Carl Nassib
- Thread starter jrl5019
- Start date
WOW!!!! Such an ignorant statement. A "simple fact"?
I guess all the parents that are speaking up at school board meetings or getting arrested are just making it up. Who knew?
Of course not. I owe it to the readers to explain that I'm no expert in the field. But once giving honest background, there's nothing wrong with explaining your views.
Then, if your views/conclusions are wrong, you can be corrected and shown (not said, but shown) to be wrong.
No problem that way.
Feynman is simply saying that we should not deceive and admit when we don't have expertise. Of course that's correct.
But when he says, "Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts", what do you think he means?
He means that we are free to think for ourselves and not simply accept the "expert's" word.
Excellent, LionJim - by that I mean that you're happy.
I truly mean that, and of course, it is a good thing.
But, I don't think that detracts from the nature of our beings and what I think is almost surely a fact (yes, I am using that too loosely) - we are genetically programmed to "love" our genetic off-spring the most.
Yes, its a little strong of a statement for me to call that a "fact".
I think it likely though.
Do you not feel it yourself?
You are the only person I have heard who believes this, but yet it is a "fact"?
That's a dangerous view... A view that almost sounds like the making of a white supremist/alt-right group.
I do not feel that's even close to the truth. Adopted cousins and step-dad uncle's who do not love their kids ANY less simply bc they are not their own
That's what you take out of that? Seriously?
Do you think I'm saying that WHITE people like their genetic off-spring and BLACK people don't?
Seriously - I'm saying that ALL people are programmed via evolution to prefer their own offspring best.
Don't you think that's true?
If you get married, have kids with your wife, do you not think that her bond is from the birth of the child and is stronger than any other bond? Of course it is!
When you get to the bottom of the hole, you're supposed to put down the shovel not bring in a backhoe.
I am not an expert on racial equity, but thats what the school district. Says is being taught in Loudon and the parents say it’s CRT. These parents seem to have a pretty good understanding of what is being taught and they are not happy. Many of the people speaking at these meetings are black and Asian that are upset about this, so it’s not just whites questioning CRT and racial equity programs in schools.
When you get to the bottom of the hole, you're supposed to put down the shovel not bring in a backhoe.
A scientist accepts that he can be wrong. But you have to prove it to him.
You can't just "shout me down" with insults and outrage.
Make an argument for why I'm wrong - no problem.
A stronger bond? No, only if YOU decide it to be.
No, it has nothing to do with race, but calling your own offspring superior in their bond (compared to a adopted child) is not a far stretch from the thought process that white supremacists use when calling a race superior.
So, if you had two sons - one adopted and one not, would you love the adopted one less??
Last edited:
Now you're just putting words in my mouth.
I never said that people think that their own children are "superior", just that they love them more due to evolutionary biology. All races and all people, in my opinion, will feel the same.
I have to say, it's wrong to try to make someone's words out to be racist when they clearly are not.
It's amazing that you declare an irrational thought as a "simple fact", and then admit that it is simply your opinion (and a hot take, at that)
It was neither outrage nor an insult just advice. Speaking of insults, though, you've probably managed to insult at least 1/2 the posters in this thread with your "science".
Go back to the test board where you and your "science" belong. Which, frankly, is where this thread should have been exiled to about 6 pages ago.
I'm typing a million words a minute. When I read what I type and think it is not correct, I correct it.
What do you do in that situation?
No, when you're in that situation, you double down, even though you know you're wrong.
Honest people correct their errors.
Fair enough, I'll let that go. Just understand that that thought is far from a universally held belief or a fact, and is a bit troubling. I have never once spoken to parents of an adopted child or a step-father, who legitimately stepped in to be a father, who made a comment that even resembled such an opinion.
And in fact, I checked it. It seems that my instinct on this could be wrong, or at least it isn't as clear as I thought.
There's a study for everything!
I’m not a surgeon, but I will now give three paragraphs on how to perform open heart surgery…..
Re (2), which you've now raised repeatedly, those questions are fair...but complicated.
Let's do the easy one first...the furniture store: of course a gay couple should not be denied entry. Not sure how anything I've said here could possibly be construed otherwise.
