Satyr's fatal flaw...

All things that follow from an absurd premise will be equally absurd.

I have no memory of who said this, but it is important. Beneath all of the, “Simpleton, you have no idea who you are dealing with” and “your opposition to my ideas proves my point” remarks is a man who holds a position that is objectively incorrect out of logical necessity.

The upshot of all of Satyr’s arguments reveals the “truth” about certain “genetic models” of human beings that are effective and pass on through reproduction.

Because he prescribes no end to this activity, we will assume this is an end in itself. The statement, “It is irrelevant and illogical to seek an end or an absolute” is no different than saying that the propagation of one’s genetics IS the true end of mankind. The failure to even SPECULATE on any potential change to the this stoic law reveals that one holds it as an absolute, even without admitting so.

His prescribed law must be false.

Humans are able to discern truth from falsehood. This is apart from all social indoctrination and other influences. A human knows when something is logically impossible, such as the proposition of a square circle. Such things are incorrect by definition.

Satyr thinks that conscious beings exist for the purpose of bettering themselves and their situations for the sake of creating new beings who can better themselves and their situations, ad infinitum.

What he fails to realize is that all beings and all matter come from something that has previously existed, as it is impossible for something to come from nothing. He explains this with the metaphysical term, “the flux.”

However, if all things that exist (and are dissimilar in nature) come from something prior to themselves, then the progenitors from which they came must be more similar. Since it is impossible for there to have been a time when there was nothing, and since all previous generations of matter must have been more alike than the later ones (due to “flux”), then there must be one constant, ever-existing chunk of matter (which must be infinite in depth) from which all other things came.

Because this thing, which would be the greatest thing (since it houses the potentiality for all other things in existence), produced conscious beings, then it must be conscious, as well. It would make no sense for “that from which all other things came” to NOT house the potentiality and actuality of all derivative works that break apart from it.

If humans are naturally inclined to discern truth from falsehood, then they would see the absurdity of believing the “propagation of oneself” to be the end of all of their activities. Their inclination to the truth would show that this is impossible to carry on forever. They are not “privileging themselves” by “creating a fictional being” who does away with their fears and anxieties; they are realizing that it is logically necessary for some essence to hold the potential for all other matter, and that this mass would be “the greatest thing.” (It would be the greatest thing because it houses the potentiality of the summation of all other things).

If man desires to know, then his highest activity would be to understand the logical necessity of this greatest thing. The “flux” argument is a roundabout rhetoric that attempts to keep the reader from asking, “But where did THAT come from?” and prevents him from seeing that the later derivations of the “flux” must have greater differences than the primary ones.

Through the realization that the primary derivations of this initial “source of all being” are more similar than the later ones, an absolute standard is discovered from which all other matter is measured. This is what some call God.

Satyr’s fervent attempts to de-construct this being come from social and political indignation that is misdirected and illogical. His tendency to discourage others from considering this being in a logically necessary manner is only an indication of his perversion of thought and lack of objectivity.

Since all mercy must be forgone against someone who assails the truth, he should be justly sanctioned and reprimanded for his misconduct: misconduct that was constructed for the purpose of keeping people from thinking and using logic, while his “arguments” were disguised as perfect logic and objectivity. Truly this deception cannot be forgiven.

It has taken me over a year of study to pull his absurdities to the surface, but the deviant nature of matter and the “flux” demands that previous incarnations were in a “lesser flux,” which produces the need for an absolute. His denial of this idea is poisonous, and reveals his desire to produce a world in which no absolutes are possible, and any action can be justified.

The hammer of justice, despite its tendency to be mocked as crude and elementary, will always persevere, as it holds the light of truth as its guide, and unwaveringly seeks to liberate the malleable and meek minds of the masses from the tyranny of liars and charlatans.

You forced me to do this.

Ade and his fabled hammer of justice. Fear him.

SHe also has an ax to grind, but hers is made out of tinfoil.

