A homosexual lifestyle is vulnerable to HIV, therefore homosexuals are a threat to natural selection?

Do you want to ban every lifestyle choice that makes you vulnerable to something bad for you?

I'm just sitting here in my observation desk, carry on.

Green Platinum wrote:

A homosexual lifestyle is vulnerable to HIV, therefore homosexuals are a threat to natural selection?

Do you want to ban every lifestyle choice that makes you vulnerable to something bad for you?

A homosexual lifestyle is vulnerable to HIV and lack of natural way of procreation, as I have explained it before.
Therefore homosexuality is a threat to human, as a species.

First thing first,
What do you live for? I do not think that people's life is just to fulfill their desire.
As humans who have logic, we should wisely choose the better for our life.

What, are we back to the pre-historic ages?
We've reached the point in which subjects such as those have little matter. The world is already over-populated as it is, homosexuality is far from being a threat. Or are you suggesting that these so called 'Homo Genes' will eventually be passed on throughout all humans?

What's wrong with living to enjoy life? Not everybody wants kids.

Green Platinum wrote:

What's wrong with living to enjoy life? Not everybody wants kids.

It is right to not using all of your potential and living like an inferior species?

We can assume that a domestic dog is living only to enjoy its life, since its don't have logic to think wisely.
And a dog (my dog at least) does not even know when to stop eating! It is just fulfilling its hunger!

Do you really want to live just to pursue your desire? Even though you have a potential to make things better as a superior being?
Think as a species, not as an individual.. If everyone is just only following their desire, this world will be even more chaotic.

EneT wrote:

What, are we back to the pre-historic ages?
We've reached the point in which subjects such as those have little matter. The world is already over-populated as it is, homosexuality is far from being a threat. Or are you suggesting that these so called 'Homo Genes' will eventually be passed on throughout all humans?

Why do you hate me so much, why u don't even read my previous post, even a psychopath like me can cry ;w;

err...

"We've reached the point in which subjects such as those have little matter."
^explain this , as I know, natural selection occurs as long as living creature exist

" The world is already over-populated as it is, homosexuality is far from being a threat."
^and this, please explain why and please explain your train of thought

There's 7 billion+ people in the world, only a small population are homosexual. How are they going to affect all 7 billion?
Way back when the human population was way lower it could have been considered a 'threat', but as we are now, homo-sexuality isn't an issue. Actually, even back then it wasn't an issue. Even if it was taboo, many leaders and iconical figures in history were gay. Take example the Spartans, they would throw away all their babies that had physical defects so that only the strong would live in their ranks, but guess what? When a male Spartan child gets old enough they get a sort of personal teacher that acts as a father for them, most of them had sexual relationships with each other. But was that a threat for them? No.

Also, stop throwing the 'natural selection' card as if it's proven. Nothing in science is proven, tests are made and theories are created that could best accurately depict the results to our understanding. That's the basic concept all scientists should know. No scientists can prove the Big Bang actually occurred, they can only assume, no scientists can prove Darwin's theory is correct. Science is built around theories and theories can never be proven, everything we know, from atoms, quasars to galaxies is ultimately a creation of humanity's imagination. Can you explain force? What it actually is; can you explain energy? No one can truly explain anything in science as science is all theory. THEORY.

You know what a theory is right? It's an idea that is created to give a better understanding of something. But theories are only 'ideas'. They are created by humans and can never be truly proven because as a race we are imperfect, and we always will be. Ultimately we can never prove what we know because it takes a higher being than humans to correct us. Take a child for example, when they do something wrong, who is the one that corrects them? Someone higher, an Adult. Which leads me back to the belief of God. You'd be surprised to know that the majority of scientists are believers of God even though science and religion have always butted heads since the creation of science. Albert Einstein is a brilliant example, and the reason they believe in God is because they know, they know that science can only be ultimately proven by a being higher than us. I'm not religious myself, I'm more inclined towards science, but having the same mindset as Einstein is what makes me hold onto the belief in God.

Before Deadbill misunderstands natural selection is an observation to what drives evolutionary processes, there is no reason for it to be enforced by civilisation.

EneT wrote:

There's 7 billion+ people in the world, only a small population are homosexual. How are they going to affect all 7 billion?
Way back when the human population was way lower it could have been considered a 'threat', but as we are now, homo-sexuality isn't an issue. Actually, even back then it wasn't an issue. Even if it was taboo, many leaders and iconical figures in history were gay. Take example the Spartans, they would throw away all their babies that had physical defects so that only the strong would live in their ranks, but guess what? When a male Spartan child gets old enough they get a sort of personal teacher that acts as a father for them, most of them had sexual relationships with each other. But was that a threat for them? No.

Also, stop throwing the 'natural selection' card as if it's proven. Nothing in science is proven, tests are made and theories are created that could best accurately depict the results to our understanding. That's the basic concept all scientists should know. No scientists can prove the Big Bang actually occurred, they can only assume, no scientists can prove Darwin's theory is correct. Science is built around theories and theories can never be proven, everything we know, from atoms, quasars to galaxies is ultimately creation of humanity's imagination.

So... do you want to live as a spartan?
sure lets kill your baby that had physical defect and have sexual relationships with the strong one!

You should not make the Spartan as example like that. Because in any means you just implying that they were not only practicing homosexuality but also pedophilia plus incest, and they are all right

You have a point there.
And yes we should think objectively in scientific manner.
Therefore, you do not have a right to imply me as an incompetent human being just because I have a different theory.
So what do you think in a scientific manner?

Green Platinum wrote:

Before Deadbill misunderstands natural selection is an observation to what drives evolutionary processes, there is no reason for it to be enforced by civilisation.

Yep. You got the point.

Yours is not a theory, it is a hypothesis. It is not directly backed up by results. You merely connected two things together to create a hypothesis.

Look at science in an objective manner? Science has always been far from objective; science is subjective as can be. I can thrash on your 'theory' all I want, but the thing is, it isn't even a theory...

The Spartans are a brilliant example, what are you talking about? They're the best of example of human civilization that actively practiced natural selection aside from the Nazis. Despite the natural selection they still took part in homo-sexual acts but they thrived as one of the most threatening forces of their time. Were they at threat from homos? No.

EneT wrote:

Yours is not a theory, it is a hypothesis. It is not directly backed up by results. You merely connected two things together to create a hypothesis.

Look at science in an objective manner? Science has always been far from objective; science is subjective as can be. I can thrash on your 'theory' all I want, but the thing is, it isn't even a theory...

whoops my English sucks
What I meant is I am using a different theory than yours.

So, rhetorically aside. Give me yours. Lets compare it

deadbill wrote:

Green Platinum wrote:

Before Deadbill misunderstands natural selection is an observation to what drives evolutionary processes, there is no reason for it to be enforced by civilisation.

Yep. You got the point.

Yet you back up you proposal by saying it is against natural selection?

EneT wrote:

Yours is not a theory, it is a hypothesis. It is not directly backed up by results. You merely connected two things together to create a hypothesis.

Look at science in an objective manner? Science has always been far from objective; science is subjective as can be. I can thrash on your 'theory' all I want, but the thing is, it isn't even a theory...

Your statement is problematic. Scientific methodology strives to remove bias and alternate interpretations through experimentation. Saying it is subjective as can be is untrue at least in terms the natural sciences. Psychology on the other hand is not so much.

Green Platinum wrote:

Yet you back up you proposal by saying it is against natural selection?

No, no, I mean that you got the point that I will misunderstand natural selection

Okay first of all, your 'idea', is not a theory, it is a hypothesis. You have no scientific results that directly correlate people with these so called 'Homo genes' causing a spread of HIV.
A theory is an idea that is directly backed up by tests and results; a hypothesis is an idea that you just create in your mind without being directly backed up by tests and results. Your idea is hypothesis, you created it in your mind by putting together two pieces of information. Okay? You understand?

Now, I don't even think you understand what we're saying and what position you're in. Ever watched dragons den? Know how an inventor pitches their idea to a rich businessman?
Look at this way, you're the inventor, we're the businessmen. We aren't the ones that have to prove anything, what do we have to prove? Did we create an 'idea'? No. None of us created an 'idea' in the first place, what we're doing is de-bunking yours.
You're the one with the 'idea', you're the one with something to prove. If you still don't understand what I'm saying then I plead you, I absolutely plead you to take up more English lessons. Please.

EneT wrote:

Okay first of all, your 'idea', is not a theory, it is a hypothesis. You have no scientific results that directly correlate people with these so called 'Homo genes' causing a spread of HIV.
A theory is an idea that is directly backed up by tests and results; a hypothesis is an idea that you just create in your mind without being directly backed up by tests and results. Your idea is hypothesis, you created it in your mind by putting together two pieces of information. Okay? You understand?

Now, I don't even think you understand what we're saying and what position you're in. Ever watched dragons den? Know how an inventor pitches their idea to a rich businessman?
Look at this way, you're the inventor, we're the businessmen. We aren't the ones that have to prove anything, what do we have to prove? Did we create an 'idea'? No. None of us created an 'idea' in the first place, what we're doing is de-bunking yours.
You're the one with the 'idea', you're the one with something to prove. If you still don't understand what I'm saying then I plead you, I absolutely plead you to take up more English lessons. Please.

ugh didnt I said that my English sucks? should I edit my post?

mhm. ok. understand. okay. ooh yeah sure. gine. okay.
I will take an another English lesson.

Thank you so much

Come back after a couple of years.

EneT wrote:

Come back after a couple of years.

Sure do

Your English doesn't suck
It's better then most of the community actually
So don't use that to cover up your mistakes

If heterosexuals would just fuck around unprotected, in no time, the majority will have HIV, it's how it works
It's NOT related to Homosexuality, it's based on sexual preferences (as in safe or unsafe)
The fact that homosexuals have 'more' HIV may or may not be linked to this
I can't recall there ever being a report on that Homosexuals have sex w/o condom more then heterosexuals, or vice versa
If there is, please link that

heya guys ! im back after a couple of years!

and you know what? LGBT is a mental disease.

Or at least, LGBT people are prone to mental disease.
If you don't believe me, ask yourself then

deadbill wrote:

heya guys ! im back after a couple of years!

and you know what? LGBT is a mental disease.

Or at least, LGBT people are prone to mental disease.
If you don't believe me, ask yourself then

The fuck are you talking about?

deadbill wrote:

heya guys ! im back after a couple of years!

and you know what? LGBT is a mental disease.

Or at least, LGBT people are prone to mental disease.
If you don't believe me, ask yourself then

so are people who don't know what a mental disease