gambler

@bambi vs @Princess Arabia [Mortal Kombat Voice]: Fight!

Not sure if what’s written in this article is true, but disturbing if it is: https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/opinions/2021/4/16/reckoning-with-foucaults-sexual-abuse-of-boys-in-tunisia

100%

Nicely said.

I'll begin with Middle Eastern Jews. Apart from Lebanese, Syrian, and Egyptian Jews, all other Middle Eastern Jews seemingly don't derive much ancestry from Biblical Jews. These groups are very similar to the indigenous populations of their native lands. This can be reconciled with the historical context that Judaism at one small point in time was proselytizing. As for European Jews, exact biblical Jewish ancestry isn't detailed yet, so we'll focus on what the papers say instead. One study put European Jews as 60% European & 40% middle eastern. Another study put it as 60% Middle Eastern & 40% European. However the study that put it as 60% Middle Eastern (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.cell.2020.04.024) isn't discerning between middle eastern and southern European ancestry of 2000-1000 years ago, where those Southern European populations carry substantial middle eastern ancestry. This is why I prefer the estimate from Xue et al 2017 (60% European). Apart from that, how much of it directly comes from the Biblical Jews versus the rest being admixture from other Middle Eastern tribes isn't known as of yet. All that's known is that a good part of their non-Southern European Middle Eastern ancestry (the 40% middle eastern estimate) should be related to biblical Jews.

We need to put forth a plan to eradicate all AI, join me my fellow ninjas

WTF. scary times

If this is widespread then it is seen as alarming and distressful. A symptom of some sort of social disease.

They’ve been going at it with this guy for nearly a month with the same thing you’re doing. You’re wasting your time friend.

You’re not going to change his mind so rather than looping can we go back to discussing the conversation Leo sparked.

@mmKay In response to weeding out genes, with homosexuality, homosexuals don’t procreate. If they do, that’s seen as them doing the right thing. People who are bi procreating isn’t seen as bad either, it’s seen as them doing the right thing. So weeding out their genes can’t be it. The right thing to do here means it’s ideal for people to find fulfillment in having a child but it’s not coming from a paranoia that the species will go extinct otherwise. Consider that this statement is a truthful statement: They don’t want to weed out their genes, they want them to behave appropriately for the greater good. In which case they can spread their genes all they want, whereas if they continue being homosexual, they would never spread their genes. If this isn’t what you meant, and it’s just about survival of the species from everyone procreating, this is absolutely not relevant to anyone demonizing homosexuality today. No one is coming at it from this angle. Not even from a subconscious level. When gays tell you that they are born that way, we believe them. Similarly conservatives should be believed when they tell you it’s not about some sub conscious primitive fear of the survival of the species from a small % not procreating.

Is it the fear of unknown consequences from the perpetual leniency of allowing change? Like in the future, because we keep allowing change, people will progress technology in more intrusive ways? Like we already don’t really do anything for victims of revenge porn, in that sense we already live in a technological dystopia. But with the continued progress, acceptance of homosexuality is perceived as a threat because it’s believed to be one more change towards some other dystopia?

Ain’t no way. Homosexuality is seen as inseparable from the modern day liberal culture. If you accept homosexuality, it follows that this anchors modern liberal culture more and more. But this culture is perceived as emboldening hedonism because that is believed to be the manifestation of its schemas. And sustaining a hedonistic culture is problematic because no one wants their kids to be more incapable of delaying gratification which can lead to having a higher probability of being drug addicted and possibly being homeless; hitting it raw and contracting STDs; hanging with the wrong crowd and being a criminal; having children out of wedlock and being absent or a poor parent; not being productive members of society and having poor mental health; not wanting to have families or being incapable of a lasting marriage which is seen as non beneficial to the well-being of most people—these are problems that conservative parents don’t want. They want to ensure the survival and well-being of their kids so that is why they want to revive or protect what they perceive to be the moral and social fabric of their society from things that threaten or gets in the way of it. If this isn’t it, then I’m really curious to know what it is.

No. A kid told me X is gay (he's actually bi). I asked what does that mean? The kid said the same way you look at girls he looks at boys. The former (having crushes on girls) is not intrusive. The latter shook me to my core.

I disagree. I'm as ultra conservative in my nature as it gets. I remember being told about homosexuality as a first grader and looked at the ground horrified. I don't recall being this horrified upon a revelation in my entire life. I never even had a concept of religion or knew anything about it as a first grader.

Because certain social norms that are traditional include being able to delay gratification, wanting to have families, being able to have a lasting marriage, and this type of stuff. Acceptance of homosexuality is perceived as a threat to this order because you are saying forget this type of schemas, let's go with some other type of schemas. One that is more about individual desires. But this can create a culture of hedonism and then that would be anti-thetical to the norms conservatives want to preserve.

I disagree. Even without any rapes, homosexuality is still seen as an error on the appropriate target for sex and therefore an abomination that is intrusive to the inherent senses of a conservative brain. When conservatives tell you to them its akin to bestiality, they are actually articulating their position as accurately as possible. To them this is what it is. It matters not to them if a human is not a beast, it's still comparable to them because the condition isn't human or beast, but the appropriateness of the target for sex. To answer Leo, for people who hold traditional values, and prioritize a type of social order, demonizing homosexuality can be understood as an attempt to protect the perceived moral and social fabric of society.

This is a statement that will make normies suffer

Leo also helped me transition from atheism. Thank you Leo Gura.

Poor prince :’(

If you say so.

This was 15 years ago. He doesn't hold this view anymore. But I agree in that I wouldn't call him progressive.

Big facts