|
Post by Flying Monkeys on Apr 30, 2023 19:52:49 GMT
Until now. Our knowledge of nature is minimal, so do not assume we know anything about what is happening - forces never before seen have been awakened. That's possible, but there is a name for faith in powers beyond our current comprehension, religion. If I'm going to believe in such things then I'm believing that Jupiter decreed I should have all the pussy. Believing or not is irrelevant - the path is set, the future is nigh, the worms will feed.
|
|
|
Post by ayatollah on Apr 30, 2023 20:32:50 GMT
That's possible, but there is a name for faith in powers beyond our current comprehension, religion. If I'm going to believe in such things then I'm believing that Jupiter decreed I should have all the pussy. Believing or not is irrelevant - the path is set, the future is nigh, the worms will feed. Believing what? That a lot of young people are trans, or that nature somehow made them trans because there are too many humans?
|
|
|
Post by Prince Myshkin on Apr 30, 2023 20:37:11 GMT
No, it's a political movement to destroy gender and implement universal unisex.
The idea that there are 50 genders is so untenable that we are expected to dispense with gender altogether.
|
|
|
Post by primethefirst on Apr 30, 2023 20:49:50 GMT
I hardly think it is Nature fighting back since only a minority are doing it.
It is part of the body modification culture made possible with advances in plastic surgery.
Back to the Future 2 got the prediction right--that after 2015 plastic surgery would become like a fastfood service.
|
|
|
Post by SuperDevilDoctor on Apr 30, 2023 20:56:39 GMT
Turns out, "so many" people is actually about 5,000 over the past 10 years...
Out of a population of 330 million.
What is real, though, is the right-wing "scapegoating" hysteria that's being whipped up.
|
|
|
Post by kiwi on Apr 30, 2023 21:06:27 GMT
Turns out, "so many" people is actually about 5,000 over the past 10 years... Out of a population of 330 million. What is real, though, is the right-wing "scapegoating" hysteria that's being whipped up. CRT just couldn't be sold as the ultimate bogeyman, the midterms showed. The GOP expected the country to just "get over" throwing out Roe v. Wade but found out they'd painted themselves into a corner. So, they need something new, and this is it. Yes, they're trying to whip up hysteria.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2023 21:12:17 GMT
Nature doesn't respond that quickly.
|
|
|
Post by bartlesby on Apr 30, 2023 23:53:11 GMT
Nature never had balance in mind. It would have the strongest survive. I find it hard to believe that it presses its finger down on the scale when one species is too successful. It does, just not this way. If for example deer multiply in a forest, then consume too many edible plants, they begin to die from starvation. Nature doesn't make bucks into does via some nature magic. But nature allows for the starvation of the deer and the eradication of the plants to happen. If the idea is that nature balances itself out, we wouldn't see many examples of localized extinction events. The deer and plants would reach a balance. Yet we do see that happen. We even see mass extinction events. I'm not willing to attribute that to some greater, lofty concept of nature balancing itself; I see it as nature throwing everything at the wall and hoping something sticks. And I'm sure you know that biological sex can be changed naturally if the need arises. There are a lot of biological examples of this happening in frogs, fish, and other species.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2023 0:37:34 GMT
It does, just not this way. If for example deer multiply in a forest, then consume too many edible plants, they begin to die from starvation. Nature doesn't make bucks into does via some nature magic. But nature allows for the starvation of the deer and the eradication of the plants to happen. If the idea is that nature balances itself out, we wouldn't see many examples of localized extinction events. The deer and plants would reach a balance. Yet we do see that happen. We even see mass extinction events. I'm not willing to attribute that to some greater, lofty concept of nature balancing itself; I see it as nature throwing everything at the wall and hoping something sticks. And I'm sure you know that biological sex can be changed naturally if the need arises. There are a lot of biological examples of this happening in frogs, fish, and other species.
Ah yes. In less evolved species. In biology, the more pronounced the sexual dimorphism, the more advanced the species. Humans, being the most advanced species, have the biggest difference between the sexes. Thus, the species you named, which are far less evolved than humans, have no bearing on human reproduction.
|
|
|
Post by bartlesby on May 1, 2023 0:49:47 GMT
But nature allows for the starvation of the deer and the eradication of the plants to happen. If the idea is that nature balances itself out, we wouldn't see many examples of localized extinction events. The deer and plants would reach a balance. Yet we do see that happen. We even see mass extinction events. I'm not willing to attribute that to some greater, lofty concept of nature balancing itself; I see it as nature throwing everything at the wall and hoping something sticks. And I'm sure you know that biological sex can be changed naturally if the need arises. There are a lot of biological examples of this happening in frogs, fish, and other species.
Ah yes. In less evolved species. In biology, the more pronounced the sexual dimorphism, the more advanced the species. Humans, being the most advanced species, have the biggest difference between the sexes. Thus, the species you named, which are far less evolved than humans, have no bearing on human reproduction. Do we? Would you say we're more or less advanced than gorillas?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2023 1:42:37 GMT
Ah yes. In less evolved species. In biology, the more pronounced the sexual dimorphism, the more advanced the species. Humans, being the most advanced species, have the biggest difference between the sexes. Thus, the species you named, which are far less evolved than humans, have no bearing on human reproduction. Do we? Would you say we're more or less advanced than gorillas? Yes. And yes, we're more advanced than gorillas who also can't change sex.
|
|
|
Post by bartlesby on May 1, 2023 2:05:29 GMT
Do we? Would you say we're more or less advanced than gorillas? Yes. And yes, we're more advanced than gorillas who also can't change sex. Then how does that tie into your argument that the greater the sexual dimorphism, the greater the advancement? The fact is that we're not even one of the most sexually dimorphic primates. www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1633678100How would you explain, based on your reasoning, why the orangutans aren't more advanced?
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on May 1, 2023 2:13:27 GMT
But nature allows for the starvation of the deer and the eradication of the plants to happen. If the idea is that nature balances itself out, we wouldn't see many examples of localized extinction events. The deer and plants would reach a balance. Yet we do see that happen. We even see mass extinction events. I'm not willing to attribute that to some greater, lofty concept of nature balancing itself; I see it as nature throwing everything at the wall and hoping something sticks. And I'm sure you know that biological sex can be changed naturally if the need arises. There are a lot of biological examples of this happening in frogs, fish, and other species.
Ah yes. In less evolved species. In biology, the more pronounced the sexual dimorphism, the more advanced the species. Humans, being the most advanced species, have the biggest difference between the sexes. Thus, the species you named, which are far less evolved than humans, have no bearing on human reproduction. You're not really using "evolved" correctly. Humans are not any more evolved than any other ape. But even were that the case, you're only looking at primates. Take the Deep Sea Angler fish, the male is far, far smaller than the female, so are these fish more advanced than we are?
|
|
|
Post by vegas on May 1, 2023 2:17:08 GMT
HEY!! This is just my bit from that "Fewer teens than ever identify as heterosexual: CDC report" thread:
|
|