I.e. in favor of change)... I touch on some of this below... Of course I am a bumbling idiot too, so enjoy! :)

    Quote Originally Posted by Fire Haired14 View Post
    @mr y82,

    It's all good. When it comes to laws, I support letting people do almost anything. However, I do think many gay couples, which is unlikely for there to be, isn't good for society. And my interpretation of legal "freedom" IMO is differnt from most people(until freedom includes something they disagree with). Legal Freedom isn't actually real freedom. It's freedom to do anything that isn't wrong or crazy. People have differnt limits. My limits on what is crazy or wrong, is pretty small, but it depends on the circumstances. For example, my limits in my family are very differnt.

    I'm not sure what Lebrok's deal is. I have caught him lying several times, so.. I'm against a lot of liberalism when it comes to social issues not economics. I don't know much about economics, but from what I do know, I side more with liberals. Your liberal socially and conservative economically, while I'm the opposite. Most Americans, don't understand economics and social issues are two differnt subjects, and you don't have to be liberal or conservative in both.
    You are exactly right, and so few people here seem to get it, so I will outline if below... you choose a political system and and economic system... Many people equate the 2, but that is misguided... The very fact that you pointed that out show a thoughtfulness that most people lack.

    Political system... We chose democracy, we could have chosen monarchy, oligarchy, dictatorship, etc... In a democracy the majority consensus rules (theoretically)... but it only works well if you have informed civic-minded citizens who engage in the process... We don't really have that! This is kinda beside the point, the reason I bring it up is because you got the impression I am economically conservative, when in fact it is generally considered a liberal position to extend social safety nets, which I support...I may have said something to mislead you...

    Economic system... We chose capitalism, which exists on a spectrum with communism at the extreme other end... Even though I am a SOCIAL libertarian (support all rights that do not infringe on the rights of others, even drug legalization because prohibition does not work, it fuels cartels and does not curb drug usage, and if you have addicts buy a controlled regulated substance, from a government run site, you can attempt to intervene and help them break the addiction... Prohibition makes drug rebellious and deviant, which is a big draw for many people and one reason it seems to be so ineffective... Imagine using drug revenue to help people break addictions... sounds ironic, but not impossible in my mind...)... So even though I am a social libertarian I do not reflect libertarian economic beliefs (I won't abuse the Adam Smith example like many conservative economists do, not understanding the true context of his work) such as complete deregulation... I think modern China and many other places that US work has been exported to are prime examples of the environmental and social danger of deregulation... People are greedy and will get away with whatever they can to benefit themselves, so there must be rule and regulations regarding what they can get away with... If we had not done that here (making sure there's not human meat [thanks socialist Upton Sinclair] or dangerous chemicals in our food, safe machinery in factories, that toxic waste is not being dumped, minimum wage, benefits, etc...) we would still have jobs, but jobs that disgraced human beings (like the Apple employees that leaped to their death before they added the suicide net in China)... We don't even do a good job at a lot of those things due to the corporate interests that control out political system, but it sure as hell beats working in China! So back to my point... I lean way more toward the communist end of the economic scale, with the likes of Ralph Nader... lol... I think we should have universal single payer healthcare (current profit drive system has failed us for the same reasons as the EPA, FDA, etc...), lots of social programs to improve lives, good schools, hospitals (that are not profit driven, salaries should be incentive enough)... I do not however thing corporations should be government owned, right now we have a dangerous form of "corporatism" where the government and corporations walk hand in hand to the detriment of the American people at large (With the bailouts, etc... that was NOT Laissez Faire capitalism!) and then we leave little guys out to dry... It's a new Gilded age where 95% of the wealth is controlled by less than 5% so corporate interests and lobbies have taken over the political system for their own gain while America plays xbox, and turns a blind eye, because we are so relatively wealthy that most don't even notice they are getting away with this s--t!