Regarding the two others, which fit to varying degrees in the category of PDA, no, I'm not OK with it nor would I want my grandchildren to witness it...but neither...listen closely here...would I propose that such behavior be regulated by law. For better or worse, we're now far beyond that point.
Still, human nature and the laws of nature are hard-wired on a lot of this stuff. The sight of guys publicly kissing will cause an instinctive reaction of revulsion in a large number of ordinary straight men. Think back to Michael Sam and the Kiss Heard Round The World.
Of course, now 7 years later, nobody can actually admit to such feelings for fear of being drummed out of polite society, but the hard fact is that PDA among gay men doesn't advance the LGBTQ cause for this very reason. Even gay people appear to understand that.
Then again, I don't get much anymore so maybe gay guys are making out on every street corner and I've just missed it.
Many, both past and present, would certainly agree with this- of course, like you, they would want to be the ones to define "truth" for the rest of us.
Recent examples would include the Taliban and ISIS, but we can go back to the Pharaohs, the Crusaders, Saladin, various Popes or the even Chin Dynasty for a few other examples.
You can keep your "truth", but expect others to keep theirs.
Disagreed. The "instinctive" reaction is less about it being unnatural and more about people not being used to it yet (especially in many segments of our society).
There are still lots of places that interracial dating will bring stares when out in public because there are places (mostly small towns) that are not used to it. I've certainly experienced looks in the past when out on a romantic dinner with a black woman.
Give it time and LGBTQ PDA will not be nearly the spectacle that it is right now... It's already entering "no big deal" status with our youth - at least in cities and more progressive areas
Kudos to you for being open but you're full of sh!t. All this crap about its the "invitation to celebrate" that really grinds your gears. Its all of it. If you can't handle a gay couple minding their own business holding hands in your vicinity without being bothered (definitely not an invitation for you to celebrate), you're just bothered by gays, period. If you don't think its ok for a gay couple to hold hands in public like a straight couple, then you'd prefer they stay in the closet, and you claiming you support equal rights is a load of you know what.
Enjoy your weekend. Hope nothing makes you uncomfortable.
And yet my theory/guess was spot on - there really is no meaningful "benefits the group" evolution.
An honest person would note that.
You really should do some reading before spouting off your opinions in this thread... Downright absurd opinions, like THREE posts (I just realized that), tripling down of why birth mothers love their genetic children more than adoptive children -- That's so absurd that someone honestly thought that was the truth, and spouted it off as reason to perpetuate bigotry. Dang.
Now, it appears that you are trying to show that homosexual relations are unnatural bc they serve no evolutionary benefit. But yet, plenty of creatures in the animal kingdom engage in homosexual relations... Which, if nature does it, maybe it is "natural"?
Please base your opinions off reality, not just thought up stuff, if you are going to bring them to this discussion in defense of bigotry. Thank you
Last edited:
Check out those crazy giraffes! Somehow they are still a species. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals
Well, the ones with short necks died off... Bc, ya know... size matters. Evolution
Read up on what male bonobos do to each other. (our closest relatives along with chimps).
The females get it on with each other too since Jerry supports girl on girl.
And my procedural guide on open heart surgery will be spot on because I say it is….that’s how it works in your world, right?
Wait...what? Are you still understanding the argument? Your statement (there is no meaningful "benefits the group" evolution) is entirely untrue.
I really thought we were past the high school level of understanding Darwin here. I mean, even Darwin talked about the implications of group inheritance in his own words, which you claim to understand.
Well, right off the bat, they say, "The time has come for a careful and forthright reassessment of group selection in evolutionary thinking. The most naive form of group selection—which axiomatically assumes that behaviors evolve for the good of the group—is clearly untenable."
Reading on, I get exactly what they're saying, and I agree that it is theoretically possible that groups of selfish individuals could destroy themselves (as a group), where groups of cooperative individuals could thrive when otherwise they would not.
But it seems pretty much theoretical, and in practice (they say as much, from what I've read), it really doesn't happen very much, and honestly, the hen example is really forced (but it is interesting and I agree that it seems valid).
From a practical standpoint, I think we can safely say that the vast, vast majority of evolution occurs because of individual procreation selection.