Too much I want to say so I will start here:

Circles and squares are human concepts, and therefore ARE indoctrinated. There are no perfect squares or circles in nature. We see objects that are somewhere in between and must decide if the object is closer to one or the other. In order to do so, we must assume that the two concepts cannot coexist. It is by our own definition only that there is truth or falsehood. Reality lies somewhere in between.

Hi, Ade… since you are appealing to God to refute Satyr’s position, I will appeal to God to defend it;

Satyr claims that concentrating the populations results in the feminization of man.

Did you forget to refute this, or are you arguing against his other works that I have not seen? (I am new here)

I think you will concede that crime statistics and other forms of degeneracy follow exactly from concentrated population.

City states are inherently parasitic to groups within (taxation, slavery) and without (war, exploitation) and to the general ecosystem (gross pollution and species extinction).

You see, God has explicitly asked humans to spread out in the earth after the flood. In fact God had punished humans for creating the Shinar (Sumer) city state after the flood.

So, you appeal to God and yet you argue against God… though indirectly? God has commanded use to live in a rural setting. It is a fact that rural areas have the lowest crime and general degeneracy and the manliest men. lol

By the way, a circle can be squared in hyperbolic space.

I’m never too sure how to respond to someone who writes in one sentence,

, and then writes,

. My “gut” tells me to write “BS!”: the red flag of nonsense is hoisted for me to take note of all that follows.

Having a uterus compared to not having one IS a matter of substance. Adding androgens after the critical time period immediate after hormonal interaction in the developing fetus, does NOT change what has been started. Please note that when I write an empirical statement as such, I mean this as a statement of probability. And in this case of androgens being introduced after the critical period to try to change the sex outcome, the probability is pretty friggin close to zero.

Having a uterus versus not having one is most certainly not subtle. I might add that when I meet Satyr and kick him in the balls, he might wish that he had his sex organs protected by being inside his body. It might dawn on him: the non-subtlety of having his junk hanging outside his body. :wink: LOL

So I read a little further, thinking “I’ll give this guy a chance. Maybe he was off that day, or, maybe he’s just a condescending ignorant fuck”.

So he writes about sexual archetypes. Ok. Cool. Men “filter” too, but I would hypothesize not nearly as often as women.

Some other good points. So on and so forth. Write something I don’t already know for friggin Christ Sakes! :wink:

Seems to be writing in a narrow fashion with his attributes, but I’ll let that slide. He’s human after all (just like he wrote in his disclaimer - good thing I remembered that).

Then at the end he writes,

A distinctly human mutation? Not so. My response to this type of statement is multifold: maybe the guy is ignorant of biological field studies of reproductive strategies for varying species; or maybe he’s just biased and hates homosexuals.

Later in responses he claims - and I’m paraphrasing in part here - that homosexuality is a genetic dead end and that it is basically parasitic. Funny, and briefly sad, that he thinks this.

Many things are missing from his analysis, these are some:

  • Cooperation and getting along in hunter/gatherer societies amongst males was - I claim - critical to raising the probability of individual and groups survival. The attributes of the archetypes are not exclusive to each; in fact, one will find some of each in the other, not because of feminization, but because of it being a sound strategy for survival. I claim that to not allow this possibility is nothing more than a romantic notion of the primordial past. Now, maybe you will claim that male cooperation isn’t part of the female archetype, but you’ve written it as so.

  • Complete disregard for differing evolutionary strategies for the propagation of varying species. The clearest example I can give would be honey bees: the worker bees are just that, workers. They do not engage in direct sexual reproduction; they work then they die. But, their role is CRITICAL to the survival of the species. Funny how evolution works. Satyr’s logic is that those worker bees are a dead end, parasites. Yeah right Einstein! Let’s assume Satyr thinks that only in humans (homosexuality) that it’s a genetic dead end. How so? Phenotypically, yes. Genotypically, you can’t prove it. You may claim not enough time has past, but one only needs to look at other organisms to see that asexual roles and homosexual roles play a part in the continuation of varying species. And to write nothing of the plasticity of humans and their social roles, of which I imagine you would agree - except that your analysis is framed as “The Feminization of Man” and excludes the opposite interaction (see below).