    Social political issues are a separate thing altogether... Because even if we agree democracy is best we don't necessarily agree on all the issues that arise due to a plethora of worldviews, and the diversity of thought that can exist even within one of those worldviews... So there's where people often differ... I happen to believe that as little intervention into private lives by the government is best... Heck, most Southern's will agree with that immediately... But in essence they contradict themselves by thinking the government has the right to tell me what I can smoke, who I can marry, etc... If they want the government to stay out of private lives, why do they feel so passionately that the government should curb this behavior? I walk my talk... I try not to judge others so long as they do not violate my rights... I think we can pretty clearly define when someone's natural right are being violated, and in my mind if a man and woman have the right to say "I want this person to be my soul heir etc...," which is essentially what marriage is, then 2 men have the right to make the same legal commitment to one another... It is not a religious issue... The Romans government recognized contracts between people... That is really what it is, and in my mind it is a natural right to decide who should inherit you stuff, decide when to pull the plug on life support, etc... Churches can call it whatever they want and chose to serve who they will as far as I am concerned (as I said before I would not go to a church that discriminated against me whether or not I have the legal right to)... You agree gay people have the right to give their stuff to a same sex partner when they die? You agree they have the right to decide said partner can fulfill their wishes regarding life support, etc? You think it serves anyone to not let them file their taxes together? If you don't agree, please explain why not. I am not trying to violate anyone's right to religious freedom here... Quite the contrary... As long as your religion does not infringe on my natural and legal rights, have at it! Please just extend the same freedoms to those that do not share the same worldview... It's a big country and we'll never all be on the same page, that's why respect for tolerance (even if someone is doing something that YOU consider immoral, but is not directly affecting you or hurting a non-compliant person...). So I am a true libertarian in that regard... :)

    You are probably economically more conservative than me (since conservative essentially means resisting change, and our current economic system is probably more in line with what you think is proper than what I would wish for...), and, as you said, more socially conservative, which is why we differ so much on this issue specifically... :)

    If you have the patience for it, and want to understand the inter workings of my brain, please do read the whole post, haha. I kinda felt like I kept switching gears, but hopefully it is all coherent. Let me know if you have any questions.

  8. #183
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    05-11-15
    Posts
    56

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    U152/R1B1B2A1A2D*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    T2f1

    Country: USA - North Carolina



    I edited the above a couple times, but wanted to add something I thought might be missed otherwise...

    I don't think we even have to raise taxes on the lower and middle class to achieve my social goals... Closing tax loopholes and cheating for bigwigs would go a long way... If 95% of Americans have <5% of the wealth, how much can they really fund anyway? The money has to come from the top, but history teaches us that those at the top do not yield so easily... They protect the status quo that ensures them power and wealth (It's one reason the Roman's were threatened by Christianity, it called for egalitarianism; it's one reason Buddhism didn't catch on in China, it called for egalitarianism... Sufism, so on and so forth... Democracy allows us to change this, but not in a climate of ignorant masses listening to debates about penis size and who has the prettiest wife... We can agree that is not democracy, and that our (slave holding) founding fathers would be appalled at the state of our "democracy," yes?

    If the likes of John McCain can only own 7 multi-million dollar houses instead of 8 so that some bums that had a psychological break can have some food and healthcare I am not going to loose any sleep over that... Many wealthy crooks pay lower taxes than upper middle class citizens because they own and control the media, the process, and the system...

    I believe our society, and its structure, are what allowed people of great wealth and status rise to the level they are at... And, if I were one of them, I would hope that I would recognize the fact that freedom and democracy had granted me a disproportionate reward... and that I would give back to the society that had granted me such a novel opportunity (think the likes of Bill Gates of true Philanthropists.... Guys like Trump would have you believe they could have achieved the same "greatness" under the Qin Dynasty, "Communist" Russia, etc... It's bulls--t...)...

    I have strayed from topic... hope it was worth it, but I think I'm done with the explanation unless you want clarification on anything... this is how I spend my spring break from work? I am a loser! lol

  9. #184
    Regular Member John Doe's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-06-14
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    599

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E-PF1975
    MtDNA haplogroup
    K1a9

    Ethnic group
    Ashkenazi Jewish
    Country: Australia



    Quote Originally Posted by mr_y82 View Post
    ^you understand our system more than most Americans, as demonstrated by this point, haha. I do however define myself as "economically liberal" below, even though I lean away what you are defining as "liberalism"... So screw labels, haha, I do explain my position. Conservative implies they resist change... It was socialists, progressives, etc... here in the early 1900s that drove change, thus making those positions "liberal" (I.e. in favor of change)... I touch on some of this below... Of course I am a bumbling idiot too, so enjoy! :)



    You are exactly right, and so few people here seem to get it, so I will outline if below... you choose a political system and and economic system... Many people equate the 2, but that is misguided... The very fact that you pointed that out show a thoughtfulness that most people lack.

