I think we need to reconcile a couple of heretofore-uncorrelated arguments. We need to connect the dots, put two and two together, all that jazz.
If homosexuality is proof of evolution, then r-- is anti-evolution. I will elaborate. Rampant, uncontrolled unchecked reproduction of humans is bad, and according to the homosexuality-is-pro-evolution activists, this is why homosexuals exist. Homosexuals, as regarded in this portion of evolutionary theory, would theoretically not reproduce. The earth, mother nature, the universe, whatever you want to call it, has created homosexuals in order to prevent humans from reproducing at a rate that is not sustainable by the earth. This is to prevent overpopulation from occurring. That is the theory.
I would be perfectly fine with homosexuality still being in line with evolution -- if the people screeching this novelty were consistent and logical regarding other non-reproductive behaviors as being congruent with evolution.
Pro-gay evolutionists leap through all sorts of mental gymnastics to try to justify homosexuality in the light of evolution. They claim that evolution offers a community an advantage of sorts. They say that in a closely connected community in which the members interact with each other on a regular basis, the strange hiccup of a small percentage of people within that community will offer the greater community better fitness if they end up not reproducing at all.
Many proponents of evolution display a skewed, warped understanding of evolution. It is an inconsistent, hypocritical conclusion at which they have arrived.
However, like most hypocrites, they do not see where their own logic is contradictory. If the greater good of the entire community should take precedence over the fitness of only one individual within said community, and this is seen as evolution, then this has to be true in all cases. What is good for the overall community in one case cannot be bad for the community if it is coming from a different source.
If this is the case, then r-- is definitely anti-evolution, because r-- produces more unwanted humans that are not sustainable by the community.
Nature has certain cadences, speeds, and patterns, with ecological cycles of chemicals, of organic and inorganic metabolites, and organic living matter. One example of this example is the water cycle.
Another example is a civilized human community. The course of human evolution has a certain rhythm that it must follow, which must fit in with this.
By not reproducing with a r--ist, a woman is offering the greater community the best chance at surviving. She is enacting the fittest behavior that produces the best hope of survival for herself, and for the greater community as a whole.
Someone that would turn to r-- as a means of reproduction is reproducing at a rate that is not desired by the community, and is in fact harming the greater community. uncontrolled and unchecked.
If homosexuality is proof of evolution, then r-- is anti-evolution. I will elaborate. Rampant, uncontrolled unchecked reproduction of humans is bad, and according to the homosexuality-is-pro-evolution activists, this is why homosexuals exist. Homosexuals, as regarded in this portion of evolutionary theory, would theoretically not reproduce. The earth, mother nature, the universe, whatever you want to call it, has created homosexuals in order to prevent humans from reproducing at a rate that is not sustainable by the earth. This is to prevent overpopulation from occurring. That is the theory.
I would be perfectly fine with homosexuality still being in line with evolution -- if the people screeching this novelty were consistent and logical regarding other non-reproductive behaviors as being congruent with evolution.
Pro-gay evolutionists leap through all sorts of mental gymnastics to try to justify homosexuality in the light of evolution. They claim that evolution offers a community an advantage of sorts. They say that in a closely connected community in which the members interact with each other on a regular basis, the strange hiccup of a small percentage of people within that community will offer the greater community better fitness if they end up not reproducing at all.
Many proponents of evolution display a skewed, warped understanding of evolution. It is an inconsistent, hypocritical conclusion at which they have arrived.
However, like most hypocrites, they do not see where their own logic is contradictory. If the greater good of the entire community should take precedence over the fitness of only one individual within said community, and this is seen as evolution, then this has to be true in all cases. What is good for the overall community in one case cannot be bad for the community if it is coming from a different source.
If this is the case, then r-- is definitely anti-evolution, because r-- produces more unwanted humans that are not sustainable by the community.
Nature has certain cadences, speeds, and patterns, with ecological cycles of chemicals, of organic and inorganic metabolites, and organic living matter. One example of this example is the water cycle.
Another example is a civilized human community. The course of human evolution has a certain rhythm that it must follow, which must fit in with this.
By not reproducing with a r--ist, a woman is offering the greater community the best chance at surviving. She is enacting the fittest behavior that produces the best hope of survival for herself, and for the greater community as a whole.
Someone that would turn to r-- as a means of reproduction is reproducing at a rate that is not desired by the community, and is in fact harming the greater community. uncontrolled and unchecked.
The point of a female turning a male down is that two people are prevented from reproducing. In the current vein of evolution with which homosexuality jives, this societal construct of a female turning down a male also fits in perfectly with that theory.
If they would be okay with applying this same brand of just-because-people-don't-reproduce-does-not-mean-they-are-anti-evolution towards women as well as towards gay people, then we can be in business. If and only if the proponents of this idea would be consistent across the board, and apply these same slightly more complex, not so obvious or knee-jerk principles to all theories of "behavioral evolution," then this would be fine. If they are okay with not having biological urges and yet somehow still being evolution-positive in one regard, then they better be okay with not following biological urges and still being evolution-positive in another regard.
This is conducive to the greater good of the community. In this way, another human is not produced that would only serve as competition for the humans currently in existence. If that human is not produced, then the community resources including food, water, shelter, safety can be dispensed around to the humans already living.
If they would be okay with applying this same brand of just-because-people-don't-reproduce-does-not-mean-they-are-anti-evolution towards women as well as towards gay people, then we can be in business. If and only if the proponents of this idea would be consistent across the board, and apply these same slightly more complex, not so obvious or knee-jerk principles to all theories of "behavioral evolution," then this would be fine. If they are okay with not having biological urges and yet somehow still being evolution-positive in one regard, then they better be okay with not following biological urges and still being evolution-positive in another regard.
This is conducive to the greater good of the community. In this way, another human is not produced that would only serve as competition for the humans currently in existence. If that human is not produced, then the community resources including food, water, shelter, safety can be dispensed around to the humans already living.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment