Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Gamerlord]

EDIT: The error was fixed, sorry I hate it when people say that I have said things that I haven't said.

[Darkmere]

Yeah, I went and fixed the end quote that I typo'd. You can fix your quote of my misquote and the error shall be purged from the universe forever.

[scriver]

It's still not true, though. Even if the point of life was procreating and the survival of the species, which I'm not sure you can say it is, that does not mean homosexuality, asexuality or sterility wouldn't naturally occur. It's completely beyond the point.

[Aqizzar]

He didn't say that either, so it's all good.  He just stated the classical definition of life's biological purpose, which is to perpetuate itself.  That doesn't say anything about the behavior of individual animals, it's just a scientific posit.

In actual news: The Koch Brothers are at it again, gearing up their "Americans for Prosperity Foundation" media tank to pin gas prices to the President, at any cost to themselves or factual reality.  The irony being that they almost have a factual leg to stand on, in that the President could push the CTFC to actually use its enumerated powers and enforce some position limits, which he has never said anything about, which would curb the commodity market speculation on oil and gas.  Depending on what day you ask and who you talk to, most market analysts will tell you that about a quarter of the current price-per-barrel of oil can be directly attributed to the destabilizing effect of speculation, essentially making money today by gambling on the price tomorrow.  I wouldn't normally link to ThinkProgress, but this is the Progressive thread after all, and they've got some smart people.  The links are pretty interesting.

[scriver]

He didn't say that either, so it's all good.  He just stated the classical definition of life's biological purpose, which is to perpetuate itself.  That doesn't say anything about the behavior of individual animals, it's just a scientific posit.

That's basically the same point as I was trying to make. I was dressing Darkmere, not Gamerlord.

[Phmcw]

Don't be fooled : perpetuate your gene doesn't means, making as much children as possible, keeping other children alive also count, as shown by the ants for instance. And a lot of homosexual couples want kids anyway .

[RedKing]

In actual news: The Koch Brothers are at it again, gearing up their "Americans for Prosperity Foundation" media tank to pin gas prices to the President, at any cost to themselves or factual reality.  The irony being that they almost have a factual leg to stand on, in that the President could push the CTFC to actually use its enumerated powers and enforce some position limits, which he has never said anything about, which would curb the commodity market speculation on oil and gas.  Depending on what day you ask and who you talk to, most market analysts will tell you that about a quarter of the current price-per-barrel of oil can be directly attributed to the destabilizing effect of speculation, essentially making money today by gambling on the price tomorrow.  I wouldn't normally link to ThinkProgress, but this is the Progressive thread after all, and they've got some smart people.  The links are pretty interesting.

Evilly brilliant, and classic redirection. It's like punching someone repeatedly and then saying, "I'm not punching you, your face keeps ramming into my fist!" Koch is trying to pre-empt efforts to regulate speculation by claiming that regulation is the problem, and thus free him and his buddies up for even more rampant profiteering. And when gas prices don't drop, they'll just come up with a new snake-oil explanation (no pun intended).

[Leafsnail]

On the other hand, food is pretty much always sold in portions too large for single people, and... I worry vaguely that I'm going to get some flak for this, but there's something so awkward about couples, "families" (i.e. couples with children), and stuff like that.  For a single person, I mean.  I've found that my friends who end up pairing themselves off stop relating to me in a meaningful way.  It turns into "love" > companionship, where by "love" I mean "they started dating a girl a few weeks ago and suddenly they know everything about everything and don't care about me anymore."

I think we need to come up with a gender neutral equivalent of the "bros before hoes" principle.

To be honest, I think it really depends on the child(...yeah, I'm aware I'm not a full legal adult yet.  I'm talking about younger children, I guess).  Sometimes there's a refreshing inquisitiveness, friendliness and openness you don't usually get with older people.  Other times they're just annoying. 

I thought that biologically, the only point of life was to breed? (From an evolutionary standpoint)

No.  Even if you're taking a very hardline view of genetics ("Only actions which increase the likelihood that your genes are passed on are worthwhile") then there are still other things you can do to further that (helping your family (who generally have the same genes as you) or society (who also broadly have the same genes as you) - one reason why homosexuals are not necessarily evolutionary useless (it may be the case that having some homosexuals around is beneficial to society/families)).

[RedKing]

On the other hand, food is pretty much always sold in portions too large for single people, and... I worry vaguely that I'm going to get some flak for this, but there's something so awkward about couples, "families" (i.e. couples with children), and stuff like that.  For a single person, I mean.  I've found that my friends who end up pairing themselves off stop relating to me in a meaningful way.  It turns into "love" > companionship, where by "love" I mean "they started dating a girl a few weeks ago and suddenly they know everything about everything and don't care about me anymore."