    Political system... We chose democracy, we could have chosen monarchy, oligarchy, dictatorship, etc... In a democracy the majority consensus rules (theoretically)... but it only works well if you have informed civic-minded citizens who engage in the process... We don't really have that! This is kinda beside the point, the reason I bring it up is because you got the impression I am economically conservative, when in fact it is generally considered a liberal position to extend social safety nets, which I support...I may have said something to mislead you...

    Economic system... We chose capitalism, which exists on a spectrum with communism at the extreme other end... Even though I am a SOCIAL libertarian (support all rights that do not infringe on the rights of others, even drug legalization because prohibition does not work, it fuels cartels and does not curb drug usage, and if you have addicts buy a controlled regulated substance, from a government run site, you can attempt to intervene and help them break the addiction... Prohibition makes drug rebellious and deviant, which is a big draw for many people and one reason it seems to be so ineffective... Imagine using drug revenue to help people break addictions... sounds ironic, but not impossible in my mind...)... So even though I am a social libertarian I do not reflect libertarian economic beliefs (I won't abuse the Adam Smith example like many conservative economists do, not understanding the true context of his work) such as complete deregulation... I think modern China and many other places that US work has been exported to are prime examples of the environmental and social danger of deregulation... People are greedy and will get away with whatever they can to benefit themselves, so there must be rule and regulations regarding what they can get away with... If we had not done that here (making sure there's not human meat [thanks socialist Upton Sinclair] or dangerous chemicals in our food, safe machinery in factories, that toxic waste is not being dumped, minimum wage, benefits, etc...) we would still have jobs, but jobs that disgraced human beings (like the Apple employees that leaped to their death before they added the suicide net in China)... We don't even do a good job at a lot of those things due to the corporate interests that control out political system, but it sure as hell beats working in China! So back to my point... I lean way more toward the communist end of the economic scale, with the likes of Ralph Nader... lol... I think we should have universal single payer healthcare (current profit drive system has failed us for the same reasons as the EPA, FDA, etc...), lots of social programs to improve lives, good schools, hospitals (that are not profit driven, salaries should be incentive enough)... I do not however thing corporations should be government owned, right now we have a dangerous form of "corporatism" where the government and corporations walk hand in hand to the detriment of the American people at large (With the bailouts, etc... that was NOT Laissez Faire capitalism!) and then we leave little guys out to dry... It's a new Gilded age where 95% of the wealth is controlled by less than 5% so corporate interests and lobbies have taken over the political system for their own gain while America plays xbox, and turns a blind eye, because we are so relatively wealthy that most don't even notice they are getting away with this s--t!

    Social political issues are a separate thing altogether... Because even if we agree democracy is best we don't necessarily agree on all the issues that arise due to a plethora of worldviews, and the diversity of thought that can exist even within one of those worldviews... So there's where people often differ... I happen to believe that as little intervention into private lives by the government is best... Heck, most Southern's will agree with that immediately... But in essence they contradict themselves by thinking the government has the right to tell me what I can smoke, who I can marry, etc... If they want the government to stay out of private lives, why do they feel so passionately that the government should curb this behavior? I walk my talk... I try not to judge others so long as they do not violate my rights... I think we can pretty clearly define when someone's natural right are being violated, and in my mind if a man and woman have the right to say "I want this person to be my soul heir etc...," which is essentially what marriage is, then 2 men have the right to make the same legal commitment to one another... It is not a religious issue... The Romans government recognized contracts between people... That is really what it is, and in my mind it is a natural right to decide who should inherit you stuff, decide when to pull the plug on life support, etc... Churches can call it whatever they want and chose to serve who they will as far as I am concerned (as I said before I would not go to a church that discriminated against me whether or not I have the legal right to)... You agree gay people have the right to give their stuff to a same sex partner when they die? You agree they have the right to decide said partner can fulfill their wishes regarding life support, etc? You think it serves anyone to not let them file their taxes together? If you don't agree, please explain why not. I am not trying to violate anyone's right to religious freedom here... Quite the contrary... As long as your religion does not infringe on my natural and legal rights, have at it! Please just extend the same freedoms to those that do not share the same worldview... It's a big country and we'll never all be on the same page, that's why respect for tolerance (even if someone is doing something that YOU consider immoral, but is not directly affecting you or hurting a non-compliant person...). So I am a true libertarian in that regard... :)

    You are probably economically more conservative than me (since conservative essentially means resisting change, and our current economic system is probably more in line with what you think is proper than what I would wish for...), and, as you said, more socially conservative, which is why we differ so much on this issue specifically... :)

    If you have the patience for it, and want to understand the inter workings of my brain, please do read the whole post, haha. I kinda felt like I kept switching gears, but hopefully it is all coherent. Let me know if you have any questions.
    I read it all, very interesting points you have made. I assume you're a supporter of Bernie Sanders (or were, since his chance of winning the nomination is seemingly, and I say seemingly since the corporate media doesn't really support him yet there's no other source of information but them)?