  • Differences in social interactions in varying societies, or subgroups, through out human history. An example would be the various Native American tribes. Some were docile, some were aggressive (raided other tribes for their food, horses, women, tools, etc). Again, I claim these as simple examples of differing strategies of survival. Satyr MAY claim those that were docile as having been feminized (or in the process of) and that the others would be with more time. My response to this imagined belief I’m imposing on him is: you don’t know.

  • Any thought of the mixing of the archetype attributes diminishing his central points. I claim that some the attributes of the archetypes are not specific to each. And I’ll infer from his statements that he thinks they are specific to each. My antidotal evidence suggests that women are taking on some of the male archetypal attributes here in the US. We see an increase in women in gangs; women gangs; women acting like males; women living alone; women as breed winners and men staying at home; increases in dead-beat moms; so on and so forth. Maybe Satyr’s analysis needs to work the other side of the coin: The Masculation of Women! Then again, he’s just focused on The Feminization of Man.

  • I claim that human sexuality in Chinese culture has been looked upon as entertainment, in part, going as far back as their written record allows. It is not a product of other forces such as Capitalism and its attending Consumerism or any attributes of Feminism (this last is not your claim, but one inference I draw from the whole of your essay). Romanticizing primordial sex as having been only a procreative act is foolish. Humans are - and have been - too complex for such a narrow, romanticized notion.

The last concern for him, me and all of you readers is to not confuse statements in his essay (abstraction) with reality (concreteness). Don’t fall victim to reifying his analysis. I’m trying like hell not to. lol

Anywho, Costas is a smart guy. I’ll give the boy his props.

Because this is a thread dedicated to my “fatal flaw”, I suppose that everyone is placing their own nail in my coffin.
Let us see. :wink:

Given your interest in the homosexual angle, are you sure it’s your “gut” and not your anus that “tells” you things?
I mean they are connected and I know you aren’t using your brain.

Well, then one wonders why and how the uterus evolved at all.
Unlike you, for me biology creates this unity which cannot then be subdivided into pieces so as to save human morals and social constructs.
Don’t all faiths depend on separating their ideal, hypothetical other-worldliness from the brutal reality around them?
It’s how man maintains his ability to preserve absurdity in the face of mounting evidence.

Dreams can come true sometimes, sweetheart.
Are you sure that’s the only thing you want to do with my balls?

I am always entertained when a part of the argument is cut away from the main body so as to simplify it and attack it.
Modern liberals focus on color, for example, to construct a challenge to racial truths. They simplify the debate so as to make it seem ridiculous, when it is only their understanding and their methods that are simple.

The uterus is not the only organ that characterizes the female. It is part of a group of biological changes that evolved out of the necessity for gestation and live-births as well as for the subsequent weening process.
If this was all cosmetic and had no other effect then we can safely say that all species, categories, and types are all false since all appearances are superficial and all organisms are equal in their spirit.

I love the casual tone.

Really?
If you say so, sweetheart.

The challenger often uses a form of duplicity when (s)he attempts to contradict a position and then assumes the air of knowing agreement.
As if (s)he has now progressed beyond these positions. Yet, what often follows does not live-up to this insinuation.

As opposed to what?

Nice implications with no accompanying arguments.
For me the male sex is a mutation of the feminine, unlike what the bible states.
As such it is more vulnerable to environmental conditions and so more prone to regression or mutation. It is a sophistication and so is more vulnerable.

Parasitic, sweetheart, is an organism or an idea which depends on infecting another so as to propagate itself.
The Lancet Fluke, for example.
Thew Quakers is another.

Homosexuality, by definition, cannot reproduce. It is a biological dead end.
What it can do is parasitically use heterosexuality to pass on its genes.

A genetic dead end is one which is referred to as unfit.
The reason it still persists must be sought out in the vulnerability of the fetus to factors that mutate its hormonal balances and on environmental conditions which necessitate a more feminine demeanor and make females more stable and easily integrated within group dynamics.

And where have I said otherwise?
My position is that social unities are a product of weakness. An adaptation so as to increase survivability for those that cannot cope on their own.
This necessitates, in turn, a supression of self so as to make integration and interactions possible.
I said that all social interactions force some level of feminization.
As the interactions increase in size the feminization increases exponentially as a necessary element in its harmonious continuance.

Did I say females were a genetic dead end?
My, what straw men you chicks require to make yourselves sound intelligent. Again a reliance on ‘men’ of the straw variety. :D/

I actually use bees in my essay as an example of a social group made harmonious by eliminating, and only seasonally tolerating, males from their dynamic.
Ants and termites are other species that use a similar strategy. The docility and simplicity of each individual member of the hive make them more harmonious as a group.
Also notice how, as individuals, mentally inferior each of these species are and how compeltely dependent on the group they are ; how they lack a distinctive personality.

Each group was characterized by a single dominant male entity, towards which and in relation to all other members were subordinated and feminized.
The system was primitive and so the enforcement was made by using force. The challengers still remained and they often usurped power in a continuous power struggle, characteristic of all social groups in nature.

With modern systems the methods have become so sophisticated that no force is required.
Indoctrination begins at birth and continues throughout one’s lifetime. Education, religion, peer pressures, cultural norms, morality all subdue the parts in human nature which conflict with the cultural environment.
The mind is so integrated into this system that it cannot even think outside its premises. The system becomes self-referential, excluding all other sources of reference or labeling them as evil or immoral.

As I’ve said in another place, masculinization is directly attributable to my thesis of feminization.
The elimination of sexuality as a distinctive characteristic of each individual, making it trivial and up to each person’s choice, is part of this elimination of nature from human affairs.

Females are taking on more masculine roles, because masculinity has become trivial and castrated and so can be performed symbolically by just about anyone and anything.
The institution remains the only tolerable monopoly of masculine power. The individual only seeks to become a figurehead, a symbol, of it and so women can be representatives of masculinity and children representatives of military force.

But your position here exposes your complete misunderstanding of what I mean by a masculine spirit.

Wearing trousers and having muscles or using guns isn’t what the masculine is.
The masculine is a way of looking and understanding the world. It’s a way of relating to reality.
It is a challenging spirit which tolerates nothing that imposes a limit to its Will.
You can be macho and be submissive to God, let us say, and tolerant of your groups mythologies and impositions upon your becoming and so you are feminine in mentality.

These expressions of hyper-masculinity are a direct result of feminization. Because the absence of masculinity is increasing and it is being restricted the reaction to it are these displays which are supposed to fill in the psychological gap.
Entertainment is another example - everything from pornography to war movies and from exercising to gagsta-rap.
Because certain activities are prohibited the individual is allowed to vent these atrophying and neglected parts through socially safe avenues and symbolic effects.
The symbols are taken from the system’s values and so they are harmless to it.
For instance, the natural rebelliousness of youth, is made inert and integrated into conformity by offering it symbolic avenues of de-pressurizing expression using the very symbols of the system produces. Thusly the youth becomes apathetic and nonthreatening to the system’s control.

For example repressed sexuality is vented through exaggerated pornographic material meant to alleviate the pressures upon the individual and sublimate the long-term effects of this supression.
The repressed sexuality often has psychological effects on the individual which express themselves through fantasies and bizarre desires with no reproductive goal.

Just like communal pressures create this need for superfluousness and inflated symbolic overconsumption and luxury so as to alleviate this emptiness and disatisfaction these pressures create, so does social and cultural supression creates this exaggerated reaction and overcompensation in many other areas.

China is a good example of how growing populations and dwindling spaces and resources necessitated the emergence of more passive, feminine demeanors and philosophies.
Population pressures occurred much later in the west and so Christianity and Islam are late comers and infantile when compared to the older oriental ideologies and religions.

In Chinese culture we see the advanced effeminate male, completely devoid of free-will and devoted to his culture and the ideals of his people.
But did females enjoy more freedom in China before the communist revolution?

Are you an example of a mind that has escaped my “bullshit” seductions?
I’ll allow the readers to decide for themselves what is preferable and who has posted comments more able to explain reality.

Oh, you have no idea, sweetheart, no idea at all.
But, still, you consider yourself smarter, don’t you?

Ah, human nature, when will you ever surprise me?

No you did not, nor do I write you did. Nice red herring there, Sporto.

Did I? No! I wrote that worker bees would be a genetic dead end given your logic. But worker bees are not a genetic dead end.

And your reply to my claim that a uterus is a substantial difference and not a sutble difference is so laughable as to be a non sequitur.

First, I’ll have to do some research here but I think this is probably not true of all human societies through out time (i.e., that there was a single dominant male). Of course, in this brilliant tautology of a system you’ve created you would just point to such an example and claim it was in a state of feminization.

Second, the quote above is NOT true of honey bees, and more than likely never true (but I couldn’t prove it nor could you prove it’s opposite).

Maybe, maybe not. My question to you now is: How many examples of women who have, or do, display this characteristic is sufficient for you to see that it is not exclusive to the male archetype? Or are you just gonna reach back into your tautology bag and claim hyper-masculinity due to feminization? ](*,)

Let’s see:

I repeat, where have I stated that females were dead end parasites?
Do you even comprehend what parasitic is?

The very idea of homo and sexual implies a same sex relationship with no possibility for offspring.
Therefore the emergence of homosexuality as a sexual type depends on heterosexual intercourse - ironic.
It reproduces using a different and often antithetical type or organism.

In nature homosexual interactions can be explained in many ways, but as a type which prefers its own sex for intercourse can only be considered a natural mutation with no fitness of its own and so a reliance on this recurring mutation or hormonal instability that produces it to propagate itself.

Given “my logic” or how you understand “my logic”?
Parasitical, you fool, is not one that lives within a group but does not reproduce itself. Then all subordinated males would be considered so.
Every female worker bee has the potential to breed. It does not because it is subordinated.

The homosexual, by definition, can only reproduce itself if it goes agaisnt its very nature and copulates heterosexually or waits for random mutations due to heterosexual intercourse for its own kind to keep on emerging.
On its own it is a genetic dead end. You cannot impregnate a gay man through anal sex or a lesbian with vaginal stimulation.

Sex is a product of necessity, not a matter of entertainment or choice.
That it has become otherwise or that it now serves mutiple purposes, from social anxiety relief to dominating displays, in some species can be explained and understood.
That it becomes a preference that goes against the very reason for the evolution of sexual intercourse and that it persists and has not been selected out of our species can also be explained.

The social structure of honeybees does not depend on a central controlling entity.

Read up on honeybee social interactions and unities or how hive organization and decision making is produced.
The queen bee has no central authority. She’s just a mindless breeding factory.

Nevertheless the feminine character of this unity and the absence of any other natural unity with a similar structure made up exclusively of males points to a natural advantage.

I believe I’ve answered this question repeatedly and in its many different forms.
I will not continuously repeat myself top those that cannot or will not comprehend.

First, your statements about human homosexuality are clear: 1) they cannot procreate; ergo, they are a genetic dead end, they are parasitic.

Second, I generalized that logic by using the example of the honey bee worker: the worker cannot and does not procreate (why? I don’t give a rat’s ass why - I just know it doesn’t); ergo, they are a genetic dead end, they are parasitic.

Are you and I on the same page here? I think we are.

Now, I claim that the worker bee IS NOT PARASITIC. It gives back (or gives for that matter) to the colony for the propogation of the species. Then you reply with a bunch of metaphysical nonsense (to me it is) that reduces the worker bee as (my paraphrasing follows) having been a result of the larger feminization (female archetype) at play in nature. We still on the same page? I think we are. If so, I claimed you could not “prove” that is was; scientifically you can’t and neither could I prove otherwise. We have to take what’s given to us by nature (i.e., how the honey bee is, now). You can prove it via your logic, and that I don’t dispute. But that logic is not scientific logic, it’s metaphysical logic - if you’ll allow me this distinction.

Here’s the really important question for me: Is your essay intended as a metaphysical theory or a scientific theory, or even a theory?

If metaphysical, then I need not respond anymore as I have no interest in discussing what you’ve written because I’m more of an empiricist than a metaphysician. I have no issue with the general logic of what you’ve written - without going back to the essay to look for logical inconsistancies.

If scientific, then I’ll claim it is a tautology: we cannot verify any of it’s claims. A very simple example would be women can’t have male archetype attributes by definition; when trying to show differently, you claim hyper-masculinity. If I would attempt to show female archetype attributes in males, you claim feminization (i.e., the effects of the female archetype) by definition.

I am not sure you understand what a logical tautology is, please stop using that word… you are disgracing it’s holy name. lol

I understand what a logical tautology is - douchebag.

Fallacies are not always simple statements. Many need to be drawn out of the writings in which they exist.

I can’t give example of females with males attributes without invocation of the female archetype. I can’t give examples of males with female atrributes without invocation of the female archetype. I can’t give examples of males with male attributes because the female archetype gets invoke to show that no such male exists. I can’t give examples of females with female attributes without invocation of the female archetype (which makes perfect sense).

If you agree that this general pattern exists in his writing and responses, can’t you see a problem here?

Yes, this is an essay on The Feminization of Man. Yes, the starting premises are the male archetype and the female archetype. The male archetype doesn’ exist and hasn’t since primordial days. Everything is explained away within the frame of the female archetype.

If I’m wrong about which type of fallacy it is, my bad. But it’s is a fallacy nonetheless within scientific reasoning (i.e., being falsifiable). Maybe it’s not a very subtle tautology, maybe it’s a very subtle begging the question. Regardless, my “gut” tells it is a fallacy within scientific reasoning.

Consider Satyr’s program analogous to Intelligent Design. #-o

As a metaphysical program, I could care less. As a scientific program, “Houston, we have a problem”.

Well if his work were a tautology you would not be able to refute it not even on the empirical side; because a tautological proposition is isomorphic to the existence of empirical facts. – (rational realism)

If he could write his argument within geometric proposition form it would be easier to tell if it was tautological or just deductive from premises (which is more likely) and therefore contingent logic which you can refute if you can undue his premises.

The only thing I can suggest for both of you is to put his argument in a formalism and once agreed on it structure… go from there.

Right now you guys are not even agreeing on where you disagree. Look in the Spinoza thread on how to accomplish this task.

Simple mind, they are not parasitic because they can reproduce their own kind, if need be, without contradicting their own kind.
The Lancet Fluke was an example.
It uses another organism to reproduce its own kind.

I don’t even think we’re reading the same book.

All science starts as a philosophy.

The bee is not sexually parasitic.
The homosexual is.

Many use the existence of homosexual behavior in other species, particularly social sp0ecies, as evidence that it is somehow a viable alternative, forgetting what role homosexual displays play in nature.
As a sexual choice it is an aberration in the human species where sex has taken on the function of more than reproduction, its original purpose, and due to human environments which have made sex trivial and so of no importance other than as a social lubricant an identification or an entertainment and venting method.

It is an opinion.
Science begins as a metaphysical or philosophical theory, as the theory of Relativity did, and it then gains scientific validation through testing, and empiricism.
Science is not separate from philosophy. Science is a product of philosophy and it is a result of a particular philosophical position.

Empiricism is accessible to all.
If you mean that you require authorities to validate your empiricism, then you are an institutionalized mind.

All theories, especially the scientific ones, go through changes.
The current sciences are not absolute statements on truth nor are the exempt from subjectivity and cultural influences.

|My definitions are clear precise and open for debate.

My usage of the term feminine and masculine types, in the context of this essay, is due to the naturally produced behaviors and attitudes due to reproductive necessities.

If you would like to claim that minds are produced by brains in a vat, with no affect by environment or historical natural influences then you are free to do so.

I do not differentiate between appearance and essence. There is no duality there, for me.
Appearance is essence in another context.

Therefore how one appears is what the phenomenon, the apparent, is. No more and no less.

This is strictly empirical. All there is is what can be perceived and what can be perceived is temporal, changing.
Your implication that we are somehow all the same but only differ in appearance, that nature is merely cosmetic, is reliant on duality and on non-empirical absurdities.
The idea that there is an unchanging, absolute, common core is not empirical and that differences are mere illusions or insignificant is not empirical.

I agree that the bee (the species) is not parasitic. I never wrote otherwise. What I did write - please go back a re-read it - it that by generalizing your logic (about homosexuals not reproducing and being parasitic as a result) the WORKER BEE ought to be parasitic too. I claim they aren’t. We have a difference of opinion on this.

They (worker bees) are (to you) parasitic by definition, and that’s your choice. You have a restricted sense of parasite, and that’s your choice also.

I prefer a general sense of parasitic when dealing with a sex that does not procreate (gay and lesbian humans, infertile female bees [workers], etc.). So we disagree, big flubbering deal.

Like I said, I think what you wrote is BS. But in fairness to you, my little Authur, it is intersting BS.

I will post some more questions and comments in the essay’s thread when I get done reading it over again with a finely tuned critical eye. You have that affect on me, you little voluntarist you. =P~

Imbecile, you constructed a false disagreement on the fact that you totally misunderstood what was being said.

You tried to make a point, using the bee, and in the process you exposed how compeltely in the dark you are.

The idea of parasitism, as it related to genetics and mimetics, is that the gene or the idea cannot, even if it wanted to, reproduce itself without contradicting itself or without resorting to another genetic and mimetic process to replicate itself.
For instance, simpleton, an ideology advocating the abstinence from sex would be a genetic dead end or an ideal proposing pedophilia would also be a genetic dead end.

Homosexuality is such a dead end.
Fucking a member of your own sex, even if it may be pleasurable or your right as it is ensured to you by the system, will not result in anything but a cum stain.

Dead ends are also referred to as unfit.

Once again you construct a challenge on your misunderstandings.
A worker bee, like an omega wolf, may not reproduce but it can reproduce, if given a chance, without contradicting its nature.
A queen bee is a regular bee given special nourishment during a critical period of development.
Any bee can be made into a queen bee.

A mule is also a parasitic type. It cannot replicate itself on its own. It relies on another process which goes against the nature of either species necessary for the production of a mule.

Bestiality is also a dead end.
Lovers of man on sheep sex cannot reproduce themselves and must rely on the mutations resulting from regular heterosexual man on woman sex to find new members.

Idiot, the worker bee facilitates the reproduction of its own kind by the role it plays in the hive and it supports the common genes of the community.
The worker bee, with its efforts, ensures the continuance of its own kind - more worker bees.

Homosexuality is parasitic because it depends on heterosexuality to replicate its kind. It adds nothing to heterosexual intercourse and it subtracts nothing from it. It is a genetic mutation, caused by hormonal imbalances and environmental effects, which cannot replicate its own kind without resorting to behaviors that go against its nature and even then the result is not a guarantee.
A homosexual male having sex with a heterosexual, or other, female will not guarantee the birth of a homosexual child.

What you feel in your gut is of no interest to me.

Your previous performance only exposes the BS in your head.

And I, of course, give a shit.
If you’re going to waste more of my time with your inanities then don’t bother.

I think what might add depth to your thesis on concentrated populations correlated with the feminization of man;

I hear that rats when over populated in one area will exhibit homosexual activity. But when properly spread out they are fully heterosexual.

Some could claim this is an adaptation preventing the starvation of rat populations… if they kept breeding instead of being homosexual they would surely produce so many offspring their food sources within one area would become depleted and threaten all of the rats with starvation. Being in closer proximity to mates may compound the problem, as rats can breed fairly quickly.

We share many genetic traits with rats.

So, it may be natural for highly concentrated populations of humans to exhibit homosexual activity as a survival method.

But this is already your claim, in that it is natural for man to feminize in higher population densities… So, this may just add another perspective.

In some cultural groups when concentrated the population may produce more mentally feminized men (men that can’t think original thoughts; china for instance) or it could manifest in a more sexual way, as with the homosexual rats in San Fransisco (pun intended).

Assbag, the worker bee, with its efforts, ensures the continuance of its own kind - more HONEY BEES! Of which, in part, are more worker bees, and more drones, and more queens! What part of this don’t you understand, you condescending windbag.

Organisms with sex organs that don’t mate (because of their attraction to the same sex), or organisms with potential for sex (with it’s opposite sex) but don’t engage as an evolutionary role/strategy (e.g., honey worker bees, who do under the rarest of circumstances) are not parasites as I define parasite in this context. They help the species survive and evolve.

The question for me, assbag, is whether human homosexuality plays an evolutionary role (while duly noting the inability to engage in sex for reproductive purposes) in helping the species survive and evolve.

I ask this question outside of your essay. I don’t give a fuck about your opinion as stated (i.,e, the essay); I think it’s BS and that’s MY opnion. I’ll give reasons why - and I have. Whether those reasons are acceptable to you is up to you. If they don’t meet whatever restrictive definition of terms you wish to propound, I could care less.

It’s your choice to restrict any such potential questioning by limiting debate on this issue to it’s strictest sense: inability to engage in reproductive acts “without artificial means” (my words in quotes, you piece of shit, not yours).

You just want to be the assbag that you are and that’s fine. Go ahead. Will your assbagness. Outpress your assbagness. Be assbagness. Little Arthur needs to be in charge and stroke his ego and get his kicks. I also understand the games being played, Wonder Boy.

At least ya got all that going for ya - assbag.

Free Quebec!

It may be considered as a natural balancing mechanism where reproduction is lessened through natural processes that eliminate members from the gene pool.
Self-sterilization.

It is also a survival strategy where excessive dominant maleness, and challengers, is not tolerated within groups. The remaining males are forces, for survival’s sake, to behave more feminine and so pose no threat or challenge to the monopolizing masculine authority - in modern systems, the institution.

Idiot, you are thick and slow.

One last time, moron.

You try to make a challenge by comparing apples and oranges.
You take a species, the bee, and you compare it to a sub-grouping, a sexual mutation, within another species.

But whatever, you fail to take advantage of even this selective argument.

Then you fail to comprehend, idiot, that the bee is not a genetic dead end, a parasite, because it contributes to the production and the reproduction cycles of its own kind.
It helps produce others of its own kind.

You then try to confuse the subject by taking the homosexual mutation, firstly as a human participant in social systems, and so not parasitic, and then as a sexual mutation within it that contributes nothing to reproduction, or to heterosexuality, but exists parasitically through it.
The homosexual, you idiot, may be a productive member of society but as a sexual type, a mutation, (s)he is a genetic dead end that cannot reproduce itself.
This mutation emerges as a lifestyle or an alternative as a direct result of population pressures and due to hormonal effects.

As a behavior it can also play the part of social lubricant, alleviating conflicts, and as an extension of the grooming mechanism which establishes alliances and hierarchies, or it can play the role of exhibition and establishment of dominance.
As a preference it is the result of overpopulation and undiscriminating reproduction, resulting in a weakening genetic pool manifesting in a growing number of mutations, and of natural selection which prefers the more tolerant, unthinking, impressionable, socially dependent and needful female mind.

If this is too complicated for you, then I cannot help you.

Prepare to drop off the radar screen.

LMAO. You are an amusing little runt, Arthur. You are the one who has misunderstood what I wrote by your loose and failed thinking.

You delude yourself by your weak thinking that I’m confusing the issue.

By YOUR definition sexual mutation is parasitic! My definition does not! And my definition never has. You continually attribute this and that statement or idea to me when it’s your and only yours. This is a sign of an assbag, at the least.

As a human sexual type that can’t reproduce itself, I have no issue with that. As a human sexual type that can help the human species reproduce (in a non-sexual role - duh!) is the question I’m pondering. You have your answer - your opinion. You have your answer as to its origin and continuation - your opinion.

My answer (opinion) is still being formulated.

If you want to continue to act like a dogmatic assbag, you’ll be treated as such. Your choice.