I think we need to come up with a gender neutral equivalent of the "bros before hoes" principle.

To be honest, I think it really depends on the child(...yeah, I'm aware I'm not a full legal adult yet.  I'm talking about younger children, I guess).  Sometimes there's a refreshing inquisitiveness, friendliness and openness you don't usually get with older people.  Other times they're just annoying. 

I used to be terrified of children, until I had my own. Kinda forced me to learn how to relate to them. Yes, she can be annoying. And then other times, such as when she told me she wanted to be an eyeball for Halloween....

For me, it's the sheer randomness of children that wins me over. Although I'm still a bit hesitant around other people's kids, especially if I don't know the parents.


And it's not just a couples-singles dynamic. My wife and I have been irritated that mutual friends of ours (couples themselves) have dropped us off their radar almost entirely. In this case though, it's not because of some new infatuation but rather clinging on to old traumas. One couple has gone through a series of child-related tragedies over the last 2-3 years, and the other couple (especially the wife) really glommed onto that and almost subsumed the tragedies as their own. It's like empathy gone haywire. They're only now really starting to break out of that and get back to "normal".

And I realize my assessment of that probably sounds like a heartless asshole, but...

[Gamerlord]

I get on good with kids under 7 and kids with autism.  I relate well to them and I can get them to understand me. I understand them better than I do people my own age... 

[Vector]

I thought that biologically, the only point of life was to breed? (From an evolutionary standpoint)
Also, if you are Christian, you also believe this, because apparently God told man to be fruitful and multiply.

[...]

That Childfree movement confuses me.

a. If the point of life is to continue life, and my strong belief is that I will do a hell of a lot better job by advancing humankind's Science and Literary Analysis (and, potentially, the quality of the life for its babies) than I would by upping its baby count by 1--especially because I strongly suspect that I would be an abusive parent, or at least lean in that direction--I sure as fuck wish society would help me out a little rather than saying "TROLOLOLOLO YOUR LIFE IS ON EASY MODE BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE A BABY SO FUCK OFF."  Easier in some ways, harder in others.

b. I am not an incubator for babies that Society values over my own existence.  I am the future, too.  I have value as a human being and as a worker, too.  I am quite tired of the BUT THE BABIES attitude.

Children are important.

You know what else is important?  Overpopulation.

So I wish the government would learn to stay the hell away from my reproductive rights.  Eventually (not that long from now), it's going to become more humane to abort than it is to put yet another mouth on this planet.  It'd be cool if they understood that before it happens and valued the current populace a tiny bit more over the future populace.  We're the ones who are already here...

I don't want to say at all that children aren't important, that there shouldn't be laws and help to protect families, and so on, and so forth.  I just feel that there's a lot of stuff going on to value the family which significantly devalues everyone else, to their detriment.  Childless or single adults should be valued by our society as well.

For me, it's the sheer randomness of children that wins me over.

Sadly, I still have this problem much of the time.  Well, not sadly, because I don't mind, but it seems to piss most people off, weird them out, or force comparisons to River Tam.

Given that I've also been compared to people like Rorschach, though, I... guess that's a bit better?


Equality destroys sex lives!

I am kind of tired of the pop psych people at this point.

[Bauglir]

If this isn't going to force a derail, then the purpose of life in an evolutionary sense isn't to procreate, anymore than it is to eat. Reproduction of genes is just something life does; it's not the end-goal. I doubt if there can be said to be any "evolutionary" purpose to life, any more than you can say that the purpose of hydrochloric acid and sodium hydroxide is to create saltwater.

[Angle]

If this isn't going to force a derail, then the purpose of life in an evolutionary sense isn't to procreate, anymore than it is to eat. Reproduction of genes is just something life does; it's not the end-goal. I doubt if there can be said to be any "evolutionary" purpose to life, any more than you can say that the purpose of hydrochloric acid and sodium hydroxide is to create saltwater.

Yes, exactly. Flowing downhill is not the point of water, it's just something water does. Same with evolution. Our point is not to procreate and evolve, it's just something we do.

[Leafsnail]

Equality destroys sex lives!

I am kind of tired of the pop psych people at this point.

This just in: Daily Mail still supports crap science as long as it backs up their bigoted viewpoints.

[Cthulhu]

Also, if you are Christian, you also believe this, because apparently God told man to be fruitful and multiply.

It's a bit of a leap to go from "Hey guys, go have some babies!" to "Your only purpose is to have babies!"