  10. #185
    Elite member Fire Haired14's Avatar
    Join Date
    20-04-14
    Posts
    2,194

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b DF27*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    U5b2a2b1

    Country: USA - Illinois



    Quote Originally Posted by John Doe View Post
    Define wrong and crazy, what you may define as such might be defined as different by another. As for laws well, there are always laws the individual doesn't agree with, it doesn't however mean one's view be enforced on everyone else. You don't believe people of the same sex have the right to marry? Fine, don't believe in that, you have every right to, but others have the right to disagree with you.
    Like everyone else here, you're allowing your prejudices to determine how you think of me. My whole point, was that differnt people have a differnt definition of wrong and crazy. I never disputed this, yet you assumed I did! You put on your prejudice glasses, and wrongly translated what I wrote. To some people gay marriage is wrong and crazy, to other people the limit is bestiality. Seeing homosexuality as immoral isn't anymore crazy than seeing bestiality as immoral. To you and everyone posting here it isn't, but that's just based on your definition of wrong and crazy.

  11. #186
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    05-11-15
    Posts
    56

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    U152/R1B1B2A1A2D*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    T2f1

    Country: USA - North Carolina



    ^please respond to my specific questions; that will help people know how they feel about your stance. :)

    I didn't type all that for just some John Doe to read it! LOL :P

    Quote Originally Posted by John Doe View Post
    I read it all, very interesting points you have made. I assume you're a supporter of Bernie Sanders (or were, since his chance of winning the nomination is seemingly, and I say seemingly since the corporate media doesn't really support him yet there's no other source of information but them)?
    Yes, I tend to support him on most fronts. He seems to have joined the Establishment mainly because that's the only way you have a shot (otherwise you just follow in Nader's footsteps and people blame you for lost/stolen elections...)... He did just pick up 3 states... He should get a lot outside the South, we'll see if somehow it can be a contested convention... I try to maintain hope mainly because Clinton represents a lot that I don't agree with, even if she's trying to talk a good talk right now (her voice is still extremely irritating... something about it grates at me... I know Sanders has that thick NE thing going on, but at least it sounds genuine...). My statement to read it all was primarily for Fire-Haired since we have been going back and forth, but I appreciate you taking the time! I have spent hours of my break from work pouring over info here on the forums, haha...

  12. #187
    Advisor LeBrok's Avatar
    Join Date
    18-11-09
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    10,295

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b Z2109
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1c

    Ethnic group
    Citizen of the world
    Country: Canada-Alberta



    Quote Originally Posted by Fire Haired14 View Post
    I'm not usually wrong or corrected in my thinking of genetics. I'm the most up to date person here in that regard. Look at the threads I post. That can be a good thing or a bad thing.What I don't know a lot about is archaeology and history, and I never claim to be an expert in those subjects.
    Ok, you make mistakes because you are not verst very well in archeology, genetics or history. Don't you think that it is the same for you with subject of sexuality? Are you verst well in it? Can you be mistaken about it?
    Helping clue is your age, 16, and many experienced and smart people telling you so. Take it from here.
    Be wary of people who tend to glorify the past, underestimate the present, and demonize the future.

  13. #188
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    05-11-15
    Posts
    56

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    U152/R1B1B2A1A2D*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    T2f1

    Country: USA - North Carolina



    ^I hope he will read my posts and respond about the legal rights aspect... that's really enough for me... tolerance is a step towards acceptance, and then respect.... I hope you will read it all my bloated posts too and you'll be able to infer everything I would have to say about the Bushes... haha... I have interesting views for a Southerner, or maybe American in general... my sister lives in Germany and I have 2 cute little German nieces. I am fond of their modern system, but the refugee thing is becoming increasingly complicated...

  14. #189
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    02-02-17
    Location
    Vienna
    Posts
    1

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I1-L22
    MtDNA haplogroup
    U5a1a1

    Ethnic group
    Magnoid/Germanic
    Country: Austria



    Quote Originally Posted by Power77 View Post
    Such a wrong analogy would be comparable to saying that baldness is caused by having haplogroup J1 or that all bald/balding men are J1 carriers or that J1 carriers are more prone to baldness than carriers of other Y-chromosomes. Pretty presproterous way of thinking if you ask me.
    A correlation between early male pattern baldness/hair loss, mucho chest hair, thick beard growth and Haplos I and J is very well researched imho.
    And regarding gay people,...well imo it's a combination of some mutated snps and cat shit
    You have these mutations then sniff too much cat shit,... e voila your highly likely to be going gay or at least think about it.
    Another guy sniffs too much cat shit, yet no mutations on those snps,...e voila he will get super high IQ,...others might just go bipolar.
    Some can "handle" cat shit some don't,...
    Last edited by TheSerpentKing; 02-02-17 at 21:47.

  15. #190
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    23-05-21
    Posts
    56


    Country: Spain



    Some people laugh at this theory and tend to point to cultural patterns linked to economic development to explain higher LGBTI acceptance.

    But I believe that your Haplogroup can be very influential in your perception of homosexuality and your chances of being gay.
    Mainly because an Y-DNA Hp only purpose is to define how are you as a man. And sexism is the main responsible for homophobia.

    See for example, Latin America. It's not a wealthy place, and has 67-76% of Homosexuality acceptance.
    That is a lot, same as the US and Italy, and a whole lot more than Korea and other places with same economic development. Like Russia, Middle...
    One of the main differences is they have R1b Haplogroup.https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2...ality-persists
    Anither poll shows Latin Americans have a lot of same sex attraction. Lot of people have gone to a gay bar and spoken in defence of LGBTQ people.https://www.ipsos.com/en/lgbt-pride-...ual-attraction

  16. #191
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    24-11-21
    Posts
    5


    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Ike View Post
    Not quite. Dude thinks that the pattern of gay-marriage (and similar social peculiarities) is linked with it. You'd have to add, for example, J1 area females burning hot for bald men, to complete your analogy. Anyway this makes sense:



    BTW, it doesn't matter if they claim it or not. It's a logical assumption that there could be hereditary factors involved. Their opinion is of no importance so you don't have to involve it in your theory.

    There is also a possibility that it is imprinted in all of us, but some societies have also imprinted a better tolerance towards that kind of behavior.
    Honestly, I don't even know how I happened into this thread or why I am actually responding, but your latter statement, is likely the most accurate. The bold.

    So, I am not suggesting that homosexuality is or isn't "nature" (genetic) or that it is or isn't "nurture" (conditioning), but the most likely answer, like everything else in the "nature vs. nurture" debate, is BOTH. It is not an either or scenario. It is almost certainly, like all other behaviors, a multivariate causation. Nurture accentuating aspects of nature. Meaning the capability or the possibility lives within each of us, but the let's say, causation is accentuated in some more than others either naturally or conditionally AND triggered in some more than others either naturally or conditionally, but always some interplay of the two.

    At this point in time, I don't think anyone has a good excuse to be attempting to attach certain behaviors with solely either "nature" or "nurture" because it's almost clear as day it is both.

    And if you want proof of that, how do you explain the behavior in other primates? Other mammals? But in some "clans" or groups more so than others of the same species? Or in some species at higher rates than others?

    It's likely or at least possible, that these behaviors, all sexual behaviors really, are impacted by reactive aggression as well. In species or subspecies that have to some extent overcome reactive aggression, or the need and ability of the alpha male to dominate sexual behavior, the remaining members of the group are more free to explore their proclivities. Since males aren't as focused on becoming or maintaining the alpha position, there are no longer social restraints in place preventing such expression from hindering ones "ascent" or the competition between males. At least to some effect. And the effect that then has on females of the group who are no longer the "property" or whatever term you want to use, of the alpha male.

    I mean, it's almost certain at this point that all domestication, in humans, what we would call social evolution, and in animals, domestication, directly correlates with a reduction of reactive aggression. Meaning, beta males forming cohesive units to shut down alpha male tyranny. So basically, there are no human "alpha" males. All humans today are beta males or below. I kind of don't want to say "below" because that makes it seem as if "beta" or "zeta" or whatever is somehow lesser than alpha, when in reality, it's the "alpha" who ultimately loses to the others in this "competition". And alpha males, i mean, really, who wants to live like that? Knowing you'll have to fend off newcomers until the day one of them takes your life and your place?

    But anyway. Many of these behavioral debates are just a microcosm of the larger "nature vs. nurture" debates of the last 50 years. And ALL signs point to the answer being BOTH. In concert with one another.

Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •